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.
DrCAL: If anyone has been outspoken with re: "bashing" it has been GCBR. Many longterm holders of DNAP have endured years of negative postings and slanted attacks, ranging from critizing the poster of any information that looks "good" for DNAP to lashing out with invective that belittled the staff at DNAP, on a personal level. My favorite of this ilk was the criticism of MS. Tambourini as a "main squeeze".
Fortunately for those of us who have hung around with DNAP her squeezing ability has us lined up to purchase a majority of Biofrontera, and yes, such enterprise will cost us in the short term, but some of us who post here are looking at the long term. We all just wish we had waited to invest. Perhaps we all felt that the "big news" that would soar the PPS was imminent, but that view has have been proven wrong by time and circumstance, to this date.
A few of us stalwarts are looking at tomorrow with eyes that have lived through past onslaughts by many manipulators, some very junior and a few very senior. The professional quality of the postings in some cases has been very very high. The attack was not only on a factual level but on a "hidden persuader" level. Choice of words, image creation. Much attention was given to these "negative story points and negative image creation" to build a wall of negativism for an assault that continues to this day.
I can't recall how many posts there are that appeared on RB where Doctor Frudakis was belittled by having his name and title altered to contain negative image elements.
GCBR has been there and actively engaged many of the masters of the "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" propaganda. His continued effort to provide an alternative view has been a lonely one, made all the more onerous by the quantity of negative posters, both silver tounged and outright vulgar.
DrCal, I wish you every sucess with your endeavors. I have not had the time to post as I have had in the past, but when I find a little tidbit and I try to throw it in the mix. Sometimes a thread of posts requires a comment.
Your current theory that a concerted effort has been ongoing for sometime to depress or destroy DNAP is one I share. But I also hold the belief that this effort though very costly to DNAP will be overcome. Perhaps for gravy on our mashed potatoes, we will see pirates hanging from the yard-arms when the DNAP galleon returns our invested treasure!
Stakddek
From my google news alert:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
http://65.54.170.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=ae5df7053653d38335b5bb4c80b397dd&lat=109995...
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Story++++++++++++++
WASHINGTON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put health genealogy on the menu this holiday season
By LEE BOWMAN
Scripps Howard News Service
November 08, 2004
WASHINGTON - At family gatherings, talk of the latest ailments is a dinnertime staple. Federal health officials want Americans to take that a bit further over the Thanksgiving weekend and serve up a little health genealogy that could benefit current and future generations.
Knowing who had what type of cancer or developed mental illness at a certain age can be critical information for family members years later, says U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who Monday announced the initiative to collect family health histories.
"The bottom line is that knowing your family history can save your life," said Carmona. "Millions of dollars in medical research, equipment and knowledge can't give us the information that this simple tool can."
The Department of Health and Human Services has developed a downloadable computer program, "My Family Health Portrait," to help families collect and organize their health histories.
Although most people know that certain illnesses run in families and doctors have long been trained to take family history into account for diagnoses, such data is seldom put together in a thorough, organized manner.
Doctors often lack the time to collect a full accounting of who in a patient's family had what illness. A recent survey done for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that although 96 percent of Americans believe that knowing family health history is important, only a third have ever tried to gather and organize such a history.
"It is our hope that as families gather this holiday season, they'll take the time to learn, and record, their families' health histories so that they can continue to have years of family gatherings together," said Dr. Muin Khoury, director of the CDC's Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention.
As scientists continue to unravel which genetic traits are responsible for various disorders, doctors eventually should be able to determine people's medical risks through DNA tests, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
"Until then, tracking illness from one generation of a family to the next can help doctors infer the illnesses for which we are at risk, and thus enable them to create personalized disease-prevention plans."
The computer tool, which uses Windows with the .NET framework installed, guides users through a series of screens to help compile, for each family member, information about six common inheritable diseases, including heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and also lets them add information about other conditions.
After information is collected about grandparents, parents, siblings, children, aunts, uncles and cousins, the program creates a diagram a health professional can use to evaluate the risk for various conditions and to individualize prevention or treatment plans.
The program also lets users add information as it becomes available, and is able to create a diagram for an individual without having complete information about every family member.
HHS officials stressed that once the program is downloaded from the government Web site, it does not send the information entered anywhere else - that the information stays only on the computer's hard drive. Families are encouraged to print out diagrams and share them with family members, who can then pass along copies to their physicians. The software is available in both English and Spanish.
A print version is available through the Federal Citizen Information Center (1-888-878-3256) and at more than 3,600 community health centers nationwide.
For more information about the program or to download, go to www.hhs.gov/familyhistory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Contact Lee Bowman at BowmanL(at)shns.com or online at http://www.shns.com)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stakddek
As long as we are discussing tax loss sales, I believe that under the current regulation we also have to consider long and short term loss. Now in the case of DNAP, If you bought 10,000 shares over a year ago for say .10 a share, You could sell today and realize about .014 cents a share. My lousy math skills say that is:
purchased 10000 * .10 = $1000.00 cost
Sold same 10000 * .014= $ 140.00 recovered
For a long term loss of 960.00, ignoring commissions. You would use this, I believe, to offset your $3000.00 long term gains in one of your stocks that has performed admirably. You of course would have to sell that stock to realize the gain.
Now if you have a bunch of DNAP that you bought within this calendar year, and you sell it this calendar year is it a short term loss and can be applied aginst your short term gains. I believe a problem can arise when you mix those long and short term gains because the tax treatment of a stock held over a year (Long term Capital Gain)is different than a short term gain.
I am not a wiz at this, (among many things) and I may be giving you my wishful thinking. If someone can supply a link to the straigh scoop, (in English, not IRS Mumbo Jumbo) maybe we can balance our portfolios without risking being left at the dock watching our dreamship disappearing over the horizon.
Another point to ponder, is somewhere I think it says your LONG TERM losses can be "saved" and you can lets say have $10,000.00 worth of losses and apply them at $3000.00 per year to offset taxes that might be due in say 05,06, and 07. You just can't apply them to "short term gains". Hopefuly none of us will be amassing these negative deductions.
If anyone knows better, please post here. I don't know this stuff, and I'm not an accountant or tax advice service. I have posted my understanding of a very complex tax rule that the IRS used devil knows how many lawyers and accountants to insure that none of us taxpayers are cheated. I probably have it all wrong, so I hope someone posting here can straighten out any misapprehensions I have.
Stakddek
A promo for a 5 PM Story on WABC NY 7 (local)
Dr. Jay is the health reporter for WABC in New York City. Here is a link to his page, however as I post this, I noted no personalized medicine link to a story. It was promoed for todays 6:00 o'clock news. Perhaps later this evening.
+++++++++++++++
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/health/index.html
+++++++++++++++
Stakddek
A promo for a 5 PM Story on WABC NY 7 (local)
Dr. Jay is the health reporter for WABC in New York City. Here is a link to his page, however as I post this, I noted no personalized medicine link to a story. It was promoed for todays 6:00 o'clock news. Perhaps later this evening.
+++++++++++++++
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/health/index.html
+++++++++++++++
Stakddek
A promo for a 5 PM Story on WABC NY 7 (local)
Dr. Jay is the health reporter for WABC in New York City. Here is a link to his page, however as I post this, I noted no personalized medicine link to a story. It was promoed for todays 6:00 o'clock news. Perhaps later this evening.
+++++++++++++++
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/health/index.html
+++++++++++++++
Stakddek
RE: Hook Article:
+++++++++++
"Gaskin says the test-- used by more than >- 50 -< police precincts nationally-- helped solve the New Orleans serial killer case last year."
+++++++++++
Use of the test appears to be growing. But of course the complainer noted "I might be in that profile." I wonder if he would be one of the people who would be likely to voice a complaint about "picking on our community"?
WE can see from just this short news story how difficult it will be to breach the barriers that people erect when any "racial" concept is brought into the mix. We know it's geography, but the "Joe Dokes" in the street may not be as inclined to pursuing the finer points of DNAP's magic.
I still find it funny that that some people want DNAP to be used to exclude people by ancestry, (Indian Rights) while other "race" based entities are crying foul about being included in what is after all a happenstance of geography and natural selection. It make take a while to put to rest the knee jerk reactors who perceive the work as a continuing plot to oppress all those who are different. Hopefully these voices in opposition will be rapidly silenced by a generally more knowledgeable public.
Stakddek
Recent news stories I have heard had indicated that Motorola has pretty much abandoned any activity in the consumer display area. In other words no "Big Screen" home entertainment from them. This is my recollection only.
Now of course Motorola is still continuing to make many other kinds of devices -- and the display tech for those devices may or not include CNT display tech. I didn't expect cell phones to have video cameras in them, so the tech is always rolling!
On the fuel cell front, If the involvement is with GE then the fuel cell company that GE is with is PLUG Power. Plug Power is heavily involved with MKTY (Mechanical Technology)and If you look at it, PLUG is making the "big" power fuel cells and MKTY is making the portable "battery replacement" devices. I believe Gillette ("Dura-Cell") is involved in a funding arrangement with MKTY.
These companies are in New York and The politician Shumer is pushing Tech very hard for alternative energy. Governor Pataki is a friend to business development in New York.
FACT, First Albany Bank is a big stockholder of PLUG and MKTY. If you do a fact check on PLUG you may find a significant GE presence in the company.
Now the above statements are reasonably factual from my memory. I don't have any PR from CTKH saying they are working with or co-developing with any of the companies I mention. Rumor and inuendo are not valid research when you are doing DD on any stock.
If all you have is a few casual references and "degrees of separation" you may infer a connection because you wish to make that connection so you feel better about your financial prospects for the future.
The only valid fact to consider is that Fuel Cells are using ceramics and CTKH makes ceramics. Other than that, with no "comments" from CTKH, you've got no valid connection to any of the above. Yes it's a favorable climate and fertile fields, but that doesn't mean a crop of greenbacks is going to grow for us stockholders. That may be just fertilizer!
So the result of all this recollection on my part ends up being this ambiguous investment advice about CTKH.:
If you don't play you can't win or lose. Place your bets.
Stakddek
Following up on info from a link posted by Arch on RB:
++++++++++++++++++++++
Media Releases
Royal Society to investigate potential of personalised medicines
20 September 2004
An investigation into the potential for designing drug treatments based on a person?s genetic makeup has been launched today (Monday 20 September 2004) by the Royal Society, the UK?s national academy of science.
Most current drugs are not effective for 100 per cent of the population and some work in as few as 30 to 50 per cent of cases. Pharmacogenetics, the study of how genetic factors influence a person?s response to a drug, is seen as a way of making treatments as safe and effective as possible for every individual. However, reservations have been expressed about the ability of this technology to fulfil such claims, what it might cost, how soon it could be achieved and if it would impact negatively on the modern healthcare system.
Sir David Weatherall, chair of the working group that will conduct the study, said: ?Recent developments in understanding the biology and mechanisms of disease together with increased knowledge of genes have the potential to lead to major advances in healthcare over the next few decades. This study will look at whether pharmacogenetics, the designing of drug treatments based on a person?s genetic makeup, is a scientifically achievable aim, be it five, ten or 25 years from now. Equally importantly it will look at whether healthcare systems in the UK and elsewhere have the resources to implement such technologies and what the pharmaceutical industry?s assessment is of the significant investment needed to try and develop them in the first place.?
The Royal Society report will be published in summer 2005. Individuals and organisations that are interested in contributing evidence should contact the Society or visit the Call for Evidence.
For further information contact:
Tim Watson or Bob Ward
Press and Public Relations
The Royal Society, London
Tel: 020 7451 2508/2510 or 07811 320346
About the Royal Society I Home I Search
International I UK Funding I Science in Society
Science Policy I Library I Publications I Education
Facilities I News & Media I Events Diary
Fellows Room I Research Fellows
. News
Media Releases
Excellence in Science
The Royal Society’s Newsletter
Staff vacancies
Science in the news
+++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks Arch, I hadn't seen this before.
Stakddek
Ming: Thank you. Whatever your decision. Riding herd on this menagerie is oft a thankless task, but your control has been I feel even and fair. In fact the angst it has caused you is a reflection of your considered efforts to let all posters who contribute to the discussion be heard.
Now I can't read between all the lines, but I respect your efforts and wish to thank you for all the time and effort you have put in allowing many posts that I personally could have done without. Your knowledge of the field has permitted you to refute many disengenuous posts, and you have maintained a "distance" in being both a participant and being a moderator. A very difficult task and one that deserves the heartfelt thanks of all the participants here.
Stakddek
On and off topic Comments:
It is unfortunate that the rules of engagement in the corporate world are the rule of the jungle. We have been beseiged since the turn of the century with the uncovering of gross corporate misdoings. In the quest for a broader and deeper bottom line, malfeasance in the boardroom is often rewarded, and those in politics or positions of trust who cooperate are well rewarded. It would seem that the regulators finally caught on to the misdoings when market forces brought the "house of cards" to light as it lay helter-skelter across our bank accounts. I do fear that the pharma-industry has embraced the same "lassez faire"? attitude toward corporate well being. The well being of the corporation is paramount and "(four letter invective of your choice here)" everyone else. When pushing pills at the doctors office is considered of greater importance to the bottom line than the well being of the patients, perhaps a systemic condition is becoming more obvious in it's appearance in multiple disciplines. Unfortunately for us all, if Enron and Global Crossing are examples of the dedication of our investigators and regulators, albeit political will, well the status quo is in no fear of any attempts to make things right. In fact it is quite possible, that by the twisted logic that creates the cheats and hustlers and rewards them with positions of importance, they, rather than embrace a new technology that can protect and nurture humanity, will choose to fight it in any form, just to preserve the entrenched mechanism that provides rewards for all the sly players who profit from misery. Michael Moore will have a ball with this, and many people will take his new documentary to heart.
Our flu vaccine shortfall is a sterling example of the twisted logic. Can you see his tac?
We can't import drugs from Canada, but the nations flu vacinne is made in England. English authorities caught the contamination. Our FDA apparently was caught off guard. Didn't anticipate this. Was this a terrorist plot to kill millions of people??? Was this a simple way to ensure the continuation of Social Security by reducing the drain???
Oh yes Mister Moore will benefit, but will he be sucessful in changing the current problem. So far for all the noises he's made, we still have the same problems he's highlighted.
Stakddek
OT History lesson (Biased)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"
Harry Truman:
"The buck stops Here"
Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Beware the Militiary Industrial Complex
John F. Kennedy:
"Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what I can do for my country"
Lyndon B. Johnson:
I shall not seek another term...
Richard Nixon:
"I am not a crook" --
"Watch the Steps on Air Force One!"
Gerald R. Ford
"OOHPPS!"
Jimmy Carter:
"I'm just a peanut farmer from Georgia"
George Bush:
"Read my Lips..."
William Jefferson Clinton:
"If If if if if."
Alfred Gore:
"".
George W. Bush:
"Crusade". -- "Sadaam Hussein" -- "Tax Cut" "Dick Cheney" "Axis of Evil" "Preemptive Strike"
Having fought the good fight for freedom and free speech as many others here, I would like to state that I find the continued "nega-casting" from a few individuals quite onerous. I am in the position of not being a newbee to DNAP. I made a decision that in retrospect would have been better made two weeks ago, rather than two years ago. My Faux Pas. But now I am where I am and I will weather the storm. If I choose to buy more to average down, I will. But it sure gets sore to have this constant harping on failure and implied fraud by a few select individuals. No matter what DNAP does the company is wrong. Geez, give it a rest. If you can't see that our little investment is going global, if you can't see it is a worthwhile gamble, than swallow your pride and hit the bricks. There are very few "NEWBIE" types here, and I don't think our posts are all that one sided about DNAP and dilution. We are big boys and girls, and we knew the risks going in. What good it does to keep projecting doom and gloom at this stage of the game is for most of us laughable, if it wasn't for the frequency of the negacasting. I'm sure you can simply continue to corrupt the barnyard at RB with more drek and we'll be glad to direct any newbies who stumble in here to read the RB thread.
It's time to drain the swamp, defrag the hard drive, and perhaps thrust out the many who simply bleat on and on with negative congecture that is a far cry from the alternative of hyper pump about DNAP.
We are all deep in an investment we have faith in. Our concern is the well being of the company, our investment, our fellow investors. We fear for it's well being, but to have semi-authoritive figures continually lambasting every effort of the company is so counterproductive to the purpose of investing in DNAP that no conclusion can be drawn from those efforts but that they are some form of sabotage.
If you are so down on the investment and you feel there is no hope for tomorrow, you should cut and run. If you have faith in your original decision to invest here, and you feel things are coming together as promised by the company, then double down.
DNAP can't keep promises on a timetable to the second. We've been through 9-11 and a recession. We had a lot of money come out of the market when it was advantageous to withdraw it because of tax cuts. Some of the negative types would have you believe DNAP was responsible for all the ills of the world. I don't wear rose colored glasses and I am not an astute investor. I just don't try to manipulate the price of a stock by knocking it or hyping it. I made a decision years ago but if I had waited to this week, I would have bought myself 10 times more shares than I had bought back then. Poor timing? Or perhaps without outside manipulation I wouldn't be "paper down". No "nega-meisters", you are wasting your powder assaulting this bastion of hope. We see the dawn while you see the abyss. We all have the same info, and we interpret it differently. You guys just have to argue ad nauseum. Please take it to where the stench will not be noted.
Stakddek
Bag8ger, felt the same way about the private placement. As to hair growing, just where is all of this "trying" going to grow this hair? And is there a danger of blindness? There should be a genetic test!
Stakddek
Statins: Muscle Damage
+++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.australianprescriber.com/index.php?content=/magazines/vol26no4/74_75_editorial.htm
++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++
E D I T O R I A L
Statins and muscle damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hamilton-Craig, Preventive Cardiologist, Repatriation General Hospital and North Adelaide Cardiac Clinic, Adelaide
Index words: statins, muscle damage, creatine kinase.
(Aust Prescr 2003;26:74-5)
Muscle damage is an uncommon, but important, adverse reaction to HMG CoA reductase inhibitors ('statins').1 Patients may experience a range of musculoskeletal symptoms varying from mild aching to severe pain, usually in proximal muscle groups. Muscle stiffness and weakness also occur to a varying degree. The concentration of creatine kinase (CK) in the blood is usually increased.
Mild symptoms, (myalgia) are usually associated with minimal elevation of CK concentrations (3-10 times upper limit of normal). Myalgia occurs in 2-7% of patients treated with statins in randomised clinical trials, but the incidence is similar in placebo-treated patients.
In myopathy, CK concentrations are more than 10 times the upper limit of normal, with or without symptoms. Myopathy occurs in 0.1-0.2% of clinical trials, at a slightly greater rate than in placebo-treated patients.1
The most serious type of muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis, occurs only rarely but is important to recognise as it may be fatal.1 Rhabdomyolysis is associated with CK concentrations more than 40 times the upper limit of normal. The patient often has severe muscle pain, stiffness and weakness, with constitutional symptoms of fever and malaise. Their urine may be dark and of small volume, because of myoglobinuria and impaired renal function.
Stopping the drug is the only specific treatment for muscle damage. The symptoms usually resolve rapidly (within a few days to weeks) after withdrawal of statin therapy.
The mechanism of muscle damage is unknown at this stage. Risk factors include high blood concentrations of statins, increasing age, multisystem disease, hypothyroidism, acute illness, major surgery, low body weight and female gender. Drugs that affect the cytochrome P450 system can increase the concentrations of statins that are metabolised by this enzyme system (all statins but pravastatin).2 Combination therapy with nicotinic acid and gemfibrozil can also result in muscle damage.
The combination of gemfibrozil and cerivastatin was largely responsible for about 100 deaths from complications of rhabdomyolysis. This led to the withdrawal of cerivastatin from world markets in 2001, and increased the attention given to statin-associated muscle damage.3 Gemfibrozil inhibits a recently reported pathway of hepatic glucuronidation, which appears to be involved in the metabolism of most statins, particularly cerivastatin.4
Recently, histologically-confirmed muscle damage has been found in four patients with normal CK concentrations.5 Muscle damage was suspected because of weakness and/or severe myalgia, which responded to statin withdrawal and recurred on statin rechallenge. The histochemical changes observed on muscle biopsy suggested a defect in mitochondrial respiratory chain function. These histological changes resolved three months after statin withdrawal in the three patients who had repeat biopsies. As none of the four patients had high concentrations of statins in their blood, they may have had some kind of increased susceptibility to muscle damage with statin therapy. This finding extends previous observations made in Australia.6
The prevalence of muscle damage in patients with normal CK concentrations is unknown. The disorder must be seriously considered in any patient taking a statin who complains of muscle aches and pains and/or weakness in spite of normal CK concentrations. A trial of statin withdrawal should be considered.
A plan to manage myopathy in patients on statin therapy has been outlined in the USA.3 Baseline renal, thyroid and hepatic function tests and CK concentrations are recommended before starting statin therapy. Muscle symptoms should be assessed after 6-12 weeks and at each follow-up visit. If muscle symptoms occur the CK should be measured. This advice was published before the finding that muscle damage can occur with a normal CK concentration, so the recommendations regarding statin withdrawal may be too conservative.
Controlled trials have shown that statins improve overall mortality and the incidence of all forms of cardiovascular disease in patients at increased risk of these diseases. Muscle damage must be placed in the context of the recognised benefits of statin therapy. Clinicians should be aware of the need for vigilance in the monitoring of symptoms. Patients should be advised to report any symptoms at the earliest stage in order to prevent the rare, but more serious, muscle complications of statin therapy.
In many cases (perhaps the majority), muscle symptoms will prove to be unrelated to statin therapy. In others, elevated CK concentrations may be the result of exercise or minor muscle damage from trauma. Statin withdrawal and rechallenge may also be subject to a pronounced placebo effect. There is also the potential to further reduce compliance if patients were to believe that any muscle ache or pain they experience may be related to statin therapy. These considerations suggest that the management of statin muscle damage will not be straightforward until there is a specific diagnostic test available.
E-mail:admin@medped-aust.com
R E F E R E N C E S
1. Hamilton-Craig I. Statin-associated myopathy. Med J Aust 2001;175:486-9.
2. Martin J, Fay M. Cytochrome P450 drug interactions: are they clinically relevant? Aust Prescr 2001;24:10-2.
3. Pasternak RC, Smith SC Jr, Bairey-Merz CN, Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Lenfant C, et al. ACC/AHA/NHLBI clinical advisory on the use and safety of statins. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:567-72.
4. Prueksaritanont T, Subramanian R, Fang X, Ma B, Qiu Y, Lin JH, et al. Glucuronidation of statins in animals and humans: a novel mechanism of statin lactonization. Drug Metab Dispos 2002;30:505-12.
5. Phillips PS, Haas RH, Bannykh S, Hathaway S, Gray NL, Kimura BJ, et al. Statin-associated myopathy with normal creatine kinase levels. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:581-5.
6. England JD, Walsh JC, Stewart P, Boyd I, Rohan A, Halmagyi GM. Mitochondrial myopathy developing on treatment with the HMG CoA reductase inhibitors - simvastatin and pravastatin. Aust N Z J Med 1995;25:374-5.
Conflict of interest: none declared
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stakddek
Thanks for CBS Link Arch. I'm doing Lipitor 80 one a day so you know I'm going to be very concious of any side effects. (So far none, and the usual blood tests are within range.) Would rather be "drug free" but nature didn't make me that way. My Triglycerides had been 1962 at one time and I'm down to the low 400 now, but I wonder if the cure is going to be worse than the perhaps fatal disease I risk. Oh well.
Pretty sure that chord in my heart isn't the two stents I already have vibrating! Thanks to you all for the heavy searching and analysis. I am much more comfortable with DNAP since this Biofrontera "?-Letter of understanding?" was announced. I think it would be nice to tell La Jolla, "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Stakddek
Ann441j: Thanks for being so generous with your time, your efforts are always appreciated. There are many contributors to this DNAP board, and though not every post can mention DNAP in particular, we all believe in a coming change, and every tidbit heralding the change is welcome here. Thank you all contributors for your continued efforts.
feeling like a slacker for not contributing---
Stakddek
OT: All the stink about how pharma operates, big bucks to coerce doctors, big lobby to "push" congress, God knows what to influence the FDA, be nice if they reapplied some of thier largesse to where it would help the patients. It seems like a lot of people are catching on to big pharmas antics. Look at all the municipalities that are opting to purchase "prescription" drugs from "overseas" >Canadian< distributors. And then Pharma tells us this is unsafe. Wow. Glad I'm not a Canadian. The drug system there is unsafe. Why if I was a Canadian, I'd pay extra to be sure I was getting good 'ol USA product! Of course, if importing drugs from Canada to the US is illegal, I guess Canadians can't opt to import USA drugs into Canada. Of course if Pharma makes bigger bucks, maybe it isn't illegal after all.
Wouldn't surprise me to find out, some of the drugs sold in the USA, say Buffalo, or Detroit, --in the chain pharmacies, come out of the same warehouse as the Canadian pharmacies across the borderline. Don't know that for fact, just wouldn't surprise me if it were so.
Stakddek
Just a link to a PDF
+++++++++++++
http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall04/mcguem/psy8935/readings/bamshad2004.pdf
+++++++++++ Think it's August nature. Lots of names in the footnotes.
Stakddek
Nite Ann
Last Para- comment by Glaxo - "Seroxat and other SSRI antidepressants can cause side effects in some people."
Wouldn't it be swell if they could determine that with a test before they administer the medicacation???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1125891.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
Watchdog attacked over drug testing
The UK medicines watchdog faces criticism for allegedly failing to protect patients using the anti-depressant drug Seroxat, the BBC has reported.
The Panorama programme claims that past trial results on the drug contain evidence it may increase the risk of suicide in young adults.
The programme also claims that the trials had evidence that the drug can leave a quarter of users addicted, while rapid increases in its dosage can cause serious side effects.
Panorama alleges some of the evidence could have been spotted earlier by the body responsible for monitoring medicines, the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA).
The MHRA adamantly denies the allegations while Seroxat's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, said the drug's effectiveness had been demonstrated in clinical trials involving more than 24,000 people, the BBC said.
Richard Brook, head of the mental health charity Mind, told Panorama that he had "little confidence" that drugs were being licensed in a way he found appropriate.
He stepped down from the MHRA earlier this year, but had previously served on a group which reviewed the safety of anti-depressants. This gave him access to confidential clinical trial information on Seroxat.
Nevertheless, Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, chairman of the MHRA, said there was no evidence the drug made adults suicidal. He told the BBC: "There is no other agency which has kept these agents, these drugs under such constant and careful review since 1990 as we have, and we will continue to do so in the interests of the public health."
And a statement from GlaxoSmithKline to the broadcaster said: "The effectiveness of Seroxat has been demonstrated in clinical trials involving more than 24,000 people and through its use in tens of millions of patients over more than a decade. As with all important medicines, Seroxat and other SSRI antidepressants can cause side effects in some people. Information about these is provided to doctors and patients via regulatory-approved labelling and patient leaflets, and is updated as we learn more from clinical trials and the monitoring of patients world-wide."
++++++++++++++++++++
From ANOVA
Stakddek
More reading for us all! PDF- Big download.
++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.3i.com/pdfs/3i_isight_iss2.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++
I've been watching with some trepidation as I try ro figure the angles on this "purchase". It would seem that there is a lot going on "sub rosa". I can't see the company further diluting the stock, and I find the "itch cure" a little feeble to base a pharmaceutical empire on. I think there is something under the surface we can't see.
Someone is holding cards, and they are not showing them. They are betting big and the people across the puddle are putting a lot up for additional backing. The hand is about to be played and I can't read the cards! I've gotta play this on what's showing and as usual it's to little to make an informed judgement.
My gut isn't kicking me so I will have to follow the table and keep all my chips in DNAP. Maybe I'm dumb as they come, but I think I see a lot of undercurrents churning the water. Might be a sea serpent, but what the heck, sorta' makes me feel like a real explorer.
There are a lot of new treatments being announced and with us boomers needing everyone of them, there is a growing necessity to be sure just who can safely take what. All you have to do is listen to the calm announcers voice describing the litany of side effects for all the wonder drugs we see advertised on the TV. DNAP is looking at a side of the equation that is different from the drug generation side. And the number of affiliates and connections is growing. Maybe an affiliation we still haven't seen is the hole card that all these others are betting on too.
Stakddek
Followed the links from Arch's post and while poking around found this:
+++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.superarray.com/about.php
++++++++++++++++++++
Of course they are a privately held company, but it does look like they are covering some similar ground. Different approach to find similar or same end result. And they'll be glad to collaborate on your research too!
Stakddek
Arch: OT: Don't sweat the 60. You are aware and you are already being caredul, but meanwhile you're still enjoying life to the fullest. Yeah it would be great to live to a hundred and fifty or so, but if I had to spend the last 70 years in bed, well beam me outta here. Okay it's one of those things we sweat like we worried about getting out of Nam or worried about our kids and our parents. It comes with life, and you either live life to the fullest (kick it in the butt), or you crouch in terror at every imagined threat in the dark unknown. Remember those folks who grew old before us had a mighty rough road to hoe. Depression, WWII, Korea and worrying about us when got the family car for our first solo!
We have better medicine, and maybe a better outlook coupled with an understanding of how our bodies work. (No more Twinkies) (Easy on the Jack Daniels) (Pass the Lipitor). There are too many good things to enjoy than to spend the time concerned with a family history that could or could not happen. Hell you know you won't go in bed, (well not from rest) and I'm sure it will be with your boots on.
Those family histories are worth recalling, and they provide a roadmap for us to avoid the ambushes, but they are no sure predictor of time frame.
I don't know the source but:
"If I had known I was gonna' last this long I woulda' taken better care of myself when I was younger."
My mother told me I was born kicking and screaming, so I plan to go out the same way!
Stakddek
Political Rant: Wrong Forum for these expressions of support or disfavor. WE have a history religious political wrangling in this country. We were founded on no small measure by religious persecution. Just ask the Pilgrims who shared Thanksgiving with the Indians. They came to the New World because of religious issues. Of course we then ended up with the Salem Witch Trials. Depending on your side of the line, you know the other side is wrong. With religion, that means folks from the other side of the line will suffer in the appropriate nether region while all our side will bask in everlasting joy with our great reward.
Much of the strife in the world is caused by differences of opinion that have no common ground for settlement. Might makes right, so the more popular view is often the winning agenda as it is supported by the most backsliders from both sides who have become dissaffected with the "superiority" expressed by the True Believers who are the fringes of any culture or religion. The backsliders from both groups are lacksadasical and generally just like to keep the pompous proponents in a place where there is little or no interaction. The problems arise when one organized group decides that Might makes Right and since thiers is the only "Ordained" "Right Way" that all other ways are false and the backsliders or uninitiated must be brought to correct thinking to form a whole cloth.
Dedicated "Believers" are always out to reinforce thier own views with numbers and the more followers they enumerate, the more correct they are! As the numbers grow, so does the fervor and now conversion is not just by "Friendly Persuasion".
Now it is a Political Season and we see many individuals spouting beliefs that appears as clutter to our "silent and lazy majority". Unforunately we can't stand back above the fray and base our decisions on the calm and rational reasons like greed and laziness we all hold dear. (Seven Deadly Sins!) Most of us have a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" mentality based on our inate human laziness. It's only when our way of "not being involved" or be affected is threatened that we raise our voice or our war clubs. Oft times in the past this reaction to the percieved danger has occurred to late, and what we "wish to be" is simply voided out of existence by our failure to react swiftly and surely to the dangers lurking in the dark.
Hey if you want to talk politics or religion, I commend you. I support you. Just not here. There are dangers all about, and we who choose to be aware will find the appropriate forums. Granted it's hard not to be outraged by the slings and arrows, the rampant mental instability and even the natural stupidity of others, but we all have stay focused and keep this forum on it's true course. We must set aside the other individual or groups hangups and remain focused on DNAP discussion. Please???? Eventually we will see sucess or failure with our investments, and then we can promote our favorite causes, or withdraw to our personal island paradise. Let's all try to keep the messages ("trinkets of wisdom") in the right pigeonholes.
Remember. You are right about everything in all your views. If someone else has a different view they are totally wrong and should be punished. Now all of you who disagree with my pronouncement with suffer the wrath of whoever is the reigning deity of this week. Matt the Merciless or the Ming the Unmerciful. Since we have no Frog the Forgiving or Joy the Joyful in charge of the forum we must fear the wrath that will ensue our failure to abide by the posting commandments. Seek politics and slander in other arenas.
Go DNAP! (Up please)
Stakddek.
Arch: If you are going to play a lawyer game you got to play like a lawyer. Now if you are running around attempting to get factual documentation for opinions you expressed over a number of years based on then current facts, you'll simply be wasting a lot of time and effort that could be better spent on more meaningful pursuits. (Enjoying your life). No one ever told me it was illegal to voice an opinion, and or to change it in light of new circumstance. If you are going to spend any time trying to get together material to refute what is currently an imaginary lawsuit, your opponent won. He has FUDdded you big time. If the suit ever does come because he can use his connections and wealth to play silly games, I think there is a term for such meaningless and spiteful filings. If he is an attorney, or is consulting one, I'm sure the concept of frivolous will enter into the picture. Most courts look on the filing of such suits as being a waste of the courts time, and the Court is usually willing to admonish the bringer of such drek.
Meanwhile, by attempting to defend against that which may never come, or may come in a form that doesn't necessarily make any sense to us non-lawyers, your just wasting valuable good living time.
I personally think that anyone who is a professional person who would continually spend hours badmouthing a small company on the NASDAQ is suffering from some form of illness, or really does have some agenda, or both!
Don't get drawn in to defending yourself from all the possible onslaughts you can imagine. There is no reason for such an onslaught but if one should be FUDdded out there, the info will still be there to gather and the many friends you've made over the years will supply many hands and eyes and do what they can to help. Meanwhile don't sweat it. That discomfort your reacting to is the desired effect of what has been thrown in the wind.
Stakddek
Frequent Flyer Miles for Doctor Frudakis!
++++++++++++++++
http://register.hugopacific.com/tt-demo.cfm
++++++++++++++++
<><><><>
Copyright 2004 (All rights reserved. No duplication or reproduction of this site's contents may
be made without written consent of Genome Institute of Singapore.
<><><><><
Stakddek
Drug reaction: Continued:
Woke up about 9:00 Am. Whelts bigger and redder, more about the torso and arms and now hands. Said morning to wife who was up and about. (Wife noted whiter than white pallor). Went downstairs for morning coffee and got very faint, couldn't hold coffee pot up, felt other arm falling to side, general weakness in whole body, full mental acuity. Managed to snag a chair on my way down and was sitting upright when wife responsed to shouts for help! Called Doctor and etc. In a few minutes I was talking and conversing, but not up to much moving about. Very fatigued feeling. This inciddent was about 8 hours after my last PLAVIX. I stayed on the lower level of the house and watched TV and fell asleep. Very itchy but Benadryl helped. When I woke in a few hours, my hands were to swollen to shut my fingers against any part of my hands. AND I WAS ITCHY ALL OVER! VERY ITCHY! My hair Ithced! Topical hydrocortisone cream and benedryl tablets pulled me through. Took 5 days for my hands to go back to near normal. Itches and welts about 3 1/2 days to disappear. This is not an experience I would care to repeat. I watched my grandmother collapse in a stroke, and that was the thought racing through my mind as I felt my muscles weakening that morning. It was scary, and not an experience I would wish on anyone. Especially a patient in a weakened condition. Someone who might be so otherwise physically ravaged that a bad interaction or drug allergy could finish them. The promise of the work DNAP is doing will be of benefit to all us Boomers who are being exposed to more and more potent drugs that might just be chemical bombs waiting to explode in our own unique chemical factories. I have I believed experienced this with Plavix, and though I am probably one hundredth of a percent of the people who might be effected in the fashion I've related, it was nor at all pleasant. It would have been nice to know beforehand that the bad reaction was a certainty, or that the drug would not be beneficial enough to warrant the reaction. I'm not forgetting why I've invested in DNAP, and I feel more strongly than ever that the need for this capability will be stronger and stronger for further advances in the future of medicine.
Now I just hope that the 5 stuffed clams I had for dinner that night aren't the cause of my allergic reaction that I'm blaming on PLAVIX. (Had lot of stuffed clams before, PLAVIX is the new drug I was prescribed). I will try Stuffed clams again, but I'm afraid PLAVIX is off my wish list!
Stakddek
Well it appears slow so: Drug reaction:
This past week I started on PLAVIX. About 5 days later Plavix started on me. I was working away at my sedentary task when I noticed an itching in my arm pit. Like a bug bite. I felt for the irritation and noted a raised portion of skin. Damn mosquito got in the house i guess. A little later, the "bug bite" continued itching and I noted it appeared to the touch to be covering a larger area. I also noted some similiar itching in other areas. Well it's 4 o'clock in the morning, I'll knock off work and take a shower, and start fresh in the morning. a little soap and water should shed the "itches". When I disrobed I noted my torso was covered with large red whelts that ranges from dime to circles to finger lenght "whip marks". My first thought was were you using a new detergent that I had had a skin reaction to? Oh well a shower and some sleep.
BRAVO Badger! EOM
Retired: Yes and No. I agree with your scenario about keeping the lab out of the business end, and needing a strong management team. What I referred to was the percieved concern Doctor Frudakis had expressed for his long term investors. Business sense doesn't address that concern, and any moral bond between the company and the investors is smoke in the wind. I didn't believe that to be the case before the new management. But I do agree that the company as a whole is better off. I just regret that we lost that something extra that had been there. I guess I'm a dreamer and previously I held the belief that a bond might be there between Doctor Frudakis and his investors, that he would look out for them. Now with new management I'm afraid it is just a "money" thing. Hope this helps you understand my feelings, but I do agree we will all make money. I just have this streak in me that wants to "do good" while I'm making money. The world doesn't play that way, but I guess I'll keep trying. Gotta' keep charging at those windmills!
Stakddek
Thanks to all who have reported back from the stockholder meeting. I can't say I'm elated with the lack of concrete good news of growing profits or the lack of news on the state of current affiliations with a "BIG" major partner. (One with very deep pockets!)
Longs in DNAP have a certain faith in Doctor Frudakis. He has been our focus and we all feel that he is thinking of us as well. I have been invested in DNAP for less time than many of you, and so missed out on investing in the early days when the price per share was North of .20. I purchased in for many shares at .10 cents and have been averaging my purchases for two years now. I have more invested in DNAP than any other stock because my belief is in the technology and the Doctor Frudakis. I'm averaged down so far that I want to cry cry cry when I see what those first .10 a share purchases would do now that were at .0197. Obviously I am not an astute trader. I still consider DNAP to be that powder keg that will launch all of us to the moon, and I'm not getting out of my seat, to run back to the terminal for a chocolate bar, 'cause I know that's when DNAP will cast aside the surly bonds of earth and leave me with a very crumpled chocolate bar in my sweaty hands and a big big hole in my heart. .., Anyway, looking at this as an investment, uyou have the choice now (as I see it):
1_ To sell out and take the tax loss, and if you want back in, pray nothing happens for the thirty days until you can buy back in.
2_ Sell out and seek greener pastures.
3_ Live with the paper loss and just wait for the turnaround.
4_ Take the opportunity to average down and bring the cost of your holding to a lesser average cost. This of course requires the funds and discipline to act rationally. Do I buy a lot more now today, or do I think the price will continue to descend and I should buy some now and some more next week etc.
It's a tough call for some and a horror story for others. I can't tell you what to do and I don't know enough to even be a valid source for any suggestion. I know I will continue to average down, and I probably will "spend all I can stand to spend in one fell swoop" And then if it goes down again, well I might be tempted to look for more funds from another stock to put over in DNAP.
I believe in the company, I think Doctor Frudakis is a genius, and I think he brought in a management team that is wise, knowledgable, and businesslike. Unfortunately, I believe the businesslike part doesn't bode well for us shareholders, because the heart in the company that was Doctor Frudakis is now in the lab. I think we'll all make money down the road, but the nature, the character and style of the company that I originally invested in has changed. That is my major concern. I first felt this when the private placement was offered to shareholders through Athena and while we who were bound by "silence" during this period, the offer that was originally profferred to us was recinded and a new and very different one took it's place. I chose not to participate and still have a bitter taste in my mouth over this "bait and switch".
Anyway, I'm still long and strong, and I believe we will eventually be rewarded for our patience. My time to dwell and participate on these boards has been curtailed by work and family considerations, and I regret that I have not been able to participate here in some effective manner. Thanks to all who gather the minutae that makes this board so worthwhile.
I guess we will all have to wait a little longer to hear the earthshattering news we all believe is inevitable. Meanwhile, thanks again for all the good company.
Stakddek
Looking forward to reports from Investors meeting. It's nice to see these PR's confirming the willingness for the top people (I believe) in the field to be willing to work with Doctor Frudakis. I consider the willingness to work together a good sign. These people know the field and are "hitching to the same sled". As of the last few month we seem to be assembling quite a few Clydesdales to share the harness. I don't believe these people would associate with anything less than the foremost researchers. They know you have to get the "easy stuff" (physical traits) out of the way before you tackle the hard tasks like drug interaction vis a vis the genome. There is a big difference between measuring eye color versus reaction to drugs when a life is at stake. -- and the database grows!
Stakddek
More Berlin Exchange and... Raging Bull Posters!
++++++++++++++++++
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040719/195663_1.html
++++++++++++++++++
Maybe there is someone "trying" to look out for us poor souls. Maybe we have to look out for ourselves. I personally feel DNAP being listed on the foriegn exchange permits the effect of the continued bashing to be amplified. Who was it Aristotle- Give me a place to stand and a lever and I can move worlds -- Perhaps some of you attending the shareholders meeting can convince Mister Gabriel to rethink has current opinion on the trading activity being good for the company. It certainly doesn't appear to good for the share price!
Stakddek
Mingwan0: IF you're really Steve O'Brien then you're an SOB! EOM
Stakddek
Pro Statins:
+++++++++++++
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/living/9177330.htm
+++++++++++++
Posted on Sat, Jul. 17, 2004
^Statins' promise<
By William Hathaway
The Hartford Courant
(KRT) - HARTFORD, Conn. - For months Joleen Richard adamantly refused to take statins, a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs her doctor said would dramatically reduce her risk of a heart attack.
"I put up a pretty big fight," Richard says. "I felt fine. I didn't want to take more drugs."
For 26 years, the Bolton resident, now 46, has battled diabetes, a disease that puts her at three times greater risk of heart disease than non-diabetics. Her LDL - low-density lipoprotein, or so-called "bad cholesterol" - had crept up to a worrisome level of 175.
Her doctor, Dr. Nicholas Abourizk, an endocrinologist at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center, told her that a recent study showed statins could essentially eliminate the heightened risk of heart disease that diabetics have.
"Data from the Heart Protection study are incredible," he says.
Abourizk also told Richard that the fat content in her blood made an eye condition potentially dangerous. She finally relented four months ago and began taking Crestor, one of the new generation of statins.
"He didn't give me a choice," Richard says.
"Statins are doing for heart disease what penicillin did for infectious diseases," Abourizk says.
A slew of studies of statins have found they have beneficial health effects for a wide variety of ailments, findings that suggest that millions more people will be urged to take the drugs, already one of the most widely used medications in the United States.
Cardiologists have long been sold on statins, the name for a class of drugs that block the liver's ability to make LDL cholesterol. They include atorvastatin (Lipitor), fluvastatin (Lescol), lovastatin (Mevacor), pravastatin (Pravachol), simvastatin (Zocor) and rosuvastatin (Crestor).
The evidence is rock-solid that statins prevent heart attacks in people with heart disease and people who have high cholesterol. Statins are now officially indicated for people with heart disease or with LDL levels of 190 or above; or LDL levels of 160 or above for people with two or more heart disease risk factors, including a family history of heart disease, being overweight, smoking or being a diabetic. Age 45 and older for a man; 55 and up for a woman - also is considered a risk factor.
But statins also have been shown to have protective effects for people with average or slightly elevated levels of cholesterol, and doctors now routinely prescribe the drug for diabetics.
In a 2003 study of more than 5,000 people with three risk factors for heart disease - but on average only mildly elevated cholesterol levels - those whose took statins instead of a placebo had 36 percent fewer heart attacks. In addition, the group taking statins had 27 percent fewer strokes.
With varying degrees of conclusiveness, recent studies also suggest that statins may have a protective effect against a wide variety of other diseases - stroke, Alzheimer's disease, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis and even some forms of cancer.
Estimates vary, but about 13 million Americans now receive some form of statin therapy. Federal guidelines issued in 2001 say that as many as 35 million people could benefit from taking statins.
Statins work by acting on an enzyme in the liver, blocking its ability to make cholesterol; they also help the liver remove LDL cholesterol. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved statins for use in 1987.
Most doctors say the overall safety profile of the drugs is excellent, although the statin Baycol was withdrawn from the market when it was associated with an unusual number of muscle wasting cases. Muscle aches and problems with the liver do occur rarely but are not dangerous if the patient is carefully monitored, doctors say.
So why don't more people take them?
New generation statins can cost up to $1,500 a year and some patients aren't covered by insurance or can't pay, says Dr. David Silverman, associate professor of medicine and director of lipid disorders at the University of Connecticut Health Center.
Silverman adds that patients are reluctant for psychological reasons as well.
"They don't want to take a pill day after day when they feel fine," he says.
Exercise and diet regimen changes remain the first course of treatment for heart patients but can only go so far in helping people reach healthy cholesterol levels, Silverman says. New evidence strongly suggests that optimum LDL cholesterol levels for heart patients should be below 100, he says. And in most cases such a reduction can only be achieved through statins, he says.
"Lifestyle interventions, as much as we talk about it, are never going to do the trick," Silverman says. "A lot of doctors will begin to demand a lower (cholesterol) standard for our patients."
Statins also provide health benefits independent of their ability to lower cholesterol. Studies released this month alone have found that statins appear to cut the risk of colon and prostate cancer by about half among people taking the drug long term, and to significantly reduce the risk of glaucoma and rheumatoid arthritis.
But scientists still don't know why statins appear to offer protection against diseases like cancer.
One theory is that statins reduce inflammation, which may play a role in cancer as well as in the onset of diseases like dementia and multiple sclerosis. It has been known for a decade that statins seem to suppress the expression of a cancer-causing gene, says Timothy Hla, a vascular biologist at the UConn Health Center. It could be that by stopping the formation of cholesterol, statins set off a sort of chain reaction that offers additional protective benefits, he says.
Hla and other scientists say the evidence thus far does not justify the use of statins solely to prevent diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer's. Hla also notes that no studies have been conducted to determine whether statin use is safe over a period of decades.
But there is a growing sentiment among medical professionals that cholesterol should not be the sole criterion for putting people on statins.
When people reach middle age, many are slightly overweight, have mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or may show early signs of insulin resistance, says Dr. Christie Ballantyne, director for the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
Individually, each warning signal of heart disease would not concern doctors, he says. But collectively, they can add up to danger.
"It turns out that we have been focused too much on cholesterol levels," Ballantyne says. "People can be misled if they are told their levels aren't terrible. The problem is, if you have four or five borderline things, that is too many. We have to change the way we consider risk and assess the whole patient."
For Joleen Richard, at least, statins seem to be working wonders. Her doctor says her LDL is down to 90, and her HDL - her good cholesterol - is up.
---
© 2004, The Hartford Courant
Visit the Hartford Courant on the World Wide Web at http://www.ctnow.com
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stakddek
Saw a promo for Columbus DNA story for showing on the Discovery Channel Aug. 1.
OT: Also caught a news show about new LDL level of 70. The doctor being interviewed suggested that financial support of two of the recommenders might, just might have possibly, just a little, influenced the recommendation of a 70 level. I would heartily recommend that anyone here who is not 70 or below in the ldl category hurry out and get on Statin Drugs, as the panel has suggested that failure to observe this level is tantamount to throwing the best years of your life away. God Bless our unbiased, company supported, medical pundits. Just as a dumb question and if it's not to personal, would anyone who has had a test with results within the new guideline please report it? I don't think it is necessary for those outside the new guideline to respond, (built in bias of poll) but I think that result would be onerous to tabulate.)
I know that I am required to take a quarterley blood test because of the 80 lipitor dose I take. My triglycerides had been up to 1962 a few years ago. Currently down to the 400s and decreasing. My hdl/ldl levels are considered inconclusive because of the triglyceride levels.
If "just about" everyone has to go on statins for cholestrol control, will that mean more labwork will have to be done? Will more people suffer side effects from these drugs?
Could DNAP have a part to play in predicting patient response to cholestrol medication efficacy for an individual patient?
Stakddek
I find myself in the unenviable position of wishing the share price to go lower so I can buy more. While at the same time my holdings have grown larger in share quantity, the net loss they reflect hasn't diminished. Shoulda' woulda' coulda' 's come to mind, and of course the uncertainty involved is not helped by trying to shovel through the bull pen. I have been in this stock for quite awhile and have seen it down to levels I never believed it should or would strike. The question arises is the good ship DNAP foundering, or just weathering a force five storm? For some of us, we have faith in the captain and crew and our mission. Now of course some will cry in FUD and some will man the pumps, but those of us who have had faith in the company will ride this ill weather out. I just wish my timing was better so I was less seasick. In my heart I know I'll soon see golden shores, but I'm gonna' be awful green 'til then!
Stakddek
Luckmuncher: Sorry you misinterpreted my posting.
"I guess this inability to distinguish among the 5 candidates 4 would appear to be competitors (at least 4 and if MSITF was not tested 5 competitors ) failures"
I'm on vacation and using a portabgle keyboard. On a wireless link. It creates certain difficulties in expressing my limited thought process.
I was saying that there was no certainty in the linked article that MSITF manufactured one of the 5 tests that failed to perform. I COULDN'T FIND ANY NAMES. If MSITF was not in the tests tested then as far as we know, we have the only test on the horizon that does work.
if MSITF was tested and failed it was for a limited application of already infected people who have TB. A very sad state of affairs for the sick, but hardly a supersignificant blow to MSITF -- If it was one of the five tested.
I hope this clarifies my comments for you. Perhaps you would be so kind as to reveiw my posting history here on I-Hub and also on rb BEFORE YOU TAR ME WITH THE SAME BRUSH AS OTHERS.
Stakddek
Thanks Jockyboy: Many questions are raised by this article. The major one is who were the participants? That is the devices tested? It wouls be unfortunate if the TB side of the AIDS picture remainjed "undetectable" with certainty. I quess we should count our blessings that the aids side is still effective. I guess the company reports on TB detection are valid for the non AIDS population. To bad for those infected, but it might do to keep those infected with just AIDS or just TB apart.
It's hard for us in non third world centers to appreciate the difficulties in treating diseases in the locations where the quality and quantity of treatment we get is not the norm.
I guess this inability to distinguish among the 5 candidates 4 would appear to be competitors (at least 4 and if MSITF was not tested 5 competitors ) failures. Obviously the immunosuppressed AIDs patients are going to require earlier detection and perhaps greater isolation from family members etc. who have TB. Let us hope MSITF and it's cohorts can solve this problem quickly for the sake of a large part of mankind.
Stakddek
OT: On Stars:
Sometimes kids are profound in what they say. On a rare evening in the Bronx NYC the summer night was exceptionally clear and all the haze was gone. With so many people cooling off sitting outside on the stoops or on the rooftops, the evening lights that usually parted the night were still dark. Even the street lights seemed to dim before the exceptional display of starlight. No moon distracted from the velvet blackness above. The stars had the stage and vamped it up. I didn't know constellations then, even to look for the Dipper or the North Star I was acquainted with from "Peter Pan". I was quite young and when my father commented about seeing all the stars we seldom glimpsed, I just had to ask if him if we were seeing the "Face of God".
I never ran of to a monestary or joined a cloistered order, but I sure knocked the old man back on his heels that night! (and just between us, that's what my young mind could see!) Now I'm way up in adult years and natural splendor is not viewed with the innocence that wonders at it all.
The city lights are brighter, come on earlier and those super bright mercury vapor lamps dull the the lights that spent thousands of years transitting for our enjoyment. It is a combination of the fog of age and the haze of civilization that dull our appreciation of the skies of our childhood. Of course once in a while we catch a break from the weather, and we put ourselves in the right place at the right time. Sadly we can't do it oft enough.
Now I am holding very long and very strong for our little star to start to shine. It's a little dwarf right now but I think we are all here at the dawn. There have been a lot of clouds obscuring the light, but they appear to be parting. Not soon enough for any of us, but clearing just the same.
I won't be able to attend the shareholder meeting, but maybe I'll take a ride down to the beach that morning to greet the sun, and think good thoughts for all of us.
Stakddek
Hi All! Been put upon by work and other matters so my postings have been curtailed. I try to keep up on developments by reading all DNAP related postings and am still growing my investment in DNAP. ("Averaging down").
I caught the recent broo-hah-hah (spell) about paid research. In the linked article below, there is comment on paid research and investor "comfort" with this concept. Of course it is proceeded by pages of commentary about the "short selling" or "Stockgate" concerns.
It is my personal feeling that DNAP being listed on the German exchange is detrimental to the company. I would tend to believe that many potential investors once burned by the ability of unscrupulous entities to employ unfair advantage on foriegn exhanges will avoid investment in small companies that are listed on foriegn exchanges.
Of course this is probably just my personal paranoia being displayed for all to see, and though I didn't see it in the "Questions to Management" forwarded to DNAP, I hope the question can be raised at the shareholder meeting.
+++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=21811303&brk=1
+++++++++++++++++++++
OT: Chris, I'm still hoping we can develop a suitable booster for Arch's motor home. I am not certain about the clearance in the Shuttle hold, but I have a feeling it could fit.
OT: Ming and all dilligence posters, thanks for your continuing yeoman efforts in cutting the Gordian Knot. Your ability to spot names and connections and hilight those tidbits for us mere mortals is really appreciated. I guess it falls into that area of "I wouldn't know it was a snake 'til it bit me", and as much as I try to research connections, it's all pretty much a blur until you guys hold it still so I can see the stabalized picture. Thanks for the continuing effort.
Stakddek