Replies to post #107522 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Robert C Jonson]

That is ---- the 3mg unaffected arm of the 2nd line NSCLC trial was the best trial result in the history of that disease

And that is with patients who were sicker than in all but one other trial, isn't that so?

Good point, RRdog.

[Protector]

RRdog, thanks.

BTW the sentence about Garnick started with:

I wonder if ...

I don't know if you tough that I was saying something negative about Dr. Garnick but I wasn't.

When Garnick made his comments "I know when to kill a drug" he was not referring to Avastin. He did not "jump ship" to leave
Genentech to join Peregrine.

What drug was he referring to when he said "I know when to kill a drug" ?

[Protector]

RRDog, I wanted to isolate this:

I am surprised that you do not emphasize the "one salient fact" in all the recent BS about PPHM. That is ---- the 3mg unaffected arm of the 2nd line NSCLC trial was the best trial result in the history of that disease. That is the key fact. What the FDA will do or partners will do is open to speculation but that fact stands out.

I am certainly not arguing the results of the 3mg arm and the comparison against historical others. Thing is I hear on the board that the 3mg is not statsig and therefore I was under the impression that the unaffected 3mg arm of the trial may not have been as good as thought before and we also we can no longer combine both arms (1 and 3mg)!

A good result that hasn't statistical significance could/should technically be seen as "by chance" otherwise what is the difference between being statistically significant or not. If being statsig doesn't carry any weight of importance at the FDA to make their decision then we actually have super results because in that case the 3mg arm is under no dispute delivering a super MOS and it was not affected by the error.

So, I am confused now about all that statsig stuff.