Replies to post #113746 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[aikifredicist]

It would discredit the company when and if it is discovered.

[Protector]

FTM, perfect reasoning with one exception.

If PPHM ct sabotage is at order there is one scenario in which CSM could/would suffer that is if the trial fails and the error discovered (which is the case) but not qualified as sabotage (which for now we don't know 100% sure).

Question remains what was the intended scenario:
- sabotage to harm CSM (=design failure AND discovery into error)
- sabotage to harm Bavi (=design failure only into error)
- sabotage to harm PPHM stock (design failure AND discovery into error)

All above scenarios only work if there are no indications of 'intend' because ones it becomes "sabotage" this turns into something "better" for PPHM/Bavi at least and it creates kind of some goodwill versus CSM.

For the record: No matter the above argumentation I think also that if there is sabotage it is ordered by a 3rd party, it's aimed against PPHM and/or Bavi more specific, that CSM is not the target and that the reward (money, etc) is provided by the one ordering it to the one executing it.

I would further support that position by saying that one must have a serious argument with your employer to sabotage his operations and that it is very unlikely that if such issue existed the employee would still be employed, certainly in a delicate and vulnerable environment as a clinical trial CRO.

I was wondering, you were at the annual meeting. Are there any of the e-mails from Chris mentioned on this board by people that you know from the annual meeting and from which therefor we (that is you as a trusted poster) know they exist and are real people following PPHM close vs the sophisticated noise pollution we are currently undergoing ? This would maybe not be a 100% guarantee of authentication but certainly an increase in credibility.