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.
"Even to those who don't own this stock will become winners."
Iwant2be, I believe you best summed it up with the above statement. sooooooo........how does a blade of grass thank the Sun?
All the Best---Geo
10...9...8...7...
I am putting on my Space suit as I type IllWill.---LOL
around the world in eighty days---Geo
Adventure.......
Around the world in eighty days....
Geo---investor
Hi Illwill.....
I like to keep abreast of this companies progress. I am not A true long as others here are, but being new, I hope, still makes me a new long! I understand what you are trying to say I think!
I've been an investor since march 2005.So i'd like to say hi.
P.S attrition is spelt with 2t's
GEO---investor
Slow and Steady....
Today is a good day
GEO-investor
What do you think?
DNAPrint Technology Debated in Nature Genetics Journal
via COMTEX
May 3, 2005
SARASOTA, Fla., May 3, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ --
DNAPrint genomics (OTC Bulletin Board: DNAP) announced today that its technology is reviewed and debated in a series of letters to the editor in "Nature Genetics," one of the world's premier scientific journals.
Dr. Mark Shriver of Penn State University, Dr. Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint genomics and Dr. Bruce Budowle, Senior Scientist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Quantico, Va., in a letter to the editor published in this week's edition took exception to an opinion piece previously published in the magazine. Ethicists Mildred K. Cho of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and Pamela Sankar of the University of Pennsylvania, Medical Ethics, took a position in their commentary that data from human "populations" cannot and should not be used in crime solving. In particular, they criticize the forensic use of data derived from human populations, the outdated method of "racial classification" or "binning," and the notion of inferring elements of physical appearance from ancestry -- claiming that the latter is tantamount to "stereotyping."
Drs. Shriver, Frudakis and Budowle, in their response, published under the heading "Getting the Science and the Ethics Right in Forensic Genetics," pointed out that population is and has always been a central concept in biology, that advanced statistical methods enable the characteristics of populations to be clearly defined, that the current state-of-the-art method in measuring ancestry is admixture estimation, not binning or categorization, and that the inference of phenotype indirectly from a knowledge of ancestry admixture can be made through the use of systematic and rational approaches, such as DNAPrint's objective and empirical database-driven processes.
The two ethicists, in an addendum to the Company's published response, stated, "We do not argue against the conduct of good science. But using DNA analysis for predictive purposes, to create a suspect pool (in contrast to its current use to rule in or rule out identity of an individual suspect), extends the technology into a news sphere with potentially serious ramifications."
Dr. Frudakis, DNAPrint's Chief Scientific Officer, said after publication of their letter that debate on the issue is welcome. "We think it speaks volumes that our technology is so impactful and thought-provoking that people feel compelled to write commentary about it in 'Nature Genetics,'" he said. "It is quite common and healthy to have meaningful debates in such forums regarding new technology such as ours."
DNAPrint's DNAWITNESS(TM) product for the law enforcement forensics market is a presumptive (investigative) genetic test, rather than confirmatory test such as human ID tests. The difference between the two is that while the former is used to help an investigator prioritize leads and make decisions, only the latter can be used to incriminate a suspect in a crime by matching a person with a crime scene sample.
"DNA is considered authoritative, and, therefore, with good reason, many apply a double standard to DNA that is not applied to less objective and scientific sources," said Richard Gabriel, DNAPrint's Chief Executive Officer and President. "For example, can anyone imagine an investigator not asking a human eyewitness what a suspect looked like because the concept of population is complex and continuous? It is precisely because physical appearance and ancestry are complex and continuous that quantitative, objective and confidence-qualified science should be used to infer them."
A central debate surrounding the application of genome-based technologies for forensic science is whether the relationships between individuals and populations can be determined objectively, without imposing imperfect prior assumptions. Many consider this to be an esoteric debate, of interest mainly to academic scholars. Both in house and through collaboration with experts such as Dr. Shriver of Penn State University's Department of Anthropology, DNAPrint has developed and implemented novel mathematical methods for reconstructing these relationships. Drs. Shriver and Frudakis are scheduled to release a textbook early in 2006 with Academic Press Publishers detailing the new science of "Molecular Photofitting."
Dr. Shriver said, "To date, many forensics investigators can testify that when empirical database-driven methods are used to interpret genome-based conclusions, and when interpretation is made in a quantitative and confidence- qualified manner, precise and reliable estimates for certain phenotypes or elements of physical appearance can be made from a knowledge of genome- determined ancestry admixture."
Don't know if you've read this yet!
DNAPrint Technology Debated in Nature Genetics Journal
via COMTEX
May 3, 2005
SARASOTA, Fla., May 3, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ --
DNAPrint genomics (OTC Bulletin Board: DNAP) announced today that its technology is reviewed and debated in a series of letters to the editor in "Nature Genetics," one of the world's premier scientific journals.
Dr. Mark Shriver of Penn State University, Dr. Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint genomics and Dr. Bruce Budowle, Senior Scientist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Quantico, Va., in a letter to the editor published in this week's edition took exception to an opinion piece previously published in the magazine. Ethicists Mildred K. Cho of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and Pamela Sankar of the University of Pennsylvania, Medical Ethics, took a position in their commentary that data from human "populations" cannot and should not be used in crime solving. In particular, they criticize the forensic use of data derived from human populations, the outdated method of "racial classification" or "binning," and the notion of inferring elements of physical appearance from ancestry -- claiming that the latter is tantamount to "stereotyping."
Drs. Shriver, Frudakis and Budowle, in their response, published under the heading "Getting the Science and the Ethics Right in Forensic Genetics," pointed out that population is and has always been a central concept in biology, that advanced statistical methods enable the characteristics of populations to be clearly defined, that the current state-of-the-art method in measuring ancestry is admixture estimation, not binning or categorization, and that the inference of phenotype indirectly from a knowledge of ancestry admixture can be made through the use of systematic and rational approaches, such as DNAPrint's objective and empirical database-driven processes.
The two ethicists, in an addendum to the Company's published response, stated, "We do not argue against the conduct of good science. But using DNA analysis for predictive purposes, to create a suspect pool (in contrast to its current use to rule in or rule out identity of an individual suspect), extends the technology into a news sphere with potentially serious ramifications."
Dr. Frudakis, DNAPrint's Chief Scientific Officer, said after publication of their letter that debate on the issue is welcome. "We think it speaks volumes that our technology is so impactful and thought-provoking that people feel compelled to write commentary about it in 'Nature Genetics,'" he said. "It is quite common and healthy to have meaningful debates in such forums regarding new technology such as ours."
DNAPrint's DNAWITNESS(TM) product for the law enforcement forensics market is a presumptive (investigative) genetic test, rather than confirmatory test such as human ID tests. The difference between the two is that while the former is used to help an investigator prioritize leads and make decisions, only the latter can be used to incriminate a suspect in a crime by matching a person with a crime scene sample.
"DNA is considered authoritative, and, therefore, with good reason, many apply a double standard to DNA that is not applied to less objective and scientific sources," said Richard Gabriel, DNAPrint's Chief Executive Officer and President. "For example, can anyone imagine an investigator not asking a human eyewitness what a suspect looked like because the concept of population is complex and continuous? It is precisely because physical appearance and ancestry are complex and continuous that quantitative, objective and confidence-qualified science should be used to infer them."
A central debate surrounding the application of genome-based technologies for forensic science is whether the relationships between individuals and populations can be determined objectively, without imposing imperfect prior assumptions. Many consider this to be an esoteric debate, of interest mainly to academic scholars. Both in house and through collaboration with experts such as Dr. Shriver of Penn State University's Department of Anthropology, DNAPrint has developed and implemented novel mathematical methods for reconstructing these relationships. Drs. Shriver and Frudakis are scheduled to release a textbook early in 2006 with Academic Press Publishers detailing the new science of "Molecular Photofitting."
Dr. Shriver said, "To date, many forensics investigators can testify that when empirical database-driven methods are used to interpret genome-based conclusions, and when interpretation is made in a quantitative and confidence- qualified manner, precise and reliable estimates for certain phenotypes or elements of physical appearance can be made from a knowledge of genome- determined ancestry admixture."
I AM.......
LONG AND STRONG---GEOBERNT
*OT*
You know!
This BB reminds me a lot of a "Bugs bunny, Daffy Duck" show.
You know ! the one were Daffy is running around yelling "MINE, MINE all MINE" and Bugs calmly saying "WHAT'S UP DOC"
Bashers= DAFFY
Longs = BUGS
Just my observation---GEOBERNT
My daughter and I like the SHOW!
To all the LONGS how do I erase a message
SOOO SORRY---GEOBERNT
CASTLES NOT HOUSE' S I am truly sorry
dear Doctor F, please read this and tell me were I'm wrong
35 million reasons....explains R/S?
Although the Biofrontera acquisition was terminated, the Company expects to use its $35 million dollar funding facility with Dutchess Equity Partners because of its previously stated goals and objectives to grow the business. The Company is currently seeking acquisition candidates that will meet criteria set out by the Board of Directors of the Company that include but are not limited to:
1. Positive Cash Flow
2. Profitable Operations
3. Market Recognition
4. Talented and Dedicated Staff
5. Complimentary Certifications that can include: American Society of Forensic Laboratory Directors, American Blood Bank Certification or Clinical Laboratory Certification or other complementary certifications that will help the Company expand its products, services and research and development into consumer, forensics and pharmaceutical applications.
UP UP AND AWAY---GEOBERNT
r doctor ..... read this and tell me I'm wrong!
To the good DR....
Understanding of a situation advances the direction in which you take. Do you get paid by the LETTER or by the LETTER?---LOL
You know things are starting to gain traction for DNAPRINT and I believe your negative posts are attempts to buy unaware investors shares at a reduced price. Well you can take me off your list please. Did you know that not to long ago someone was willing to invest 35 million dollars for a M/A. Imagine investing 35 million dollars to a company that has no potential......Hmmmm
UP UP and AWAY---GEOBERNT
Hmmm...
35 million reasons to think .....Hmmm
UP UP AND AWAY---GEOBERNT
Hello.....
I am new here, but have been watching the board for some time
First I would like to say hi and all the best to each and every one of you. We all seem to be waiting for some great news, something that would justify all the movement in the last little while. I personaly beleive that what we are waiting for has been drasticaly over looked, and that is, I beleive: Revenue
and Acceptance.
Year end 2004 revenue was marginal to say the least. The products, for the most part, were just coming out. The public as well as several Institutions are just starting to understand them and are just now understanding the scope in which they can be used. I think that this will only generate more intrest as well as capital. I am also guessing but as soon as we see/hear the revenue numbers, there will probably be a noticable improvement. I expect this improvement to continue for years to come. That is why I have invested in DNAPRINT. I've done my homework and I'm not missing any sleep because of my choice.
The next step is "pharma". I beleive they have all the pieces. Now they have to put them together. I'm pretty sure DNAPRINT's montra is not "I THINK WE CAN" I'm sure it's "I KNOW WE CAN".
So again good luck to all in the choices you make ---GEOBERNT
I see the A/S as the turning point to DNAPRINT, as long as the R/S keep GPE all is fine. Personally I feel that the A/S will be used not only to thwart a seat change at the Board which I beleive they consider this as a "real" threat, but also as they state a tool to create inherent value. Can this be done? Yes! Short term downside long term upside if move justifies increased Earning Yields %
The higher the R/S value the less A/S required AND, as share holders, we all get a chance to buy A/S when issued.
UP UP and AWAY---GEOBERNT
Notice the size of VOL.
Even yesterday with EVERY ONE on the drop it still didn't hit the ground with a splat; and today down-up. If you think this thing is going to hit bottom at the drop of a shoe I would have to disagree. There is a lot of interest in this CO.
PATENTS.....PATENTS......PATENTS
ER..... I MEANT, I MEANT PATIENCE..LOL---GEOBERNT
Since i find a lot of self-interest Groups on this board I would like to be clear, that when I say; I like the thought of R/S. Being able to uprade is always a good thing. Understanding that my share of MKV will be the same afer an R/S is alright by me. Now the thought of adding shares later on to help finance R/D, mergers etc, sounds good to me. I see that as less MKV but more and better Earning Yield%. That is a good thing, Yes? The idea of a CO. like this surviving in an investment climate around here is not good. This company needs med/large fiscal contractual commitments from large Institutions or big Pharma. I beleive in the interest of the true longs, an R/S is required, it is the next evolutional step to a mid/large CO.
EVOLUTION NOT REVOLUTION ---GEOBERNT
I'll buy them.....or some one else will!
People here are really worried about your investment. Ask yourself why? Just so you know if you don't want your SHARES, I'm sure I'll buy them or they will, please do your DD on DNAPRINT.
UP UP AND AWAY....(DNAPRINT IS; SUPER....MAN)
GEOBERNT
THE TRICK TO THIS INVESTMENT IS............
PATIENTS....PATIENTS......PATIENTS.....LOL
UP UP AND AWAY(FAR AWAY)---GEOBERNT
Well I've done my DD on this "TEAM" (DNAPRINT), and you know what? No matter how bleak things have looked on the "OUTSIDE" over the years, they have always been able to recruit top notch people from the profession.These people are even taking stock in lui of cash Hmmm.So I ask my self "why would anybody hop on to a sinking ship and accept a paddle instead of a life jacket" Hmmmm. Maybe its not sinking, maybe the waves of "IMPATIENCE" have had a negative effect on this "SHIP" over the years.
Believe what you will, but I believe DNAPRINT is on too something big.
1)They are well situated with alot of upcoming genomics companies as well as highly educated learning centers.
2)They have several products that are being used by other companies. Most of these products have just been introduced to the market and need both time and education to reach thier full potential.
3)Now the "big case"? I'm not drawing any conclusions on that with my money; Involved or not involved, makes no difference to me. I am not one to speculate with my money.
4)The thought of having a head start on "SUPER" drugs and drug reaction tests now that is in my opinion were my money lies.
I am considering this a long term investment, I am not a day trader. I have drawn my line in the sand! I beleive the tide of impatience is now rescinding, all though Iv'e noticed a few trying to BLOW it back HARD.
So if/when they day comes when we are all sitting around together, I would like to thank the "TEAM" at DNAPRINT for allowing me to put my money in to help support their future endevours and from what Ive been reading about their integrity and beliefs, It wouldn't suprise me if they thanked us all for supporting them when it looked like the worst of times.
PS Ive grabbed a paddle not a life jacket
THANX - GEOBERNT