Thank you for reading the tome, entdoc. As I said, it was just an exercise of organizing my thoughts in a way that made sense to me.

I should have included you in the list of science names -- mostly because of your medical profession. I think you've been doubtful on the solid tumor efficacy for some time. I also vaguely remember you made the case that BAVI may be successful against viruses.

Like me, you don't post often. But we have been invested for about the same length of time. And I am determined to go down with the ship. I'm in the hole for so much money at the moment in this investment, but I still retain a lingering suspicion (some would say 'foolhardy hope') that there may be more to this story than what's been told so far (thanks to a completely inept corporate board and collusive management).

Good luck to you.

Goodplenty: you responded to my post, but I really don't understand your reply. I apologize for spam if it occurred with my link. I could have provided a link to the fault concerns from a half dozen sources.i just thought the LA Times would be considered a mainstream source.

Thanks, cheynew. I wish we could share a couple of shots together to compare many reactions over many years.

I wrote out the tome that follows for my benefit and for no one else but me. It says nothing new. But after two months + of reading and thinking and processing info and views, everything begins to become distorted. It gets to a point where I had to ask myself, "As of today, what do I really think?" So for any of you who read further, thank you for putting up with my thinking out loud.

After more than two months reading the debate between whether or not SUNRISE was a catastrophe or a success (because it performed as expected; the stumbling block was the spectacular out-performance of docetaxel), the two primary positions are:

(1) The most knowledgeable posters regarding the science of BAVI (CP, biopharm, sunstar, cjgaddy) all seem to be in agreement: BAVI continues to be studied by AZN, MSK, etc. Sunstar today indicated that, based upon how he read the SUNRISE results, the absolute miunimum survival rate will turn out, in the end, to be nearly 15 months. But. bottom line: BAVI is a success in Phase III and King said so (though I remind you that he did say the ending of SUNRISE was a huge disappointment).

(2) The other camp, not too shabby themselves in their experience of biotech investing, sees BAVI as a dead issue. SUNRISE failed. There has been no word from Tustin since stating that they were suspending all BAVI testing with chemotherapy combinations (while still intending to work with immunotherapy synergies). However, since there is no human clinical trial which unambiguously indicates that BAVI works, the latter has all the appearances of a Hail Mary pass.

Both sides are intelligent and savvy. For some of us who benefit from their exchanges, however, it's like watching two parallel universes collide.

At this point, unless something from Tustin management radically alters the perceptions of Wall Street as to the worth of BAVI, I'm siding with those who argue to concentrate on AVID. In several years time (the Lord willing and the 'crick don't rise: and Tustin escapes the destruction of a natural catastrophe), we may be looking at profits that would propel share price to between $7-$10 (as long as the Street gives it an average PE evaluation). I'll salvage a fraction of what were my profit expectations ("astronomical valuation" is the way King phrased it).

My main reasons for this conclusion are the following:

(1) The science men who still hold BAVI as the potential SOC have demonstrated great insight except for one crucial point: they've been wrong on BAVI at every turn. There is still, after all these years (I don't give a damn about the reasons), not one definitive human study which points to unequivocal advanced efficacy. I have no doubt about the science of flipping cells and turning on the immune system; I simply have no evidence that BAVI does it in humans (and the Street agrees with me).

(2) PPHM's drug Cotara was also hailed by the science men on this Board at the time as breakthrough technology. Then we heard it was simply the delivery method by which Cotara was administered was the problem. But Cotara sits on the shelf. Common sense tells one that if Cotara was as significant as the scientific theory articulated, the delivery system would have sure as hell been fixed and damn quickly. I have this awful sense that BAVI = Cotara in the end. Further I-O combinations will just see a new generation of investors who will be put through the same ringer as all of us (reverse splits, ATM, etc.). And even if it worked, I don't have a sufficient number of years remaining to benefit by either the drug itself or the ROI.

(3) IR recently stated that other biopharms have had similar problems with the control arm outperforming in Phase III tests. This offers no comfort to me. Garnick should have known that with his experience. This phenomenon just didn't appear recently from what's been reported on this Board. Given the Fargo fiasco, a red flag or two should have been waved regarding potential shenanigans in Phase III. As I've said, the "I'm shocked, shocked!" Casablanca routine doesn't have a good smell to it.

(4) Management's miserable treatment of retail investors since I've been invested (about 16 years) leads me to question their fundamental decency. I simply have no reason to trust them.

But for all the sincere hard work on both sides of the BAVI issue, I truly thank each and every one of you. Most of you are good and honorable and generous men (and I think, at least one woman). I owe all of you a tremendous debt of gratitude.

P.S. I'm secretly hoping that, given my luck, within hours or a few days of posting this, I will be proven completely wrong.

"...think positive... what if the BOD was in tustin and a major earthquake happened?"

LOL! Good one Jake! You made me see a silver lining in a dark cloud.

For a company that appears to be so very dependent on delicate manufacturing faciltiies, yeah, I'd say that having such facilities built in such a high risk fault area is a factor to be considered by investors. At 30 cents a share, we don't have much of a margin for any more disasters: man made or natural. Comparing a possible asteroid scenario to the reality of the San Andreas fault is your schtick, not mine.

Thank you, bfiest, for the effort and the information. EOM

Just suggesting to purpledawgs why there seems to be a lid at .41

Just trying to be helpful; you ought to try it sometime, lemmy.

.42 is the 21 EMA. One of those key hurdles.

stoneroad: FWIW: good to see you back.

Goat, when u first went negative on PPHM, I thought you were being sarcastic toward some of the PPHM bears. After awhile, I thought you had fallen prey to a new invasion of body snatchers. Question: would you share what the catalyst was behind your sudden transformation from bull to bear on PPHM? TIA.

JJ1223, I've always owned this investment (something that some of the more snarky Bulls have admonished). But part of owning is asking questions that may not be pleasant, but still need to be explored. Advising me to elevate anyone connected to this investment to the status of a sacred cow, is NOT owning my investment.

I so much want, "the nothing has changed" proponents to be correct. But I cannot afford false hope. I think that I'm probably not alone in that quandary. As I stated after the debacle was announced, I will not sell a share and fully expect to go down with the SS Peregrine.

Our hope, at the moment, seems to be centered on Dr. Garnick evaluating the data and, if there has again been a finagling with the data, he will know exactly who to run to in the FDA. As I have said, one of the main reasons why I stuck with PPHM was Dr. Garnick. But it occurs to me to ask: should not have Dr. Garnick, with all of his history with bringing drugs successfully through testing, also have been aware of the possible pitfalls and good 'Ol Boy shenanigans (BP and FDA corruption) which, according to some of the bulls here, have been not uncommonly fatal to small biotechs? Given the assumed revolutionary biologic that we have in Bavi, why wasn't Garnick and the company much more vigilant (especially after the disaster of PII)?

How does one explain this? Garnick overseeing the collapse of Phase II and III trials back to back, given his previous track record, truly puzzles me.

Well said, md. Thank you, Chris, for all of your hard work. You must have so many conflicting thoughts and emotions.

Loof, I think whether King stays or goes is a moot point. Garnick's failure is, too me, the most puzzling.

The remark that share price is beneath consideration enrages me. I thought that was why we invest our money. The contempt for retail continues unabated.

The good news: AZN still involved with Bavi.

Worries: share price will necessitate a reverse split. From all the posts of the past week, I cannot escape the suspicion that this is all of a plan of management to rinse retail out of the stock.

Apologies to this board for all the questions. But, GJH, are you essentially saying that Dr. Thorpe was in the right train station but on the wrong track?

geo: you state it succinctly. Isn't it odd that King & friends sounded so mystified? Shouldn't they have had an inkling that the sicker patients might be leaving the control arm? If they did, why didn't they raise this as a possibility instead of sounding so shocked? If they didn't, why didn't they? Any thoughts?

Jake, great post. Thank you. Just one question: in your opinion, why would Garnick continue to be on board with a company with such management?

Goat, why would you think Dart us out?

hopefilled: it's #11 and #12 that are the most troublesome:
11. The growing body of science says PS plays a role, maybe a very significant role, in improved immune system responses to pathogens and extending life expectancy.
12. Trials to date have not unequivocally shown Bavi extends life expectancy.

We should have little doubt about #11. The sad part is, that we have little to no indication that Bavi delivers the goods to utilize the PS scenario.

After all of this time, THAT is the investment conundrum.

md1225, a question: due to your articles about PPHM, it was my impression that you had established not a few contacts within the investment community. Have you heard anything from any of those contacts since last week's PR debacle?

Thank you, CP and nh, for your thoughtful replies. I've read almost every post on this board over the weekend. Many good reflections: both positive and negative. After all the reading and thinking I cannot escape the uneasy sense that something is more wrong than what we are considering. After 15 years, I fundamentally have no reason to expect that Bavi will represent anything more than a failed forerunner of what eventually will become a revolutionary concept of cancer and perhaps even virus treatment.

I suspect it needs to be in stronger and more competent hands to tweek any possible deficiencies into viability. If it is as revolutionary as the Company has told us, it needs to be demonstrated with unambiguous clarity. For whatever reason it has not been. The Company has failed to protect my investment from either sabotage or control arm surprises (from what I understand THEY set the SUNRISE parameters not the IDMC). Some will think I'm being unfair. I understand. But the unending draining of my investment dollars with little to no upside compensation after 15 years is a failure of management: plain and simple. The "I'm shocked! Shocked!" Casablanca routine of the officers of this Company has become tiresome and irksome.

I suspect also that the increase in short shares displayed after the last reporting was due to Dart being given the heads up. There is an argument that this is a positive because it puts the company shares into strong hands. What annoys me is that Dart (or whomever it is) with a heads-up short and the acquisition of millions of shares at 40cents will permit him to make much more than a ten bagger upon the $5 sale of this company and I won't break even after 15 years.

As I've previously stated, I'm not selling. To do so at this point is just plain silly. But the frequently trumpeted ASTRONOMICAL anecdote is dead and if it is ever resuscitated, it'll rival the Easter narrative.

I sincerely hope that those who vociferously disagree with me are right and I am wrong.

CP, I truly want you to be right about your upbeat assessment regarding the withdrawal of Bavi from SUNRISE and it being part of a strategy. However, by the accounts of several who have listened to the PR call, King et. al. did not seem upbeat and indeed seemed shocked. If these impressions are accurate, how would you reconcile them with your argument that this is all part of a forward strategy?

No, nh, no problem Kinda got a chuckle out of it.

Bad day at Black Rock for all of us.

No, I didn't, nh.

"Dr. NH BS" You aren't pulling my leg are you?

wook, thanks for all the smiles over the years. Your observation about the IDMC contacting SK and his "Oh, OK." Is priceless. That's why I'm wondering if this is management's retail shakeout. Pretty bad when that would be the BEST case scenario.

stone: THAT is a very good question. Bavi lies amidst chaotic ruins. Management has not assisted in clearing the debris. They left us, as usual, with more questions than answers. Perhaps they don't have the answers. But the evidence is there that they were leaking this development before leaked to us (again after hours, as in 2012, which left the majority of retail totally helpless). As you know (because you were really angry with me at the time), I suggested a couple of weeks ago that I worried about retail was being set up to get screwed (prompted, among other reasons, by the lack of communication from management about full enrollment not being PR'd). The best case scenario for us is that this whole thing was a way to shake shares out of retail. Impossible? No. This management has lied to us in the past; why would they above it now?

I don't want to hope again until I have EXCELLENT reasons to hope again.

goodplenty, I'm glad you posted the piece. I just wonder if we have as much in Bavi as we thought we had. The comment by the alleged oncologist is disturbing. We really have no evidence that Bavi evidences the theory of Dr. Thorpe. All I'm suggesting is that our upstream patents may be more valuable than Bavi itself. The only other explanation is that our management is getting snookered at every turn. Neither possibility gives me warm fuzzies.

More than anything I want to hope again. But I need far more evidence than the observations I've read from the optimists on this Board. God bless them, I want the optimists to argue with their best shots; but there is far more onus on them now than what there was before yesterday after the close.

good plenty, this comment at the end of the article will not help:

16536 | | What do these icons mean?
Dr. KSS MD PhDDr. KSS MD PhD says:
February 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Travis, it’s dead. It’s just rotten science. It was ill-formulated. The idea is deeply flawed, and frankly is a laughingstock among my onc colleagues. These people just don’t understand phosphatidylserine. Fly on, Peregrine falcon, fly on.

cheynew, I don't have PM capability, so thank you for your message. We are about the same age. You were one of the first posters I remember reading so many years ago. As I said yesterday, when hope is gone, death can be handled. I need to accept the death of this company as I have conceived its potential (especially for the past 5 years). Best of luck to you. You deserve it.

Sean

Thank you, CP, for relaying your perspective after this debacle. I'm one of those investors that does not have time on his side. That being said, I will hold on to my shares, but I have no hope that this investment will provide the cushion needed for my retirement.

Several times before yesterday I nearly posted that, while I have no doubt about the theoretical science behind Bavi, I was not convinced that Bavi would be the drug which brought the theory into reality. The share price was the indicator which never made sense. Even with machinations by hostile forces, Wall Street is rarely outfoxed for years if it is truly convinced of a revolutionary product. And they always have the experts and resources to sniff out such a product early. It was all going on for just too long. What kept hope alive was a combination of various things like Garnick and recently the alliance with MSK. But as I said, the theory behind Bavi may just prove to be greater than the drug itself.

If Bavi is sold to a BP, perhaps if there are deficiencies, the new company has the resources to to tweek it into viability. But the science is advancing and changing rapidly. The patents protecting the upstream technology may be more valuable than Bavi itself.

I remain contemptuous of management and the BOD. Placing Dr. Thorpe's name on the PPHM logo just days before yesterday's PR was another cruel misleading of the investors (like in 2012 when they cancelled a conference appearance and told the investors it was because of family illness). They tell us nothing, except when they have bad news.

I want to thank you for all of your selfless sharing of your research. Please keep posting. Your insights are always worth reading and appreciated.

CP, you are a valiant man. I'm certain there's something to be said for your analysis. Something still doesn't smell right.

BUT: I don't want to hope. Ask anyone who has been in battle; it is only when hope is lost that one can accept death. I'm not selling; but I hold with no hope. After 15 years, I need to accept the death of PPHM.

Sean

lemmy, PLEASE, I beg you: show some respect for the dead.

A 15 year dream seems to have ended tonight. I want to thank everyone who has shared so much of their time and intelligence on this board.

Again, I'm disappointed with the company's management leaving us with more questions than answers. But they have been my problem all along. I theorized a couple of weeks ago that I thought that, in the end, retain would get screwed. I suggested the real possibility of a reverse split. This could be, for all we know from the after hours conference, just another way to shake out retail. At this point, it really doesn't matter.

I suspect that there is more here than what meets the eye. I will not be selling in the morning. I've lost about 15% of my savings/investment total. I was going to buy more, but something just didn't smell right. I have no doubt that the theory behind Bavi will work; I just don't know whether Bavi is the drug that will achieve the promise of the theory.

I will keep checking in here. But thank you to CP, biopharm, golfho, sunstar, wook, stone, md (thank you, especially, for all of your hard work), cheynew, loof, cjgaddy, swing trader, and even Goat (who kept me here when I wanted to sell! LOL!). There are so many others I can't remember at the moment. But thank you one and all.

I'm not ready to give up the ship; but I have little doubt that I'm going down with it.

Sean

bobba, I apologize for my snarky post in reply to your comment to me the other day. I didn't know what "jk" meant at the end of your comment. Reading to many charts will seriously affect one's sense of humor.

Thanks, fx, for posting that article.

Thank you, Joe. I've owned this company since early 2000.

Stone -- my post was not meant to annoy but to express what I have to consider as a possibility. It has nothing to do with the drug; i have no reason not to believe that I am able to be far more optimistic today than at any time since I've owned the stock.

But I have every reason to be skeptical about this company's management and what I consider to be their historical disregard of the long suffering retail investor. I hope that I am wrong in my feared scenario. I agree with you that they have no reason to execute the reverse split scenario; but that does not alleviate the dreaded possibility.

I think that all of us should consider the possibility that a future Reverse Split is entirely possible. It would be a way to reduce the influence of retail investors.

The scenario: When (and if) PPHM gets ready to run, a reverse split occurs to let the big money come in and buy up shares at a higher price which most retail would be unable to attain in sizeable amounts. They may still have millions of shelf shares that they could issue after the reverse split raises the price -- to the benefit of big money. As I've said in the past, this company has NEVER been retail friendly. I see no reason why that would change in the future.

I wish someone would convince me that my fears are more the prodigy of paranoia than an actual realistic scenario.