Below is an email I received last Friday from Chris Keenan in reply to a query about whether or not PPHM had ruled out sabotage as the reason for our coding errors. I have decided to post it to this board because I think it's information that should have been put in a pr to everybody. I'll post a follow-up reply I got from Chris this morning.
Bob
I have been reading the board and maybe this deserves some clarity. This was a deliberate action by one individual at CSM. The company has admitted to the switch but while it is certainly fraudulent the term that you use "sabotage" evokes a predictive malintent that can only be ascribed once we know what this person is thinking. My advice to all of you is to focus on the going forward and let us deal with this in the proper legal way and then all the details will come out.
Peregrine needs to put this sabotage crud to rest NOW!
I emailed Peregrine a few days ago and received no reply. Yet many of you get responses within hours.
Posts like the one Bob just put out bother me GREATLY!
Monday, February 25, 2013 12:10:38 PM Re: Biowatch post# 157361
Post # of 157379 A simpler and more reasonable explanation is that there was sabotage. PPHM rigged the participants and data collection to make it look like Bavi was working. That would explain why the placebo looked so bad as compared to historical controls, and why it still looks bad when combined with the 1mg Bavi arm.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
