cjaddy, thanks. A blooper in Garnick's Q/CC Q & A.
Garnick gives away that they have identified a promising biomarker or biomarker pattern indirectly by the red coloured phrase. He probably didn't know that there would be an analyst question in the Q & A, AFTER he said the above, to which CEO King would answer that PPHM's involvement in the NCCN clinical trials was limited to delivering bavituximab AND TO CONSULTANCY RELATED TO INCLUDE THE BIOMARKER INTO THE 3 NCCN CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGNS.
I think logic dictates that you cannot do such inclusion if you don't have a working biomarker and either CEO King lies and they are NOT including biomarkers in these trials or they do indeed include them and hence have the biomarker. It is the second option of course because CEO King would never INVENT that they provide consultancy if they don't. Why would he?
And Garnick says EXPLICITLY that they would only do it if they HAVE identified a promising biomarker or biomarker pattern. As a consequence...