Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[nuke661]

Carboat,

Maybe you should look up the definition of impropriety before you embarrassingly claim something is from your head:

1: an improper or indecorous act or remark; especially : an unacceptable use of a word or of language
2: the quality or state of being improper

The impropriety here is your response to aikifredicist.

Lets take them one at a time:

Rampant ATM usage: Covered many times here on the board and I'm sure you are well aware of that the logic for using the ATM (so I'm sure you are well aware of this logic but choose to ignore it) is that it is the most widely acceptable lesser evil. Why do you never provide reasonable alternatives as to how the company should obtain investment capital? The ATM is the lesser of all the evils available especially after the incessant, and to date successful, bashing campaign I've seen on this board since around 2004-05 time frame. What's improper about using the ATM? Maybe they should get a loan and put the IP up as collateral and watch it disappear when the company is driven into bankruptcy by an act of sabotage in a CRITICAL trial that was going gangbusters until the "DELIBERATE DOSE SWITCHING" was discovered. Maybe you ought to also review the definition of what "deliberate" means while your at it. The company used the least risky method to protect the ultimate value of the company and therefore, the ultimate value available to the shareholders, while balancing the costs against protecting the ownership of the intellectual property. Where is the impropriety in that? Well of course the answer is there isn't any.

Never seen a statistical significant phase II: This proves beyond any doubt to me that you are here to only generate negative press no matter what. I'm so glad I posted a link yesterday to a video on the design of clinical trials. In this video it is QUITE clear that the purpose of PII trials is NOT to generate statistically significant data. For all those who want to see this here is the video link (sorry about the boredom that comes with watching it but if you are any type of newbie in investing in this type of company, it sure would behoove you to watch it):

The fact that PPHM chose to attempt a gold standard double-blind, placebo controlled vs. stand of care trial in PII trial was, IMO, a bold move. A move that the shareholders of a cash strapped Biotech having to use ATM to fund operations should have appreciated more (IMO).

Thanks again to outside forces, the significantly positive response benefit the stock price was experiencing in response to the data - supported by the almost never seen PII statistically significant trial data - the good will was tanked in a shocking way.

Kudos to the people who perpetrated this action and I hope you develop lung cancer real soon. I really, really, really mean that. If I could, I'd hire the entire voodoo priesthood to put a hex on you all. No, I don't believe in that crap, but the devil's disciples do and its his evil people we are dealing with here. This paragraph is not intended to imply Carboat is part of the evil cabal in any way shape or form. With all due respect sir....

In summary absolutely no impropriety associated with not being able to generate a statistically significant PII and in fact you implication of such is total and absolute HOGWASH.

50% Censored patients:What utter hooey this statement is. Where is the impropriety in a company reporting facts about a trial? This has nothing to do with impropriety. Its apparent you are taking this opportunity to play your broken record message about 50% censoring. You conveniently forget to acknowledge that the latest released data for the 2nd line NSCLC is most likely based on resolution of some of these censored patients as evidenced by the decline in the final MOS number. You must be using a read only CD to obtain your message from with no way for you to update your 50% position. Have you ever provided comparable censoring statistics for similar type of PII double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled vs. standard of care trials to back up your case? I haven't seen you provide any and that's after you were asked by me to do so. You failed to provide such info, just a song and dance, and that is non-responsive in my book; just like you're response to airifredicist that is being critiqued here. In summary absolutely no impropriety here on PPHM's part regarding censoring statistics. The only impropriety I see here is your constant misleading representation of the amount of censoring that most likely exists in the final data for 2nd Line NSCLC. You must like the number 50%. Its denoting of halfway or half-assed. I'll leave it to the audience to decide which one best describes your arguments in support of your positions.

Reverse split disaster: I hate to have to agree with one of your adjectives but I have to agree it was a disaster for the stock price. But was it impropriety? Certainly not. It more than likely would have been described as improper to let the company's stock be de-listed from the NASDAQ. Tough times those. It is still amazes me that the "Bavi is only a placebo" was in use at that time too, even after significantly positive PII trial results. The negative press from the self-declared not invested either short or long posters has been going on for quite some time now. Summary; hell no, no impropriety in doing the reverse split. It was tough but had to be done. Maybe you would give investment advice to a company to let there company be moved to pink sheets when they need to raise capital, while protecting their IP but I'm sure most people here clearly see that line of reasoning is totally hosed.

Incestuous BOD:I like Jakedogman, so I'll give you this one. But its not like this has been hidden from the board members. It seems to me that I've heard this edified on a time or two.

Outrageous option awards: I'll only give Jakedog one item when it comes to responding to you. On this issue the statement of outrageous is clearly a subjective one and one in which the majority of stock holders don't agree with you on.

Actually, after the trial disaster and before, they told us anything on what happened I was one of those who tried to convince this board that we shouldn't approve option awards until we had more information. Obviously it didn't work.

My motive was not that I believed that the BOD and senior management did anything improper, it was that I wanted them to prove that they weren't incompetent and in some way responsible for the problem due to poor performance issues (of any type, such as inexperience, laziness, improper penny pinching, etc...) and that they deserved to have options granted. Especially right after such a shocking and destructive event occurred.

I will agree the options were outrageous only IF the 2nd line NSCLC PIII trial is not approved or some other type of foreseeable and preventable disaster occurs but we were mislead by undue optimism from management.

As far as the timing of the pricing I believe it was just a move to prevent the plentiful and very active short foes from getting too cocky until we could obtain FDA approval and the 1st line data events could be released. The fact that we went to upper 2 dollar range and have stayed above 1 dollar tells me that if that was the plan then it has been working just fine.

In summary the only opinions that matter on the subjective assessment of whether the option awards are outrageous or not are those of the stockholders of which I'm certain you are not. So your opinion is meaningless as backed up by the opinion of the majority of the stockholders (this assumes they wouldn't approve of something they consider outrageously improper).

Next time try being more responsive to the question asked of you and not go off on tangents to promote whatever it is your agenda might be.