Replies to post #274358 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[biopharm]

I truly like the way this is playing out. I will admit even I thought (when I first heard 5000 samples) that it may have meant one needed 5,000 patients and I am glad I was wrong to think that!

About 500 patients and about 10 blood test samples each gives us the 5,000 as you said CP ...and more importantly....A BEAUTIFUL representation of key, multiple levels of proteins that make up MDSCs are the real puzzle pieces that can now allow an MD to have scientific proof a treatment is working: A PS Targeting treatment is working!

I found this one article that mentions 63 key proteins within MDSCs (that change 2x in inflammation) and since Peregrine has already publicly disclosed that PS Targeting reduces MDSCs by a statistically significant 40%...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122686560&txt2find=Reduce%7CMDSCs%7C40%25

now we wait till Oct 10 to hear more about possibly some of the key proteins...

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=125520266&txt2find=63%7Cproteins

[jbainseky]

No it doesn't CP -

So in his mind he seemed to think that a specific sub-group triggered the DMC advice and he apparently did not start from the assumption that the complete trial was the cause. It PROVES that sub-groups were in any case defined UP-FRONT at trial design, just as Shan said before on a Q/CC and were approved by the FDA

All King was saying is PPHM was going to analyze the data to determine if any subgroups substantially performed in BAVI's favor, or the reverse, if any subgroup caused BAVI to under-perform. the subgroups were not defined upfront. This is clear because he said subgroups or patient characteristics and they would not have stipulated patient characteristics up front.

You are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions when you say that your interpretation "PROVES" something.

FFTT

JBAIN