This is CLOSE but not quite accurate.

There is ONE, and only ONE, committee which governs UPCs. A product manufacturer... and in this case, DNA counts a product manufacturer in spite of the co-packer... must register THE COMPANY with the governing committee. The manufacturer is then given a manufacturer code which is a partial UPC. The manufacturer code is used as the beginning of every UPC which the company uses.

A block of UPCs (usually 10,000) are also reserved for the company's usage. Those are the digits used to complete UPCs and those digits come after the manufacturer code.

The company determines how their reserved block of UPCs will be assigned to their products.

Once the company has assigned a UPC to a product, the company must register the "product description/UPC" with the committee's central database so that retail stores everywhere will know what the product is when their scanners see the relevant UPC.

Whether or not DNA has registered the company with the UPC committee and whether or not DNA has registered any products with the UPC committee are still two open questions. Sling dude found a third party vendor of UPC databases instead of the web site for the governing committee. The changes that new changes to the central database has propagated on the same day to third party UPC databases is between slim and zero.

Someone... and I am busy so I am not going to do it... is going to have find the actual web site of the actual UPC governing committee and then look THERE for any sign of DNA. Anything else is a waste of time.

Has anyone figured out if nut has actually turned against DNA or if this is just his be attempt at sarcasm?

I guess that would depend upon what information Adrian's "mouth" wished to publicly share.

I understand that. A business just has to register their company with the central UPC clearinghouse.

When the business is registered, the company is given a block of UPCs reserved for their usage.

When the business decides they want to use a particular UPC for a particular product, they register that product/UPC combination with the UPC clearinghouse so that all retail establishments will know about the new UPC.

The clearinghouse's UPC database is used to update all retail UPC databases everywhere.

I just wanted to point out that the central clearinghouse's UPC database is searchable from their web site. Therefore, if DNA has actually registered new product UPCs for the energy drinks, it should be possible to find those UPC registrations right now.

I suggest that another tip regarding effective writing of PRs is: "Do not use a device with auto correct to write a PR."

Failure to obey this tip is the only logical explanation for why Adrian felt investors would wish to know that DNA was in possession of the "energy drink receipts" when contextually it would only have made sense to state that DNA was in possession of the energy drink recipes.

Logic would suggest that such information has not yet been released by the company because those events have not yet occurred.

Are you really having that much trouble accurately following the discussion, or are you just trying to be difficult? : )

Obviously, Adrian has the recipes, and obviously, Adrian has to give a copy of the recipes to the chosen co-packer so that the co-packer will know what to produce.

So, did you use the UPC web site to look up DNA, because you should be able to do just that?

DNA paid the fee to renew it's ability to reserve a block of UPC codes for its products.

Those UPC codes must appear on the cans, so Adrian forwarded them to the design studio. Hopefully, they are changing very little else of the design of the artwork.

What contract are you thinking must be in place? Who would have that contract with DNA?

I am rather disappointed that Adrian is spending cash to redesign the artwork on the cans. The 2013 designs look just fine and were barely used before production stopped. This, of course, is just my opinion. Adrian is the guy running the show so...

Adrian should realize that he is the one who brought on all of the discussion theorized that DNA somehow did not have the energy drink recipes when he talked about reformulating the drinks.

Why would he need to reformulate what was already created?

This probably was simply a careless choice of words rather than an actual intent to suggest anything was missing.

Of course, you will note that Adrian failed to proofread today's PR before he sent it out. As you can see from the RED word from his quote, DNA has possession of all of the drink receipts, but the PR says nothing about the drink recipes!

For shear entertainment value, you can't beat the DNA story. Hollywood writers could not make this stuff up!

No... I said that independent bottlers for Coke don't make product from scratch so they will not need possession of the recipe for Coke. Instead, the bottlers start with syrup supplied by Coke.

I fully expect that the co-packer used to produce DNA will have the recipes for the energy drinks and will start from scratch. DNA has never had the capability to produce syrup.

Coca Cola closely protects their drink formulas. The independent bottlers don't make Coke from scratch. They combine syrup provided by Coke with carbonated water and put the result into cans and bottles.

My post wasn't about an angry shareholder. There are always some shareholders who are angry. My post was about a shareholder publicly posted what amounts to threats of bodily harm. Unless I am mistaken, when such threats are made using a public utility, it is a Federal felony. This is VERY not a good thing.

1) I wonder if you realize that iHub knows your IP address and law enforcement can use that to have your ISP tell the police exactly who you are and where you are located.

2) Even implying threats to the CEO is beyond wreckless. It will not get your money back, and unlike making threats using the Internet, selling corporate stock is not a criminal offense.

3) If you provoke Adrian enough, what you will likely most do is cause him to decide to just reverse split the current shareholders out of existence so he can deal with new investors who are not threatening him with bodily harm.

Just because you own something, that doesn't mean you will never have to pay someone else to use it. Haven't you ever had your car towed away and then had to pay the towing company to get your car off their lot? Same sorta deal... only Parkside is not the scum-sucking pond bottom dweller like the towing company. Parkside is the reliable keeper of the master copy of the recipes when the previous management could not be trusted to provide the correct recipes. Requiring a fee for reliable maintenance of data is a completely reasonable thing to do.

No, I figure Adrian just has to pay Parkside to reveal it's contents.

I can guarantee you that Parkside Beverage is run like any other scientific business, and their drink formulation scientists keep detailed notes of every step they make.

Those notebooks are company property and are guarded in safe places.

So, Parkside has the drink recipes.

What is more likely when Adrian says that he needs to reformulate the recipes is that he was not given the actual recipes when he acquired the business, but instead was told that he would find the recipes at Parkside.

Even if Adrian did get the recipes from Mel and company, how willing would you be, as an incoming CEO, to completely bet the farm on a piece of paper that you obtained from the disorganization of an outgoing management team, especially when the company crumbled around them, and was known to have been sabotaged from within? For all anyone knows, Eric Fowler substituted DNA's master copy of the drink recipes with something that would taste truly horrible, and that particular part of his plan to destroy the company never got activated.

To cover themselves from the risk of liability, Parkside probably told Adrian that they would only give him new copies of the recipes if they first made a small batch of each flavor so that he could verify that the recipes that he wanted are what he is actually getting. Otherwise, there is the remote possibility that Parkside could provide the wrong recipes, and Adrian could run to the co-packer with the wrong recipes. Of course, the co-packer just produces what they told to produce; they will not taste it and think, "That doesn't taste like DNA."

Parkside is not going to do any of this work for free.

Last year, Adrian supposedly obtained samples of all of the drinks from Parkside, but maybe it costs more than he had at the time to actually recover the recipes from Parkside.

Why would a financier purchase stock at market price so that they could sell it at the same price?

Would YOU buy more DNAX at $0.0001 so you could sell it at $0.0001?

Of course not. There is no upside and there is only risk that you would not be able to unload it.

So, you would only purchase the stock BELOW market price.

That means that DNA/Adrian would not receive $200,000 for two billion shares. Instead, it would be about $100,000 for two billion shares.

Why would you think that a prospective creditor would have given cash to DNA without first insuring that they would definitely receive something of value?

There was no old debt from the days before Adrian that did not already have stock provided to those creditors long before Adrian took over.

That is to say that old debt was paid using the first six billion shares issued by the company before Adrian took over.

If those old creditors have been selling their stock over the past year, and that is the source of all of the large volume days, then what that means is that there is another 6.5+ billion shares of stock which new creditors have not yet sold into the market.

After all, at the RedChip conference, Adrian stated clearly that the O/S had expanded to 12.5 billion.

Old debt = 6 billion before Adrian
New debt = 6.5 billion since Adrian took over
Total O/S = 12.5 billion at time of RedChip conference

So, per the "only stock from old debt being sold into market" theory, we will see another 6.5 billion minimum hit the market soon enough.

Based on that theory, there should be plenty of 1's go around to all buyers who want them.

As I have been explaining for months:

1) Adrian does not directly sell new shares into the market... and neither does DNA Brands, Inc. DNA sells financiers and they sell to the market.

2) Financiers do not risk their cash so they can have a change at selling for even money. Adrian has been selling shares to financiers below market price since day 1. That is the only way financiers can make a profit.

3) Trades occurring below $0.0001 represent trades between market makers and other non retail entities. Even Adrian (or more correctly, DNA) cannot sell on the open market below $0.0001. When DNA sells below $0.0001 to financiers, DNA has its transfer agent issue a paper stock certificate for the desired number of shares, and the financier figures out how to get their broker to accept the certificate so it can be added as electronic shares into their brokerage account.

All trades below $0.0001 are NOT retail trades. Market makers and other non-retail entities swap shares on six digits after the decimal instead of the four digits which restrict us retail traders.

You are seeing zero on some of your Web display pages because they are not properly configured to display six digits of accuracy after the decimal point. Therefore, those web pages erroneously round to zero.

Nope... those investors will just be swapped out for other investors. Adrian is not buying shares from people who want to walk away; someone else is buying those shares.

Cellular Citrus is orange flavored, not lemon lime flavored.

If you don't want to believe a know-it-all who actually has drank many cans of DNA, you can go to YouTube and search for "DNA energy" and you find at least SEVEN (maybe more) reviews of other people drinking DNA energy drinks.

How would it all go away? What scenario allows that to occur?

The best case is that this is not a scam, but that Adrian could have made better, more decisive, more effective choices, but did not. How would that best case "make this all go away"?

The very best possible case scenario for the last year is that Adrian made several mistakes, was distracted by false possibilities, did not for a viable plan and then execute it, and that almost all of this is directly due to his inexperience and need to climb a learning curve.

Here is the very worst part: if what I just said about the best case scenario is accurate, most of Adrian's supporters to this point. rather than understanding and accepting reality, are going to turn against him and walk away. No one will absorb the additional shares that he needs to issue to raise funds and volume will drop. All of this will result in Adrian having no other card to play by a reverse split.

If that happens, it will be as much the fault of the shareholders as Adrian. If the shareholders had gotten realistic about what was possible, instead of having illusions about a ticker with over SIX BILLION (to start) shares having a run "to the moon," we all would have understood that this was always going to be a long term deal where hype was going to be insufficient to make anything run but the mouths of iHub posters.

No... I thought the sugar free citrus had an aftertaste common of artificial non-sugar sweeteners. I tend not to like any sugar-free drink for the same reason.There can't be pallets of circa 2014 energy drink left. Where would they have stored it all this time? Obviously, the old headquarters was abandoned well over a year ago when Mel declared the company to be dormant.

Sigh... DNA under Mel did not lose their distribution agreements because of the Coke thing with Fowler. They lost their distribution agreements because they pulled the pin on liquidating almost all of their remaining inventory to Big Lots... supposedly before it over-aged.

I suspect that part of that was that the inventory already delivered to the various distributors was not moving fast enough for the distributors to be asking for new supplies anytime soon. That, of course, would be because products without advertising don't move well.

Lemon lime flavor is labeled on the cans as "Original" flavor.

I've heard of things like that in other states. Such things are not allowed here for unsecured debt. I am not sure what the rules are in Colorado where DNA Brands, Inc. is incorporated.

However, I do know that a bankruptcy filing would wipe out those creditors without problem because there is no revenue. Therefore, by definition, the company is legitimately bankrupt, and Adrian didn't incur any of the $1+ million debt.

I am not encouraging a bankruptcy filing, but the fact that such as filing could be executed gives Adrian plenty of leverage with creditors to ensure patience until revenue can be restored.

1) A shell is not worthless. The mere existence of the business structure has value.

2) A corporation can default on its debt if unsecured. A corporation can eliminate secured debt with a bankruptcy filing. Neither of these cases matter for financiers because they would have already been paid with stock so that was not the nature of the debt.

3) A public shell can be used to sell more new shares, so it has value that way.

4) It appears that it did not cost Adrian anything to acquire the corporation because the Series G preferred stock was created to legitimize the debt owed to the previous owners of the Series F preferred control block. The corporation will ultimately pay off the "loan," not Adrian. If the company ever makes enough to pay back the debt, it will be handled by provided Adrian with enough compensation to purchase the Series G debt, thus zeroing it.

5) There are the energy drink recipes, which do have value. One way or another, it is pretty likely Adrian will exploit them somehow besides as a lure to sell shares.

No... this could easily be a hoax in the sense that drink companies win if they pay enough.

They might even literally have to outbid the competition to win top honors.

However, it makes no sense that DNA was behind this website. DNA took top honors in 2010 and 2012, and it appears they did not enter any other year. Yet, there were still winners selected in 2014. Why would there still be winners selected in years when DNA was not involved?

Why would someone have repayment of debt as a priority when the company has a product line available which could generate revenue?

That is just silly.

You tell those holding corporate debt to get in line with everyone else and you produce product to produce revenue as your first, top and only priority.

There appears to be some confusion about what dilution means.

Let's say there is a corporation which has $100 in a bank account, has no other assets and zero liabilities.

Let's say that corporation sells 100 shares of stock in the company.

In that case, the book value of the company is $100, and therefore the book value of each share of stock is one dollar. That is because when you divide the book value of the company ($100) by the total shares outstanding (100), you end up with a value of $1/share.

Note that market value, which is the price which shares currently trade, and book value, can be different. Although, in this example, the value of the company is static($100), the price which shares are traded might vary due to perception of the future value. So, maybe the market value for the stock varies on different days between 95 cents per share and $1.05/share. The book value of the stock is still one dollar throughout that time because the book value of the company did not change and the number of shares outstanding did not change.

If shareholder A has 5 shares of the company stock, and sells 4 of them to shareholder B, the number of shares outstanding did not change and is still 100 shares. Therefore, the transaction did not dilute the value of the shares. The book value of the corporation is still $100, and the number of outstanding shares is still 100 shares.

On the other hand, if the company issues 100 new shares of stock, there is dilution.

The total number of shares has been doubled to 200 shares. However, the book value of the corporation is still $100. This makes the new book value of each share to be 50 cents. The market value will likely decrease immediately to adjust to this new reality.

This example might what it would be like if the corporation decided to grant shares to its employees as part of their compensation. Because there was nothing gained by the corporation which added to the book value of the corporation, the dilution was total.

If the corporation sells 100 new shares at book value, it gains $100 for the new shares. If the corporation puts that newly acquired $100 into the bank account, the book value of the corporation is now $200. There are now 200 total shares outstanding. This means the book value of one share of stock remains one dollar, and the sale of new shares was not dilutive.

In the case of a company selling shares, the typical case for subpenny companies is that they have to sell new shares to financiers at a level significantly below market value. This mitigates the risk for the financier so they have a high probability of recovering their initial investment AND making a profit.

In that example, the company would sell 100 new shares to the financier for $50. The corporation puts the $50 in their bank account. This raises the book value of the corporation to $150. Because there are now 200 total shares outstanding, the book value of each share of stock is 75 cents ($150 book value divided by 200 total shares outstanding = $0.75).

This clearly represents dilution of value for the owners of the 100 original shares.

It is this dilution of book value of shares which exist before new shares are sold to financiers which prompts the term "toxic financiers." The transaction is toxic to the book value of the shares that existed before the transaction to sell new shares.

Toxic financing is always dilutive but unfortunately, corporations with stock prices unlikely to somehow increase sharply can only acquire financing through toxic financing.

Often, this financing is done in the former of convertible debentures (aka: CD). A CD is issued as a loan with a time limit. The time limit is short, and both parties are aware that there never was any intention of repaying the loan.

When the time limit has expired, the loan is in default, and the penalty for default of the loan is that the financier is given shares of corporate stock equal to the value of the loan PLUS a penalty. The penalty is equal to the value of the desired discount. In most cases, the penalty is equivalent to the value of the loan, and the toxic financier therefore receives 2 shares for the value of every 1 share which was loaned.

These new shares are restricted by Rule 144 so that they cannot be sold for 12 months, except that they are not. The financier will have a lawyer who will write an opinion letter that cites some exemption from the Rule 144 delay. As long as the transfer agent will accept the exemption (and they always do), the transfer agent will convert the restricted shares to unrestricted shares. The toxic financier will therefore sell the shares immediately.

As long as the transfer agent accepted the cited exemption to Rule 144, none of the regulatory agencies are going to look at the claimed exemption to determine actual validity simply because the regulatory agencies don't want to look.

This is how over 3 billion shares of DNAX suddenly came out of nowhere last week to be sold in two days, and this is how all subpenny stocks are used to raise money for their corporations.

In a nutshell, the sale of existing shares of stock is NOT a dilutive exercise. Only selling of new shares of stock which do not maintain market value of the company are dilutive, and that is basically guaranteed when the stock is a $0.0001 stock that has no probability of supporting the sale of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of shares of stock at any higher price point. You cannot generally sell your shares purchased at $0.0001 at higher prices for profit. Why would a financier purchase new shares under the same conditions with no probability of profit?

The answer is that they will not.

They purchase at a price below current market value so that they still make a profit when they sell at market value.

Click on "Settings" in the upper right corner of the web page.

Then, click on "My Pictures".

You should see where you can upload from there.

Once you have uploaded a picture or graphic, you will see it listed with the link to include in your post to attach it to that post.

Nope... When Adrian took over control in February of 2016, the A/S was 6 billion, and the O/S was nearly maxed (about 5.99 billion).

So, even using Adrian's last figure for the O/S (12.5 billion), which is now about 3 billion shares short, he more than doubled the O/S.

9.5 billion shares @ $0.0001 is $950,000.

However, Adrian likely sold those shares at a 50% discount to the financiers who bought them. So, Adrian probably only got $475,000 for the dilution.

Nope... I-95 is roughly 9,000 feet east of the new DNA headquarters.

Even assuming there were no line of sight obstructions, which is an incorrect assumption, no one is going to see a 4 foot by 8 foot sign at 60mph from 9,000 feet away.

The UPS mail drop.has a unit number. The new DNA headquarters does not.

Suite 404? I think you might have the wrong address.

The eight million dollars is from the Series G preferred shares. Go look up the amendment to Articles of Incorporation that occurred to create those shares back in February of 2016 right when Adrian took control of the company. It is an interesting document.

Adrian has filed on a more or less timely basis the reports that OTC Markets requires.

He seems also to have been relatively straight about the O/S.

If DNA opted to re-register with the SEC, it would be necessary to have DNA's finances audited according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which is both not inexpensive and a somewhat stupid exercise for a business which has no revenue.