Frustrated, last time you questioned the sabotage it was:
Did PPHM ever say there was deliberate tempering (or something along that line asking us if the company ever said anything else then a human error). And at the time, MOMENTUM, the reply was of course now (except for the "clear evidence of dose switching" which was not accepted because no matter the sound of it it didn't explicitly said: tempering or sabotage or deliberate). So for that moment you got MOMENTUM advantage.
Now PPHM writes black on with in a court document that it is deliberate and provides intro to the prove, blowing the MOMENTUM argument in the air, and names a 'she' (indicating they now an identity). They reference the position/function/relation of the 'she' with CSM (the CRO from Fargo), of existent e-mails from the 'she' with lies or false information, naming what the 'she' did, naming her attendance at the kick-off meeting where PPHM handed over the clinical trial to the CRO team to comply with the FDA's double blinded regulation, etc.
So what you ask now? Did they prove it, while you know the filing says they'll prove it at the trial. So you upgraded the question because your previous one fell through the basket. So if PPHM proves it I am sure you'll ask if the victim ever acknowledged or if the prove itself before the court of law wasn't falsified.
Yes the NSCLC trial was sabotage, AT PURPOSE. No need for a PR and document before a court of law is more then sufficient because you know very well they are not going to PR something like that out-side the context of their trail against CSM. Hence a NEW MOMENTUM question. Sooner or later you'll run out of those.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
