"frogdreaming,"

For the sake of simplicity, how about you just provide evidence to support your claim that "distributors" (plural) dropped DNAPrint Genomics' products due to "lack of sales." The example you provided was solidly refuted by the material Sam posted, and you have not provided anything since then, to support your claim.

You made that claim in the context of insinuating that all distributors would experience "lack of sales" and drop DNAPrint's products, that it would all just lead to nothing -- which was unfounded, pure speculation that turned out to be based on a false example.

Either provide evidence supporting your claim, or withdraw it. Untrue, unfounded, harmful statements against DNAG will not be left unchallenged.

"frogdreaming,"

Firstly, that was not the last 8K (you claimed to be talking about the last 8K.)

Secondly, the 8K you now cite does not say what you claimed, either, which was:

"They explained how they had abandoned all of the licenses they were working on and allowed them to default to their owners. They explained how they could not obtain financing and had given up on the attempt to spin off a pharmaceutical division. (A moot point given that they had already defaulted on the licenses that were the foundation of any pharmaceutical effort.)"

Thirdly, you have not addressed the issue, that you falsely claimed "distributors" (plural) dropped DNAPrint Genomics' products due to "lack of sales." The only example you offered does NOT support your claim, as Sam's rebuttal makes perfectly clear.

By the way, the 8K you linked to is more readable here (the right side of the page is not chopped off, here) :
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000135448808000259/f8k.htm

I am not disputing anything in any of DNAPrint Genomics' filings. I am disputing these specific claims that _you_ made. Will you not face your untrue statements, that you used against DNAG?

For reference, the original message in which I asked you to address these untrue statements:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31981807

Ann,

Thank you. Sure, why not? Good luck to us!

Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon

Thanks for the link, Ann.

It was easy to see the writing on the wall, even years ago, with these big pharma firms... their blockbuster drugs coming off patent, and their pipelines drying up. That's one reason I decided to invest in companies like DNAPrint Genomics, and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (which was already bought up by GlaxoSmithKline; I more than doubled my money, on that investment, by buying both shares and call options. I mentioned it over in Yahoo Finance's DNAG board, as another company I'd chosen to invest in, long before the buyout was announced.) Companies like these offer things that these big pharma firms lack, but desperately need. The value doesn't have to come from a buyout, of course. It's just that a piece was/is missing from the big pharma puzzle. They've been needing a change in paradigm, closer to actual biology and genetics.

We're also up 25% today (to .0005) according to the Google Finance chart, now.

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC%3ADNAG

When limit orders are used, large numbers of shares can be bought and sold with little or no change in share price. What we've been seeing is clearly a pattern of accumulation, interspersed with tiny sells clearly designed to manipulate share price downward. (It doesn't get any more obvious.)

Wells Fargo brokerage real-time quote says we closed at .0005, that's up. Volume: 16,242,929.

"frogdreaming,"

You claimed that "distributors" (plural) had dropped DNAPrint Genomics' products due to "lack of sales." You provided only one case to support your claim, and that case does NOT support your claim, as Sam's rebuttal makes perfectly clear. I await your explanation, apology, retraction, or whatever. Silence on this is not appropriate.

Also, you made clearly false statements regarding the last 8K filing. Silence on that is not appropriate, either.

You claimed (in a message that has since been deleted) the last 8K says "They explained how they had abandoned all of the licenses they were working on and allowed them to default to their owners. They explained how they could not obtain financing and had given up on the attempt to spin off a pharmaceutical division. (A moot point given that they had already defaulted on the licenses that were the foundation of any pharmaceutical effort.)"

That is blatantly false!

Here is the last 8K. It is quite simple and brief:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000111650208000616/dna8k.htm

Other filings listed here, for those who haven't seen them lately:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=dnaprint&CIK=&State=&SIC=&action=getcompany

The last 8K certainly did not state what you claim.

DNAPrint Genomics Pipeline -- compare to contents of the last 8K filing, and what "frogdreaming" claims:
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/pipeline/
( And don't forget DNAWitness.
http://dnaprint.humid.e-symposium.com/dnawitness/dnawtest.html )

DNAPrint Genomics has _a_lot_ more going for it, than you insinuate. Spreading misinformation to create a false impression about a stock, is unethical and illegal.

DNAPrint Genomics' performance (quite distinct from the share price) has been admirable. They've achieved quite a lot, even wide recognition in the press, and now more than just a few distributors, and broadly acknowledged cutting-edge technology (that has already been field-proven,) with a notably lean burn rate, on their funding. I'm proud to be a major shareholder, and I'm proud of DNAPrint Genomics. I can't think of a better risk:return investment.

That must be good news, then. Weren't you complaining that management didn't have enough stock?

"frogdreaming," I already answered that. Manipulation of any form is wrong. But what we have here, is a very clear and extreme pattern of manipulation downward. We have not seen a pattern of manipulation upward. One tiny purchase that looks like a buy, does not constitute a pattern. The SEC looks at patterns, so do reasonable people.

P.S., that 566 share sale was a measly 16.98 cents! Obvious, obvious, red-handed manipulation.

LOL, someone must have read this, and saw an opportunity to manipulate the share price downward. They sold a measly 566 shares at the price of .0003 (the lowest we've seen lately, seems to be the new bottom,) at 1:28 PM. (According to Google Finance's DNAG chart.) Those manipulators are hyper-diligent, aren't they? I do not believe their miniscule volume manipulations have anything to do with actual share value. It's as blatant as manipulation comes.

OK, I just called them back, and they confirmed the authorized share count is still 1.5 billion.

I didn't ask the registrar that question. I assume it is.

In the interest in complete disclosure, and not just disclosing things that we all want to hear, I've found out today, that the DNAG outstanding share count has increased recently. I called the registrar:

Standard Registrar & Transfer
12528 S 1840 E, Draper, UT 84020-9100, United States
Phone: (801) 571-8844
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_ccwjjdk

They informed me the current outstanding share count is:
1,113,790,464.2

Presently I own a little less than 10% of the stock, and I've been buying many of these shares, that were recently issued. I'm fine with that, as I'm willing to help finance DNAPrint Genomics, within my means.

We still haven't gone back to the .0002 lows. I view that as a notable development, in the stock price. I think the emerging news, especially about the healthy number of distributors, has a lot to do with that.

I'm still prepared to accumulate more shares of DNAG. I view this as a tremendous opportunity, and I'm not scared off by a normal function like a company issuing shares to raise needed funds, especially when that company is DNAPrint Genomics, and has demonstrated such a lean burn rate on the funds. You've got to pay to play, as they say. Not everyone welcomes this, but it's facing reality. I wouldn't be honest if I didn't report all of the news, popular and unpopular.

Good luck to all DNAG shareholders. I'm still confident that our chances of success are very good, and that the potential upside far outweighs the potential downside.

Still in the running with DNAG,

Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon

Sam, an excellent rebuttal. Bravo!

Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon

"frogdreaming," check your math. 61 million shares is not "less than one percent of the current OS." Try "less than 10 percent."

Also, the current share price cannot be explained mathematically by dilution, it is far below the level that would have resulted from dilution alone. Your paper tiger can't even meow, let alone roar.

You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the outstanding share count has been remarkably stable, for more than just a few months.

R&D companies need funding. If some so-called "investors" don't understand this, then maybe a professional should be managing their money for them, or they should at least avoid R&D stocks.

DNAPrint Genomics has had a _very_ lean burn rate, on their funds, and they should be commended for that. Quite economical, considering the results they've achieved with it, and a good example for the broader industry. I'm happy with the company's performance (which is quite distinct from the stock's performance!) The constant bashing and manipulation are responsible for the current share price, _not_ DNAPrint Genomics' performance. Good things come to those who wait, especially with regard to extremely promising R&D companies. Having temper tantrums when immediate gratification is not seen, and flying off the handle when shares are issued to raise more operating funds, belies drastically unrealistic expectations, on the part of someone who clearly should not be investing in R&D stocks.

I stand by my statement, that I consider DNAG to be the most undervalued stock in the world. In addition to buying nearly 100 million shares, so far, I'm prepared to accumulate even more. If I had enough money to do it, I would even loan them the money they need. Unfortunately, I don't currently have enough money to do that, but that could change. I've been seeing terrific returns on some of my more aggressive investments. (I've had several home runs, so far this year, each of which had zealous bashers/shorts/Chicken Littles constantly telling investors they'd lose their shirts, the sky was falling, conspiracies were brewing, and blah blah blah. They were dead wrong, of course. I've learned just how much the bashers' drivel is worth: considerably less than zero.)

Even if they do issue shares to raise money again, at some point in the future, that's much better (for both the company, and the shareholders,) than getting more toxic financing on terrible terms. What do shareholders think, that R&D companies don't need financing? A realistic view shows that this company does need, and well deserves, financing. It's a very promising company, extremely promising in my view, their main problem (aside from full-time bashing and simultaneous manipulation that's driven this stock down into the dirt!) is simply that they need financing (though their cost-cutting measures could conceivably turn things around, in conjunction with growing their existing income streams.) If they issue more stock, those who believe in the potential and value of this company, would do best to simply buy more shares, especially if they get cheaper. Right now, CHEAP is an understatement.

A healthy dose of realism is needed, here. Also, the SEC really needs to crack down on the industrial-scale, extremely blatant, bashing and manipulation. The bashing and manipulation is what has gutted the share price. Manufactured fear has created a ridiculous situation, here. Success is not built on paranoia and fear. Some "investors" are distinctly paranoid, and penny-wise, pound-foolish. A company doesn't need "investors" like those. Great companies are built on solid foundations, that allow them to grow into their potential. The potential of DNAPrint Genomics is enormous, certainly much greater than recent share price would seem to indicate. A reality check, and an analysis of consequences of attitudes/statements/actions, is definitely in order.

Some cogent analogies could be stated, here, such as: someone in a burning building would do well to avoid pouring gasoline around the building, and also would do well to avoid scaring those who are holding the trampoline, to catch people. Such behaviors are nonsensical and harmful. In the context of securities, like DNAG, such behavior is also unlawful. It is not lawful to create false impressions to manipulate share price, nor is it legal to conduct blatant direct manipulation of share price, as we have seen done so blatantly, so many times. We need change. Not more of the same. And I don't mean change from DNAPrint Genomics.

The outstanding share count has been remarkably stable for quite a few months, now. That's a positive sign.

"altarboy," Oh, please. That is mere speculation. Anyway, even if there is a reverse split, it doesn't change the fundamentals. If someone owns 1% of the outstanding stock, and a reverse split occurs, they still own 1% of the outstanding stock. The fundamental value does not change. This is a non-issue. Why some people in the stock discussion boards use this as a scare tactic, is beyond me. It strikes me as a last-ditch, desperate effort, to scare people. Very, very weak. You won't be getting any applause from me.

This stock remains _extremely_ undervalued. No feeble scares will change my opinion on this. I don't think feeble scares will change _anyone's_ opinion.

Sam,

That's a good sign. June 14, 2008, that is a fairly recent update. Every indication is that DNA Direct is still distributing DNAPrint's AncestryByDNA test kits. The very healthy number of current distributors, apparent by reviewing their websites, is encouraging. I, too, wonder how sales went last month.

"alterboy," You may be attempting sarcasm, but I noticed an impressive amount of accumulation going on, yesterday. (And not by me.) Also, the lows of .0002 haven't been seen again. I believe we have bottomed.

"frodgdreaming," you said "distributors," plural.

PL1,

That's true, of course.

Thanks for all your posts, as well.

Have a great one,

dgplexus (Daniel Gannon)

Another one, excellent!

Sam,

That's a good sign!

"frogdreaming,"

You appear to subscribe to a conspiratorial view of the markets, where all buying and selling is determined by insider information. Such trading is illegal, and does not (or should not) determine the price of a security.

You said, "I'm not insinuating anything. Read the filings."

The filings were not prophetic documents; they didn't say anything about events that occurred (or will occur) after the dates of the filings. Such sophistry is utterly unconvincing.

Sam,

Great link. Especially relevant in view of "frogdreaming"'s last post. There is clearly interest in these tests, and that interest appears to be expanding.

"frogdreaming,"

They've had sales, are you saying those have halted, cannot continue, and will never grow? If so, provide evidence, don't just insinuate.

I think their sales will grow. Perhaps they have grown substantially, already.

I just got off the phone with DNA Direct. They said customers in California do not require a physician's prescription for ancestry tests, but they do for the specifically medical tests. That means, while DNA Direct (one of DNAPrint Genomics' distributors) now has an advantage in California, with regard to the specifically medical genetic tests, other companies are still able to sell DNAPrint Genomics' ancestry test kits in California, directly to consumers.

While this isn't exactly what I had surmised the situation was, it appears to be a definite win-win for DNAPrint Genomics in California. The more distributors of DNAPrint Genomics' products, the better. It can't hurt that one of the distributors is in a privileged position on the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market, as DNA Direct now is. (One of only three currently allowed to sell the specifically medical genetic tests directly to consumers, in the State of California.)

The list of companies apparently distributing DNAPrint Genomics' ancestry tests is still growing. The three new links appear at the end of this list:

DNA Direct
http://www.dnadirect.com/patients/tests/genealogy_testing/what_are_the_tests.jsp

DNA Worldwide
http://www.dna-worldwide.com/ancestry-testing/combined-ancestry/

Genelex
http://www.healthanddna.com/ancestry/dna-testing.html

Nimble Diagnostics (U.K.)
http://www.nimblediagnostics.co.uk/ancordertest_uk.html

IDENTIGENE
http://www.dnatesting.com/resources/ancestry-test-results.php

Gene Tree
http://www.testsymptomsathome.com/gti77.asp

DNA Consulting Renamed DNA Testing Systems
http://dnaconsultants.com/Detailed/437.html

HomeDNA Home Ancestry Testing
https://www.homedna.com/ancestry_tests.html

EarthOrigins™ DNA Ancestry Testing
https://www.gtldna.net/earth_origins_dna_ancestry.html

DNA Bioscience - Ethnicity Testing
http://www.dna-bioscience.co.uk/service_ethnicity.shtml

DNA ancestry & family origin Explore your family's hereditary links to
the past
http://www.easternbiotech.com/dnaancestry/Euro_DNA_TM.php

DNA Profiles of America
http://www.dnapoa.com/Ancestry.html

These three just added to the list:

International Bioscience
http://www.ibdna.com/regions/CA/EN/?page=ancestry
International Bioscience’s laboratory is accredited by both the AABB and ISO 17025
We prodide DNA testing services, specializing in paternity tests and ancestry tests, to the general public within Canada, the United Kingdom and the international marketplace.

DNA Ancestry
http://www.dnaancestry.ae/

DNA Ancestors
http://www.dnaancestors.com/ancestry_by_dna.php


Thanks again for the additional links, Sam!

Note, this list does not attempt to include distributors of DNAPrint Genomics' forensics products, DNA Witness and Retinome.

Awesome, Sam. Thanks for the additional links!

"stockboy,"

You have alleged that DNAPrint Genomics' management was enjoying "obscene profits" at shareholders' expense. Yet, when I look into their salaries and non-cash compensation, I find they are very reasonable, compared to other individuals working for other companies. People with such credentials and obvious (and widely recognized) talent are not going to whore themselves out for minimum wage, merely because a loudmouth on the internet may demand it.

You now seem to have backed off, from your allegations and insinuations that their profits have been "obscene." Why not state that clearly, and for the record?

"stockboy,"

Perhaps they're busy trying to make ends meet, and secure new financing? After all, why post frequent updates, when they are just misconstrued? What they really need, is to cut costs (which they have done,) increase revenues (which the growing list of distributors is distinctly consistent with,) and/or secure financing. Sending you nice little letters is not as vital, in comparison.

"frogdreaming,"

You have misconstrued the facts and invented unsupportable conclusions, again.

Read this carefully:

DNA Direct Confirms It Is Operating in Compliance with California State Laboratory Law
Posted : Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:02:21 GMT
Author : DNA Direct, Inc.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/dna-direct-confirms-it-is,488226.shtml

A case in point: Recall that the FDA has recommended ancestry/ancestry-linked genetic testing in a medical context, in a groundbreaking move, with the aim of reducing risk of dangerous drug side effects. Link:

Carbamazepine Prescribing Information to Include Recommendation of Genetic Test for Patients with Asian Ancestry
December 12, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01755.html

Consistent with this and other considerations, the ancestry tests and other genetic tests are interpreted under the California law as being subjected to the medical testing requirements. Simple enough? DNA Direct was given the seal of approval after cooperating with the State's inquiries. They were _not_ told to stop selling DNAPrint Genomics' test kits!

The California decision authorizes DNA Direct to engage in direct-to-consumer ancestry test sales and marketing. Most definitely INCLUDING DNAPrint Genomics' products. Re-read the article for comprehension, "frogdreaming."

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/08/25/story8.html

"frogdreaming," Wrong again. I bought those shares previously. There have been a lot of large buys that weren't mine. The higher volume tells a lot more truth about where the stock is going, than manipulation at lower volume. Nice try, but no cigar.

> The 'high volume' day was all sells except for one single buy.............yours.

wrl, You're welcome. Emphatically agreed! But the annoyance to us is of relatively small importance, I think, compared to the manipulation of the share price. (Blatant direct manipulation and nonstop propaganda used in concert to drive price down, constantly, for years.) That is the real problem.

DNA Direct could reasonably be expected to be seeing more sales in California, as a result of the decision. That would, reasonably, translate into more revenue for DNAPrint Genomics. Much like when a large corporation gets a major government contract, the subcontractors also see a boost in business, as an indirect but very predictable result.

Votes of confidence in DNAPrint Genomics' technological excellence are practically everywhere, it's not difficult at all, to find them. See the "Wired" article I posted earlier, for just one example. And it _does_ matter that DNA Direct says they put so much effort into choosing the best, and ultimately chose DNAPrint Genomics. Every vote of confidence, and every success, counts.

Because the blatant manipulation has almost exclusively been downward, and for years on end. A tiny trade in the opposite direction is like a gnat's wings against a hurricane of manipulation; practically inconsequential. Also, now the price per share is simply back where it was, on high volume, before the last few tiny trades brought it back down. As they say, the trades at higher volume are more reflective of where the stock is really going. Low volume is very manipulation-prone.

The higher volume trades have been overwhelmingly buys, in recent weeks. In the absence of manipulation, the price would reflect that (increased price when there's more buys than sells!) The pinball table is still tilted toward the downside, very dramatically. A teeny vibration in the other direction, and you complain?

P.S., I never enter tiny trades. I get partial fills on my limit orders, but I don't horse around with small trades, nor do I ever attempt manipulation of share price. Spreading good news about a stock is completely legitimate, as is countering false claims and biased writings. I've always disclosed that I'm long DNAG stock, as well. That does make a difference, legally and ethically.