CP,
Thank you for the very informative post. I also have been reading your assessment of the Peregrine v. CSM litigation. You've done a great job explaining that as well. One point I would add on the dispute: it is scheduled to go to trial this September. It is highly unlikely that any motion for summary judgment will be granted. Thus, the judge will not make the decision on this one. It will be left for the jury. Since the venue is in California, that will give PPHM an advantage. The facts are terrible for CSM. I can't see how they or the insurance company won't settle. A jury award could be huge given the despicable conduct by JB et al. It sure would be nice if a retired person or someone living in the area could watch the trial and report back on this MB.
With respect to your kind response to my question, it raised one further question for me. You said "[a]nd Docetaxel+Bavituximab's 113% over SOC which was statistical significant". When I read the press release on the P2 trial (after combining the 1mg with placebo and calling it the controlled arm), I saw a P =.02 being reported, which would not be statistically significant. Rather it would be an 80% probability that the drug was working, not the 95% or P = .05 that the FDA needs to call it statistically significant. But since the 3mg arm was competing against itself in that the 1 mg arm was now part of the controlled or placebo arm, I viewed the P = .02 as being a very good likelihood that statistical significance would have been demonstrated but for the 1 mg arm being part of the control arm, that is, but for the sabotage.
Can you please explain how you are of the view that statistical significance was demonstrated in the sabotaged P2 trial? I know others have indicated this as well, but I have yet to come to understand how it could possibly be so categorized. Thanks in advance for any reply you give.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
