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.
Theo,
Form 4 is the same as Form ss-4, yes, no. - If so see in BOLD.
Form SS-4 Defined
Application for Employer Identification Number
Purpose of Form
Use Form SS-4 to apply for an employer identification number (EIN). An EIN is a nine-digit number assigned to sole proprietors, corporations, partnerships, estates, trusts, and other entities for filing and reporting purposes.
Who Must File
You must file Form SS-4 if you have not obtained an EIN before and:
(1) you pay wages to one or more employees,
(2) you are required to have an EIN to use on any return, statement, or other document even if you are not an employer,
(3) you are a withholding agent required to withhold taxes on income, other than wages, paid to a nonresident alien, or
(4) you file Schedule C (Profit or Loss From Business) or Schedule F (Profit or Loss From Farming) of Form 1040 (US Individual Income Tax Return) and you have a Keogh plan or are required to file excise, employment, or alcohol, tobacco, or firearms returns.
The following entities must have EINs even if they do not have any employees:
(1) trusts, except certain grantor owned revocable trusts and IRA trusts,
(2) estates,
(3) partnerships,
(4) real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs),
(5) corporations,
(6) nonprofit organizations,
(7) farmer's' cooperatives, and
(8) plan administrators.
When to Apply
If you become the new owner of an existing business, do not use the EIN of the previous owner. If you already have an EIN, use that number. If you do not have an EIN, apply for one on Form SS-4. If you become the owner of a corporation by acquiring all of its stock, use the corporation's EIN.
If you already have an EIN, you may need to get a new one if either the organization or ownership of your business changes. If you incorporate a sole proprietorship or form a partnership, you must get a new EIN. Do not apply for a new EIN if you change only the name of your business.
File only one Form SS-4 regardless of the number of businesses operated or trade names under which a single business operates. File a separate Form SS-4 for each corporation in an affiliated group.
goalydad1,
I think I will call you frome now on RICHgoalydad1 I rather like the sound of it. RrrrrrrrrRichgoalydad1 yes Sir I like it very much.LOL
Hay ! Lets play a game. Do you know who this is ? You should ! -During ************* 30+ years of service to both the pharmaceutical industry as well as government agencies such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Health Institute (NIH), the U.S. Army and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), we have had the opportunity to be a part of the research and development of thousands of new chemical entities. Our collaboration with these companies has allowed us to develop expertise in a wide range of therapeutic areas and chemistries.
Were stealing personal {BIG HITTERS} from other Comp. LOL. I Love it. They are all jumping Ship to come on board DNAP. Who the hell wants to miss the boat on this one.You spend your whole life as a research scientist trying to get some where and going no-where and then BANG the door starts to open for you with another comp. that offers you and the investors the MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and off you go. Dnap will go down in the history books !!! What you dont want to be a part of the world of discoverie a part of History ? More and more BIG hitters will be teaming up with Dnap their packing their bags at IBM.
If you think we not getting orders from Australia after the Louisiana serial killings News, well I say think again.
Here in Australia the police forces are divided. Sounds like more than one. !!! $$$$
Forensic Science Feature: From The Textbooks To The Courts
13-08-2002 - By Melissa Trudinger, Australian Biotechnology News, Melbourne
While forensic scientists used to use blood typing and other methods to identify crime suspects, DNA identification and profiling is now the method of choice.
Since its first use in an Australian court in 1989, the technology has moved from the controversial to the mainstream, although controversy still rages around the issue of creating databases of DNA profiles for criminal identification.
"It came from the textbooks to the courts in just a few years," says Prof Claude Roux, head of the Forensic Science program at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). DNA profiling these days is a PCR-based technique that uses highly variable regions known as short tandem repeats (STRs) to construct a profile of an individual's DNA. Although there are several combinations of STRs used, Australia's forensic community uses Applied Biosystems' AmpFLSTR Profiler Plus PCR amplification kit, which contains nine STRs plus Amelogenin, a marker found in slightly different versions on both the X and Y chromosome used to determine gender.
Other countries use similar systems, with a variety of kits available from Applied Biosystems and Promega, the two major suppliers of DNA profiling and genetic identity testing technology. The technique is sensitive enough to discriminate between any two individuals in Australia except identical twins, says Dr Roland van Oorschot, forensic scientist and manager of R&D at the Victorian Forensic Science Centre (VFSC). The possibility of two profiles matching is usually one in multiple billions. "It obviously has become more important evidence, the likelihood of two samples being the same," van Oorschot says. He notes that most of the time, DNA is used to exclude suspects.
Another technique used occasionally, particularly when very degraded DNA is present, is mitochondrial DNA typing, where a variable region of mitochondrial DNA is examined. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally and there may be thousands of copies in a single cell. This method is primarily used for missing persons and to identify unknown remains. But van Oorschot says that there are new methods on the horizon taking advantage of the flood of information and new technology coming from genomics research, such as the use of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), microarrays and robotics.
"SNPs might be beneficial in certain applications in forensics, for example when DNA is very degraded," he says. But van Oorschot concedes that the standardised use of the STR-based Profiler Plus system for the national DNA database might hold back the implementation of new SNP technology for criminal identification.
Physical picture
However, linking criminals to evidence is not the only way that new DNA technology can be used. SNPs might become relevant in other parts of the investigative process, such as building up a physical picture of the suspect based on their genes.
Phenotyping is a hot topic in forensic science circles, and that's not surprising. In a case where the only evidence left behind by a perpetrator is a trace of DNA, the ability to describe the suspect, at least in terms of hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, and even characteristics like a strong jaw or a cleft chin would provide the police with another way to identify potential suspects in the absence of an eyewitness, although it is unlikely to be used as evidence in court.
The UK's Forensic Science Service is investing heavily in research on phenotyping and has already come up with tests for mutations in the gene that is responsible for red hair in its recessive form. And DNAPrint, a company in Florida in the USA, has developed a test for determining eye colour, and is now working on hair colour as well. "That will be an important advance, limiting testing of suspects to the most likely," says Dr Paul Roffey, a forensic scientist based at Charles Sturt University in NSW, who has done some research in the area in the past. He speculates that forensic scientists will even be able to estimate approximate age via the length of the telomeres.
But it is likely to be a while before phenotyping is used in forensic science routinely. "These things need to be researched very thoroughly and implemented very carefully," warns Simon Walsh, a forensics PhD student at UTS. "Because of the nature of forensic science it lags behind the cutting edge."
According to van Oorschot, one area where Australia is at the forefront is in collecting and typing trace amounts of DNA. Although 1 nanogram is the standard amount required for DNA profiling, he claims that profiles can be obtained using significantly less.
While blood, saliva and semen are still the main sources of DNA for forensic testing, trace amounts of DNA can now be obtained from touched objects, such as the handle of a weapon, the steering wheel of a stolen car and the inside of a glove, van Oorschot explains.
The big drawback with many forensic techniques, including DNA testing, is the need for a lab in which to do the testing. One subject that gets many forensic scientists excited is the prospect of miniaturisation and portability of testing equipment.
"There's a lot of emphasis on miniaturisation and taking the lab to the field," says Alistair Ross, Director of the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS). He says that microfluidics and lab-on-a-chip technology are sparking interest among forensic scientists. "There will be a shift of analysis out of the lab and into the field. The crime scene officer will be able to get information on possible suspects at the scene," says Roffey.
Abalone application
Human DNA is not the only DNA of interest in forensics. Roffey is developing DNA tests that can discriminate and identify DNA from a wide range of species. His major focus is on abalone, which is a poaching target in Australian waters, but Roffey says that there is a wide range of applications for tests like these. "The tests I'm developing don't just work on abalone, they work on species from humans down to flies and slugs," he explains.
But research funds for forensic science are difficult to come by. NIFS coordinates education, training research and information exchange for forensics organisations around Australia, but its current research budget is only around $100,000 per year, not nearly enough to support an innovative research program. The funding that comes in for forensic research from other funding bodies like the Australian Research Council is also low and must compete with all other fields of science.
NIFS' Alistair Ross would like to see more research to enhance forensic science capabilities in Australia. Last year his organisation put together an innovation strategy, seeking a $4-5 million annual operating budget from the government.
"One of the reasons we thought it was time to develop a national strategy for research is that there are now 18 universities in Australia offering forensics units," explains Ross.
Among the many programs available are strong programs at the University of Technology in Sydney, Deakin University and the University of Western Australia, all offering degrees in forensic science.
Bogged in casework
Most Australian forensic research is performed by Honours, Masters and PhD students in programs like these, says Ross, partly because forensic scientists are so bogged with casework they don't have time to do research as well. According to Ross, the proposed Forensic Science Innovation Strategy suggests a decentralised national centre for research with nodes in every state, similar to a CRC, but with broader focus and more for the public good than for commercial benefit.
NIFS' strategy would encompass three directions of research, including adoption of forensic technology for use in Australia, extending research from mainstream science to use in forensic science and developing innovative solutions to forensic problems. "Unfortunately in Australia we don't have a lot of research in the forensic area in biotechnology," Ross says.
Questions over DNA databases
The development of national databases for DNA profiles is a controversial topic. In Australia, each state has its own database, and the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database is in the process of being set up under the auspices of CrimTrac.
The first national DNA database was set up in the United Kingdom in 1995, and now holds DNA profiles from over one million suspects and convicted criminals.
According to the Forensic Science Service, 100,000 crime scene samples have been matched to suspects and over 10,000 crime scene samples have been linked to other crime scenes using the database.
New Zealand and the US also have national DNA profiling databases in place. Simon Walsh, a PhD student at the University of Technology in Sydney, is studying the effectiveness of DNA profiling on criminal justice outcomes. "New legislation has given the police much greater powers to take samples for testing. This has all happened without anyone looking at an empirical analysis of how successful DNA profiling has been," he says.
Walsh hopes to develop a predictive mathematical model of the DNA profiling system. He believes that it is important that it comes from the forensic community. "Politicians, forensic scientists and police tend to be advocates of DNA profiling but tend to use anecdotal evidence if how well it works. If we are able to successfully model it, we will get some data to contribute to the debate," he said.
"Personally I think it's a fantastic piece of technology with respect to the criminal justice system, but it needs to be used judiciously."
The Australian Law Reform Commission has been studying the issue of genetic privacy, and the protection of human genetic information and is due to release a discussion paper later this month, which will include a section on DNA profiling and law enforcement. Although details of the discussion paper are not yet available, some of the questions considered in the inquiry include issues of consent, how long samples should be stored and how they should be analysed, destruction and de-identification of samples and profiles, and sharing of information between jurisdictions as well as the possible need for independent oversight of the database.
There have also been a number of other inquiries into the issue of DNA profiling in Australia at the state level and independently
What Australia To - DNA Identikit
Thursday, 7 November 2002
DNA found at crime scene can be a clincher in prosecuting a suspect. But what if there is no suspect? In the near future, police might be able to build an incredibly detailed profile of a wanted person - including their sex, age, height, eye colour, skin colour and ethnicity - just from a drop of blood.
A company in the US is already promoting their DNA profiling services as a useful new tool to help catch criminals. But how accurate are these tests and what are the ethical problems surrounding their use? Here in Australia the police forces are divided over whether this new technology can help, or harm, the innocent. (full transcript...)
Reporter: Karina Kelly
Producer: Paul Faint
Researcher: Robyn Smith
Story Contacts:
Dr James Robertson
Director of Forensic Services at AFP in Canberra
Australian Federal Police
Dr Robert Williamson
Geneticist and Director of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Melbourne Australia
Tony Frudakis
CEO
DNAPrint Genomics
Related Sites:
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute - Personnel
DNAPrint genomics
Australian Federal Police
Full Program Transcript:
Narration: After the Bali bombing, Australians are acutely aware of the need to identify those guilty of a terrible crime as quickly as possible. Now, an American company claim they have developed new technology, which could revolutionise the way this is done. It uses DNA from evidence found at the crime scene to build a physical profile of what a suspect looks like. They call it a ‘DNA Identikit’.
Tony Frudakis: By being able to provide a molecular DNA based eyewitness for every crime scene, it certainly would have substantial use.
Narration: It seems like every police officer’s dream…being able to tell a suspect’s eye, hair and skin colour… even their racial mix… all from a single drop of blood. But does this new forensic science threaten our genetic privacy?
Could DNA identify you?
Narration: After the Bali bombing, Australians are acutely aware of the need to identify those guilty of a terrible crime as quickly as possible. Now, an American company claim they have developed new technology, which could revolutionise the way this is done. It uses DNA from evidence found at the crime scene to build a physical profile of what a suspect looks like. They call it a ‘DNA Identikit’.
Tony Frudakis: By being able to provide a molecular DNA based eyewitness for every crime scene, it certainly would have substantial use.
Narration: It seems like every police officer’s dream…being able to tell a suspect’s eye, hair and skin colour… even their racial mix… all from a single drop of blood. But does this new forensic science threaten our genetic privacy?
Dr James Robertson: Once we start to go in to look at personalised information, where do you draw the line? Is it next then we’re going to say well it’s okay to tell someone’s eye colour and hair colour what’s the problem with looking at the disease status.
Dr Robert Williamson: When we start to look at genes for height or weight or colour, those genes are not unique to you. They’ll be present in your brothers and sisters, in your family, in your ethnic group, possibly in the whole population and that makes them far more difficult to interpret.
Narration: These days police use face imaging (or identikit pictures) to help identify and track down suspects.
Narration: The problem is that they come from eyewitness accounts and these are notoriously unreliable. And sometimes, there is no eyewitness at all.
Narration: If during the crime, some blood or other human cells were left behind… police currently use that sample to get what’s called a DNA Profile. But this DNA profile is just like a barcode. It can’t tell you what the person looks like. So it can’t help to track down the criminal. That’s where the DNA Identikit comes in.
Tony Frudakis: Yes the existing tests, while very useful for matching samples with individuals gives no information about what that individual looks like. With the tests that we're developing the physical profile would give them information that they could use to narrow the focus of their investigation to find that person.
Narration: The DNA Identikit is a series of four tests that examine the genes determining hair colour, eye colour, skin shade and racial mixture (or ethnicity). The company claims the tests are nearly a hundred percent accurate.
Tony Frudakis: Currently the ancestry test is of supreme accuracy. We have blindly tested it on a very large number of samples. And so far we are yet to get one wrong.
Narration: But genetics expert Bob Williamson warns that when it comes to appearance, DNA can never be 100% accurate.
Dr Robert Williamson: I think what worries those of us who are concerned about civil liberties is that if you say there’s a 70% chance that someone is Asian or a 60% chance that someone is from an Italian background this will be over interpreted and the police will just think that’s it, that’s the person we’re looking for and we’ll go for that person and I don’t think that will be good either for civil liberties or for law enforcement.
Narration: And of course genetics only determines how a person might look. How they actually look is shaped by many other things. How old they are, how much food they eat and how much sun exposure they get can all radically change someone’s appearance. And when it comes to hair anything’s possible.
Dr James Robertson: I can certainly tell you this, that the forensic science service, which has published work on the red, on red hair it’s only about 70% accurate and here is the problem. If we just take the red hair as an example what is red hair? My professional background is a hair examiner. Well you can change red hair easily. It’s called dying it.
Narration: But the biggest issue thrown up by this technology is the right to genetic privacy. Until now, we have been assured by police that the DNA being tested is only ‘junk’ DNA. Parts of our genetic code that reveal nothing about what we are like. It can only be used to match an individual to a sample. But if DNA identikits start being used, then far more information about us will be accessible to police. They’ll be looking at the ‘working genes’ the ones that make us what we are. And eye, skin and hair colour is just the beginning.
Tony Frudakis: The goal is to provide the information that's present on a driver's license such as the facial features, the distance between the eyes, the width of the nose, the length of the face. Whether the earlobes are connected. Of course the ancestral proportions, eye colour, hair colour, height and weight as well.
Narration: The question is where do you draw the line? How much further should police go in their search to find the perpetrator of a crime? Should they also look at genes that tell them the likelihood of certain behaviour, or certain diseases?
Dr Robert Williamson: I think that the DNA sequences that matter, the ones that determine health and disease, the ones that determine behaviour, the ones that interact with the environment and say whether we’re at high risk of cancer, high risk of asthma, high risk of Alzheimer’s I think these are very, very personal property and I don’t think they should be in the hands of the police or employers or insurance companies. I think they are really the property and the privilege of the person himself or herself.
Narration: James Robertson is concerned that public confidence in the way we do DNA testing today may be undermined if we start looking at personal areas of DNA.
Dr James Robertson: Once we start looking at personalised information… which is what this is doing, we’re looking at bits of the DNA albeit complicated bits that tell you about people’s individual information then we’re moving away from the very tenant that we’ve developed - DNA testing in forensic science, which is that the bits of the DNA we look at don’t tell you anything about the personal individual.
Narration: But the manufacturers of the DNA Identikit are confident we’ll get the balance right.
Tony Frudakis: I think that genomics technology will be used for the betterment of mankind to help provide for safer environments for us to raise our children. And I think society will do a good job at establishing the limits to which DNA testing will have to abide.
Narration: Whether you feel comfortable with it or not, one thing’s for certain… this technology is not going to go away.
Dr James Robertson: Trying to stop this would be like standing on the shore like King Canute and asking the waves of the sea - the tide not to come in. It’s going to happen. The issue is to have a proper debate about what it’s real value is and where it fits into the overall picture with respect to DNA and the use made of it by investigators.
DNAPrint makes supply agreement with Danish firm
DNAPrint genomics, Inc. announced Wednesday that it obtained a nonexclusive right of supply from the Danish company Exiqon A/S to incorporate locked nucleic acid technology into some of its pharmacogenomics and forensics tests.
Terms of the open-ended supply agreement were not disclosed.
The supply agreement signed Wednesday enables DNAPrint to use locked nucleic acid, a specially modified DNA, in its test kits.
Exiqon A/S is a privately held Scandinavian biotech company.
Sarasota's DNAPrint genomics develops complex pharmacogenomics classifiers for a personalization of drug prescription.
Ming remember this - DNAPrint genomics, Inc. Partners to Develop Pharmacogenomics Company Serving the 3.5 Billion Southeast Asian Population.
Author/s:
Issue: July 17, 2001
Business Editors/Health & Medical Writers
SARASOTA, Fla.--(BW HealthWire)--July 17, 2001
DNAPrint genomics, Inc. (OTCBB:DNAP) announced today that it has entered into a joint venture with DNAPRO (M) SDN BHD of Selangor, Malaysia to expand DNAPrint's pharmacogenomics presence overseas. The partnership establishes a new subsidiary, DNAPrint genomics (M) SDN BHD, that will be the world's first to devote all of its efforts to the development of genomics-based, personalized medical products specifically geared for Malaysian, Indonesian and other Southeast Asian populations.
The new subsidiary will combine DNAPrint know-how, informatics, and data resources (SNP maps and Haplotype vectors) with DNAPRO's established political and business infrastructure to perform population genetic research and develop genomics-based classification products relevant to the Southeast Asian market.
The scientific basis for the partnership.
Most pharmacogenomics "solutions" generated to date do not comprehensively explain drug response variation within the human population. One of the many reasons the solutions are incomplete is that they are focused on Western patient donors. The genetic causes for variable drug response are heterogeneous among the various peoples of the world, and a classification/diagnostic kit that works very well for Caucasians may work poorly for individuals of Asian descent. To generate complete, broadly useful and sensitive drug-patient classification kits, population studies of international representation are required.
To date, Southeast Asian populations and ethnic subgroups have been poorly represented in genomics research and product development efforts. The vast majority of pharmacogenomics research is conducted in North America and Europe primarily because of the difficulties in obtaining specimens from countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and many other Southeastern Asian countries. By establishing a subsidiary with an established and respected Malaysian biotechnology presence, DNAPrint has secured access to a broad range of specimens that allow for the development of pharmacogenomics classification products for this specific population (Southeastern Asian descent). This subsidiary secures an advantage for DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. within the immense 3.5 billion person worldwide Southeast Asian descent population.
The subsidiary, which is 49% owned by DNAPrint genomics, Inc. and 51% owned by DNAPRO(M) SDN BDH (51%), will be eligible to apply for and receive research and product development grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Science and Technology. Grant programs sponsored by the Ministry are specifically earmarked for companies of majority Malaysian ownership, and provide several hundred million dollars annually to promising new Malaysian Technology companies. Grants are typically awarded to companies that address important social and medical issues facing Malaysian and other Southeast Asian peoples. Until today, the country of Malaysia, and the region of Southeast Asia have not had a dedicated pharmacogenomics presence eligible to apply for these grants.
In addition to improving the scope and value of DNAPrint genomics, Inc.'s product interest, the relationship is expected to provide DNAPrint genomics, Inc. the opportunity to realize service based revenues, and more importantly, to receive license revenues on pharmacogenomics classification products that will be developed through this affiliation. The subsidiary intends to conform to Malaysian National Policy requirements and principles of good corporate governance that a company must fulfill if it wishes to list itself for admission to the MASDEX stock exchange.
The exclusive venture marks DNAPRO (M) SDN BHD's first within the under-served Southeast Asian genomics-based product development space. "We are delighted to partner with DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. in bringing an innovative and quantitative pharmacogenomics infrastructure to Southeast Asia," said Dr. Halim, Managing Director of DNAPRO (M) SDN BHD and the subsidiary. "After careful consideration, we chose DNAPrint as a partner for this effort because of its ongoing innovation and expertise within the field of practical pharmacogenomics."
"Procuring accurately phenotyped specimens from overseas is exceedingly difficult, and funding is near impossible," said Dr. Tony Frudakis, CSO and CEO of DNAprint genomics, Inc. "This relationship has the potential to solve both of these problems for us. Because the relationships between genetics and drug response are complex within populations as well as between them, the new venture could enable us to produce better pharmacogenomics products with a wider market reach. In addition, and not insignificantly, the work that is to be completed through this subsidiary, DNAPrint Genomics (M) SDN BHD, is a socially responsible thing to do for the peoples of this part of the world."
About DNAPRO:
DNAPRO (M) DSDN BHD is a Malaysian biotechnology company devoted to marketing and distributing pharmaceutical and biotechnological products of diagnostic, immunoprotective, pharmaceutical or other bio-relevant value. The company has to date specialized in protein and nucleic acid based diagnostic products that utilize novel DNA fingerprinting, monoclonal antibody or other recombinant molecular technology.
About DNAPrint genomics, Inc.:
DNAPrint genomics Inc. was founded by a team of scientists with research and commercial experience in high-level mathematical modeling, programming and molecular genetics. The Company is traded on the NASDAQ OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol: DNAP. For more information about the company, please visit http://www.dnaprint.com.
All statements in this press release that are not historical are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act as amended. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including, but not limited to, uncertainties relating to technologies, product development, manufacturing, market acceptance, cost and pricing of DNAPrint's products, dependence on collaborations and partners, regulatory approvals, competition, intellectual property of others, and patent protection and litigation. DNAPrint genomics, Inc. expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in DNAPrint's expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statements are based.
By ming:
Hector Gomez is certainly a busy guy. Here are some of the things that he is involved with.
http://www.dnaprint.com/pr_bod.html
February 26, 2002: press release announcing that Hector was on DNAP's board. At that time "He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Zengen, Inc."
http://www.tbtf.org/article.cfm?article=29
November 1, 2002: A new chief executive officer sits at the head of the table at Saneron CCEL Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company located at the Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of South Florida.
Paul Sanberg, the former president and CEO of Saneron, said Dr. Hector J. Gomez has taken over that role. Gomez was a local consultant for about a year before coming on board at Saneron, said Sanberg, who also founded the company.
http://www.sema4usa.com/Company/events/LifeSciences2002.htm
November 7, 2002: From the Semaphore press release about their due diligence expansion into life sciences "Richard Gabriel former CEO of Calix Corporation is the point person for the firm as head of Life Sciences diligence services practice...His team includes: Hector Gomez, MD, Ph.D, former CEO of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc. and Lonnie Bookbinder, Ph.D, an experienced large Pharma executive."
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2002/12/02/daily27.html
December 4, 2002: Gomez gone from Saneron. After little more than a month on the job, Dr. Hector J. Gomez is no longer the chief executive officer of Saneron CCEL Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company located in the business incubator at the University of South Florida.
"We brought him in on a trial basis, and there just wasn't a strategic fit," said Nicole Kuzmin-Nichols, vice president, business development and operations for Saneron. She declined to give further details.
What happened here I wonder?
http://www.dnaprint.com/pr_04_09_03.htm
April 9, 2003: press release announcing that Richard Gabriel is CEO also tells us that "Dr. Hector J. Gomez, MD, PhD, DNAP Board Chairman"
http://clinication.com/advisory.htm
Clinication's Advisory Board includes: Hector Gomez, MD, Ph.D. Partner, Genbiomics, Tampa, Florida. Click on his name and it tell's you that "He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Phase 5 Sciences, PRB Pharmaceuticals, and DNAprint Genomics, where he is Chairman of the Board."
(Incidentally, the other partners in Genbiomics are none other than Richard Gabriel and Lonnie Bookbinder...)
http://www.foleylardner.com/resourcecenter/r_sem_full.asp?ID=193
One of the participants at the 7/9/03 meeting: Hector Gomez, Chairman/President DNA Print Genomics, Saneron, and Cellgenica.
Let me throw in the following:
http://www.leespharm.com/ce/media/Ora-Flu.pdf
April 16, 2003: Lee's Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited (www.leespharm.com), a research-driven and market-oriented biopharmaceutical group engaged in the development, manufacturing and sales of quality biopharmaceutical products in the Peoples Republic of China, today announced that the Group obtained the exclusive distribution rights from a US biopharmaceutical company, PRB Pharmaceuticals Inc. based in Long Beach, California for OraFlu and OraFlu Plus, two products developed as treatments for viral infectious diseases. The exclusive covers the territory of Hong Kong SAR.
http://www.zengen.com/
July 15, 2002: Zengen, Inc. announced today that one of its strategic partners, Lee's Pharmaceutical Holdings, Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company based in Hong Kong, began trading today on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market...Zengen entered into a licensing agreement with Lee's Pharmaceutical on February 2, 2002.
http://www.beverlyglen.com/
This is Phase 5 Sciences (previously known as Beverly Glen Medical Systems Corp.). They have a number of cardiologists associated with them (Timothy Callahan and William Shell are the names on the patents), and some interesting people behind them and on their advisory board.
Their technology "has been used successfully in many phases of clinical trials, and is of particular interest in the early Phase I environment. It's designed to help you identify early on in the drug development process, potential problems with QT-interval prolongation."
There is "another" company called Bevglen Medical Systems of Delaware. There is a connection with Beverly Glen through a company called Founders Equity:
http://www.fequity.com/people_partners.html
BevGlen were involved in litigation over a drug called Propulsid:
http://propulsid.laed.uscourts.gov/Orders/jointr10.pdf
http://propulsid.laed.uscourts.gov/Orders/me070301.pdf
Now here is a coincidence, William Shell (Beverly Glen patent author) and Dwain Eckberg (Beverly Glen Advisory Board) seem to have been involved in Propulsid litigation as well.
http://www.jwlaw.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/productsvol29.htm
Incidentally, Shell has also been in trouble with the SEC:
http://classaction.findlaw.com/cases/securities/sec/sec1/files/1997/lr15441.html
The main drugs (apart from baycol) that have been recently withdrawn from the market post FDA approval include the following. The weight-loss (appetite suppressant) drugs Pondimin and Redux (Wyeth-Ayerst/American Home Products), popularly known in combination as Fen-Phen, were withdrawn due to valvular heart disease in some patients. The diabetes drug Rezulin (Warner-Lambert) was withdrawn due to problems with liver failure. The inflammatory bowel disease drug Lotronex (GlaxoSmithKline) was withdrawn due to problems with intestinal inflammation due to lack of blood flow. The high blood pressure drug Posicor (Roche) was withdrawn due to problems with it slowing or stopping the heart rate. The antihistamines Seldane (Marion Merrell Dow) and Hismanal (Janssen) , and the heartburn drug Propulsid (Johnson & Johnson), were all withdrawn due to then causing potentially fatal irregular heartbeat. The antibiotic Raxar (Glaxo Wellcome) was withdrawn due to it also causing potentially fatal irregular heartbeat. The analgesic Duract (Wyeth-Ayerst/American Home Products) was withdrawn due to problems with liver failure.
Looks like irregular heartbeat seems to be an important drug side-effect, and an important element in design of clinical trials. Interesting.
The main point is that at the moment Hector seems to be:
- The Chaiman of DNAP
- On the advisory board of Clinication
- A Partner in Gembionics (with Gabriel and Bookbinder)
- A Director of Zengen? (not according to their website)
- Still involved with Semaphore?
- A Director of Phase 5 Sciences
- A Director of PRB Pharmaceuticals (Lee/Zengen tie-in)
- The Chairman/President of Cellgenica (whatever they do)
Hector is clearly a Stakhanovite! Good job he's not doing anything stressful like selling his house at the moment. He was also previously teaching at USF and, in his spare time presumably, running projects at DNAP. According to the August 2, 2001 press release: "Dr. Hong-Gong Wang from the USF will serve as the principal investigator for the grant and, Hector Gomez, M.D., Ph.D and K. Ponnuswamy, Ph.D. will serve as the leaders for the project on the company side."
BTW note that the press release announcing Hector as a Director of DNAP was on February 26, 2002 - however he was already working for them in August 2001. There is definitely something odd about dates here (apart from anything else) as W2P has noted...
Hector Gomez is certainly a busy guy. Here are some of the things that he is involved with.
http://www.dnaprint.com/pr_bod.html
February 26, 2002: press release announcing that Hector was on DNAP's board. At that time "He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Zengen, Inc."
http://www.tbtf.org/article.cfm?article=29
November 1, 2002: A new chief executive officer sits at the head of the table at Saneron CCEL Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company located at the Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of South Florida.
Paul Sanberg, the former president and CEO of Saneron, said Dr. Hector J. Gomez has taken over that role. Gomez was a local consultant for about a year before coming on board at Saneron, said Sanberg, who also founded the company.
http://www.sema4usa.com/Company/events/LifeSciences2002.htm
November 7, 2002: From the Semaphore press release about their due diligence expansion into life sciences "Richard Gabriel former CEO of Calix Corporation is the point person for the firm as head of Life Sciences diligence services practice...His team includes: Hector Gomez, MD, Ph.D, former CEO of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc. and Lonnie Bookbinder, Ph.D, an experienced large Pharma executive."
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2002/12/02/daily27.html
December 4, 2002: Gomez gone from Saneron. After little more than a month on the job, Dr. Hector J. Gomez is no longer the chief executive officer of Saneron CCEL Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company located in the business incubator at the University of South Florida.
"We brought him in on a trial basis, and there just wasn't a strategic fit," said Nicole Kuzmin-Nichols, vice president, business development and operations for Saneron. She declined to give further details.
What happened here I wonder?
http://www.dnaprint.com/pr_04_09_03.htm
April 9, 2003: press release announcing that Richard Gabriel is CEO also tells us that "Dr. Hector J. Gomez, MD, PhD, DNAP Board Chairman"
http://clinication.com/advisory.htm
Clinication's Advisory Board includes: Hector Gomez, MD, Ph.D. Partner, Genbiomics, Tampa, Florida. Click on his name and it tell's you that "He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Phase 5 Sciences, PRB Pharmaceuticals, and DNAprint Genomics, where he is Chairman of the Board."
(Incidentally, the other partners in Genbiomics are none other than Richard Gabriel and Lonnie Bookbinder...)
http://www.foleylardner.com/resourcecenter/r_sem_full.asp?ID=193
One of the participants at the 7/9/03 meeting: Hector Gomez, Chairman/President DNA Print Genomics, Saneron, and Cellgenica.
Let me throw in the following:
http://www.leespharm.com/ce/media/Ora-Flu.pdf
April 16, 2003: Lee's Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited (www.leespharm.com), a research-driven and market-oriented biopharmaceutical group engaged in the development, manufacturing and sales of quality biopharmaceutical products in the Peoples Republic of China, today announced that the Group obtained the exclusive distribution rights from a US biopharmaceutical company, PRB Pharmaceuticals Inc. based in Long Beach, California for OraFlu and OraFlu Plus, two products developed as treatments for viral infectious diseases. The exclusive covers the territory of Hong Kong SAR.
http://www.zengen.com/
July 15, 2002: Zengen, Inc. announced today that one of its strategic partners, Lee's Pharmaceutical Holdings, Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company based in Hong Kong, began trading today on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market...Zengen entered into a licensing agreement with Lee's Pharmaceutical on February 2, 2002.
http://www.beverlyglen.com/
This is Phase 5 Sciences (previously known as Beverly Glen Medical Systems Corp.). They have a number of cardiologists associated with them (Timothy Callahan and William Shell are the names on the patents), and some interesting people behind them and on their advisory board.
Their technology "has been used successfully in many phases of clinical trials, and is of particular interest in the early Phase I environment. It's designed to help you identify early on in the drug development process, potential problems with QT-interval prolongation."
There is "another" company called Bevglen Medical Systems of Delaware. There is a connection with Beverly Glen through a company called Founders Equity:
http://www.fequity.com/people_partners.html
BevGlen were involved in litigation over a drug called Propulsid:
http://propulsid.laed.uscourts.gov/Orders/jointr10.pdf
http://propulsid.laed.uscourts.gov/Orders/me070301.pdf
Now here is a coincidence, William Shell (Beverly Glen patent author) and Dwain Eckberg (Beverly Glen Advisory Board) seem to have been involved in Propulsid litigation as well.
http://www.jwlaw.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/productsvol29.htm
Incidentally, Shell has also been in trouble with the SEC:
http://classaction.findlaw.com/cases/securities/sec/sec1/files/1997/lr15441.html
The main drugs (apart from baycol) that have been recently withdrawn from the market post FDA approval include the following. The weight-loss (appetite suppressant) drugs Pondimin and Redux (Wyeth-Ayerst/American Home Products), popularly known in combination as Fen-Phen, were withdrawn due to valvular heart disease in some patients. The diabetes drug Rezulin (Warner-Lambert) was withdrawn due to problems with liver failure. The inflammatory bowel disease drug Lotronex (GlaxoSmithKline) was withdrawn due to problems with intestinal inflammation due to lack of blood flow. The high blood pressure drug Posicor (Roche) was withdrawn due to problems with it slowing or stopping the heart rate. The antihistamines Seldane (Marion Merrell Dow) and Hismanal (Janssen) , and the heartburn drug Propulsid (Johnson & Johnson), were all withdrawn due to then causing potentially fatal irregular heartbeat. The antibiotic Raxar (Glaxo Wellcome) was withdrawn due to it also causing potentially fatal irregular heartbeat. The analgesic Duract (Wyeth-Ayerst/American Home Products) was withdrawn due to problems with liver failure.
Looks like irregular heartbeat seems to be an important drug side-effect, and an important element in design of clinical trials. Interesting.
The main point is that at the moment Hector seems to be:
- The Chaiman of DNAP
- On the advisory board of Clinication
- A Partner in Gembionics (with Gabriel and Bookbinder)
- A Director of Zengen? (not according to their website)
- Still involved with Semaphore?
- A Director of Phase 5 Sciences
- A Director of PRB Pharmaceuticals (Lee/Zengen tie-in)
- The Chairman/President of Cellgenica (whatever they do)
Hector is clearly a Stakhanovite! Good job he's not doing anything stressful like selling his house at the moment. He was also previously teaching at USF and, in his spare time presumably, running projects at DNAP. According to the August 2, 2001 press release: "Dr. Hong-Gong Wang from the USF will serve as the principal investigator for the grant and, Hector Gomez, M.D., Ph.D and K. Ponnuswamy, Ph.D. will serve as the leaders for the project on the company side."
BTW note that the press release announcing Hector as a Director of DNAP was on February 26, 2002 - however he was already working for them in August 2001. There is definitely something odd about dates here (apart from anything else) as W2P has noted...
Ming. just a thought.In regards to Linkage Analysis,Suresh Chandra had to play a big roll in the content of the paper,look what she is into see below, course i could be wrong. -
Publications:
1. Some limit theorems on regression models with a non-stationary and possibly non-linear time series errors, Journal of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, (1982) vol.16,No.4 p 383-404 (with K.N.Venkataraman).
2. On the estimation of the coefficients of the moving average errors in time series models. Journal of Madras University, (1983)Section B, p 108-116.
3. Least squares estimation of the parameters in purely explosive models for time series with a regression component, Journal of Madras University, Section B, No 1,p 59-70.( with R.R.Suresh)
4. Limit theorems on a linear explosive stochastic model for time series with moving average errors, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics ,(1984),Vol 36, No 1,A,p 101-118.( with K.N.Venkataraman )
5. Some convergence theorems on a supercritical Galton Watson Process, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics,(1985), Vol. 37,No.3,A,p 409-414.( with K.Nanthi and P.Koteeswaran)
6. Inference on superimposed sub-critical Galton Watson Processes with immigration, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics,(1986),Vol 38,NO 2,A,p 311-318.( with P.Koteeswaran)
7. Inference for a generalized sub-critical Galton Watson process with immigration- A Time series approach, Proceedings of the VII Annual conference of ISPS (1986),p 113-119. ( with V.Kamalesh)
8. Estimation of simultaneous linear models with polynomial regression, generating a pair of related time series, Journal of the Indian Statistical Association (1987), Vol.25,p 77-90 (with P.Dhanavanthan).
9. A limit theorem on a simultaneous linear model with moving average errors and its statistical implications, Journal of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (1987),Vol.21,No.2,p147-166.( with G.Gopal)
10. Influence of different factors on the biliverdin content of Buffalo milk, Indian Journal of Dairy Sciences (1987),vol. 40,No 4,p 427-430. (with M.Arun Kumar and D.Bhat)
11. Least squares estimation of the parameters of a stochastic difference equation with polynomial regression component, Communications in Statistics (1988),Vol.17,No.10,p 3427-3446 (with B.R. Bhat).
12. Strong consistency of least squares estimates in Time series, Contributions to Stochastics( 1988),Ed.N. Venugopal, John Wiley, NewDelhi, p36-45.(with B.R.Bhat)
13. General class of estimators for the population total under unequal probability sampling schemes, Metron (1990),Vol.KLVIII,p 409- 419.( with S.Sampath)
14. Least squares estimation of the coefficients of a partially explosive model, with polynomial regressions of same degree, generating a pair of related time series, Statistische Hefte (1990),Vol 31,0 15-31.( with P.Dhanavanthan)
15. Inference for a simultaneous linear partially explosive model with polynomial regression components of different degrees, Statistische Hefte(1990),Vol 31,p 265-280.( with P.Dhanavanthan)
16. On the estimation of coefficients of a simultaneous linear explosive model of higher order with moving average errors generating a pair of related time series, Statistische Hefte (1991),Vol.32,p 195-222(with G.Gopal).
17. Limit theorems on serial moment of a time series and their Statistical implications, Journal of the Indian Statistical Association (1991),Vol 23,p 95-106.( with V.Kamalesh)
18. Estimation of population mean in the presence of parabolic trend, Jour.Ind.Soc.Ag.Statistics, (1991) 43(3) p.321-328.( with S.Sampath)
19. Generalized Quennouille type limit theorems on least squares residuals of an autoregressive model for time series(1991), Proc. National Symposium on modeling: Stochastic processes and O.R.,Kurukshetra University ,p.491-506.(with V.Kamalesh)
20. Two-stage Markov Sampling for finite population(1991), Proc. National Symposium on modeling : Stochastic processes and O.R., Kurukshetra University p. 475-489. (with G.K.Balasubramani)
21. Markov sampling for finite populations, Biometrika (1992),Vol.79, No.1,p.210 -213. (with S.Sampath and G.K.Balasubramani)
22. Markov sampling with auxiliary information(1992), Statistical papers 33, p.83-91. ( with S.Sampath)
23. Inference for a subcritical Galton Watson process with immigration - A time series approach(1992), Proceedings of the Symposium on Statistical inference, Trivandrum p.35-51.
24. Methodological issues in Time series analysis, Methodology of Applied Economic Research (1993) Eds.U.Sankar and T. Lakshmanaswamy, Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd., New Delhi.p 15-52.(with T.M.Srinivasan).
25. A limit theorem on a subcritical Galton Watson process with immigration and its Statistical Applications, (1994), Journal of the Indian Society for Probability and Statistics, Vol.1,p.43-70 (with V.Kamalesh).
26. Inference for a superimposed autoregressive time series, Journal of Quantitative Economics (1995), Vol.11, No.1, p.135-142.(with T.M.Srinivasan)
27. A modified Box Jenkins methodology for explosive Time series, Stochastic Processes and their applications (1995),Ed.V.Thangaraj, New Age International Publishers,New Delhi, p 89-96.(with B.R.Bhat and T.M.Srinivasan)
28. Least squares estimation in simultaneous stochastic difference equations generating related time series. Stochastic Processes and Statistical Inference (1996),Eds.B.L.S.Prakasa Rao and B.R.Bhat New Age International Publishers,New Delhi, p 121-131.
29. Least squares estimation for linear explosive models and its ramifications. (1998) Statistical Methods 1(1) p 54-64 ( with S.M.Manjunath and H.J.Vaman )
30. Optimal change-point detection in trend models with integrated moving average errors. (1998) Communicated to Sequential Analysis.(with H.J.Vaman )
31. On robust estimation of population mean in multistage sampling through hierarchical modeling (1999) Communicated to a subject expert for evaluation.( with H.J.Vaman and S.M.Manjunath )
32. Estimation of chaotic attractor dimension of three hourly surface temperature and pressure over Madras Airport . Communicated to the Journal of the Indian Geographical Society. ( with. N.Sivagnanam and R.Suresh).
33. On application of Hierarchical Linear Model for nowcasting visibility over Chennai Airport. To be published in Vayumandal, Vol 38. Indian Meteorological Society , New Delhi.( with. N.Sivagnanam and R.Suresh).
34. Advanced statistical techniques for nowcasting meteorological parameters at Chennai Airport for aviation flight planning TROPMET - 99 p 598-605. .( with. N.Sivagnanam and R.Suresh).
35. Prediction of weather parameters on a very short time scale by an autoregressive process for aviation flight planning. (1999) Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 108, Vol 1 p 277-286. ( with. N.Sivagnanam and R.Suresh).
Ituccilnv, your welcome. EOM
Ming. thanks. I to was thinking Dnap was going into international expansion with the International patents applyed for.
The Dragon Venture via Zengen via PRB Pharmaceutical via Lee's Lic. & Distrribution rights.
Well not much fun talking to my self so kids are in bed and I guess I will be to. A Good Night and God Bless
SO Now we know - 1999 Corixa Corporation completes acquisition of Ribi ImmunoChem Research - Lonnie Bookbinder Worked for RIBI who did end up getting bought out by Corixa - NOW who do we all know that once worked for Corixa its right on the tip of my toung but I cant seem to come up with the right name. LOL
Special from Lonnie Bookbinder, PhD, MBA to RIBI shareholders at www.rsvc.org
The author of these observations has a thirty-year career in biopharmaceuticals and worked for RIBI from 1994-1997.
As most are aware, the majority of RIBI sales are derived from MPL and other adjuvants, which are refined as a part of a modified bacteria causing a cascading effect of immune responses. RIBI adjuvants, especially MPL, are considered valuable and useful in many different vaccine candidates.
Importantly, to expand the base of knowledge, RIBI scientists initiated research to develop a synthetic adjuvant and have been successful. They have discovered, synthesized, tested and patented a next generation of super adjuvants. Think of these discoveries as a valuable franchise for the future of immunology. RIBI publications note that RIBI's second generation adjuvant technology platform is based on novel AGP- aminoalkyl glucosamine phosphate- adjuvants. These new synthetic compounds display potent bioactivity, possess an excellent safety profile and are amenable to alternative methods for vaccine delivery, such as intranasal delivery. Synthetic AGP compounds also may prove advantageous in ease of formulation, manufacturing scale-up and simplified quality assurance. In the hands of RIBI scientists, AGP's have been successfully used in pre-clinical testing of tetanus, hepatitis and influenza vaccines. RIBI scientists and managers confirm the worth of the AGP product derivatives and vaccine producers want it. There is a very significant potential value in AGP for RIBI.
This writer believes that RIBI is a treasure trove of potential and actual lines of research and that RIBI stock is worth much more than $2.00 per share. This writer believes that the RIBI Shareholder Value Committee suggestions represent the best way to realize the longterm value of RIBI Shares. Defeat of the Corixa offer is the first step in the right direction. Eighteen years of RIBI employees' scientific research and development deserves to be fully exploited. A sell out merger at $2.00 per share should be unsatisfactory to independent RIBI shareholders.
It looks like Lonnie Bookbinder PH.D worked at RIBI Immunochem it also looks like Corixa wanted to buy out RIBI at one time but RIBI turned them down.
Heres a little info. on RIBI -
Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products that stimulate the immune system to generate natural agents and signals to prevent and treat human diseases. The company researches, develops, produces and markets these products some of which are under investigation by other companies for use as adjuvants. The company also manufactures clinical products and develops processes for the commercial scale production of its compounds. The company's technology is based on potent capacities of certain microbial products to modulate the cytokine cascade in man and other animals. The product development of the company is the use of MPL immunomodulator in combination with other immunomodulator. The company's product, human biopharmaceutical is being regulated by the FDA, which requires to be tested for the use of human treatment. The company has 20 research products to date. The company has been using its research products to develop immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of malignant tumors and other diseases. The company has spent approximately $237,000 towards year 2000 expenses. Contracts & licences accounted for 53% of 1998 revenues & biopharmaceutical products, 47%.
Dont forget Dr. Gomez is on the Advisory Board of Clinication.
Here is a little of what Clinication is about and I think Dr. Gomez will be bring a lot of this to Dnap but for certain products only -
Clinication™ provides secure, web-based patient/clinician communication and disease-management tools that encourage adherence, monitor status, and allow a dynamic exchange of information between the healthcare provider and the patient, promoting cost-containment, increased revenues, improved outcomes, and an effective care-management partnership.
Clinication is an Internet-based generator and communicator of prescriptive patient care plans, enabling subscribing healthcare providers to monitor patients' adherence to the self-care plan and facilitating early interventions in instances of non-compliance.
Clinication bridges the gap between office visits and the self-care cycle, resulting in increased compliance, improved interventions, reduced costs, increased efficiencies and enhanced quality-of-care.
Here's a little of what Semaphore's life Sciences Dept is about and some of this will be directed at Dnap by Dr. Gomez -
This dedicated Life Sciences business practice was created to provide visibility and clarity to the decision-making process. “It facilitates informed judgments on risk and opportunity. The Life Sciences are often subject to misunderstanding, misapplication and misrepresentation,” said DiSalvo. DiSalvo explained that this confusion has a deleterious effect on productivity in even the most business savvy environments. Semaphore research has discovered that when Technology Diligence is applied prior to, or in concert with, a funding event it provides appropriate and necessary discipline to the judgment process. The result allows for increased confidence in the decision contemplated and executed. Research confirms that Bio/Pharma projects such as drug development are nearly always over budget, behind schedule, or are abandoned completely. Facts are that the FDA approves less than 2% of the drug pipeline. Those that do receive approval often are not commercially successful. Semaphore services in this space include Clinical Trial review, FDA compliance and certification process monitoring, proof of science concept, and acquisition target validation.
PRB Pharmaceuticals is helping Hong Kong fight SARS with 2 different drugs, and Hector Gomez is on the board. This comp. was established for the sole reason to fight SARS.
Lee's Pharmaceuticals Holdings Limited is engaged in development,manufacturing,and sales of quality Biopharmaceutical products.
Is it possable that some of this will rub off on Dnap ? Most likely not, maybe the service via the net is the Big play here.It seems more likely that Semaphore approach to Med. care is more what Hector Gomez is going to work out with Dnap on some of the products.
Ming. do you think Hector has a ace in the hole for Dnap ? And if not does it look to you like Zengen,Lee's, and PRB Pharmaceuticals might have some sort of marketing agreement come up in the future. It does look like Mr. Gomez played a big roll in the Lic. agreement in 7-15-2002 between Zengen & Lee's And then again with the Lee's Exclusive distribution rights with PRB Pharmaceuticals in 4-16-2003. Whats your take on it.
It looks like "The 3 Amigos" Gabriel,Gomez,Bookbinder are working and helping Dnap in the area of -A web-based patient/clinician communication and disease-management tools that encourage adherence, monitor status, and allow a dynamic exchange of information between the healthcare provider and the patient, promoting cost-containment, increased revenues, improved outcomes, and an effective care-management partnership.
A Internet-based generator and communicator of prescriptive patient care plans, enabling subscribing healthcare providers to monitor patients' adherence to the self-care plan and facilitating early interventions in instances of non-compliance.
To bridges the gap between office visits and the self-care cycle, resulting in increased compliance, improved interventions, reduced costs, increased efficiencies and enhanced quality-of-care.
The 3 Amigos have been working in this {see above } area for many years and have strong contacts with other comp. as well in this area. Perhaps Dnap is leaning toward marketing some of their products in this regard.As they have talked about this very issue in the filings and news letters before. Some of their products will be market one way while others will be marked another.The 3 Amigos are very telling as to the kind of approach Dnap may be thinking of in Marketing a product,since they do have a expertise and strong history in this area.
Nothing is written in stone so this is just some thoughts on the matter.
I can think of a GREAT domain Name for Neogenomics but I respect this board far more than this comp. to say it. lol
Oh Man !! Tony and Father File 144 2 Mo.'s apart with VENKATESWARLU, KUNDRAGUNTA in the middle. A lets see 144 is good for 3 Mo.'s and 3 Mo's from May is Aug. I wonder what Aug. has waiting for us.LOL May be next week or in Aug. something comming, something sweet. Dont know, but there is 3 Big hitters up to bat.
angelfund888, Great letter I to sent them a letter 2 Mo's ago. But received no responce.
AS we go through life we come up against things that want to make us, throw our hands up in the air and quit.But there are many of us, Like Tony, who over come the problems that arise in our life, and as we all know problems can come unexpectedly and i know Tony has had his share of them, but his resolve to arise to the occasion is nothing short of remarkable. We do believe in Tony but we should use his example on how to persevere,and to have faith and not to worry. ASK for Gods Blessing and know that DNAP will rise as sure as the Sun will shine the next day. Tony has done ok for us so far and there is still more to come.
bignbullish,
I'm not very good at time tables, but by Sept. 2003, it will be one full year from the news release on Statnome {tm}. My guess and hope is some time this year. Could be next week or the week after or closer to the end of the year.I dont think it has much to do with the up coming conference because News release on a FDA approved Statnome classifier needs no outside help to be a Big Hit. It will have a POWER all its own and will move on its own merit.
Dnap does have a Statnome [tm] classifier on Lipitor and Zocor. They had it back in Sept.2002.Tony said at the 2003 stockholders meeting Statnome would be out before Ovarian slated for 2004.Why would Tony wait or sit on it if it was ready to go last year. Why do they have on their web site in Bold letters "Latest Scientific Breakthrough" Why the big pr dept. change ? I think were very close to getting the FDA market approval,I think Tony may already have it. Carrie is not doing pr anymore so that leaves Phil at the helm and Tony is sitting on a BOMB.Any one with half a brain knows Phil cant do it by him self even if you put carrie back in it not enough. So I say,Big change in the PR dept is a must before any press release. Man, think about it FDA approval for Statnome {tm} classifier - The first out on the market will knock wall street off their feet and man !!! you better have everything in place because incomming will be so heavy and so fast it will blow everyone away.
Post #1817 from 10k
Competition
Compared to fields such as telecom or wireless, there is little significant competition within the pharmacogenomics field. Only a handful of companies in the world have high-throughput genotyping capabilities (25,000 genotypes per day
or greater). In addition, data analysis represents a significant barrier to entering the field for many of these companies. In part, this is because doctoral level mathematicians and geneticists are necessary to build the
information tools necessary to conduct this type of research. Because of the esoteric nature of the field, high cost of equipment and intellectual property, and limited personnel, there are only a handful of companies in the world that
perform pharmacogenomics research and development. Most of these companies practice SNP profiling to accelerate gene discovery and product evaluation for pharmaceutical partners (i.e. studying experimental drugs). In contrast, we focus on drugs with existing markets, and existing consumer genomics markets.
We are aware of only a few other companies whose goals resemble ours. About ten pharmaceutical companies are engaged in the pharmacogenomic field. Few are devoted to complex trait determination through SNP profiling; most are focused on single gene disorders and phenotypes.
Some of the more sophisticated players in the pharmaceutical industry include Curagen (which has had success with Type II diabetes), Millennium (which has had success with arteriosclerosis and heart disease), and Warner-Lambert,
GenSet, Parke Davis and Glaxo Wellcome, which have had success with various drug interactivity traits. There are over 1,000 drugs with adverse events or variable efficacy in the Physicians Desk Reference. Since a pharmacogenomics drug study
costs millions of dollars, and since most of the handful of companies with expertise in this field are focused on experimental drugs (not drugs already on the market and present in the Physicians Desk Reference), the Company believes
that the competition landscape is favorable.
20
Most DNA testing facilities in the forensics sector focus on STR matching or paternity determination using the STR technique. These are LabCorp, the market leader, IdentiGene Corp., ReliaGene Corp., LifeCodes Corp., GeneLex Corp., GeneScreen Corp. the Bode Technology Group and DNA Identification Services. None of these companies targets their services for other than the STR matching or paternity market, and none could be considered a research and development or pharmacogenomics company. Non-commercial leaders in the field of
DNA testing include the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), the FBI Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
There is little current competition in the initial niches that DNAPrint has selected to compete. At present DNAPrint is the only company in the world with IP for operating Admixture Mapping screens, and DNAPrint believes that the use
of AIMs is crucial for the development of tests for complex, common traits (such as drug response) that meet expected clinical performance criteria.
All but one of the products in the Company's pipeline has negligible competition that the Company knows of at this time. No other company has presented or discussed physical profiling forensics products. Indeed, no other company that we are aware of has demonstrated it has mastered the mathematical
methods necessary to develop such products. The same applies, though to a lesser extent, with the Company's Taxol chemopredictive product. The remaining candidate product, STATNOME, has only one known genomics company competitor,
Gennaissance. It is unknown if the competition's product will compete directly with STATNOME or if the products will participate in separate niches. Based on recent reports, Gennaissance Pharmaceuticals has identified markers of drug
response and is conducting clinical trials related to Statin drugs, which would place it in the lead position in this niche market. The impact of this competitive product to STATNOME is unclear based on the early reports from Gennaissance. The classifier or drug response market for Statins is potentially
very large and may have several sub-niches that allow multiple companies to flourish. In this case, given the different approaches used (Admixture mapping plus candidate gene for the Company, versus candidate gene for Gennaissance) it
is unlikely that the genome positions between Gennaissance's and DNAPrint's patents overlap perfectly. For example, Gennaissance has never discussed adverse events in any of its press releases or meeting presentations, but DNAPrint's
test is able to predict adverse hepatocellular response. The most significant market opportunity related to Statins is from market expansion to prophylaxis, and as previously mentioned, to do this a test must be able to predict adverse events accurately. Thus for the prophylaxis market, management believes
DNAPrint's Statin product is in the lead.
Each of the competitor's products may provide new, unique and independent information. If the Gennaissance product is successful, it may become the market leader and diminish the projected market penetration of STATNOME. As STATNOME is one of the more distant products under development by DNAPrint, the impact of
21
this known competition on the Company is limited. The Company intends to adjust forecasts as new information is available that suggests a material change is apparent.
The completed development of DNAPrint's classifier products, RETINOME, RETINOME-HA, AncestrybyDNA 2.0, OVANOME, STATNOME and others will also allow launches of Company products into new molecular diagnostics market niches.
Management believes DNAPrint is unrivaled in offering to collaborating pharmaceutical companies the opportunity to use the power of population genetic structure to identify what it is that makes their customers respond differently to their drugs.
No competition to OVANOME has been identified to date. Bristol Myers Squibb makes Taxol and has teamed up with Millennium Pharmaceuticals to use DNA chips to predict individual tumor responses to Taxol based on an analysis of gene
expression. This particular project is more appropriate for patient response during later courses of chemotherapy, after a tumor has had a chance to evolve resistance; in other words, when response is likely a function of tumor genetics not pharmacokinetics. In contrast, the Company's work is on first-line response to Taxol only - that is, DNAPrint is looking at the somatic genetics of patients with chemo-naive tumors in which response is mostly a function of pharmocokinetics rather than tumor genetics. Thus, the two companies are developing two separate kits, but the kits will offer non-redundant and only
partially overlapping information., In addition, ours would be the first to be used since it is for prediction of first-line chemotherapy (first treatment). Thus, DNAP would expect that if the Millennium test is ultimately sold to patients, it would be to patients that have already purchased an OVANOME test.
Other companies, such as Orchid and Gennaissance, are beginning to introduce SNP based tests for human identity testing. These tests are engineered to replace STR tests, and their advantage includes a lower cost without a significant reduction in accuracy. None of these tests, however, are useful for physical profiling or imparting any phenotype information, like those of DNAPrint. DNAPrint believes its forensics tests for physical profiling are the worlds' first - and the Company's patents help to ensure the Company's potential
market position.
There is little current competition in the initial niches that DNAPrint has selected to compete. At present DNAPrint is the only company in the world with IP for operating Admixture Mapping screens, and DNAPrint believes that the use of AIMs is crucial for the development of tests for complex, common traits (such as drug response) that meet expected clinical performance criteria.
[From the 10k filing}
eb0783 you really should read the 10k filing than you would know where it came from,it sounds like you didn,t read it yet. I dont always post the source if I think its clear from where it came. Now each time you asked for this info. I gave it to you just a few posts ahead of your request.
eb0783,from the 10ksb 4-15-2003 filing date. lol
DougS, I hope this helps; DNAPrint's approach to commercializing its products is unique. The Company
had originally adopted the "partner early and partner often" approach, and its relationship with Orchid is an example of this approach in action. While the Company may still take this approach, it has learned that maximum shareholder
value will in many cases be a function of its ability to develop, validate and market its own tests independently as a first step. For some products, the Company believes that marketing will be most economically and effectively
undertaken by those with established product development infrastructures who have done it many times before. Partnering a product with an expert organization
for market penetration, testing and validation is a good way for DNAPrint to free itself of these tasks so that its scientists can develop new products. In this way, the Company can increase the number of revenue generating products in
its portfolio at the maximum rate. Partners who agree to commercialize DNAPrint's products are taking much of the risk associated with the regulatory unknowns out of the Company's hands. DNAPrint is unwilling, however, to obtain
these advantages on terms that diminish the value its research brings to shareholders. Whether a test is partnered or retained for in-housecommercialization is decided on a product-by-product case.
If the Company is unable to reach suitable license terms with prospective partners, its shareholders would be best served if it holds its discoveries closely. In this case, the Company may exclusively provide services using its
products. Alternatively, the Company can mass produce its tests through an OEM partner, and license genetic service providers to perform the actual testing. Genetic service providers tend to be smaller companies than platform providers, and as a result, the Company believes the Company would have the opportunity to negotiate significantly higher royalty percentages. DNAPrint will attempt to strike a balance between the two types of license models in order to maximize shareholder value.
eb0783,sorry all the info. I posted came from the 10ksb filing date 4-15-2003
How long for An application for market approval from the FDA ? Time frame anyone ? I say between 1 and 1.5 years as a Medical devise. This Sept. will be 1 year from press release on Statnome [tm] classifier.
Dnap does have a Statnome [tm] classifier on Lipitor and Zocor. They had it back in Sept.2002.Tony said at the 2003 stockholders meeting Statnome would be out before Ovarian slated for 2004.Why would Tony wait or sit on it if it was ready to go last year. Why do they have on their web site in Bold letters "Latest Scientific Breakthrough" Why the big pr dept. change ? I think were very close to getting the FDA market approval if we ready dont have it. Man we gona be rich.