Congratulations Team, you are the winner. The nearest competitor had '24 hours'.

Unfortunately, we barely had time to get the board printed up and posted before the contest was over. Most of the 'would be' participants didn't even have time to get their entry in. There is only your entry and mine and two others to split up between the first second and third place winners. I'm afraid that after we subtract out the postage you are only going to get your bet back.

You will have to take solace in knowing you were the best.

We'll have to be a little quicker next time. Hope it's not too far off.

regards,
frog

So who had '10' posts in the pool?

bag8ger, How is it possible for DNAP to keep thing so close to the vest that even the investors can't find out anything, including any scrap of information about the status of Statnome. (i.e. progress, schedule, ETA or potential market), and yet the CEO of Genaissance can not only suss out all of the above, but see that DNAP is ahead of him at every turn? In fact he is able to derive enough information that he can convince his own BOD to write off all the money previously spent and to change course in mid stream.

On the one hand you are congratulating DNAP for clamping down on the information flow to the public and you are spinning it as a positive because it protects the IP....and on the other hand you are suggesting that the competition has a window into the inner workings of the company that is so wide that the things that they see are enough to base huge, paradigm shifting changes to their business plan.

How is it possible to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints?

Arch,

"...thats why DNAP was the ONLY company that
could turn around the LA investagation."

A small correction, DNAP was the only company that 'did' turn around the LA investigation..."

The assumption that other companies 'couldn't' have developed the same kind of test is not viable. Realize that large companies with multimillion dollar budgets have the valuable luxury of being able to do market research 'before' they embark on new programs. DNAP, on the other hand, was forced by their size and economic limitations to gamble on the potential market for their product and develop it in the hope that a market would develop for it. In retrospect it may not have been a successful bet. It it doubtful that, given the present published income figures, DNAWitness will achieve 'breakeven' status for many months to come. In other words they will not even get back the money they spent on the development of the product, let alone make a profit.

That, of course is the risk involved in developing a new company, and is one of the main reason that most new start-up companies fail.

regards,
frog

Arch, It is neither magic nor art, it is science and if this particular branch of it is not understood by the 'masses', it is nevertheless well understood by every second year geneticist on the planet.

bag8ger,

"And what I react to are the inaccurate characterizations of it that makes it seem less capable, less powerful, or less unique than it is."

Or than you wish it to be?

" It is more likely that the science is much further along than what we know than it is less than what we know would infer."

The 'science' is already known! It is conceptually quite simple.

-The information for ALL genetic variations os contained in the genome.
-The decoding of the genome is done by assembling sample sets of genomes, sorted by genetic characteristics (eye color, drug reaction etc.) and then comparing those genomes to find the exclusive matching patterns that pertain to the characteristic in question..

The only things that we don't know is how many patterns have been recognized and cataloged, or how many of the recognized patterns will actually lead to marketable products. Although we do know that many companies are applying many different sorting techniques to the effort.

It's not magic.

Your memory IS bad.
Go back and read the so called 'debate'. I understand the science as well as anyone on this board. I don't criticize it. What I react to, is the innacurate characterizations of it that make it seem more capable, powerful, or unique than it IS.

LOL Slopster...Thank you.
Such dry, self deprecating wit from you is unexpected.

The most talkative member of the forum suggests;
"Wisdom of the day - The man who cannot enjoy his own natural gifts in silence, and find his reward in the exercise of them, will generally find himself badly off."

I hope you find your 'reward'....and soon. lol

regards,

frog

bag8ger,

it is an unfortunate limitation of logic that we can only successfully debate the manifestations of reality. It would be so much more fun to debate the wonderful machinations and images that dwell in the privacy of an individuals own imagination.

It is fundamentaly impossible to have any 'meaningful' discussions about such things, as the very infrastructure required to support such a debate requires a shared footing in such factors as language, definitions, measurement systems and descriptions. In the case of imagined 'truth' it is never possible to agree on these concepts, as individual imaginations are governed by too many divergent forces.

One wonders what interesting conversations could result if we could all discuss such diverse subjects as 'level 4' and 'DNAP the pps'. Unfortunately such concepts dwell solely in your own special place and are not shared and or understood by anyone else. It is possible that some will pipe in with disclaimers that they 'do' share your understanding, but it will be fairly obvious after a few moments of discussion that their concepts are divergent from your own, as they will be guided by their own 'special' factors.

In closing let me say that while it is easy to deride those who wish to limit their discussions to the realm of reality, it is not necessarily fair. Everyone loves a good daydream, and quite often some version of daydreams come true. Unfortunately we never seem to hold daydreams to any kind of performance standards (lol) and when they don't eventually manifest themselves in reality (IBM deal, Malaysia, Orchid Option, $1000 Genome etc.) we just move on to the next ones and continue to deride those who can't 'see' what we can see.

regards,
frog

Yo ming.....?

Grateful, You are correct, I am assuming it went no further. I base that assumption on the theory that if DNAP was either negotiating a significant agreement with Bayer or if there was an agreement in place that would lead to a possible rebirth of their drug, the insider buying from both sides of the agreement would have sent the pps flying.

Realize that if a few million dollars of selling into the pps by La Jolla can depress the stock price in half, then the insider buying that would occur from the executroids at Bayer and their intimates would easily double the pps in short order.

I suggest that the lack of even a whisper of volume in that direction is sufficient evidence that no ongoing efforts are in play.

regards,
frog

Grateful, They might, but there are three billion nucleotides in the human genome and there are bound to be countless ways of sorting them out. It has already been pointed out that Baycol is working on a recovery plan for the drug and that they have had discussions with Gomez in the past.

Evidently they decided that they had other viable options since it went no further.

regards,
frog

Arch,
You can doubt all you want, it's a free country.

Of course they can do the tests. Anyone can. At it's simpest level you need to compare the genome of an individual with a specific trait against the genome of an individual without it. The difference in the genomes will contain the marker you are looking for. Obviously it is a little more complicated than that as there are many differences between individuals and the specific marker you seek will be lost in the clutter. That is why you need a significant sample population that shares the trait you are looking for and a computer to help you sort through the clutter. Any second year statistician could write you a search routine. You just need a fast enough computer and a method of extracting the pertinent genetic info.

Pharmaceutical companies have both.

ebo783, What makes you think that Baycol isn't already hard at work on their own classifier?

To suggest that they would throw away a billion dollar business or let it go for pennies on the dollar assumes that the scientists and engineers at Baycol are not very bright.

You can bet that every pharma on the planet is working their way back through their drug 'failures' with just such scenarios in mind. The completion of the Genome map did not go unnoticed by Pharma or anyone else in the drug industry. It is as obvious to them as it is to us.

worktoplay,

Whatever the rationalization of the statement spins up to, the bottom line is that the value of the classifier model has taken a significant hit.

Back when the talk of 'NASDAQ listing' and 'Fortune 500' was being bandied about as almost foregone conclusions, the classifier model was the totality of the DNAP stable of offerings. Statinome alone was going to propel us to "Da Moon".

For Frudakis to be passing it off now as a second tier goal would seem to indicate that the previous assumptions need to be discounted accordingly.

Using the platform to help create drugs that do not have the side effects in small percentages of the patients that use them will make classifiers unnecessary. Conversely creating drugs that are highly efficient and focused on the diseases that already target specific groups (sickle cell anemia for instance) while beneficial to the human race will still not require classifiers as the diagnosis of the disease itself will do the sorting.

That' laser guided' drugs will be a huge revenue source is a given. What is not clear is the path to such things. You very correctly point out the huge question that has gone begging with the announcement of the 24 drug trials. Who is paying for it? The reason such a question needs to be answered, is that according to the agreement with Moffit, the people who pay for the work reap the benefit for the work. If someone else is paying for the trials then what is DNAP's role? Are they just providing platform support? How will this get them closer to being a drug company?
If these are in some way the drugs in DNAP's future, how far away is that future? Clinical trials take years and only a minute fraction of drugs that enter clinical trials ever succeed to the marketplace.

Carter,

Your opinion was shared by everyone here at some point. It was the foundation that the company was founded on and it was the promise that first claimed our attention.

The data point in question however, is the report from the shareholders meeting held yesterday in which Dr Frudakis is quoted a saying there is no big money in classifiers.

The scenario you describe is one that everyone is familiar with. Unfortunately to date it remains only a theoretical one.

retired investor,

This is a very important point and it raises many questions.

The current relationship between the 'pharma' and the rest of the health industry consists of specific ailments being targeted by a number of independently derived drug solutions in competition with each other. This model has an obvious 'niche' in it for classifiers that help to connect the correct drug to the appropriate individual. As you have mentioned the drug companies are not necessarily interested in supporting such a niche.

On the other hand, a side benefit of the effort to create a classifier also renders other information. Information that can, if discovered early in the development process, actually influence the eventual drug. Perhaps making it more 'universal' in scope or conversely, more finely targeted to a specific trait or population group. While this is a beneficial outcome to the patients and the industry, it does not necessarily have a viable business application. It is obvious that while such a service would be beneficial to a drug manufacturer, if there is no associated classifier there will be no revenue stream for DNAP.

Eventually, it would seem obvious that, given the capability of the platform, if one were able to develop drugs independently there would be obvious revenue ramifications. Until that time, it is difficult to see the path.

We have heard that there are to be a number of clinical trials initiated (or already running) in the near future (did I hear 20?). Given the statements by Frudakis regarding the lack of 'big' money in classifiers, what path is DNAP taking with Moffit in these trials? Are they developing classifiers that don't generate 'big revenue', or are they helping to develop drugs that don't require them? If they assist in the development of drugs that don't need classifiers because they are already targeted to specific populations or are universally applicable to specific diseases, then who 'owns' the drug, and who benefits financially?

It is clear that DNAP sees the future in the development of their own drugs. It is also clear why the development of the previous flagship products such as Statinome have slowed. What is not clear is how the present path will get us to the drug company model and how long it will take. Rmember that a new drug takes many years to develop to marketability.

regards,
frog

Good one bag,

"I would like to get a report on the company's answers to shareholders questions."

Still got your sense of humor, anyway.

frog

ps. How goes the arrythmia? have you had it zapped yet?

Three hours ago and not a word.

It only takes a few minutes to call your broker.

preliminary indications would seem to predict it was a bust.

ming,

When your informant obtained the information from the Circuit Court, did he/she happen to get a status on the Kondragunta case?

Just curious.

frog

1USGrant, It sounds good to me, but I'd rather not have to explain every joke three times. So maybe next time.

Dougs and Chig.

An excellent example of how a misunderstanding is created due to poor wording. You have both taken exception to the following;

"The validity of the answer can only be established by the questioner."

Perhaps I should have said, only the questioner can know if his question has been answered appropriately.

Meaning, if the answer does not address the intention of the question it is not an appropriate answer in the view of the questioner, regardless of the good intention of whoever proposed the answer.

regards,
frog

I said nothing about a reasonable response. I said he had not received valid answers to his questions.

The validity of the answer can only be established by the questioner. The fact that you have provided answers, does not necessarily mean that his questions have been answered correctly. Either you could be misinterpreting the question or he may be phrasing his inquiry incorrectly, leading to a lack of communication. I do not choose to judge.

However, lack of understanding is the primary reason for discussion. Not the basis for it's disruption.

So that makes it OK to attack the messenger?

It seems that he is not the one who needs to develop some patience.

Patience is irrelevant.

A well mannered discussion that attempts to increase the level of understanding of the science should be encouraged, not attacked. We would all be better off, if we had were able to make our judgements in regards to the investment, based on our understanding of the technology instead of our trust in the necessarily biased claims and promises contained the PR's.

Mike has always presented a polite and informative argument in support of his theories and questions. That he has not recieved any valid answers to his questions is not his fault. To be reproached for asking interesting questions would certainly seem to be at odds with the user agreement.

regards,
frog

That post would seem on the face of it to be out of line. It appears to be attacking the messenger rather than responding to the message.

JMHO

High hopes, "Understanding" is irrelevant.
This is about seeing how much torque can be applied to each phrase, and who can milk the most out of each word.

mingwan, That's still a little simplistic. Even those who have not been 'eliminated' have been in some ways restricted. Having your messages removed for interpreted violations of the TOS is not conducive to balanced debate.

It is not enough to suggest that the deletions can be appealed since in most cases a spirited reply will have some questionable content and will trigger Matt's concurrence. It is the uneven application of those rules that causes the discomfort. I have on a couple of occasions appealed a deletion to Matt and had it restored. On other occasions he has declined to act on a questionable call in deference to the monitor. That is expected and not necessarily bad. The problem is when equally questionable posts from the counter viewpoint are allowed to remain.

It is likely that if they were also removed, Matt would support their deletion as well. Unfortunately it seldom occurs.

You know for a fact that posts from your side of the aisle have at times flagrantly violated the TOS but have been allowed to remain. I am convinced that you are trying to apply the rules as fairly as you can, but you must see that the playing field has been tilted for so long now that it does not represent a balanced forum.

I would expect that, in time a new balance will occur, given the recent changes. As an example, this specific subject was banned by your predecessors. Even the mention of it would trigger a deletion. You on the other hand seem comfortable enough with the state of affairs to broach it yourself. Congratulations on a step in the right direction.

regards,
frog

p.s. And as you say 'there is always RB', where interestingly, the leaders of THIS forum seem to spend most of their time.

patience,

You re-sent the Questions email to DNAP a week ago. Have you received any acknowledgement yet?

TIA
frog

patiencepays, Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated.

regards,
frog

patiencepays,

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=300933&submit=Go

worktoplay,

I have no problem in waiting for the shareholders meeting for the answers. As you pointed out, that's why we wrote it. The reason for the list and the decision to send it early was based on allowing the company time to formulate their answers, in time for the meeting.

What I am trying to avoid is the potential letdown of investors in the event that they attend the meeting with expectations that are dashed when the company says, "What list?"

It is all well and good to read between the lines of the Dutton PR and try to glean some reference that 'might' indicate they have seen the list. Unfortunately, in the absence of a simple email acknowledgement we are left with nothing else to even suggest that they have received it.

I'm not asking for the moon, I'm asking for a simple response to indicate that they have received the list. They can even decline to answer the questions if they want. That in itself would be an indication.

There are only two reasons that I can imagine for not acknowledging receipt of the message. They never got it, or they got it but don't wish to acknowledge it.

The former we can easily circumvent by using your established communication channel, the latter we will just have to live with.

regards,
frog

I didn't bring up the possibility that they would not respond due to my posting record, it was a valued member of this forum who broached the possibility. I am merely offering a mitigation for that eventuality.

If you have some other good reason for not wishing to assist in this effort, that's fine with me. The forwarding of an e-mail being such an expenditure of time and effort after all.

If you won't do it, and I completely respect that choice, then perhaps someone else in good standing will step forward. DougS, I imagine that I can deduce from the tone of your response that you are not interested...?

Work2play....you were actively engaged in the process, surely you would like to get some answers?

Anyone..?

Question List.

Three weeks ago on Monday May 31st, I sent a list of questions to DNAP. Those questions were the culmination of a significant effort on both this and the RB board. Led by mingwan0 and with assistance from many others, we agreed upon a selection of questions that were both polite and probing.
At mingwan0's suggestion I emailed the list to DNAP with a request for a response.

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=300933

As of this morning I have received no response, not even an acknowledgement that they received the message. There are numerous possible reasons that they have not responded including the possibility that they never received it. Just yesterday, on RB it was suggested that the reason there has been no response is a personal one based on DNAP's discomfort with my posting record. I would like to think that they would not be so petty and I don't give that possibilty much consideration. However, the interests of all of the contributors and the interested observers would be better served if we removed such possible impediments.

I would therefore like to implore someone (perhaps less controversial) to resubmit the questions and remove any obstacles to a successful ending to the project. Perhaps mingwan0 can be prevailed upon for the task. His impeccable credentials on this board and RB would make him an excellent choice and would immediately eliminate any question of personal animosity (however unwarranted) from DNAP.

How about it ming?

best regards,
frog

ming, There was no personal attack in the post. I am sure if you review it again you will concur.

You are absolutely correct when you suggest that I knew it would be removed, and you may indeed have had no choice, but it was not removed for the reason you suggest. (Unless you misread it.)

Here's an interesting article that demonstrates the difficulties, both medical and political that confront researchers today.

The article, titled "Racial differences seen in breast-cancer study" points out the significant differences in breast cancer rates between black and white women, and then makes every effort to discount any possibility that such differences are genetically based.

The last sentence of the article is;

"She said that researchers can't yet explain the biological differences in breast-cancer tumors. But she said genetics likely won't be a main culprit. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html


regards,
frog

Yes bag,

At the date the rating was published the price was indeed .03.

But unless the analysis totally missed the Moffit deal (some analysis) then it was performed before the Moffit announcement which, if memory serves, was in late March. The price at that time was four and a half cents.

regards,
frog

cosmic, Good point.

The analysis seems to predate the Moffit anouncement which took place in late March. I wonder if the 0.06 price goal was based on the pps at that time. In that time frame the pps was in about 4.5 cents, so Dutton's .06 target would amount to a 33% increase after a year. Given today's level of 3.5 cents, should we translate that into a one year target of 4.7 cents. (3.5 x 1.33)?
regards,
frog

LOL.

Perhaps one of the twins has a tattoo that will show up in the fuzzy ID photo.

Nothing so far.