Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I agree with you Michiko. lol
We certainly don't want any of 'Those' types over here, do we?
regards,
frog
It has to be obvious to everyone by now that DNAP has run an analysis of the Jon Benet Ramsey DNA sample. The 'expert' commentary by Gaskin together with the latest comments from the Boulder PD essentially make this a 'given'.
The following information seems to be apparent;
-Conventional DNA testing yielded no matches in the existing databases.
-All possible 'known' suspects have been tested and eliminated using conventional means. (This is an assumption on my part, although it would strain credibility to assume that it has not occured.)
-DNAP forensic testing yields a rough 'descriptive' profile of the suspect.
-Such a description is most efficiently employed by presenting it to the public in order to generate leads.
-No such profile has been made public to date.
Such contradictions would seem to be untenable, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Two scenarios occur to me, although there are probably many more. First, and by far the most preferable, is the Boulder Police have already identified a suspect from the profile and are keeping the identity under wraps until they have completed their case, such a possibility would negate the need for any assistance from the public. The second, much less beneficial scenario, is the profile lacks any distinctive value. For instance if it suggests the suspect is a white european, that may be less than helpful in suburban Colorado.
The extended delay in announcing the eyecolor upgrade to DNAWitness does not seem to be strategically beneficial, unless it is also waiting for a newsworthy event to connect with. It has been no secret that the two events (Ramsey case, Retinome) have been connected in the consciousness of the investors. One wonders if such expectations are a help or a hindrance as DNAP plots their Retinome roll out strategy, in light of the apparent delay in presenting the Ramsey suspect profile.
Thoughts?
regards,
frog
At your service my dear.
Miss Scarlett, Don't sell yourself short dear, you're one of the best as far as I'm concerned.
frog
MAN, I know what you mean!
It happens to the best of us. lol
OT: Mr Nelson,
My blushes. lol.
In my attempt to provide a somewhat snarky and cynical response, I left out the punchline. I'm sorry, I must be getting old.
Q.I.L.V. Index - Qualities in Lieu of Value.
regards,
frog
Intriguing possibilities.
DNAP seems to be replete with them.
The spectrum of emotionally satisfying promises spans from 'heartwarming' through 'inspirational' to 'intellectually stimulating'.
All of these qualities rank very highly in the Q.I.L.V. Index. And therefore keep us comfortable during the long and very slowly developing process.
regards,
frog
It is a sad irony that someone so far ahead of the pack has had so much trouble portraying his advantageous lead to the experts in his own field, while being wildy successful in explaining it to the laymen investors that provide his continuing support.
Glad I could help. <g>
Don't be embarassed, it's hard for everyone. Just go slow and work your way through it. If you have any questions, just ask. Remember there are no dumb questions.
gunnabeoneday, Excellent point.
******
"Hasn't one of the issues that's restrained DNAP from a viable alliance been how Tony (and us!) values the worth of his company and IP?"
******
It is the apparent disconnect between tangible value and perceived value that controls the price of this stock. While the potential promise of the IP seems to be significant, the actual value of the patents cannot be established until they have been issued and the market can bid on them. Until that time the company has virtually no other tangible assets. They rent the building and the most important equipment belongs to GMED. (While DNAP seems to have a valid claim on it's usage, they certainly cannot consider the equipment as a financial asset.)
They have begun to develop an income via their Ancestry/DNAWitness offerings, but they have yet to achieve breakeven.
Virtually the entire 'equity' value of the company therefore, resides in the perceived valuation provided by the shareholders. The entire $30 million market capitalization depends solely on the confidence of the investors.
In order to establish a valuation for the purposes of merger/alliance/acquisition, one of three things need to happen.The IP needs to become tangible in the form of issued patents, the targeted 'partner' needs to share the intangible 'confidence of the present investors,or DNAP needs to establish itself as a self sustaining business entity with conventional fundamentals.
Time will tell. Either the patents will issue, (or they won't) and their value can then be determined in the market, or a knowledgeable partner will take a risk. We will see.
regards,
frog
If I remember the CMIH scenario correctly. (which is doubtful)
DNAP would run an analysis on a set of samples, provided and sorted by the customer, and provide classifier markers from the data for about $100,000.00.
(I think CMIH was going to obtain samples from African-Americans and try to extract (cancer?) data.)
Given this service, and the proposed scenario of a drug company that has run into a compatability issue in the late stages of development, what would make more sense to the drug company?
Take the DNA samples from the test subjects and hire DNAP to run an analysis to determine the appropriate classifier markers, or sell the drug and the sample data to DNAP for a fraction of it's eventual value?
$100K would seem like a pittance in comparison to the millions required for multistage testing.
Did the CMIH deal provide any downstream income to DNAP or was it just limited to the up front fee?
I'm just trying to assess the likelihood that DNAP will have access to such drug targets.
regards,
frog
WOW. I certainly seem to have upset some people. I'm not sure what I said to incur this type of an emotional reaction but if you will let me know, I will certainly try to be more careful in the future.
It was not my intention to have a debate with the boards best source of information, degenerate into this emotional tantrum.
I thought I was asking a fair question. I'm sorry.
My apologies to the board.
best regards,
frog
mingwan0, You're diverting again. You have spent a significant amount of time dredging up some old post of mine to try to put us of the track. This type of smarmy behavior is beneath you.
The question is simple. Are you saying the Orchid option has run out or not in regards to Retinome?
-The window starts when IP is presented by DNAP.
-IP usually refers to issued patents.
-DNAP has no patents issued yet.
The question is clear, the assumptions are straightforward. What is the problem?
regards,
frog
p.s. Don't worry about my life, I'm fine. I and my colleagues design and develop lifesaving medical devices that intervene in life threatening situations. There are thousands of people walking this earth today who wouldn't be if not for our efforts. I have no problems with my life choices. Good luck with yours.
mingwan0, I am familiar with the terms of the option, I never said otherwise. I disagree with your interpretation however.
Correct me if I am wrong, (I'm sure I can count on that) but you are suggesting that the 6 month window has passed for the Retinome. However you go on to point out that the clock starts when DNAP notifies Orchid of new Intellectual Property(IP).
****
"DNAP notify Orchid of some new intellectual property (IP). Orchid may decline to exercise its option there and then, otherwise DNAP negotiate with Orchid for the transfer of the IP (starting within 90 days of Orchid exercising its option) and may not negotiate with any third-party without first negotiating with Orchid. These negotiations can last for a total elapsed time of 6 months "
****
Now in the world I live in, the 'currency' of IP is awarded patents. So my question becomes; If there are not yet any awarded patents, what IP can DNAP present that will 'start' the clock?
It's doubtful that a company with any concept of fiscal responsibility would squander a potentially valuable option on the possibility that a patent 'might' be awarded in a few YEARS. So even if they liked the concepts in the patent application and coveted the technology therein, why would they allow their option 'window' to commence on such a tenuous promise? Why wouldn't they demand the actual patent award to start the clock?
regards,
frog
Your memory is excellent.
Unless you missed it, my posts reflect that information. So are you agreeing with me?
As I stated, I am willing to be corrected. Feel free.
mingwan0, It was not bait, and there was no attempt to disparage, in it. You seem to be overly defensive.
You quite recently stated that you were constrained from divulging company information that you possessed to this board , infering non-disclosure constraints.
I understood that to mean that you had a relationship with DNAP that placed you in possession of information that you were not permitted to divulge to the public.
If this is the case then you have, by definition, a personal stake in the success of DNAP that surpasses others on this forum.
This undermines any board perception of objectivity on your part. It does not detract at all from your incredible contribution to this board. It just adds that 'pinch of salt' caveat to the contributioin.
If you have no such relationship, then I must have misread your post. Feel free to elaborate. I'm sure you know the one we are discussing. If not I will be glad to go back through the archive and find it.
best regards,
frog
1USGrant, You need to be more specific. What part are you uncertain about?
Here are the facts as I understand them, feel free to correct them.
-There was a 6 month option granted to Orchid in exchange for their support at the beginning of DNAP's existence.
-The option allowed Orchid to match any offer for DNAP's first product. (developed on their own)
-There has not been a product that meets the criteria for the option yet.
-The option has transfered to Beckman Coulter.
-Beckman Coulter is an instrument manufacturer.
-The impending option has been an obstacle to forming partnerships.
-There has not been a public announcement from DNAP regarding the change of ownership of the option.
As I said, these are the facts as I understand them, if they are incorrect I would certainly appreciate your input. Given these facts, I don't think there was any opinion expressed.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger,
Malarky is a good term. If you think mingwan0's contributions are objective and unbiased your equally naive.
As to your reference to Ancestry being an example of DNAP's lead in science, I think you should rethink that. As you imply Shriver developed Ancestry, and in a supported academic research environment I might add. It is in no way a measure of DNAP's lead in science. Just their willingness to associate themselves with him.
Your statement assumes that Shriver had a choice of suitors eager to partner with him and he chose DNAP based on their leadership. Do you any reference for this assumption. Who did he turn down because they were not as far along?
I have no need to see DNAP sucking hind tit, as you so colorfully state. I also have no interest in pretending that wishful thinking and unfounded belief has any value when evaluating the economic potential of a company's capabilities.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Nonsense. I am currently working with a research effort at a prominent University in Pennsylvania on an NIH grant. Politics had nothing to do with the grant award. It was evaluated solely on the merits of the science involved. No one in our group had any contact or any influence with the administration, the cabinet or the legislature.
To suggest that all NIH grants are awarded under such underhanded conditions is an insult to researchers everywhere. It is beneath you.
You have no idea what evaluation criteria have played against DNAP in these matters. Your admitted ignorance of the state of the art of DNAP's science disqualifies you from an objective evaluation. You are basing your beliefs solely on the claims of DNAP that they are ahead of everyone else. There has never been 'any' outside verification of those claims. You would do well to try to be a little more objective. Emotion and belief will not cut much ice with any of the evaluation comitees.
regards,
frog
Gunna,
It is doubtful that DNAP is very happy that their option has transfered to Beckman Coulter. They have never announced the transfer publicly.
Remember that the option was granted in the deal that gave DNAP their first SNP evaluation system from Orchid. Orchid at that time was an instrument manufacturer as well as a forensic service organization.
DNAP's science is focused on developing products that lean in the direction of the service side of the Orchid's offerings. When Orchid sold it's instrument division to Beckman Coulter the associated option went with it. Unfortunately Beckman has much less of an interest in forensic products than Orchid does.
It is a less than optimum turn of events. Hopefully something good will come of it. Now that DNAP is on the verge of releasing their very first product developed on their own. (the hopefully imminent Retinome) the six month time window of the option can begin. The assumption of course is the window opens upon the release of the product and not when the associated patents are approved.
Beckman will have six months to decide whether to buy Retinome or pass, in which case the option will no longer be an issue in the development of the subsequent products. (Ovanome and Statinome).
regards,
frog
Hey Dougie... Come and show us if you've got a spine.
We're all waiting.
loch3, Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore anything.
When you refer to your 'real point' I assume you mean your statement;
"I never bothered to read the posts that you referance to "stockpimpdaddy". I for one didn't feel the need. Why? Because the illiterate, bumbling effort by someone posing as Dr. Kondragunta persuaded me not to pay heed to such nonsense.
As I recall, many other posters were of the same opinion."
I understand completely. The butchered grammar and the obvious emotional content of the posts was a clear indicator that the poster had a personal axe to grind. It was quite easy and understandable to dismiss them out of hand.
However, (and this is the crux of the matter), someone at DNAP (or closely associated with DNAP) was concerned enough about 'the nonsense' to take a very risky and controversial course of action in order to counter the perceived threat of Kondragunta's ranting.
So whether or not you took the posts of eyecolor0 seriously, or if you therefore ignored the counter arguments of stockpimpdaddy, it does not make them any less a violation of SEC rules.
So, I understand your dismissal of the topic it is well justified, but it does not affect the seriousness of the issue.
regards,
frog
loch3, It's always nice to get such supporting comments, especially from someone who doesn't always 'bother' to read the posts in question.
As you no doubt gleaned from my post, I also hold mingwan in high regard. As you also, (no doubt) understand, it was not me who referenced the stockpimpdaddy posts.
The entire focus of this exchange is the fact that mingwan referenced them, and has perhaps regretted doing so.
People, Catch a clue.
Mingwan hasn't gone anywhere. Anyone who thinks that he can be cowed by a post from me, has either grossly over estimated my influence or severely underestimated him. One has only to review our few previous discussions to discover that neither option is viable.
I am sure he will be back. I interpret his post to suggest that it is not his presence that will be curtailed but his attempts to circumvent his non-disclosure agreements via oblique references.
As to his claim;
"There has been no attempt to improperly influence investor opinion on anybody's part."
I beg to differ.
Anyone who has read the series of posts from 'stockpimpdaddy' that contains the referenced information, knows that the entire sequence was a blatant attempt to influence shareholder opinion in the midst of the Kondragunta/eyecolor0 dabacle.
For those that missed it, Kondragunta/eyecolor0 began posting on the RB forum the day after his association with DNAP was terminated, he was obviously upset and he divulged inflamatory information regarding the state of affairs at DNAP. Within a few hours/days of his appearance, a counter point was delivered in a series of posts from stockpimpdaddy. These posts were an obvious attempt at spin control. They were the work of someone intimately involved with the inner workings of the company, and after the claims of Kondragunta were addressed and his credibility had been denigrated via personal attacks, the poster mounted a brief but passionate defense of the company in general and the CSO in particular. He closed the last post with his regrets that for reasons he could not divulge he could no longer continue to participate in the forum.
So whether the attempt at investor influence was justified,(in light of the blindside attack from Kondragunta), or not, the attempted influence is obvious. Since it came from a source either 'inside' the company or from an outsider with an intimate knowledge of events, it is improper by definition.
These being the facts, a rereading of my post will show that it was not accusatory but was, in fact, an offering of advice to a valued member of this forum in an attempt to protect his own interests. If there is anything to fear in this exchange, it is not me, but in becoming associated with such antics.
best regards,
frog
mingwan, You can if you want, but it's less than helpful.
I would assume that you are implying that the Orchid option has, in fact, been transfered to Backman but you are constrained from actually saying so by some form of non-disclosure limitation.
As you will also be unable to confirm this assumption, that gets us nowhere.
Although it does beg some serious questions.
If the information is covered by non-disclosure constraints then it is also definitely NOT in the public domain. If it is proprietery information then the posting of it to a message board was highly irregular, and possibly a SEC violation.
Under the circumstances perhaps it would be better for you to refrain from referencing such a questionable post in the future, in order that you not be tainted by being associated with such an alarming attempt to improperly influence investor opinion.
regards,
frog
The transfer of the option from Orchid to Beckman has been accepted as a fact for some time now. Has it ever been verified?
All I am aware of is the referenced quote, by an 'anonymous' entity on the RB board. Has anyone been able to confirm this either via DNAP or Beckman?
The circumstances surrounding the presentation of the information were fairly memorable and there has been various speculation as to the identity of the poster. There seems to be a consensus opinion that the poster is both credible and connected to DNAP in a manner that might give him some access to the information if it is indeed true. There has never been, however, any validation of that opinion.
Does anyone have any supporting information that might bolster a fairly tenuous claim?
regards,
frog
Billyboy, Don't worry, all will be explained shortly. As we speak great minds are analyzing the report and will soon expound upon it on this very forum. The resulting exposition will fill you with warmth and light.
It does no good to dwell on the down side, it will just give you ulcers and lead to premature aging.
So take your mind off the report, it is in the hands of the experts. Let your mind wander to more relaxing considerations. I tell you what, why don't you help me with my own minor domestic dillema.
What kind of wine should I serve with the Lamb Kabobs? Zinfandel or Shiraz?
tia
frog
I know
I wasn't criticising the 'post'!
DougS
***
Hammering an idea or issue beyond the point at which others are willing to listen is not constructive. That is the line that I draw between a sceptic and a basher.
***
It's unfortunate that there is not a corresponding line drawn (and enforced) between the equally obvious roles of supporter and pumper.
It is the obvious bias in this regard that damages the credibility of those that claim to present a fair and open forum here.
regards,
frog
bag,
Truth be told, very little good has ever come from them, and yet you persist in responding.
I intend to continue, you chose as you will.
I wish you well.
Best regards,
frog
Very good bag..
A technique we all learned in the fourth grade, and still so effective and credible.
A point for point counter, both simple and efficient requiring little effort and no conscious thought. Conveniently.
regards,
frog
O.T. Chig
In any undertaking when the situation gets critical, high risk desperate measures are sometimes required. It doesn't matter whether lives are at stake as on a battlefield or only the score late in a football game, the same rules apply. In order to succeed you must first survive.
It is quite likely that without La Jolla, the company would be doomed. Just as before with the huge share authorization, the survival of the company was at stake.
Such measures are absolute necessities.
Having said that, however, it does not mean that the measures taken are a reason for exhuberance and celebration. We seldom throw a party to celebrate the fact that someone lost a leg on the operating table, even if the operation saved his life.
I am only trying to temper the rampant and unfounded hype that seems to accompany any moves made by the company. Hype that tries to turn even minor accomplishments into major historical events.
The funding arrangement is a desperate and high risk gamble that is fraught with danger and potential pitfalls. The fact that it was absolutely necessary does not cancel out the inherent risk.
Having added the additional risk to the equation has moved the odds of success from the backjack table to the lottery. The return is much better but the chances are lower.
regards,
frog
worktop...
How rude of me, I noticed that others had used your name occasionally over the years that we have been conversing. Since I have also used mine on numerous occasions, (and given your penchant for unbridled focus on the written word) I assumed you knew it.
I would not presume to enjoy an unfair advantage.
You can call me Steve, at your pleasure.
Pleased to meet ya!
regards,
frog (Steve)
mingwan0 - Good choice.
By the way it dark and gray and it is pouring rain here and the wind has been blowing through the passes at 60mph for the last couple of days. Rub it in. lol.
frog
w2p,
No Mike, lol, skipping posts when the going gets tough is your favorite tactic.
I'll tell you what, If you'll go back and catch up the last three threads where we were conversing and you mysteriously disappeared with out a trace, I'll return the favor.
regards,
frog
whatever
ustacud,
Did you read ifida's post, that I was responding to?
ifida,
Don't be ashamed, not everyone is bright. I'll be glad to help.
I have no idea of anyone else being able to determine eye color/shade. Truth be told we have no real eveidence that DNAP can do it on a consistant basis yet. Retinome has not yet made it to market.
However, if you will read my previous post, I quite clearly pointed out that DNAP has marked out it's own little corner of the DNA characterisation realm. There is plenty of DNA real estate to go around. Most other labs are concentrating on other fields such as developing the links between DNA and Cancer, heart disease, longevity etc.
Eyecolor has not seemed to have too many competitors. That could be good...or bad. It's good if DNAP gets there first and there is any market for it. It's bad if the rest of the genetic industry already determined that there was no value in it and it wasn't worth pursuing.
Let me try one more time to characterize the technology. There are countless labs around the world engaged in the process of connecting the dots of DNA patterns to physiological traits. The technology that enabled these projects, i.e. High Throughput Analyzers and the Human Genome project, are bonafide breakthroughs.
There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. There are countless physiological features in each individual. Many thousands of them have already been mapped, countless thousands of them remain. As each one is done, a check mark can be placed against it on the list. Each checkmark represents an interesting and important part in the continuing advancement of our understanding. But none of them are breakthroughs, they are 'turn the crank' science. Eventually they will all be done and the world will never be the same, but individually they are small pieces of the puzzle.
In the grand scheme of things finding the secret to preventing heart disease or diabetes, or possibly conquering death itself will be major pieces of the puzzle. Connecting up some DNA to eyeshade is a little lower on the list, and while it might make a few bucks it will not be earthshaking.
regards,
frog