Replies to post #274062 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[ku]

ebo783, did you realize that you guys have been analyzing the word "Subset" of data for a couple of days now. Just remember, at this point,
No Partner or BLA = Reverse Split. It is Common Sense fellow shareholders. If we are not over a $1 for 10 business days by the end of April, we will go thru 1 for 7 Reverse Split. Been there once, it is not fun. Mice and biomakers in phase I studies next year will not do it. BLA OR PARTNER WILL DO IT.

[hopefilled2014]

EB, you have the attention here of more than you think. Those wanting to steal the "pearl" are clear. IMO, stone is not one of them. Having been denied that "pearl" because of nefarious elements, which are truly real, has jaded some here. That's why the PRs get picked apart, even by honest shareholders. We ask, "Is it real this time?" It's Lucy pulling away the football act that has us jittery. But thanks EB for your always professional insights. KEEP POSTING!

[exwannabe]

Again I will post this which says there is NO subset referenced.

And you are possibly correct that there is no stated or implied subset. I kind of lean in that direction myself.

So then what would be stat sig? We know it is not the overtrial trial primary endpoint. And you do not accept a subset defined by a biomarker.

What that leaves is that the biomarker corrolates with survival in the trial. Read that carefully. If does not show that Bavi led to improved survival, only the biomarker did so.

Yes, they will certainly weave a story thet the biomarker is "showing the Bavi working". But there is no way to know this from such an analysis. All it is is something possibly worth exploring.

The funny thing is that the subgroup interpretation some have expressed is really what longs should be hoping for on the 10th, as it is potentially stronger evidence (though at best we are still post-hock data mining). And instead, you, CP, hope and other are diss'ing it as being negative.

See you in 10 days.

[Carboat]

Since clearly the entire data-set was not statsig (the trial was stopped for efficacy) The only possibility is that it is a subset. It does not need to be explicitly stated because it is obvious.

[Protector]

eb, IMO stone is on PPHM sides and tries to get everything out of the PPHM information that one can reasonably get out.

Pls keep in mind that with PPHM's sometimes strange worded, incomplete or more question raising ways to formulate things they leave lots of room for speculation. I am not saying they do it at purpose as we know that embargo's related to conferences or possibly strategical reasons may not allow PPHM to display the clarity and unambigeousy that we would like.

I can understand that if some on this board launch the 'sub-set' theory that they pulled out of there sleeves because it was not in the PR who spoke about the complete set, may confuse posters like stone who carry that information along.

So it is good that it is corrected but I would, and that is MY opinion, make the difference between long long posters like stone that may, as have many, been frustrated by the PPHM events such as the dose switching and the Sunrise scenario and those that LAUNCH this information that leads to such confusion.

You will know understand why it si so important that we, in a group effort, keep placing the information in its right perspective. And by the way I'dd like to thank you because you are one of those putting effort in that.

AIMO.