Replies to post #279776 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

cheynew, IMO it is a little to simple to put the ape of the 'sabotage' and the 'over-performing' control arm on PPHM's shoulder, say the BoD/management.

For starters employees would be doing the monitoring if possible (which is not in a double blinded clinical trial) and not BoD/management themselves. So in the worst case one could say they are responsible for hiring them.

But actually it is unfair to put the ape on the employees shoulders. There is nothing you can do against sabotage or other crimes because the criminal as the advantage of surprise. He (and in our case SHE) knows what they are about to do and you cannot prevent everything because if that would be possible then New-York would have two skyscrapers more today.

The lines are drawn by the FDA that has created a procedure where a company must give its trial out of hands and has no good means to control it themselves. It the most you can hire YET another 3rd party doing that for you but such party would be equally corruptible as the CRO.

I don't think there is much BAD LUCK involved here. There is 'manipulation' involved. Again, North wrote it better then anyone else: If in 2012 the clinical trial would not have been sabotaged then Opdivo would not have a CURRENT place in NSCLC.

Question is, are we on here going to add to the cultivation of such unjust anti-PPHM BoD strategies. They only exist because whoever or whatever company is behind all this know the BoD must be broken in to high-jack the bavituxiùmab program. And as things stand now that is impossible unless you can muster a majority of UNRELATED shareholders so that the poison pill can not be used.

So give shareholders things they might not like such as artificially kept low PPS, outlook on a possible reverse split, clinical trials without approval at the end, etc. And of course make them forget about exosomes, Avid and the biomarkers coming out of SUNRISE that will now target and speed up approval in MANY oncology conditions. Mention DIOS but at the same time say that salvaging the 2012 PII may not be mentioned because it is old news! As if DIOS isn't older. The TWO standard stuff.

[JCNJ]

how about somebody reading the CSM contract! Why was there so many provisions in favor of CSM as to limitation of damages, etc. Wasn't PPHM hiring them and paying the money for the services? Usually contracts are biased in favor of the PAYOR, not the PAYEE. What a dream team we have, and look at the money they are paid! Offensive!