Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

You are jumping into a lot of conclusion here.

...one can't say the tainted data was sabotaged and be correct. If it was indeed sabotaged there would be an arrest and mgmt would state that fact.

1) The data cannot be tainted because it passed the FDA PIII approval and got a Fast Track. The FDA would never give that based on tainted data, they did on SALVAGED data. This salvaging must BY CONSEQUENCE have been of a SATISFACTORY type for the FDA.

2) If you like to call the data "tainted" then it can ONLY be because of some action that tainted it in the first place. So what else could that be then some activity that resulted in making a sufficient change to the data so it could be called tainted.

3) PPHM for long did NOT in any way say anything that 100% sure equalled MALICIOUS INTEND. The best we had last year was "clear evidence of dose switching" which did not 100% sure qualify as malicious intend. However, every time the word sabotage was used (by me and others) the reply has been, by you and others, that PPHM NEVER said anything about intentional tempering let alone sabotage.
It was MOMENTUM argumentation because INDEED at the time we could not present any PR or other document or public statement of PPHM that used such wording.

4) TODAY however we can present the filing before a court of Law against CSM (the CRO from Fargo, ND) that clearly has PPHM declare that it was NOT just an honest human error but that a "she" (a woman) made changes to the trial, wrote mails with false information and did not perform the expected tasks while claiming she did. So now PPHM HAS clearly made the statement as was asked for in point 3 above.

So now it is sabotage. There is no need for an arrest to be made. The "she" may have accomplices, there may be a search for who is behind it or at least a WHY? There may have been a deal made in that area. And it is certainly not Carlton J that will conduct that investigation, neither PPHM. Such an investigation is the result of a possible criminal complaint against the "she".

...that it was sabotage is untrue until it is actually proven otherwise it is just someone's wrong opinion.

There is no matter of OPINION here. PPHM has pointed to prove and clearly identified at least one "she". They would not have done that before a court of law if they didn't have the prove to make this hard in their files. They have TOO MUCH to lose playing such games.

But AGAIN before it wasn't sabotage because PPHM never used explicit wording that indicated malicious intend, now that they do another momentum argument is pulled out of the hat and it suddenly needs to be proven. Well just like PPHM, as we predicted, started labelling this in the category malicious intent, no matter how we call it, so it will be proven too. Just a matter of time, MOMENTUM arguments as i said.