ustacud, Buddy.

There is nothing wrong with being excited. There is nothing wrong with risking your money. It's your money and you can do what you want with it. There is nothing wrong with taking a risk on an interesting company that is competing in an emerging field. Hell, we're all doing that.

What is wrong is the unrelenting hype that tries to compare DNAP to the second coming of Christ, tries to suggest that Dr F is on a divine mission with a lock on the Nobel prize and the science of DNAP is so far ahead of anybody else that they can't see the tail lights.

If DNAP is successful, (and we all hope they will be) it will be a modest success in a competetive environment.

I don't claim to be right, I just point out the holes in the arguments of the hypesters.

Good Luck to you too.

frog

ustacud, BUDDY!

If you ARE one of the scant few then you are well aware that there are no 'breakthroughs' occuring here.

The attempt to compare the genomes of representative groups to determine the underlying relationship between areas of the genome to physical characteristics is 'turn the crank' science. There are countless labs all over the world doing exactly the same thing.

That they have marked out their own particular niche is not in question, but 'breakthrough' is not an applicable term.

So my point is; Anyone who thinks that they are witnessing a 'breakthrough' is incapable of assessing the underlying science. Simply because anyone who understands the science would never use such a ridiculous characterisation.

So which are you?

retro,

Good question.

If the PP was designed to obtain $8 million dollars via the offer of a 15% discount to market value of the shares offered, and it was unsuccessful in obtaining those funds, then what discount was offered to La Jolla in order to obtain them?

If La Jolla exercises their right to sell the shares and the stock price falls to the discounted price due to market forces, will the existing PP participants get a new calculated strike price that is a further 15% discount on that?

Will the 'competing' discounts operate in parallel to each other or will they have a cumulative effect?

Any of the 'experts' care to comment?

Miss Scarlet,

Thank you for your Best Wishes.

Forgive me if I take umbrage at being cast as 'evil' based on your own interprestation of my motives.

I also beg to differ with your assesment of the number of 'intelligent investors able to see that this is breakthrough science'. While the intelligence of the investors is not the issue, the ability of more than a scant few of them to recognize breakthrough science is non-existent. While there are many that are more than willing to accept the judgement of the concensus view, non are capable of even a rudimentary understanding the science on which the technology is based. This is more than amply demonstated by the plethora of totally unrelated data that is constantly being pasted into this forum in the guise of 'DD'.

While I am amused by your analogy of the present situation to the second coming of Christ, I am amazed at the aptness of the phrase 'thief in the night' in reference to our good Doctor.

Best Wishes to you also.

frog

mikenickels,

Your question, if I understand it, is; Given that the current business climate has Warren Buffet advising investors to hang onto their cash, why would LaJolla invest $8 million if they were not assured of a positive return?

Good question.

However, if someone offered to sell you a 'nickel' for 3 cents that you could cash in immediately would you do it?

Even if there was a million to one against that 'nickel' ever growing to become a 'dime', it would still be a fairly safe investment.

Be assured that LaJolla is not taking any risks in this deal. The PR states that they will not turn loose of one penny until the associated stock is 'registered' (available for immediate sale).

The exchange price will have an instantaneous profit margin built in. If the pps goes up they will benefit immenssly, if it goes down they will still be able to bail and make a profit, but to a lesser degree.

Given the choice between putting the money under the mattress per Warrens instructions or getting long odds on a huge return protected by a guaranteed smaller profit, I'd take the win/win situation. Wouldn't you?

regards,
frog

mikenickels,

I'm not missing any such thing. It is entirely possible that LaJolla is privy to exceptional news and jumped at the chance to invest. Let all hope so.

I began this thread by amplifying a concern expressed by bag8ger regarding the risks inherent in debenture financing. The risks are significant and they should be taken into account by any serious investor.

I have no argument with those that see the attainment of financing as a positive move. It is a clear and obvious necessity for the companies survival. I take issue with those that suggest that it somehow is a guarantor of success. The position seems to be that LaJolla would not invest if success wasn't already guaranteed.

Nothing could be further from the truth. La Jolla will not lose any money on this deal, no matter what. While they may have some level of confidence at this point, you can bet they already have their trigger prices locked in. Should the company falter very far from it's present course and they will pull the trigger and escape unscathed.

To do other wise would be irresponsible.

Don't fool yourself, they will be loooong gone before the pps ever gets anywhere near your imaginary price of .0001.

regards,
frog

I'm willing to admit that I have only seen the PR, not the actual contract. Have you seen it?

"The lender couldn't very well manage to hedge against his converted shares and hope to make back what was loaned + any profit. The share price is too low and funding agreement is too large."

The agreement calls for DNAP to issue common stock and warrants in exchange for the capital. There are a billion shares available. Even given the inevitable discount from market price, there are enough shares available to make back any money invested and more. The pps could drop significantly without impacting their safety net.

While this financing is not necessarily predatory in nature, predatory financing IS done in exactly this manner.

The 40% number is a conservative estimate. It is not necessarily accurate it could be low.

Do the math yourself. Take 8 million, divide it by a discounted pps, remember the pps was about .04 when the deal was announced, say .03 for example, gives 266 Million. Add in a percentage for the warrants package,how about another 50% or 133 Million, gives 400 Million. Assume an existing 600 Million OS and you have a 1 Billion OS and a 40% dilution.

You can quibble about any of the values but not enough to make a major difference.

regards,
frog

Don't worry dear, I am relaxed.

I bought in at .044 based on Keiden's optimism last week.

I got out today at .052.

Good Luck to you.

regards,
frog

Bottom Line - They'll get their money regardless! One way or another it is already in the bag. We just have to hope that they are as patient as we have been. If not....

It is dubious because the potential benefit comes at such a high cost and with a significant increase in risk.

The benefit is $8 million dollars.

The cost in share of the company is 40%. The present valuation of the company is about $30 million. 40% would have a street value of $12 million. (So we handed them $4 mil for the privilege)

The increase in risk is due to the possibility that the lender decides to bail at any time and take his money with him. Which he can do regardless of the company's progress. The result is the much ballyhoo'd 'death spiral'. While it is not necessarily inevitable it is now within the realm of possibility. It wasn't before.

That is dubious!

Bag8ger,

Of course it depends on the lender, it is his choice. He can chose to wait and see if the company can prosper, or he can chose to cash out in the short term.

The pertinent point however, is that HE holds all the cards from now on. Additionally, he CANNOT lose either way. His profit is guaranteed. He is risking NOTHING.

From now on the future of the DNAP investors is in the hands of both the management team and the lender. Unfortunately the investors have also forfeited almost half of their share in the company in exchange for this somewhat dubious benefit.

regards,
frog

Miss Scarlet,

Bag8ger has expressed his concern over very REAL possibilities. While it is to be hoped that such consequenses are not in the cards, the potential is there. COnvertible debenture financing is usually considered to be the last and most risky option available to the desperate.

See the following link;

http://www.stockpatrol.com/buyer/articles/deathspiral.html

regards,
frog

Bag8ger,

Are you suggesting that somebody got screwed about six months ago?
.
.
.
.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

worktoplay,

And with all due respect to your incredible ability to spin, when the article was originally researched the product was being marketed as 'Ancestry'. 'DNAWitness' is essentially a repackaged update of the same technology.

There was no Popular Science article in 2002 regarding 'Ancestry'. This is the one and only.

As I said previously, it is no surprise that they would try to update the article to maintain it's newsworthiness.

I will be more than happy to stand corrected, however, if Eyecolor is released by the end of the year. After all there is still six or seven weeks left. What's that...30 to 60 days?

frog

worktoplay, What are you smoking?

I never said they abandoned the test?

And you accuse me of not reading!

I said they abandoned the trademark. Thats a fact, you can look it up.

I said they fired the scientists. That's a fact, you can look it up.

I said they gave up on the innacurate self reporting DNA sample collection methods. Thats a fact, you can look it up.

Now stop trying to shred your credibility, and pay attention.

regards,
frog

w2p, I 'do' read many things. Including the postings of the respected contributors to the boards. (Sometimes I even read your stuff.)

The article was researched in 2002. See this link from mingwan0. (and try to keep up.)

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1721320

A minor update here and there before publication would be SOP.


regards,
frog

ifida,

It is always a pleasure.

I will assume from your post that you concur with my claims that 70% is not an accurate prediction for hair color.

thanks,
frog

w2p,

Although the popular science article was published this month, the research was done in 2002. It is oooolllddd news.

How old is it?

It is so old that when it was written, DNAP was still working on Retinome, before they abandoned the trademark, fired all the scientists, and gave up on 'self reporting' DNA samples.

Is the information still valid?

WHo knows, but DNAP has not let out a peep regarding the article, one would think that they would at least validate it with a 'mention'.

Why would they ignore such a potential PR coup?

Perhaps because the schedule and claims published in the article are no longer viable, and they need to maintain some plausible distance from them.

Ifida,

Yes, I am. my claim is that it is not possible to 'accurately' predict hair color from DNA analysis.

If you read the application you will see that DNAP claims the ability to predict dark hair 95% of the time and light hair 70%.

Think about that.

Outside of those populations with ancestral roots [no pun intended] in northern europe, 100% of the worlds population has dark hair. Throwing darts at a map of the world would provide similar 'dark hair' accuracy. For light hair 70% accuracy. Give me a break. A coin flip is almost that good.

Not going to convict a lot of criminals with that kind of accuracy are we?

Prosecutor; "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, intense DNAP analysis of a sample left at the crime scene suggests that the suspect has a 70% liklihood of having blonde hair. As you can see the suspect has blonde hair, this is obviously an open and shut case."

Defense; "Your honor, I object. The crime scene sample in question, was a human hair..... and it was brown. Who are these DNAP guys?"

regards,
frog

ps. I sure hope someone thoroughly 'proofed' that application, don't you?

goliath,

You have just posted an excellent example of why there exists such divisivness on these forums. If you will actually read my posts you will see that I have made no such claims. If you insist on deciding what a message says without actually reading it, and then posting a derisive response to your own uninformed ignorance we will never overcome the rifts that divide us.

A blind man can see with his cane that there are definite genetic indications for hair color. My argument suggests that there are also many 'other' factors involved. Since these factors are not necessarily genetic in nature, it follows that simple genetic analysis will not be completely accurate in predicting hair color.

If you have anything substantive to contribute to the discussion, it will be welcomed.

regards,
frog

mingwan0,

Telomere length is an 'indication' of age. Age does not have a genetic basis. A person has the exact same genetic makeup when they are born as when they age and die.

As anyone who has any familiarity with the science will tell you, telomere length is also subject to hormonal (read non genetic) influence. The agent telomerase has a marked effect on telomere length. Cancer cells are notorious for their ability to maintain long telomeres via telomerase production regardless of the patients age.

Further DNAP has never claimed to be able to determine telomere length based on snp analysis. It is not clear that such an approach is viable.

While it is possible to stretch the imagination to suggest that such technology may someday be possible, it will probably not be within the realm of DNAP's expertise. If you have to imagine future technologies in order to make the program viable, it is probably not a good idea to announce a fixed schedule. Future technologies are notoriously elusive.

regards,
frog

mingwan0,

First let me say it is a pleasure to converse with you as you seem to be devoid of the rancor that seems to permeate this arena whenever uncomfortable topics arise.

I appreciate your prediction that DNAP will be able to predict hair color from an anonymous sample and I respect your reasoning. You state;

"...It is not clear how many of the additional factors are genetic in basis.."

It is my contention that some of those factors are specifically 'not' genetic in basis. Age, for example is not. Given such unknown factors it will be very difficult to arrive at acceptable levels of accuracy.

It is obvious that this is as close as we will get to agreement and we must therefore agree to disagree.

Thank you also for uncovering the information from 2002 that mentions the Popular Science article. It confirms my previous post that suggested that this was dated material that was perhaps no longer pertinent. As the Retinome project has dropped of the radar screen and the company has made no effort to promote the article it would seem that they are lying low on this topic.

Previous mentions in the media have elicited PR's from the company touting the upcoming reports. Since there has been no confirmation from the company it would seem that they are allowing some distance between them and the information in the article.

We will see if there is any follow up this week. If there is none we might prepare ourselves for the possibility that the predictions for eye color by the end of the year might not still be viable.

regards,
frog

mingwan0,

I appreciate your valued response. The point that I was trying to make with the 'disconnect' phraseing is that there is not a direct causal linkage between hair color and genetic makeup.

Your response further confirms that premise when you indicate that such other factors have an impact.... [aging, pathological reasons, biochemical reasons, minerals, chemicals, trace elements, drugs, heterochromia, etc (not to mention shaving].

My contention is that it will be impossible for the basic DNAP technology, of perusing anonymous DNA samples for representative SNP patterns, to ever come up with a direct and accurate prediction of hair color. Many other factors must be assessed and included in the final analysis. Such assessments and analysis is not a part of DNAP's expertise.

best regards,
frog

p.s. Since you included mouse studies in your response I am whimsically including the following link. Although it is probably irrelevant, it shows that the connection between DNA and pigmentation is not as direct as we seem to think it is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/21/tech/main537380.shtml

jcryan19,

Every scrap of information is valuable in the forensic arena. Even a hint at hair color is a valuable clue. For that matter the existing Ancestry product is very valuable, given the inherent characteristics shared by people from the larger regions of the planet much can be surmised regarding hair color. Sub-Saharan africa denotes black, non straight hair. Asia, Pacific and Amerindian infer black straight hair. Indo European is the only area with no specific determinants.

Forensic scientists will of course be able to ascertain the relative age of the remains and perhaps will then have enough information to estimate hair color, but it will be a composite of various information 'not' a DNAP solution.

On a different tack, when was this article researched? iIt seems to be somewhat dated. These are claims made by DNAP from some time ago and do not seem to reflect the present state of the company.

The Retinome project has quietly dropped off the radar lately along with the resources involved. (Indian scientists.)

Given that there was no accompanying PR from the company announcing the article and no corresponding bump in the pps, one might wonder if DNAP is subtly downplaying the claims made. There are less than two months left in the year and there is no indication that Retinome is approaching release.

regards,
frog

ifida, I agree with your analogy.

The earth 'is' round, no matter what people tell you. In other words, facts eventually overcome belief. It doesn't matter what you 'want' to believe nor how much you 'want' to believe it, belief can not stand up to reality.

One of the more conscious members of this board 'saeternes' posted that the test would most probably be used on adults and therefore the hair color changes expressed in children would not have an effect. Excellent reply. Someone is actually thinking, not just blathering.

However, a forensic product will not be used strictly on criminals. Unfortunately it is more often used on victims and in some cases very small remains of victims. Victims come in all ages.

regards,
frog

bag8ger, - Excellent and well thought out response, you do yourself proud.

frog

ifida,

Thank you for granting me the right to hold an opinion, that is more than most permit here. However, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my post.

I did not express an opinion, I shared a set of 'facts' that are undisputable. You can ignore them at your leisure, (I grant you that right).

It is a fact that individuals with only one set of genes have, at different times in their life, completely different hair color. This is a well documented condition that everyone who is paying attention has witnessed. You don't even need to be a molecular biologist, or graduate at the top of your class, to understand this.

Given this obvious 'disconnect' between actual hair color and genetic makeup, it is clearly impossible to come to a specific conclusion regarding hair color using only genetic information.

That is NOT an opinion. It is a logical truth.

I appreciate your civil, albeit somewhat condescending, response.

regards,
frog

You quoted from the article;


"Tony says, eye color ready for market by the end of 2003. "After that, give us a year for hair color"

Magazine comments on how the hair color is a particularly bold boast, since not much is known about hair colors markers beyond one associated with red hair."

This is a fairly disturbing and unprofessional boast, as it is very unlikely that hair color can be predicted solely based on genetic analysis. While hair color obviously has a genetic basis, there are many other factors that influence it. One only has to watch the full spectrum color hair color change in many children as they grow up to see that other factors are at work.

My daughter had sunshine blonde hair for most of her childhood turning to very dark brown in high school. My nephew had almost white hair as a child but has brown hair now. In both cases it is fair to assume that their genomic makeup did not change as they aged.:).

While DNAP may at some time be able to predict very coarse hair color possibilities, without having additional age and hormonal information they will never obtain useful results.

regards,
frog

ifida...Anything that will add to the information that they have is worth doing.

I am not sure that an Ancestry test is possible due to the limited number of markers available. CODIS requires a minimum of 10, and there are only 9 in the sample. Ancestry requires significantly more than CODIS, although they are different markers entirely. Since there are a limited number of CODIS markers in the sample it is obviously a degraded and incomplete sample. It is reasonable to assume that the same limitation will apply to the Ancestry markers.

frog

ifida - I think you are reading more into the text than is actually there.

male DNA - Just means that it has an x chromasome, no high tech analysis necessary.

"the alien DNA may have come from a worker at the Asian factory that made JonBenet's panties."

The gist of the statement is that the 'alien' DNA could have come from anywhere and could be of an innocent origin.

It is doubful that an investigation that will not even apply the standard methodologies availabe, (CODIS) would instead go on to even more esoteric methods, regardless of their efficacy.

JMO

frog

You are being "played" like a drum!

JMHO

Do they get assigned when they are issued? Or will Tony be the assignee?

Why isn't the DNAPrint trademark held by DNAP? Did the company not exist when the application was made?

What you coudn't do, is get Tony's mail forwarded to you in order for you to reply!

You may be reaching too far. The address that was on the reply was NOT Dnaprint it was '@verizon'.

All that he needs is to have his mail forwarded to his new address, that is a courtesy advanced to any ex-employee that did not have to be escorted to the door.

w2p That was last April.

Evidently soon after his promotion, Punniswamy is said to have returned to India in May.

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=273807

regards,
frog

07up - You must be very careful who you listen to and who's advice you take. You ask if SlopsterSlasher and tdiamonds are credible when they announce upcoming news. The truth is, only they know their own motives.

In order to assess each's credibility you must pay attention to their posts and their history.

tdiamonds is openly and unabashedly a trader, he has made no bones about his intersets. He uses the same alias on both this board and RB and he is easily recognizable in both places.

SlopsterSlasher on the other hand has a different past. He has admitted to being the reincarnation of a multialias entity from the RB board known as 'hopeful107'hopeful carries the dubious distinction of being removed from the RB board for his antics. If you have followed the comparative careers of some of the aliases here and on RB you can see how significant that accomplishment is. He has professed to be a changed being, and has so far not run far enough afoul of the regulators to be in any danger of removal here yet. His present motives are still fairly unclear.

You must make your own decisions and you must take each's advice according to whatever degree of credibility you are willing to assign them. They both have their own private motives.

And before you get too comfortable with this advice don't forget that I myself have a varying degree of credibility among the various camps here.

Good Luck

frog

The majority of the contributors to this board are currently suffering through a difficult ordeal. With luck it will only be temporary and hopefully it will also be shortlived.

As we work out way through hard times it is a good idea to try to learn from the experiences. If learning from bad times helps us to avoid them in the future, then we can turn even pitfalls into strengths.

How does the saying go? Good judgement comes from experience, unfortunately, experience comes from bad judgement.

In order to learn from our experiences it is imperative that we understand them thoroughly. Gaining such an understanding requires the assimilation of all of the viewpoints and understanding available regarding the experience, and carefully winnowing out the essential thread from each one and weaving those threads into a coherent tapestry. To continue the analogy, it requires both warp and woof threads for a fabric to be complete.

It is therefore necessary to include all of those viewpoints into the discussion. The arbitrary elimination of voices based on emotional criteria is couterproductive to the understanding of the experience. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

The suspension of members from this board based solely on their failure to toe the line, will never be an acceptable practice if we are all to benefit from the collective wisdome available here.

best regards,
frog

Timing ?

Excellent bag8ger - And what, pray tell, is the difference between scanning and sequencing?

Our loyal readers are confused.

07up - No DNAP does not want to hear about this. It is irrelevant. DNAP can no more provide a $1000 genome than you can.

They never could, and according to no greater an authority than W2P they never claimed they could. It was all a big misunderstanding.

It is also not their fault that many investors misunderstood the meaning of their remarks, and it is not therefore their responsibility to correct these misconceptions.

Although since the announcement of their ability to do 'something' related to the genome for $1000.00 fell on deaf ears in the biotech community they have been very quiet regarding the claim ever since.

regards,
frog