Replies to post #269789 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

bidrite, the 'some' you refer to are at least partially wrong if they said about PPHM/Bavi/Sunrise what you claim they said.

According to some on this board failing Sunrise was a good thing because we will get to market sooner,

R/S split doesn't hurt shareholders

although we do need send a letter of warning to those who are supposed to be protecting shareholders,

we are filing a BLA for Bavi to be used in conjunction with chemo even though all chemo trials have been halted,

I/O combo trials have been secretly running in the background,

and PPHM is connected to every single person who works for a BP anywhere in the world.

I think that pretty much sums up the bull case.

'Some' should have said what I said, IMO, that PPHM 'CAN' file a BLA. Nobody, IMO, is able to say if they did or did not. So 'some' need to think first before they say PPHM did file a BLA. But since you report on it I am sure 'some' said it.

'Some' also has a STRANGE way in going about the stopping of Sunrise (and possibly later this year a failure of the Docetaxel+Bavi study if PPHM decides to go 100% for I-O Combo's). I could agree with 'some' that the current path might yield faster revenue but not of the extend a Doce+Bavi approval would yield in the short term. I'd rather say that the Sunrise stop might keep us out of Chemo which, not in the short run but in the mid-term, will yield more revenue. But that is an opinion.

Ok, I have to admit that 'some' are correct that a reverse split doesn't hurt shareholders, it is, and by law MUST be a 100% neutral operation. 'Some' should have added that what happens AFTER the reverse split can be good or bad for share holders depending on where PPHM stands at that moment with Avid, Exosomes and possible Bavi I-O partnerships.

'some' saying that "I/O combo trials have been secretly running in the background" is complete nonsense. How can one run a clinical trial secretly, unless some was speaking about pre-clinical on mice or non-human animals. If 'some' say this they should think first.

But if I would have to support 'some' on one point of the above that you collected over time on this board, then I would say it is the sending of this letter to PPHM.
Actually IMO having many of these letters send might be good for our investment JUST IN CASE. In all other cases a few letters will not hurt anybody, certainly not the one swing trader wrote because it is professional, non-emotional, to the point and non-aggressive but pro-active. Well, that is how it comes across with me. Maybe here, better safe than sorry, applies. So I'dd say to some, don't think 'the others will send one' so I don't have to, because IMO 'more is better' in this case.

And we have AT LEAST ONE ANTECEDENT by which we can PROVE PPHM did not split the shelf and so doing CHANGED voting power, something we do NOT want to happen again. So 'some' do occasionally say good things too.

[pphm_mike]

Is any of this public information? Thanks for answering! I'm tempted to take a nibble here based on the price history. This seems to be about as low as this one gets.