Replies to post #213181 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Robert C Jonson]

Sounds like Jeannette is saying she didn't do anything wrong?

[jakedogman1]

my quick read is JB has to appear before Jesus for her sins...

[EYEBUYSTOX]

Peter Jehlen ' s mommy is in congress. She's also from Boston. Didn't a scientist from Boston with a history of fraud move to Fargo to work with CSM in 2010. Isn't Adam Feuerstein located in Boston? Seems like an easy subpoena to get. Wonder what the hold up is? Waiting until election time to hand out the indictments?

[edcpf]

Anything interesting in the exhibits? PACER has rejected my card for some reason.

Looks like typical divertion of attention to some completely different matters. Where the hell are they getting the info that the blind nature of the study was compromised?

“*Treatment Group to be assigned by CSM at time of packaging to maintain study blind” Damn right it was their job and they screwed up.

I also have a feeling she didn't even read that, probably only signed what she was given by lawyers.

[Protector]

CSM's Angela Calkins Humrich

First time I get this EVER!

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

[honestabe13]

gwen (i hope you're not too offended with me using you name. we've both been here too long)

any opinion yet?

[patientsdeservebest]

this is what I have maintained all along. PPHM thought the vials would be labelled A B C but were instead labelled B A C. According to PPHM initially B= 12.1 MOS, A 5.6 C = 11.7. That meant the best response in the entire study was from the placebo. That means Bavi doesn't work.

So PPHM combined B and A to make a fake MOS less than 11.7.

There was no dose switching.

Incompetence from Leyco- who probably had never done a double blind study or Shan under the management of the woefully incompetent SK.

If this ain't a mess it will do until the real on gets here.

[biopharm]

..
...
Changes to the Project Requirements, Page 7 of 84.) Since CSM did
not have any contract with Perceptive, and since there were no references in the PRS that specifically identified CSM’s responsibilities, processes or requirements for the PPHM 0902 trial, I signed and returned the PRS in an email to Peter Jehlen of Perceptive dated April 15, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is filed concurrently herewith in the Compendium of Exhibits as Exhibit “G.”

18. I was not part of the communications between Perceptive and PPHM, if any, pertaining to the preparation of the PRS and the specific services that Perceptive was going to provide for PPHM 0902. At no time did Peregrine request that I communicate directly with Perceptive or any other vendor regarding the PLR or its requirement that CSM was to assign treatment groups at the time of packaging to maintain the study blind. I have not seen, nor was I provided, nor do I have any knowledge of any terms of any services agreement(s) between PPHM and Perceptive.
...
..

thanks Cheynew for the documents and there are more puzzle pieces within the entire document but I'll just point out one part here:

Peter Jehlen's email records are likely already brought into evidence and if not... they likely should all be part of discovery. Further, it looks like he is in the Billerica area, north of Boston... which happens to be the same town that Adam Feuerstein resides. A coincidence or I am not sure what to call it... especially since AF had prior knowledge at a conference within this 2012 time frame. Maybe AF has bought a round or two at the Elks and this story seems to be spreading like wild fire and I can't stop to think now that James on linkedin already sent out over a hundred tweets to Mass political circles which Eyebuy just reminded us that Petes mom is in that circle.

Things could get interesting pretty quick, because in politics... its impossible to agree on the simplest of things and certainly not turning a blind eye to possibly, one of the biggest sabotage stories within.

JB's story stinks to me, if there is a problem you go directly to your boss and the boss was Gerald Finken.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112184892

[keep_trying]

Cheynew, a remarkable statement indeed! JB is claiming she never took responsibility for the treatment material for which CSM agreed to carry responsibility for double blinding and labeling and for which CSM had assigned for her to manage. Did I read this right? The reason cited was that CSM didn't have a direct agreement with the supplier. Remarkable indeed.

Best wishes and IMO.
KT

[Carboat]

Doesn't sound like sabotage to me. Explains why pphm calls it switched labels not sabotage and insurance company turned down the offer to settle for policy limits. All fits together perfectly. tell me gain how pphm didn't botch the trial.

[BCS Paladin]

The famous Motion for Summary Judgment

Good move by CSM just flush out what we have.

Jeanette's Declaration is all bull crap as the attorney for CSM wrote it to serve their own interests.

It essentially means nothing.

I wouldn't give two hoots or squirts for any Declaration....CSM or PPHM.

The Ruling on the Motion will tell the story pretty much as it will be in trial if there is one.

I would sure ask Bungler for his opinion.

[dumbster]

Cheynew....

thank you very much. I'm grateful you're such a vigilant sentry on this, and so much of everything about pphm.

You help me find my way through the wilderness.