As evidence I offer this snippet: "Naturally, we assume that the May 2012 announcement for the second-line NSCLC trial was again not based on independent central review, since if it was, Peregrine would have likely eagerly disclosed it in its May press release."
and from the most recent earnings call transcript, ironically from the same website that allowed this tool to post the article:
"First, treatment was randomly assigned; second, procedure and examination schedules were identical for patients in all 3 arms; third, the trial was blinded to all parties involved, whether they were patients who participated, investigators who administered treatment and follow-up, central radiology reviewers who evaluated scans or a company like ours who oversaw the entire trial. This "gold-standard design" is typically reserved for Phase III development, if even used. We however chose to conduct this rigorous design after discussion with the FDA with the goal of potentially including this trial as part of a registration package.
You know what they say about "assuming"...but then again I'm assuming the person(s) who wrote this are ignorant and/or have an agenda.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
