Well yes agreed the ADR volume is a bit a blooper on page 49 but...

Well yes agreed the ADR volume is a bit a blooper on page 49 but (imo) there are worse mistakes to make.

There is a funny side to the premature popping of the champagne corks. At US$ 1.00 equates to around 4.2 here. To fix the Nasdaq problem ADRs need to trade at a dollar for 10 consecutive days (not 10 minutes).

So Cvac is put on ice. The sp drops here but rises that night in the US. SR claims the yanks know what they are doing and we don’t.

Trade opens on the ASX, theres a rebound ... but it hit strong resistance at 3.8c. What went wrong?

Resistance is slap bang on the level from the last pump and dump on the news (you guessed it) ... that SR had been appointed. Which must be some sort of public relations nightmarish karmic force for humility.

Of-course the news about the capital raising wouldn’t be helping either. Which is where the rubber hits road with respect to what exactly the “partly” funded by partners actually means in dollar terms.

One thing PRR claims we all have to look forward to is the maturing of the second remission OS data. This has group has 20 subjects (10 in SOC and 10 in Cvac). The data is mature when the median survival can be calculated in both groups.

Pretty straightforward. 5 deaths in the SOC group and 5 deaths in the Cvac group and you have your median survival. And as at November 2014 we had our median survival for the SOC calculated as 25.5 months.

For Cvac, just as you might hope for we had not yet reached our five deaths. And so in theory the longer it goes the better result; in that the median OS value will be larger and hence the difference between SOC and Cvac even more statistically sig. .

Now Ahjay ... as you have been learning up on clinical trials ... heres an interesting puzzle.

OS is always calculated on the intent to treat population. It doesn’t matter whether the subject withdraws the next day after you enrol them or that they die for completely unrelated causes.

And in modern western countries you can nearly always establish whether someone is alive or not. Its foolproof measure.

But what happens in eastern Europe where people disappear without trace?

And in fact as at November 2014 PRR still haven’t been able to establish the status of 2 of the 10 women in the Cvac group.

So what should be done? One answer that PRR are adopting is to say that they are censored. That is from the date they were last known to be alive from that point forward their status is not known.

Trouble is no-one (the FDA, big pharma, medical statistical reviewers) would accept that on face value.

Simply because not being able to find someone (who has a life threatening disease) and is receiving life saving treatment is not a good sign. In other words it is informative about status.

Now these results are never going to anywhere near the FDA, big pharma or a medical journal statistical reviewer. And so anything goes.

Which brings you to the real problem in slide on page 49. There are 15,000 shareholders in PRR and none with >5%. No Orbis, HH, Lang Walker, mining magnates, pokie barons etc. Just retail mums and dads, speculators and players (eg Bergen). And so anything goes (multiplied by 10). The real challenge for SR and PRR is strengthening that register .... which is probably much easier said than done.

Southoz