Replies to post #169433 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[honestabe13]

jq... AEs are extremely limited with bavi, and everybody who pays attention knows and accepts that, including the most arrogant skeptics at the Board-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless. given bavi's minor AEs for years across all trials, you're splitting hairs. trial after trial has associated AEs with SOCs, not bavi, and i suspect you know that if you've looked at all of their trials.

[Protector]

Don't pull this out of context.

The question "Under your assumption why would they even do a clinical trial with two arms if the results would per definition follow : More is Better." was NOT a question in that paragraph.

It was on the contrary part of an argument that PPHM do different arms with different dosages of the drug under investigation to among other check what you described here.

And by the way, efficacy includes the total picture. So as well the effect, including AVERSE EFFECT, that the drug under investigation may have on the SOC. This may result in possible less performance of the combo and hence being less efficient. 3mg/kg clearly is a less good dose to combine with the SOC then 1mg/kg.

And all that changes nothing to the initial statement that the results are better then 109% improvement on SOC because our best dosed arm didn't completely receive this best dosage during all cycles and the competing control arm received our best dosage of Bavi instead of placebo. Not actual Chinese, is it.