Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

EBS, with that I agree.

The PII Breast results were the trigger. They were clearly NOT sabotaged and the very good results, say exceptional good results of Bavituximab, will for sure have been sufficient for someone informed and who understands this that these results were not a coincidence (think also survivors).

So the PII Lung was a major candidate for sabotage because it was double blinded and would for sure yield more credibility then any other trial in the history of PPHM's Bavituximab. The good thing is that we do not have to speculate anymore whether it was sabotage and who did it because the lawsuit disclosed that.

I am sure the randomizing of the Pancreatic was tempered with too. This is a randomizing that is to much in the disadvantage of Bavituximab and in an open trial that must have been easy to fix. Just have a look at other pancreatic trials and try to find one with such off-base randomizing 1/3 vs 2/3 very sick patients in Bavituximab arm and we still did better then SOC alone but not sufficiently.

The 1st ln NSCLC had a RED FLAG since Shan's presentation of the preliminary results begin 2012 (remember how the poor man was totally surprised by the results). Bavituximab outperforms ALL the historical SOC+placebo control arms big time and hands down, then by statistical coincidence, our SOC+placebo not only beats ALL the historical SOC+placebo results but it beats them equally big time and hands down as does the Bavituximab arm.

Now, I know that I brought up that sabotage thing as very first in a very controversial post that, certainly before the lawsuit testemonies surfaced this year, got me the label of conspiracy theorist or whatever, but actually I am not at all the type that normally easily concludes to that.

In this case the evidence that it did happen is on the table for at least one of our clinical trials and although I am still quite young I am sufficiently old to know that nobody does this without incentive.

JB is to much educated, had 8 years of CSM experience, worked her way up and knew the different jobs involved by experience, has been President of the Pharm. Tech. sector in ND, mother of two, husband with which she had a bankruptcy, did NOT renew her Pharm. Tech license when she left CSM showing that she didn't intend to work in that sector any more, get a job in a totally non-related business, seems to have had help of Finken's wife for job placement while Finken took over our clinical trail and conveniently didn't look back according Angela's testimony, etc to try to push mental unstable, revenge against CSM, religious, etc reasons through our throats.

She tempered with the Bavituximab trial, and systematically and repeatedly over a longer period of time EACH TIME the Bavituximab trial.
That is TARGETING and not randomly hitting your employer!

Furthermore the tempering was done as such that the trial would normally not pass the FDA, were it not that the 3mg/Kg arm performed so well that it still did beat the control arm combined with our 1mg/Kg arm by 60%. I think that is what went REALLY wrong in this plan to BEGIN WITH.

Also, nobody probably expected PPHM to be able to survive the Sept 24th 2012 announcement with a suspiciously FAST loan retraction two days later. I think that is the second thing that went wrong. And it went wrong because Jeff Masten could report to the PPHM BoD/management that actually the results of our 2nd ln NSCLC were BETTER then the 139% improvement because that 139% improvement was the result of a sabotaged trial tempered with in the DISADVANTAGE of Bavituximab (hence we should have had MORE than 139%).

Anyone that that is buying PPHM shares now KNOWS that too and KNOWS the PIII - monitored as it is - has a NEAR ZERO chance to fail because the 139% SOC improvement was STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. And that party will do EVERYTHING for the market to believe this is a butch trial and hope we forget the FDA approved the PIII based on it, and say that we cannot rely on its results, etc. BUT BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE it is important for them that we forget that the 139% was STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT because that in layman language says: THE 139% WAS NOT BY CHANCE.

And statisticians that will combine that with the Breast results will even more stronger be convinced that that Bavi+Docetaxel works.

It is that report of Jeff Masten that is, IMO, the point were PPHM decided to pay back the load (because they didn't touch the money yet), temporarily take the related losses (probably thinking they'll get those certainly back of CSM since they had Angela's confirmation JB did it and Angela didn't know why she did it but is still her friend - so JB=CSM in this case), and used the ATM to finance the investigation, another cost they should get back from CSM. PPHM had that information when Jeff returned (the on or about Sept 20th statement). And therefore PPHM Management could NOT have known on Sept 7th 2012 which proves that the Class Action appeal is INTENTIONAL LINGERING after PPHM won 3 times and the Judge ruled in our favour. I agree that that Class Action appeal severs a purpose OTHER then the Law intended it to at this moment.

The fact that the ATM and Poison Pill were in place SAVED US. Without it we would have been death in the water and some other party would have picked us up for breadcrumbs.

So yes, there has been and still is, something going on AGAINST PPHM to get control of Bavituximab. I think our problem comes from the UK. I did from the beginning and still do.

Remember this one: UK->Boston->NY->SoCal
Also remember it all happened when we were about to sign a deal with AbbVie (Abott Labs at the time) which would have closed the door on ANY Bavituximab recuperation scenario by whoever is behind the sabotage. So maybe they had to pull the trigger to early and attract the attention to the discrepancies in the clinical trial to whoever was analysing the results.