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.
Frog, far from letting me down, your presence on this board "brings" the needed mix.
As to my creative liscence I would respond that any take-over would be unfriendly, as far as I was concerned.
I may not like you, your possition, or your agile ability to demean ANYTHING DnaPrint does. I am not sure if it's a quirk that enables you view this company so negatively, or whether you have to work on it. I am impressed with the quickness you possess in defending yourself, yet saddened to see it used in such a negative endeavor.
The only way I can express our difference is that as much as I am aggreved by Merck, I wouldn't consider posting on their board as a basher. I just don't see the relevance, but apparently there is something in this for you, or you wouldn't be here. I just don't know what that is, but it must run deep.
Many here have asked why the monitors allow bashers to post. I think it is that it allows those who believe in Tony to express their hopes & dreams in the interchange. I would be remiss if I were to take away Arch's outlet. LOL :>)~ If you really wanted to hurt DnaPrint, you might consider retiring from posting.......Get my point?
Easy
To those who have based their investment on what Tony has to say, or avoid in addressing, let me clarify my view in regards to one of the reasons I am still here and will continue to be here until either Tony "gives it up" to work elsewhere, the door's at DnaPrint are closed due to money, or we merge w/ an entity who's internal policies I consider reprehensible.
IMHO, after interpreting what Dr. Frudakis has said in the past, this latest statement is VERY telling in it's obliqueness.
Frudakis: "If big pharma really wanted a piece of DNAPrint what they would first do is work with DNAPrint to evaluate how good we do our job, which some may be doing now, and I can't talk about...I really can't confirm that for you. But they would evaluate first and when they saw that you really had an impact on your business they'd offer to buy it. They'd say, "Ok, you are trading for a worthless 10M $, we'll give you 30M$ for the company. And when we said, "No, our shareholders really want 100-200M$ for the company."
I would have you recall his statement on 'monopolistic view'. I am not a slueth, but I can't quite get over the Merck/DnaPrint "evening meeting" that supposedly happened back in '00/'01. This was at the same time that their scientists were scrambling to reformulate Vioxx as they became aware of it's devistating cardiovascular effect on an unacceptable scale. I no longer have access to the posting that occured on AOL at the time because of a puter crash and the fact that AOL took down the Message Board due to the flurry of acromony that was occuring. If it was just rumor I would let it go, but since then I have been in contact w/ an individual who wasn't involved at the time who has a friendly relationship w/ a person employed at Merck who has stated emphatically that there was "contact" in this regards. Of course, I have heard the opposite from supposedly knowledgable people that I consider trustworthy. Ok, now add to the fact that the one billion shares added a couple years ago WAS indicated as not only necessary for continuing "business", BUT ALSO to thwart, and here I use creative liscense, an unfriendly takeover!!!!!!
I am sure that the "Board Bashers" will find all kinds of holes and reasons to discredit what I have just posted, but this is the (picture/impression) that I just can't shake.
There has been nothing in the last 5 years that has shaken my intense belief/trust in the creative ability of Dr. Frudakis and his Honorable intentions in all of this. That I cannot find that same security in Richard Gabriel is probably due to my lack of understanding the type of "cloth" he is cut from due to his possition. Sorta like I can't believe any Politician because their words are made "hollow" as their concessions mount.
I don't see Tony making "concessions" in his Science.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
I just ran across this article about Moffitt and another pharmacy working together on cancer. This was a tad surprizing, so I looked at their investment chart for the past 2 years and was surprized in the similarity to DnaPrints. What also was intrigueing was that they were working on "shelved" drugs.
Ok, I may be reaching in this construct, but their market finacials are being depress similarly by either lack of investor "belief" or what? I have no interest in this company except in comparison to DNAP to further my understanding. Any comments would be appreciated..........Easy
Fri Jun 24 09:25:02 2005
Moffitt-USF head toward first human trials of anti-cancer drug that targets protein AKT
EurekAlert!
Tampa, FL (June 24, 2005)-H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, working in partnership with the University of South Florida (USF), has discovered a new use for an old, previously discredited anti-cancer drug that could add another weapon in the arsenal against several cancers, including tumors of the breast, ovary, colon, skin and prostate.
The compound, tricirbine, was tested at various cancer centers from 1982 to 1996 and found to inhibit some cancers, but researchers failed to determine why. The Moffitt-USF team discovered that tricirbine works only against tumors in which the cancer-causing Akt protein is abundant and/or abnormally active.
"These tumors are addicted to hyperactive Akt and cannot survive without it," explains Saïd Sebti, Ph.D., Moffitt's Manuel and Adeline Garcia Professor, Leader of the Drug Discovery Program and Associate Director of Moffitt Research Institute. "What we discovered is a tailored therapy for tumors with a specific molecular signature."
Resurrecting tricirbine may be promising for patients with ovarian cancer, for instance, because "40 percent of women with ovarian cancer have tumors with high levels of active Akt," according to Sebti.
"To our knowledge, this is the first Akt inhibitor headed toward clinical trials," said Jin Cheng, MD, PhD, USF Professor of Pathology and Interdisciplinary Oncology.
Cheng and Sebti's study results were published in the journal Cancer Research.
VioQuest Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VQPH) of New Jersey is acquiring the licensing rights to the compound from USF through its merger with Greenwich Therapeutics Inc. and is planning clinical trials with Moffitt. The trials are expected to start within six to eight months. Patients will be selected for the trials based on whether their tumors have hyperactive Akt, which can be determined by a simple slide-stain test of tumor tissue.
Because tricirbine has previously been investigated in humans, the hypothesis-driven clinical trials planned at Moffitt can move directly into a PhaseI/II trial.
With the step-up of functional-genomics research at Moffitt and around the country, the advent of "customized medicine" has been heralded in headlines and at medical conferences. The clinical trial of this Akt-inhibitor is a concrete step toward that reality. Sebti says, "The beauty of this trial is that it's molecular therapy, based on the blueprint of the tumor cell."
###
About VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. VioQuest Pharmaceuticals is in the process of acquiring, developing and eventually bringing to market late pre-clinical and early clinical stage therapies for oncological, antiviral and autoimmune diseases. VioQuest's subsidiary Chiral Quest, a pioneer in asymmetric chemocatalysis chirality, offers unique synthesis processes based upon its proprietary technology. VioQuest provides its chiral products and services in all stages of product life cycles to well-known pharmaceutical and fine chemical companies worldwide. For more information, visit www.vioquestpharm.com.
***
In 2001, the National Cancer Institute awarded Moffitt the status of a Comprehensive Cancer Center in recognition of its excellence in research and contributions to clinical trials, prevention and cancer control. Additionally, Moffitt is a member of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, a prestigious alliance of the country's leading cancer centers, and is listed in the U.S. News & World Report as one of the top cancer hospitals in America. Moffitt's sole mission is to contribute to the prevention and cure of cancer.
***
The University of South Florida Health Sciences Center is comprised of the colleges of Medicine, Nursing and Public Health and united by one mission "to advance collaborative learning and discovery leading to improved health in our community." USF has major affiliations with the area's teaching and research hospitals, providing an important diversity of educational experiences. In partnership with its affiliated hospitals, the Health Sciences Center's research funding jumped 21 percent last year to $145.4 million -- more than half of which came from federal sources.
Key(s): National Cancer Institute AutoImmune
stakddek, I can't remember where it was that I heard/read about the new ID/Credit Cards that would not only contain a visual, but also #SS and DNA making it impossible to forge. I also believe that the topic included that the info was to be kept confidentially compartmentalized so as to make accessing this info virtually impossible. Go figure.
Anyway, we are living at a time where developements are crushingly rapid, so in this regards, I am enheartened w/ being involved w/ DnaPrint Genomics which is so far ahead of the pack they can't even understand what formulates the foundation, and this is why all the ethisist are so strident in their flag waving gobbledegook.
Easy
Ok, here is my read from what has been reported.
The real gem here is in acquiring Beth Isreals acknowledgement that DnaPrint can further the Super EPO more expediantly that large Pharma's. Now how is that, considering the R&D spending available to those Monster Labs? Certainly there's the fact that it won't be in competition w/ similar projects in our pipeline, yet I think it may be decidedly more indepth than that. I would have you recall Tony's 1000X's faster statement. This I attribute to his unique algorithmic propensity. So now the team up w/ Proteos becomes clearer in this perspective.
Ok, about Forensics marketing, I am wondering if this restriction can't be used back on itself by it's own acknowledgement. Perhaps those who ties our hands in relationship to the media might be willing to made some endorsement to their "fellow" law enforcement agencies like in a rating system? eg = The Gold Standard!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't this what we are working w/ Senecio on? Get-er-Done, Folks......It's all about expediancy, coupled w/ competent results. I believe we have both and now an additional Lab..........
Ok, not all that rosey on the Ovanome/Statinome scene, but have to remember that the landscape is a changing one. I think Tony is realizing that Big Pharma's aren't going to want to outsource. Hence, those Poison Pill's are going to remain on their shelves until they can figure it out. Screw em. Oh, and here is the reason why I say that. Who would want to jump in bed w/ the devil? This is the type of weasle wording, butt covering crap they aspire to.
AP: Merck Tried to Alter Vioxx in 2000
By THERESA AGOVINO, AP
NEW YORK (AP) - Merck & Co. researchers privately sought to reformulate Vioxx in 2000 to reduce its cardiovascular side effects, even as the drug maker was publicly playing down a study that highlighted the pain relief medication's potential heart attack risk, an internal company document shows.
The widely publicized study in March 2000 found that patients taking Vioxx were five times more likely to have heart attacks than individuals using the generic medicine naproxen. Merck insisted at the time that this was a result of naproxen's cardioprotective properties and not any defect in Vioxx.
But behind the scenes, company scientists were considering combining Vioxx with another agent to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes, according to a document that was mistakenly provided by Merck to plaintiff lawyers as part of the evidence-gathering process in one of the hundreds of Vioxx lawsuits around the country.
That document, a communication between Merck researchers and the company's patent department, stated that the way Vioxx works to reduce pain might also increase cardiovascular problems. They suggested a patent be sought for a combination drug mixing Vioxx with another agent to lessen the risk.
Merck removed Vioxx from the market last September after a later study showed it doubled patients' risk of heart attacks and strokes. Thousand of wrongful death and injury lawsuits have been filed against Merck based on claims that the company hid Vioxx's risks. Analysts estimate the company's liability could reach as high as $18 billion. The first trial is set to begin next month in Angleton, Texas.
The document is potentially among the most damaging to emerge since the drug's sales were suspended because it calls into question the bedrock Merck defense that company officials were convinced of the drug's safety. The desire to reformulate the drug suggests a level of urgency that goes beyond previously disclosed internal e-mails that discussed safety risks.
"The document suggests a level of concern about the drug. The fact that they wanted to patent a different product raises questions - it says something," said Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Should they have been open about concerns? The failure to be honest is what gets companies (in product liability cases) in trouble."
A copy of the document was provided to The Associated Press on the condition that its source not be identified. A lawyer for Merck declined to discuss the specifics of the document, contending that it was a privileged internal company discussion.
"We continue to believe we acted responsibly," said Merck spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.
Merck shares fell 1 cent to $31.98 in trading Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange. They have traded in a 52-week range of $25.60 and $48.42 a share.
According to the document, Edward Scolnick, the former head of Merck's research labs, was the first to suggest combining Vioxx with an agent that would block blood platelets from clotting. Such clots can lead to heart attacks and strokes. There are three dates on the document; the first is March 30, 2000.
The document's authors said Vioxx might reduce the production of a substance called prostacyclin, which prevents platelet aggregation. That reduction may alter the ratio of prostacyclin to thromboxane, a substance which can constrict blood vessels and cause clotting. The change may cause increased risk of cardiac and cerebral adverse events, the document said.
The document became an issue in a New Jersey Vioxx lawsuit when Merck objected to its use on the grounds that it was an attorney-client communication between company scientists and in-house patent counsel.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee ruled May 27 that the document was privileged and could not be used at trial. She also ordered that all copies of the privileged document be returned to Merck or destroyed, but she required Merck to turn over other documents related to the reformulation, including e-mails and memos, within 30 days.
Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York, said it's conceivable that other judges could rule differently and allow the document to be used in Vioxx cases. Lawyers in the Texas case said they have the document and will attempt to make it part of their evidence.
Merck filed an application with the U.S Patent Office in 2001 to combine Vioxx with what is called a thromboxane inhibitor, according to a statement released Wednesday by the company's counsel, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed. The statement said the hope was that Vioxx could provide cardioprotective protection while preserving its gastrointestinal benefits. But the project was later dropped, making the patent application moot.
Vioxx is one of a class of drugs known as Cox-2 inhibitors that were originally touted as a super aspirin because they didn't cause ulcers and other gastrointestinal problems that can be a byproduct of the use of aspirin, which is cardioprotective.
The statement from Merck's law firm said the application had nothing to do Merck's firm belief in the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx.
Plaintiff lawyers say other documents call into question Merck's assertion that it acted responsibly and in the best interest of patients at all times, including pulling the drug when it had evidence of potential harm. Merck counters that the documents have been taken out of context.
One such document is a March 9, 2000, e-mail in which Scolnick said he was concerned that the higher risk of heart attacks and strokes was "mechanism based." Plaintiff lawyers contend that was an admission by Scolnick that the way Vioxx works in the body can contribute to heart troubles.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, said in a report after a review of Merck documents that the company armed over 3,000 sales people "with misleading information about Vioxx's health risk." One document disclosed as part of the congressional inquiry indicated that Merck instructed sales people to show physicians a pamphlet showing Vioxx might be 8 to 11 times safer than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Another memo told sales representatives not to bring up the drug's heart risks with doctors.
The prostacyclin theory was first advanced in 1998 by Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a prominent cardiologist who said Merck did not embrace it. However, FitzGerald said that after the 2000 study was released, Merck executives called him to discuss the issue.
In a June 1, 2005, deposition on the Vioxx case, Scolnick said that Merck did work on the reformulation because it knew Vioxx would have to carry some type of a warning about cardiovascular risk on its label. He said his idea was not a reaction to FitzGerald's theory.
But as Merck pursued the reformulation, it continued to stand by Vioxx's safety. In a press release dated April 28, 2000, the company "confirmed the favorable cardiovascular safety profile of Vioxx."
Peace, Blessing & Boat Drinks, Easy
stockboy, let's hope that the BOD is in this to make a profit, and not just create a clinical enviornement for R&D. There is a big chunk of change out there to utilized and I think we are possitoning ourselves to snag a large piece. I know that a lot of people have downplayed our Forensics aspect as being sort of a side issue, but DnaPrint just might surprise us all.
Anyway, I hope so.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
geob; to your hmmmm, I might add $1,000,000,000,000.00 reasons for DnaPrint to acquire Trace to acquire the above Federal Grant Monies........yeeeeeehaaawwwwwwww!
Considering what Dr. Boulware (spelling) from the FBI had to say about our Forensics, along w/ other's that indicated it's certainty, I would think that we know stand a good chance to benefit from the above mentioned 5 year payout. To my reckonin it amounts to $200mil a year. Looks like we just increased our capasity to capitalize on that amount. LOL :>)~
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
PS: Please don't confuse me w/ the IMPOSTER, POSER easymedicine on RB. Were he to appear here, I WOULD request Matt to add to his inmates or resign. He is like stockholer101
and has no credibility and appears only for word play for pay.
It seems a fair deal, Geo, if management provides the necessary means to "up" the value of the share price. I have been critical of their ability to do so these last couple of years. Confidence level has fallen to sub penny in Richards "hold 'em" possition w/ parcity of substantive PR's.
Most of my pessimism originated from the failed BioFrontera Deal which undercut those "secure pinnings" promised in the personalized medicine program promoted by Msrs. Gabriel. This seeming affiliation w/ PharmEco thru a subsidiary was viewed by investors a strong connection he brought to the Board. My subsequent view was equally influenced to the negative after it was revealed that although the pipeline products in their portfolio had viablility, the finacials were unsustainable. It would appear to me, even at this late date, that the money aspect would have been one of the first elements to consider in acquisitioning. It was during this time and for this purpose that I personally felt the LJG Commitment was made. As a shareholder, I feel duped in this regards and would hope that someone who attends the shareholder meeting addresses this aspect. Perhaps I my confused conclusions in this can be cleared up. I hope so, for if memory serves me, we had a substainable .05 pps level prior to this and it was the push for recognition w/ WSG, etc. that added to the upscale of debt ratio that is weighing DnaPrint down. From my limited viewpoint, we already had the necessary exposure in Forensics to bring in that present cash flow and Ancestery being promoted in their different areas could have been established w/out great expenditure. Like I have said, I am not a "bean counter" but our increased exposure hasn't done much for the bottom line.
Here it is at it's basic level for me. Whenever Dr. Frudakis speaks about technical advancements, I am opptomistically invigorated in my view of the potential value of my investment.
He is abreast in the R&D view, but I don't see where Richard has brought about the realization. Ok, I am impatient, but I can't see handing Richard a blank check based on his current history here.
Easy
Grateful, that was a long read that only indicated that what we have been learning for the past 5 years will soon be "breaking news" for society in general in short order.
I would also like to point out that though I have a "mind set" in opposition to social beliefs based on propogated preconceived "trait theory" by those whose "Chairs" line the hallowed halls of "higher learning".
What goes on in individuals "noggin" is influenced by what I consider as interference by social "blog'rs". You get it from the Right, Left, and Sunday "Pulpits Pounders".
I personally think that the Bashers here are afraid of DnaPrints ultimate success, yet in their negative approach, they provide (me personally) w/ tools to refine my considerations in possitive ways. Now, I won't accept as truth all that is expounded, or, as I emphasised over on RB, do I have to share my conscious w/ spewers of "crap", reguardless of how it is phrased.
For those of us who have been "involved" for the past 5 years, or so, can recognize the significance of what is now being propounded by the Scientific Community. That there is anomosity and fear from some is just this "form" of negativity that has secured some w/ possitions of "leadership" over those who chose to go along w/out adequately searching their own premised thought constructs.
I don't intend to be a harbringer of divisiveness, but instead to point out the vast difference between "science" and psycological/sociological play on mind control.
Well, you Mother's out there, "give it up" to Father's Today.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Ann; "the mathematical method DNAPrintTM has developed enables our researchers to explain the maximum amount of variability in trait values in terms of a set of input features, thereby enabling us to produce a classifier for predicting the trait value of an unknown."
I believe this is where the Bayesian complex process is brought into play. If someone has some further information on this, I would appreciate some explaination that a layman could understand.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
jever, won't be any problem there. LOL :>)~
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Ann, if this means what I think it means, then we may see a whole lot more sustained buying from those who have deliberately sought to damage DnaPrint thru naked shorting, if such is the case.
What would be telling, is if this addition of the DNAP symbol was recently added. Is this the first time you noticed it listed? In other words, has anyone looked at this list prior and can definitively say that DnaPrint was absent?
Personally, I am not going to get too excited over this Super EPO until we have acquired a "committed partner" that is willing to pay for participation. So far, all we have is DNAP paying the freight for it's long term passage. Of course, there is the real possibility that all we are seeing is the loose strings of some Gordian Knot being tied up.
Something I have to keep reminding myself is that if I seperate the present finacials from the scientific "actuals" of DnaPrint, then after 5 years, the "boat" floats. We were 1st on the Market w/ ADMIXMAP, which turned into a Forensics Kit that is rated #1 Worldwide, and although the Personalized Medicine aspect hasn't been capitalized todate, we are much closer to the Staging Point w/ this Super EPO. When Moffitt collaberates it's findings on Ovarian Cancer w/ DnaPrints technology, Kattie Bar the Door. We will see the Big Pharma's lining up to unshelve their recalled drugs and PAY for defining responsiveness in certain classifications based on percentage of genetic admixture. We all know that one pill doesn't fit all, and so does Big Pharma's, ie different dosage.
That the road we have taken isn't exact, as previously lined out by Tony, but that doesn't mean we've been duped, as the bashers would so want us to believe. I don't know if they want to seperate us from our shares, or just derive some satisfaction from spewing discord, but in either case I actually feel sorry for them. They have sewn the seeds of this "discord" in their heart and souls and that will be part of their make-up & personality. More pity the fool.
I have been here long enough to recognize intent; cognicent that ability to argue doesn't equate to being correct, but more in effect of training. If you consider eloquence as the prime attribute, then I tip my hat to some of the bashers, yet as we know, people chose sides for diverse reasons, and one of those is "no reason at all."
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
I will use the wheelbarrow for the garden, Dr. Frudakis, but wash it out awaiting any payload I may receive from the money I invested in DnaPrint.
I too, will admit a mistake in judgement if and when that realization should be made apparent to me. Of course, this would only happen if DnaPrint closes it's doors, or Tony opts out, w/ a disclaimer. Not going to happen, me thinks.
Easy
Dr. Frudaky, are you saying the SP won't get back to .03 or that you will sell once it reaches that mark?
I only castigate myself for not selling some of my holdings when it ran to .17, solidifying my investment. This is something that bothers me, yes, but I didn't, so I am left "holding the bag" as you see it. Well, the bag is alot lighter than when I initially bought it and that doesn't sit well w/ me, but hey, this was and still is a "penny stock" that is easily manipulated by the market. I must remember that the last spike day only represented 3/4 million dollars, give or take. This isn't alot of money for the market, now is it? My $25K only represents a piddle to anyone except me.
I am looking forward to better days and believe I will go buy me a wheelbarrow, just in case.
Easy
Ok, frog, I will give a shot at it.....
Todate, the investing community has literally shunned DnaPrint and Dr. Frudakis when he has spoken about his goals and future involvement. I don't want to get into an argument, yet when I refered to his comment about hand held devices used by law enforcement to determine identity, my relating this to his defining eye color was dismissed. The point that I am trying to make is also that he also stated, and don't ask me to recall dot and tittle, what is being utilized at DnaPrint, the platform/program developed is capable of in escense rejuvinating itself, or perhaps realigning or adding to it's resourcefullness. I certainly don't understand, or I would be working on my own algorithm/ whatever. I think it has something to do w/ Bayesian theory, but I haven't taken the time to evaluate that aspect. Just a hunch, as it seems to be something that the run of the mill scientist aren't into, and I have seen it attributed here. Which brings up the real reason that I am engaging, once again, in conversation w/ you.
Dr. Frudakis is a brilliant Scientist w/ a thorough grasp of what he is talking about. Perhaps he has created a scism by being himself and management feels that DnaPrint as a Company would be better served if he remained in the background, as he seems to be such a debateable person. This, of course, is pure supposition on my part, but I can see it. He choses to wear a beard & lab coat. More power to him! On the other hand, Tony, has the ability to generate loyalty and he has been gracious in the past to present his views to us and has been available to a few in answering questions. This may not be in DnaPrints best interests going forward, especially if BIG MONEY is involved. You know, I just don't see him feeling like the Board Table is where he can bring his capabilities to bear. We all know that some of his business decisions didn't work out well for him, or us. The man is human. I admire that aspect of him as well.
You know, frog, all of the predictions about declining value have been substantiated so far, much to my dismay. Yet, DnaPrint is still viable and seems to be getting recognition from some serious alliances. I may not live to ever see my investment pay off; then again I may. Until either I die, or DnaPrint closes it's doors, I don't see where my money has been misplaced. Tony's dream is a good one and mine aren't about the hurt of someone opposed to my views. I just don't get that part. Why do people want the destruction/demise of a business they aren't involved in?
Easy
OT: Miss Scarlet, better to dive off the deep end then the shallow, as I can attest to. When I was in the 3rd Grade, I took a "header" off the side of the pool and got a concussion, along w/ some very fine attention from the Candy Stripers who helped out at the Camp Infirmary. :>)~ My Mom alwasy thought that crack on the head did something to change my behavior. Of course, she didn't want to admit she bore a full blown rascal from the gates. LOL
Hope you are having a good weekend, Miss Scarlet.
Easy
Hopeful, as I interpret the message DnaPrint has been giving on the topic of Personalized Medicine, I agree that they are developing a "mix", not limiting themselves to "boxed" applications that limit the potentiality of their product, which is in "prediction".
If I am wrong, then I hope that other longs give me a better understanding of whats happening, as I have been known to dive off the deep end. LOL
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
ituccilnv; I knew there would be confusion when easymedicine showed up and people started replying to him/her as "easy".
The answere is NO. We are diametrically opposite in our belief in Dr. Frudakis. I have him on ignore on IHub, so couldn't access the Post. Sorry. hehehe
My S/N on RB is PattrnMkr1, which I used for my business. I only have the two Screen names, though I usually sign w/....
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy "Clam w/ Wings"
PS: I have asked GCBR "Arch" to acknowledge the difference, which he has, and because I am a Long and was here first, I also ask that those who do shorten his name to easy, do so in the diminuative. LOL
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Dr. Frudaky, "hope" is all that we Longs have to bolster our position for keeping our shares in DnaPrint Genomics, as the current pps is certainly in a sorry state and the impending r/s, from a historic perspective is troublesome.
I think this is clear to all here.
I would also admonish those who respond to you critically to try to keep there posts in perspective of pertainence and aleast attempt to keep anomosity in abbeance.
Well, this isn't a perfect world and contentousness isn't alwasy counterproductive. A spirited debate is welcome.
Easy
Geo: I have heard that Richard is the "holdout" type, which fits w/ his recent lack of "PR's" till just lately. The failed BioFrontera deal perhaps wasn't judicous, but atleast he was willing to "throw the dice", and certainly, PharmEco was present there.
I don't feel we have necessarily been shunned by Pharma's, but unless and until we "posess" our validated plateform thru patent approval, then it's valuable mechanism is open for raiders to appropriate into their own system, imho.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Dr. Frudaky; I would like to address your statement to GCBR, not to critsize, but more for comparison. You said, "However, unless you can back up your pumping with guaranteed results, then you should stop it.", to which I would remind everyone that there isn't ANY "guananteed" in this market. I would refer to Proctor & Gambles immediate slide when their sponsee took and innapropriate stance and the backlash devistated their value. Perhaps this isn't soooo, to the point, but it indicates how what someone says can reflect in real dollars.
Anyway, back to DnaPrint. What keeps most of us longs here is the technology presented by Dr. Frudakis. You say it has little value, or is unsaleable. We say that it is emerging. The pps is down, no doubt, lower than I ever thought it would slide to. This is shameful, but, hey, after reading that article posted about St. Jude's Children's Hospital, I am once again energized. Ancestery, as indicated by Dr. Frudakis was the big hurdle, the engine, and Pharmacogenomics passengers cars to be added on to this train. I think it all hinges on Patent Approval and this is why we don't have Partners "YET".
Easy
PS: My spelling and disjointed phrasing is probably worse than others here, and you are free to address this lack, if you so see fit, but try to refrain from insultive referals to others who post here. I think this is fair.
Dr. Frudakis, There is one difference between yourself and some of the naysayers that continually post here and that is the "occasional" truth, imho, that creeps up in your posting, as is evident in your last paragraph; "I think our only hope is for Frudakis and his cronies to make a miracle happen, and that is exactly the hope which feeds and supports the more enthusiastic longs among us in this investment." Now I would be considereing you an enthusiastic long by any stretch of the term, but more cynical and contiual negative, though you may be long for all I know. I can be negative at times myself, but it is just this hope in Dr. Frudakis to beat the odds, based on his representation of stated capability that brought me here and keeps me here., though I am down 78% in my investment.
The road is certainly longer than I anticipated and much more treacherous than envisioned. That Dr. Frudakis could only see and state what he felt he could accomplish from the vantage point of a Scientist is now being observed from "down the road" and my dissapointment is not with him necessarily, but with those that took on the responsibility to provide the mechanism for the enablement and fruition of his stated capabilities.
Life isn't fair, and for those of us who have "fared" w/ Tony thus far share in the dissapointment of developement todate. I do not see where he has personally sold any of his investment and am personally satisfied w/ the acheivements he has made todate. That the marketplace mechanism hasn't bought into DnaPrint yet is apparent and I think it IS due to the fact that Management has accoplished it's task YET. Time will tell whether they can, but I am sure Dr. Frudakis will continue to surprize us all. The man has the "tools" & the "goods" to succeed over averous and greed. If the ship goes down, you can be confident that if I am alive I will be monitoring the lifeboat and shame on 'em if they try to abscound w/ the "goods" to float another boat.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Chris, as far as "good" go, I indeed believe that Dr. Frudakis has classified to a 95% certainty those who would benefit from Ovanome, unless I am reading the reports wrong or getting them mixed up. To me, this is having the "good" but perfecting the product so we don't end up like Elan & Biogen.
It is probable that his Gold Standard presentation of this product could be right around the corner. I don't know. I think that those Scientist at Moffit Cntr. who's involvement is instumental in factuating these results could propel, spur on the discovery platform faster than we realize. I still recall and would like to here emphasize Dr. Frudakis's statement that what he brings to the table is acceleration to the "Max" and I also recall a statement about 1000X's, so this aspect of DnaPrint could very well be submitted as complete within the year, or next year. Just my opinion, and w/ wishful thinking as I am sure some will point out.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Hopeful107, I see that there is involvement in EPO here.
Easy
Cris, this is exactly the point that needs to be made. We are at another "cross roads" that needs to be explored. I have No doubt but that DnaPrint has demonstrated their capabilities to not only the Scientific community, but the Pharmacuetical and Business "Suits" also.
The question is, can we survive the "leaning out" that is being applied. I am reminded of what Anaconda Copper did in regards to Chile when that country nationalized there. Big Business is ruthless and I think there can be drawn a comparison here.
DnaPrint has the "goods" to severely cut into their profit margin by demonstrating, like Genelex, who might benefit and who might be damaged by their drugs. Take Merck as an example. Oh, and I personally would like nothing better than to see that particular company dessimated, but TJM. (Thanks, Miss Scarlet!) Anyway, I think the pressure is on to postpone the inevitable advent of personalized medicine until they have the cookie jar in their balliwick, which they don't because they have been doing business in their labs "as usual" and are just now getting the wake up call. I would say that they became aware of this problem/trend back in 2000 but think that if they wait long enough we will run out of money and the technology can be appropriated for next to nothing. That is business as usual thinking, right? They have the Lobbyist and FDA counter parts convinced that this will all just blow over, but it won't. Just like Japan knew after Pearl Harbor, this Giant of America, though slow to move is mighty in response.
Had Merck, imho, done the right thing back in 2000 and taken appropriate steps to rectify the problem of Vioxx by buying into what DnaPrint had and still has to offer, they might have mitigated what is potentially a $15-20 Billion Lawsuit. This might also be attributed to any Pharma at the present. Of course, this isn't in their best interest, as postponement is what they consider approriate measure to try and contain their capital. Yet, I think that with the culmination of the Lawsuit brought by Nevada's Attorney General & the growing resentment of Baby Boomers w/ the current Perscription payout, things will changing in our favor.
If I were wanting attention, knowing that time was a big factor, I would be stirring up the hornets nest by taking out adds in the AARP mag attesting to this problem. Hey, what do we have to lose? I certainly don't want what Dr. Crawford has defined to Senator Grassley on my conscience. If Richard is tiptoeing around these "Suits" so as not to make waves then he is a "Strawman". I understand reconstruction is difficult and it would be better to have a mechanism in place of the broken bandwagon, but be careful what dirt clings in the transfer. Easy
Thank you for the acronym, TJM! LOL I like it!
May your day be filled w/ joy and rememberance.
Peace, Boat Drinks and Many Blessings, Easy
Geob: The forum/gallery here is respendant; galored, both against and for, and like in a tugawar, the sides are matched, perhaps unevenly in strength of wit, to whit I add some influence considered reasonable to me. So, for this year, I will stay and play. :>)~~
To say that I don't enjoy my thought/expressed and derive satisfaction in seeing the response from others would be like saying I eat only for sustainance and not for taste. What I don't want is to get enmeshed in in some parody that provides negative posting w/out meaningful content.
I have no facts of a conspirousy to manipulate the price share, though I do indeed question why some post continually negative. I find it a sad state to be in where some w/ fine intellect chose to debase DnaPrint on every and all occasions, being capable to contrive any subject. This seems to be something esteemable to some, but lacking in worthiness to me.
I question their presence and acknowledge their ability. Why this culture continues to pay so dearly for this, I don't know.
It must be about money and how to talk people in or out of it, because I find nothing that Dr. Frudakis has stated worth disparaging. The fact that we aren't in control of the future is evident. We all paint a picture daily in our minds of how good it could be, but in truth, it seldom turns out that way. The most we can hope for to be discernable and willing to be thrown in wet on any occasion that merits our involvement.
Sorry about the disjointedness of this disclosure, but hey, thats just me.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Geo, I consider a "True" Long, one that buys into the Science side of DnaPrint Genomics, not just someone who has been around awhile. In my own opinion, you are a True Long that has the good fortune to have entered a lowered price than some of us. The only distinction I make is in the "time" spent conversing w/ those I have known here & on RB, not that I hold them in higher esteem than those who have recently become enbolden to speak in favor of DnaPrints platform of "goods".
I have never considered myself to be astute in business or the stock market, but I will say that regardless of what happens to the business side, I have been satisfied w/ what has been profered by Tony in "his" message to those of us more fortunate in being around early on. This is not all I want to say, and hope that I can elaborate later w/ you.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Geo, eb; I am in no ways questioning the "real deal" Tony has developed. It is with the management I am questioning. The lack of "selling" that has been so injureous to us, as early investors, and that, I suppose is the distinction I would apply.
I don't wish I hadn't invested when I did, nor do I wish I could have bought and sold solidifying my possition so that is more palatable. I bought what I could and have held, and will do so till I die, or make a substantial profit, though keeping my "paper" shares for the kids.
You are fortunate in that you arrived when you did, and I congratulate you on seeing the prospects this company has in Tony.
I am sorry I don't share your confidence in Richard, as I haven't seen "possitive" results from his participation. I am open to debate this w/ you and if you can change my mind in this regards, more power to you, as I certainly wouldn't entertain being worked over by some of the people who frequent this, or other boards , w/ their comments about Dr. Frudakis.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Arch, Chris; I have posted possitively about DnaPrint for a number of years, having believed, and still believe in what Tony started. As we address the possibilities and post accordingly, I believe that there is another "camp" who is currently contriving to demonstrate w/ demoralizing affect the current curancy value of the share price for whatever reason. I don't know what is their interest, though I can comment on their persistant, persuasive pen-ing.
I am allied, stauncly behind Dr. Frudakis and his dream, which in effect, I appropriated as my own. People do that when they can grasp that glimmer of a brighter future. This is not to say that my present is in anyway lacking, either monitary, emotional, or physically.
The problem here, as I can see it is that we are passengers in this futuristic vehicle that Tony built, but Richards in the drivers seat. Mores the pity. The finacial stability of DnaPrint is certainly open for critisism, as I hope to paste some questions for the BOD.
I know that some of the LONGS have voiced their displeasure w/ my editing, or lack of, concerning Dr. Frudakis. Todate, I have only deleted messages that I considered personal attacks, spamming or double posting. The Board Monitor, Matt, reviews everything, so I am comfortable w/ what is occuring, though I have to admit I am aware that those more wiley with the written word can formulate friction so it appears innocuous. Beyond that, I don't care to comment, as I try to remain somewhat reasonable in this responsibility.
Believe me, I would make a horendous Judge, but know that my perfect world would be mundane and bland, if it weren't for the balderdash delivered in this too and fro.
I understand real money is tied up here, which makes the controversy more than credible. My money is on the table w/ Tony, but I am certainly viewing the voracious appitite of the BOD w/ scepticism.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
I am admitting that I don't see much chance of recovering my investment anytime soon. With a 1/20 r/s DnaPrint would have to reach $1 before I was even. About the same for you, Arch.
If they add another 1.5 billion shares, what then?
Others can be critical of what has occured, but I don't have all of the facts, nor am I going to rant about being "ripped" off, as I don't believe there was that intent. What I believe is that DnaPrint is doing what it has to survive and I sincerely hope that those that are investing at this level will make money.
I never said I understood the market, nor do I really want to. I won't sell my shares, but prefer to keep them for my children in hopes that they will tell them whatever story there is.
My intent is to continue monitoring and participating on a possitive level until 2006. Make of this what you will.
Peace, Blessing & Boat Drinks, Easy
This should put a smile on the faces of some who believe that DnaPrint is on the right track. Easy
Research and Markets: Shift Toward 'Personalized Medicine' Is Helping the Drug Industry to Achieve the Goal of Cost-Effective and Faster Research
Research and Markets logo. (PRNewsFoto)
LONDON XEN 08/20/2004
DUBLIN, Ireland, June 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Research and Markets
(http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c18540 ) has announced the addition
of Biomarkers in Clinical Development: Implications for Personalized Medicine
and Streamlining R&D to their offering.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040820/RESEARCH )
The cost to discover and develop a drug is increasing dramatically;
however, the number approved new drug products on the decline. Drug
manufacturers, desperate for ways to expedite the drug discovery process while
decreasing the expense, are turning to biomarkers as one possible solution.
Biomarkers in Clinical Development: Implications for Personalized Medicine and
Streamlining R&D examines the current state of biomarker development and
application, with a close look at the technologies and how they are being
deployed from research to the clinic.
Biomarkers can be influential in every phase of drug development, from
drug discovery and preclinical evaluations through each phase of clinical
trials and into post-marketing studies. Biomarkers can predict a patient's
response to a compound, act as a surrogate endpoint, and aid in making
efficacious and cost-saving decisions or terminating drug entities more
quickly during the research process. Patient enrichment strategies are using
biomarkers to identify certain patient populations that are m ore likely to
respond to the drug therapy or to avoid specific adverse events. This shift
toward "personalized medicine," in which the patient receives a treatment
based on their genetic as well as medical profile, is helping the drug
industry to achieve the goal of cost-effective and faster research.
Biomarkers in Clinical Development: Implications for Personalized Medicine
and Streamlining R&D evaluates the following technologies, strategies, and
issues in biomarker research:
* Technologies to discover and screen biomarkers, particularly with
regard to their impact on both biomarker identification and application in
wide-scale clinical use.
* Various approaches to biomarker discovery and development employed by
companies such as Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Novartis.
Specialist companies, such as SurroMed, are also profiled.
* The FDA's perspective on biomarkers in clinical development, and their
classification of validated and nonvalidated biomarkers.
* The influence of pharmacogenomics on new drug therapies and biomarker
detection devices.
* Biomarker deals among pharmaceutical, biotech, and non-profit
companies.
* Risks associated with biomarker usage.
* The related fields of theranostics, proteomics, pharmacogenomics, and
molecular imaging.
The decision to utilize a biomarker in a drug program needs to be weighed
carefully to ensure that drugs that affect certain biomarkers also affect
clinical outcomes. This report provides the necessary scientific and strategic
insight for all companies wishing to profit from the use of biomarkers in drug
development.
Expert contributors
Felix Frueh, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Aaron Kantor,
SurroMed
David Lester, Pfizer; Rick Ludwig, Indiana Center for Applied Protein
Sciences
Robert McBurney, BG Medicine; Rudy Potenzone and Richard Chen, Ingenuity
Systems; Michael T. Stocum, Personalized Medicine Partners
Contents include the following:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. From Discovery to Clinic
Chapter 3. Overall Approach Used by the Pharmaceutical Industry
Chapter 4. Biomarkers: From Clinical Research to Diagnostic Tool
Chapter 5. Business Outlook and Conclusion
Company Profiles
Affymetrix
Beckman Coulter
BG Medicine
BioMarker Pharmaceuticals
Ciphergen Biosystems
Clinical MicroArrays
Gene Logic
High Throughput Genomics
MDS Pharma Services
ParAllele BioScience
SurroMed
Xenogen
List of Figures
List of Tables
For more information visit
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c18540
Laura Wood
Senior Manager
Research and Markets
press@researchandmarkets.com
Fax: +353 1 4100 980
SOURCE Research and Markets
Web Site: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c18540
Photo Notes: NewsCom:
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040820/RESEARCH AP Archive:
http://photoarchive.ap.org PRN Photo Desk,
photodesk@prnewswire.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.
Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright © 1996-2005 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.
PR Newswire web sites - MEDIA - Media Site ProfNet - INFORMATION - Brazil Canada Europe North America Disclose eWatch™ (UK) eWatch™ (US) Media Insider MEDIAtlas™ MultiVu™ PR AUDiT - CLIENTS - PRN Direct - NEWS - Brazil Canada China Europe France Israel Netherlands North America
After reading the following article, I hope that we are one of the companies that have the "goods". I remain confident that Dr. Frudakis knows his stuff, though I'm not sure that Big Pharmas have bought into it yet. We wait.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Biotech's Hype and Hope Yielded Losses
By PAUL ELIAS, AP
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Since researchers first mixed together genes from two species more than a quarter century ago, biotechnology companies have promised to revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry - and even disrupt centuries of farming practices.
Despite that promise - and some very significant breakthroughs in treating cancer, diabetes and other widespread and deadly diseases - the industry's combined losses continued to mount in 2004.
The biotechnology industry lost a combined $6.4 billion last year, according to a new report from Ernst & Young. The industry's total accrued loss since its birth in Silicon Valley in the mid-1970s is more than $45 billion.
The 93-page report was mostly upbeat: federal regulators approved 20 new drugs created with biotechnology last year and 230 such medicines and other related products are now on the market. Ernst & Young is optimistic that biotechnology as a whole will become profitable by 2009, pointing to some 365 drugs in the last stages of development compared to 290 in 2003.
Revenues worldwide grew 17 percent to $54.6 billion based on Ernst & Young's study of 641 public companies and 3,775 private companies.
"What's remarkable about this industry is that you can lose money for many years," said Ernst & Young's Michael Hildreth. "But the whole nature of your business changes dramatically once a product is improved."
A handful of biotechnology companies have indeed hit it big after modest beginnings, making their initial investors wealthy.
The market capitalization of Genentech Inc., the South San Francisco biotechnology pioneer, recently surpassed several pharmaceutical giants like Merck & Co. and biotech rival Amgen Inc.
For its part, the drugs that launched Thousand Oaks-based Amgen into profitability - epogen and its successors - rang up more than $10 billion in sales last year for Amgen and three competitors who also market the drugs, which is used to treat anemia in many cancer patients and other with kidney disease.
Genentech earned in $785 million in 2004 while Amgen reported profits of $2.4 billion for last year.
Investors, meanwhile, continue to plow billions into biotechnology each year in hopes of getting in on the next Genentech, which shareholders value at $83 billion.
According to Ernst & Young, the industry raised a total of $17 billion from investors last year - the highest total since 2000. Venture capitalists invested $3.6 billion last year.
Yet there's no getting around the industry's continued losses. For every success like Genentech and Amgen, there are still dozens of failures.
"It's a crazy industry to invest in," said John McCamant, a biotechnology investor and editor of a stock-advising newsletter. McCamant is nevertheless optimistic that biotechnology is poised for explosive growth in the coming years and measuring it today against staid sectors like the automotive industry is unfair.
But others are more skeptical.
"It's essentially like a casino," said Joseph Cortright, a Portland, Ore. economist. "There are lots of bets you can lay down and the potential can be very valuable. But for the most part, the odds that any one will pan out are extremely long."
Biotechnology remains a money-losing, niche industry of 1,400 companies that employ about 183,000 workers nationwide. By contrast, Wal-Mart employs 1.7 million workers itself and its annual revenues rival the entire biotech industry's annual sales.
Cortright, who co-wrote a report critical of biotechnology's ability to drive a region's economic growth, says local government officials who promise companies also sorts of incentives to relocate are ignoring the industry's financials.
"The mistake that people make is confusing science that is really cool with something that is going to have a significant economic impact," he said.
06/01/05 01:06 EDT
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
I am going to ask the Posters on the board to discontinue the question of identity of Dr. Frudacky. I believe the barbed intention are best left to RB and are becoming personal, or so I deem them.
Your co-operation is appreciated.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
FSail52, thanks for the reminder of L437, as his DD was what kept me looking at DnaPrint for the reality check and afforded me to easily access so much info. He, too, was slammed by basher's for his efforts. There was such controversy that the Board Monitor took down our meeting place. What a wimp. It actually had the most posts of any board on AOL for sometime running. Great place w/ fearsome rivalries. LOL
Easy
FSail, I think he would have been dissapointed in the progress of marketing and management. He may even have been concerned about our losing what lead we had. I know I am.
Easy
Michiko, I suppose it depends on what you believe is happening.
DnaPrint could shut all but the backdoor and downsize to selling Forensic Kits and ......, or, as I understand it, attempt to capitalize on the future; (being in the future) by dilution.
Either way, the shareholders get hurt, but the later one presents a possibility of recovery. I chose the later.
Easy
stockboy; your piece of the puzzle is as valid as many others that have been purported/painted here and on RB. As I have previously acknowledge, I am sorely under educated in this aspect of market manipulation, though the boggie-man/MM & paid basher theme's have been elaborated on to the max, and I certainly believe some of it, atleast to some extent.
Personally, I will be voting for the r/s, as I made a personal committment to support the present BOD for the rest of this year; not that my shares will have much impact after the last increase of 1 billion shares. This is sorta sticking in my craw, but hey, guess I'm the guilible type. My understanding of the last addition was for funding and to prevent a take over. Ok, well, we are still here and the sp reflects that dilution. I try to keep in focus one reality of business and that is viability. Is DnaPrint moving forward or backwards? I tend to think it is forwards, though as shareholders we have had to pay a dear price. I stopped buying due to the increased shares and DnaPrints "claming up" for so long. I think that Richard did us a diservice in this regards because Sales is all about Marketing, something "they" apparently feel/felt could be interpreted as fluff. At first I agreed, thinking that not noting every possitive in a PR set a higher standard, but now I see that a "flashing marque" might have been beneficial, though here again, perhaps in the scientific community we might not have been able to acquire this latest deal w/ Beth Isreal. Ahhhh, the paradox!!! Dilema, really.
I suppose what I am waiting for is Patent Viability. I know that Dr. Frudakis chose a course contrary to the norm, which set him apart from the Pharma's which we know are flush w/ cash, atleast for the present. He talked about building his pipeline, which I read as not only the technological aspect, but also the "community" of science which he is established in. At the time, he stated, when he brought those 5 Phd's in from India, that there was a sparcity of knowledge available and he was capitalizing on being "foreward" in this area. Sorta like a chess game, eh? He talked about those shelved drugs that could be re-established upon corrected useage. I still believe this can be accomplished. Too bad Merck and the others didn't have the forsight to see what was coming down the pike. A new "canvas" can be painted if they want to ditch the one w/ running colors.
Well, all of the above mishmash is to say that I still believe in Tony's Gold Standard, though it appears what we initially thought as "our" share is less than presented. Oh, well, life is like that. I might have to settle for a "boat" on the lake, rather than that Yacht on the Ocean. Hey, I'm game.
Peace, Blessings & Boat Drinks, Easy
Geo, I concur w/ what eb0783 said about the GMED deal w/ DnaPrint and how we got use of Orchid High Thru Put Machine. The deal did fall thru due to GMED's innability to pay DnaPrint.
I can also say that Tony was extreemly proud of having it in Sarasota as it was so stated in print.
Sorry I can't confirm much about GMED, though you might want to ask TeamLV, as he had shares for his TriFecta. :>)~~ Knowing him, he would have done considerable DD.
Easy
Ann, sure miss Tis in all this. Thanks. eom
Easy