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.
"Suck it up or shove off" Wow! Thanks for your eloquent viewpoint! I choose to ummm do neither, unfortunately. Do you care to discuss the issues or are you here to serve as a distraction from the nasty truth that lies somewhere out there?
Do you care to make a relevant comment, regaurding the issues that were mentioned? Or are you simply here to cause a distraction from such nasty truths that have happened in the past couple years? I thought this was a "start-up" company? How can anything be "such old stuff"??? Stick to the FACTS, unless of course your conjecture is designed to distract from the truth of the issues at hand.
Wow. Here you go, Oobe. Straight from the Man.
"http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/testarchive/1998/tsty0598.htm
In testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Chairman Levitt, on behalf of the Commission, expressed concern about "abuses in the market for micro cap securities, which provides opportunity for small businesses to raise capital, but also provides opportunity for fraudsters to prey on innocent investors."
The fiduciary duty of disclosure imposes on directors and others the duty to speak truthfully when addressing shareholders with respect to certain corporate matters. "(W)hen a corporate board of directors (or a majority stockholder) seeks stockholder action in connection with a tender offer, a vote of stockholders or action by written consent, there arises a fiduciary obligation to disclose fully and fairly all material facts within the board’s (or majority stockholder’s) control."
"The company, nourished by promisees who believe, shrugs off the nuisance, and proceeds to deliver the promise which was there in the first place."
remember the promise of a right to vote on further issuance of shares?
how about the warrants that were to be offered to investors, that disappeared after the vote to authorize a billion more shares was passed?
The promise that has always been there has been broken numerous times, flagrantly.
**But on a side note, I did break out my tiny little violin to play a sad song for your sob story**
"It's the penny stock market frog, suck it up!"
"It's the penny stock market, what do they say, 99 out of 100 companies represented here are scams."
That reminds me of an old saying...... if it looks like poo, smells like poo, and feels like poo-then it's probably poo.
"Once in a while, along comes a good company, with great promise. It stumbles and falls, a frudIago and/or frog type person comes out of the woodwork, locates a spot with a bruise, takes a ball-pean pps hammer, and flails away hoping to make the bruise bleed the company to death."
Are you trying to claim that a couple of characters discussing the merits of DNAG'S claims, on an internet message board can control the stock price?
I am simply in search of the truth. Is there evidence that HE(Gabriel) has lied, or someone else, or nobody? I am just in search of the truth when people are claiming the CEO is a liar. I appreciate your sincere contemplation of this inquiry. Thanks.
So, MattG, are you ever going to substantiate your claims that Gabriel is a "liar"? Or are you just gonna let your wreckless accusation just hang out there? Because, I have found what I(and many others) consider to be lies from the company, but they weren't from Gabriel. Feel free to back up the words from your mouthanytime, or get used to people calling you out........
I'm waiting............
Tick Tock...
Thanks Ann! Revenue was approximately $786,000 while salaries totaled approximately $639,513!
"For its 2004 fiscal year, DNAPRINT GENOMICS declared itself as an organization headquarted in SARASOTA, FL with $786 thousand in revenue."
"Richard Gabriel
Director Chief Executive Officer President
$148,615 $0 $56,646 $205,261
Tony Frudakis
Chief Scientific Officer Director Secretary
$183,010 $0 $8,488 $191,498
Monica Tamborini
Chief Financial Officer Chief Operations Officer
$130,132 $0 $9,280 $139,412
Hector Gomez
Director Chairman of the Board Chief Medical Officer
$74,678 $0 $28,664 $103,342
Data for fiscal year ended in 2004 "
"SaveTheWorld Are you saying that even if Frudakis has lied and Gabriel has not, then everything is okay with this investment?"
No.
"Are they not all the same management "peas in a pod" and what one says could legally be attributed to the others, particularly if the others look the other way, pretend they did not hear, and do not adamently deny what was said?"
It would have to be proven. As you're well aware, intent is everything. Even if they are "peas in a pod", I was responding to the charges that Gabriel has lied. Either he has or he hasn't. Simple as that, isn't it?
MattG- I beleive he's doing a better job than his predecessors. However, you claimed he lied, and I simply asked for proof. You still have yet to provide some proof for your accusations. Please feel free to substantiate your claims at anytime.
MLON has nothing to do with DNAG. Why are you spamming this on our message board?
dr_fru,
I don't recall seeing proof of lies from Gabriel. Have seen a plethora of things that Tony Frudakis may have lied about(Warrants, vote for issuing shares, etc.). But don't recall seeing anything that could be pinned on Gabe. As for the "half-truths", and "mismanagement", etc., if you would like to provide evidence of that, go ahead. I was just focusing on the most serious accusation of lying. So please, once again, if you or anyone can. Provide some proof that Gabe has lied. I think maybe people are confusing things Tony F. did/said, with Gabe. Since Gabe is currently in the driver's seat.
mattg-=-=no,}{+_|+_
"However, I find it hard to believe that I am the only long-term shareholder who is frustrated with the progress of this company since Gabriel came aboard. The lies, the half-truths, the idiotic expenses, the lack of progress, the executive salaries, and the decimation of the share price do not reflect well on this CEO.
Direct me to his lies, thanks. =]
yes! The Australian forensic stuff was touted hardcore. What happened????????????
Matt-
Looked over you're posts and found no proof of Gabriel lying. Please provide evidence of your defamatory accusations, please. Because I did find lies, just not from Gabe. Thx
I agree. They are definately progressing towards something. Either it's a disaster or a blessing, for shareholders. And possibly, the World!
"The tests should be getting approved in
the not too distant future. I never did
understand why the FDA would place as many
demands on these tests as they would a "device".
I believe there are several companies already
using these type tests and are going to be
considered as precedent-setting. After all,
this is a new medical frontier that the FDA
has to fashion a new set of rules for. And
it's going to take time"
Maybe the FDA didn't want different tests flooding the market claiming to have the best 'angle' on personalized medicine? Think of all the companies who would try and take advantage of the situation, making up tests based looseley on irrelevant facts, and the public's basic lack of understanding about the issues. I mean imagine, there would be tests for cancer for left-handed people, for people with a dangling earlobe, for people who have ever had chicken pox, for people who have ever owned or been around a sheepdog for more than 36 hours accumulative, etc, etc, etc. There are more than a million different scenarios probably. And all of them could help somebody perhaps, to a degree, in choosing the correct medication.
Are you suggesting that DNAG management would hold the meeting at a later time in order to save investors hotel fares?
"The lies, the half-truths, the idiotic expenses, the lack of progress, the executive salaries, and the decimation of the share price do not reflect well on this CEO. "
Could you please site examples for each of these charges you have levied against Gabriel.
Sorry if this has been posted here! Found it very interesting!
http://www.bio-itworld.com/newsitems/2005/06-05/06-24-05-news-bidil
Sorry if this has been posted here already! Found it very interesting, and it's VERY on-topic. Lol!
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/05/mixed_roots_sci.php
Yes, Thank You!
All of you, thank you! Thank you!
Stick to the issues, I will not entertain the posts that are designed for poster defamation, or juvenile insults. Anyone wishing to discuss DNAG, please do. All others need not apply, as such tomfoolery isn't welcome.
maybe DNAG can help.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1230footfound,0,917887.story?coll=sfla-home-...
Human foot found floating off Deerfield Beach
Sun-Sentinel.com
Posted December 30 2005, 4:08 PM EST
Detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office are piecing together an investigation into the discovery of a human foot, found floating off Deerfield Beach on Friday.
Here is what BSO Public Information Officer Jim Leljedal says led to the discovery of the body part:
BSO was notified shortly before 2 p.m. that a foot had been discovered in the Atlantic, about one mile off shore and one mile south of the Deerfield Beach pier. Two fishermen found the foot and notified the U.S. Coast Guard. Boca Raton Police responded in their boat and confirmed that the body part had been found off Broward County in BSO's jurisdiction. A BSO Marine Unit responded to the area and brought the foot to the 14th Street boat ramp in Pompano Beach. From there it was transported to the Broward Medical Examiner's Office.
The body part appears to be a man's right foot, with five toes intact, inside a light gray sock.
"The board feels that 1.5 billion should cover any possible scenario of events and we feel it is in your best interests as shareholders who would like to profit from their investments to allow us to manage the company in this way. You will be consulted for a proxy vote before any of these shares are issued"
Was a proxy vote ever presented for consultation to anyone?
"As Carrie pointed out on Friday, not having authorized shares under the cap makes it difficult for us to attract investments by corporations or institutions such as pharmaceutical companies because it adds another unknown variable to a deal."
Say what, Willis? What does he mean by "under the cap"?
http://www.chalberweid.ch/dnap/DNAP%20Newsletter%200103.pdf
Dear Shareholders,
You will be getting a proxy statement soon for our upcoming shareholders meeting, but the statement was filed with the SEC on Friday. With the proxy for the upcoming shareholders meeting, we are asking shareholders for an increase in authorized shares. The reason for the request is that we have reached our cap of 500M authorized shares. When we got started 3 years ago, there were 390M outstanding so a little over 100M shares have been issued over the past 3 years to fund our operations. At this very modest rate of annual dilution, we believe we have made considerable progress – developing a complete genomics discovery platform (ADMIXMAP) and using this platform in its various stages of development to generate several new genomics tests, one of which has recently been introduced to market (www.ancestrybydna.com).
Our goal is to become cash flow neutral as soon as possible. Though management believes it has made progress in this area, we do not know how long it will ultimately take for us to develop the markets we believe exist. This is because they are new markets and we must forge them – no genomics tests such as ours currently exist and we are among a handful of companies in the world generating the trailblazers. If media interest and the early advertising versus revenue returns from our first test is any indication of the market our tests will find, I think we should all feel encouraged.
DNAPster
“All the news that’s fit to DNAPrint”
Tony Frudakis, Ph.D., CEO January 2003
However, until we forge these markets, we will not be cash flow neutral and until we become cash flow neutral, we will continue to need to raise capital investment using our stock. There is no way around this, and this should come as no surprise to anyone because we stress this in each of our quarterly and annual reports. As our existing funding arrangement is in its later stages, we are diligently planning ahead to meet the requirements we will experience later this year. George and I cannot continue loaning money to this company forever and at some point, we have to establish a more solid financial base for the company to grow on. There is significant expense associated with conducting genomics research and forging new markets (test validation, advertising, business development etc.). The proxy statement discussed a warrants plan, which is a means by which the company can raise capital and minimize dilution to existing shareholders that participate. Without an increase, we would also not be able to accept investment by other companies or organizations if the opportunity arises. As Carrie pointed out on Friday, not having authorized shares under the cap makes it difficult for us to attract investments by corporations or institutions such as pharmaceutical companies because it adds another unknown variable to a deal.
Jack Luchese has raised several tens of millions of dollars for Cytrx using a warrants plan, and this is the plan management would like to use to
provide the funding for our continued operation. As we have said many times before, we have no present intention of executing a reverse split. At present, this would seem to offer no advantage to the company that I can think of – we would still not qualify for Nasdaq until we build a more solid financial base (which is, again, what the warrants plan is about), and the substance of the company would not have changed for the better. In my personal opinion, the increase in shares from 500 Million to 1500 Million does not make a reverse split any more necessary or likely. Even if we wanted to perform a split, and we do not at this time, your approval as a shareholder would be required and given the feeling among shareholders I have detected, such a request would likely not be approved. To qualify for a Nasdaq listing, we clearly need a higher share price. Rather than reversing our stock, I presently believe what I have in the past, that the most effective way for us to increase our share price is the natural way of building our market capitalization through expanding our business and growing our revenues and profits.
You will receive a copy of the proxy in the mail, and I urge each shareholder to vote “yes” for our request. I, along with other management and the board of directors strongly feel that the increase in shares is required for us to forge markets for our new products, grow our new brands, expand our overall business and grow our market capitalization.
If you wish to discuss this request with me, or other items relevant for the company, please attend the upcoming shareholders meeting. I'll be at the disposal of the investors all day, and I’ll
look forward to meeting or re-meeting many of you. If you cannot attend but would like to forward your questions or concerns to Carrie at:
ccastillo@dnaprint.com, or
tfrudakis@dnaprint.com
and she will forward them to me and Ill answer them prior to the shareholder’s meeting.
As for specific questions I have been asked, I will try to answer them one by one:
Why hasn’t pharma contributed any money for our technology so far? I have had serious discussions with potential partners and licensees, but the answer is that:
We believe that Orchid themselves are not viable partners because they are focused on staying alive in the current economic crisis, not investing in new products.
For existing products we have funded the development of, the Orchid option agreement serves as a deterrent to others from partner with us. Though a number of potential partners have been identified that are very enthusiastic about our company, they are concerned about litigation in the future from Orchid.
The Option does not apply for products developed through partner financing, and we are working hard to land some ADMIXMAP collaborators. Why have none been signed yet? I have spoken to 3 major companies about beginning screens, and there is considerable interest but decisions from these companies take months (This is one reason we have been able to move more quickly in terms of technology
development – they are big, layered and slow).
So while we work on building an ADMIXMAP clientele, what do we do about our existing products? As long as the Option remains in place, DNAPrint must simply commercialize its technology on its own – the Option only restricts us from licensing to others if Orchid wants the license (and even then we can license out if a third party is willing to pay more but as mentioned many feel uncomfortable due to the Option). However, this is why this may be for better rather than for worse – when partnering we would typically only retain 5-15% of the profits and receive an upfront license fee of a couple hundred thousand dollars. Is “validation” in this sense worth selling our future down the road? I don’t think so, and I believe DNAP is better off funding its own operations through dilution, keeping all of the rights to its products. Since the Option agreement forces us to do this, it is a good thing in the long run. For the short-term trader, hoping for alliance PR's so they can jump in and out of our stock, this may not be a good thing. Although this will not keep us from having any alliances, such as ADMIXMAP customers, it will reduce the number we strike for products like RETINOME and AncestybyDNA. For the long term investor, I believe this is a good thing because it forces us to grow a quality, substantive company rather than a virtual company that performs by proxy through partners.
Why was the news disseminated the way it was? It is a proxy for a shareholders meeting, and the SEC must review it for 10 days before we can mail it to shareholders. This is the law, and this is the way it happens for every company that is preparing for a shareholders meeting. It would be illegal for us to mail or email it to investors prior to the SEC period elapsing.
Why a tripling rather than a doubling? Jack, Hector and I debated about this back and forth. At present, we have no destination in mind for the shares created by the increase other than the warrants plan and it would seem unlikely that this plan would consume that many shares. However, we want to be prepared for any eventuality – to be in possession of the tools needed to keep DNAPrint going no matter how this plan works, what merger/acquisition opportunities might arise, what the market conditions are or how much and how rapidly we make scientific progress. The board feels that 1.5 billion should cover any possible scenario of events and we feel it is in your best interests as shareholders who would like to profit from their investments to allow us to manage the company in this way. You will be consulted for a proxy vote before any of these shares are issued, except the warrants plan as discussed below because it is directly to you. Ultimately, what happens to DNAPrint stock is up to you. It is your company and your vote. If you do not like how DNAPrint management wants to use DNAP shares, vote against management. If you trust us to further build the company we established, vote for management. It is the position of the board and management that you allow us the tools to manage the company and build the value of your investment.
Will we have to experience dilution in the future? The answer to this is yes. We will all have to experience dilution to keep DNAPrint growing. This is reality and you need to come to terms with if it is new to you. Other than our existing funding plan, there is nothing in
place to prevent management from being diluted so we are in the same boat as you. However, the warrants plan will be very similar to the existing funding agreement in effect, except it is designed to allow you the shareholder to participate. Therefore, you will get the same opportunity George and I had with our existing arrangement. If that is not democratic fairness, I do not know what is – not only does DNAP management put its money where its mouth is, but also we extend the same opportunity to all other existing shareholders before we seek investment from third parties such as companies or venture capitalists. If you do not want to take advantage of this opportunity – that is fine. If we do not raise significant funding from the warrants plan, then we can think about doing more private placements or go to venture capitalists. One way or the other, we need to procure funding to commercialize our existing products and keep our discovery machine operating. Advertising is not cheap. Meetings have to be attended to convince people to think in new ways about forensics and medicine. This type of challenge is nothing new for a cutting edge technology company. Life would be simpler if we manufactured razors or cigarettes, and we would be able to support ourselves more easily, but does the world need another tobacco or commodities company? Would you be as excited about the upside potential, and would our work here have the same impact on the world? I think the world needs technological advancement to reduce suffering and distribute wealth among working people, but this takes investment, which requires dilution until that company is cash-flow break even.
What has Jack done for the company? Jack gets paid the bulk of his equity compensation by bringing in cash to the company. This is cash your company needs to operate, and it would be raised in a very difficult market. His relationship with DNAP is performance based, so you should feel comfortable that if DNAP pays him shares, we will have obtained something of value from him. Jack was brought aboard because of his extensive network of investment contacts, and because he has successfully executed warrants plans similar to what we will be executing. As the CEO of a Nasdaq company that successfully navigated a warrants plan, he brings good experience. If he does 1/10th for DNAPrint what he did for his Cytrx, you will be better off for it since your company will have significant capital in the bank, which means your investment is subject to less risk.
Does DNAPrint need money to fund operations? Yes. This should be apparent to everyone who reads our quarterly and annual statements, and when profits will exceed expenses nobody can know since our type of product has never existed before. We have no cash in the bank, which you all know already, and the lenders we have relied on to this point, lenders who have reliably provided our capital on a monthly basis, cannot be relied on forever. It is our responsibility to ensure a funding mechanism is in place before the current one expires, which is what the increase in shares and warrants plan is about.
What happened to GMED revenue? We have received part of this revenue but nowhere near what GMED agreed to provide. The contract is not yet up, but it is a certainty that GMED will be in default of this agreement by the time it is up. Their problems are the same as everyone’s – they have difficulty-raising
funding. Do not forget that DNAPrint got the use of a faster cheaper machine that cost 200K as part of this deal, so we have already benefited from that partnership. We have received probably another 100K from them for early work orders but this is a far cry from $1.6M and there is little we can do about it but sue them. If you look at their financial statements, I think you would see that this would make little sense. However, to compensate for this loss in revenue, we accelerated the introduction of AncestrybyDNA, and the launch of this has been successful in my view. Critics who criticize the lack of revenue coming from GMED do not give us credit for coming up with a new product out of the blue, and generating 6-figure revenues from it in the first few months. I suppose that is par for the course in today’s bear market – everyone is a pessimist!
What happened to the racecar driver? We terminated this arrangement after separating from Tampa Bay Financial. This was a TBF brainchild, and the board consensus on marketing changed after they resigned. You should be happy that we terminated this agreement, because it protects you and your share price. Though this is unappreciated by average investors, many of the other things we have done to protect your share price also go unappreciated by the average investors.
What does it mean management intends to spend time structuring the warrants plan for maximum advantage, and for whom? For the shareholder and the company, of course. Management is not the target beneficiary of the plan, and it is an opportunity for each of you to do what George and I have been doing for the past year. If you pass on the opportunity, we would go to outsiders with private placement as before but the intent of the warrants plan is to make it profitable for you the common shareholder to further invest in the company. This is a function of the strike price selected. If you wait to see the details of the plan, I think you will be pleased that the company is giving you the opportunity to profit from DNAPrint before giving it to a venture capital company.
Does an increase to 1.5 billion mean 1.5 billion will be issued? No, but we would like to sell some of these shares right away. Why? We need a new funding mechanism to kick in before the existing one terminates. The company cannot expect to garner loans from insiders forever, and we need to improve on a situation where insiders are the only ones funding the company. None of you whose emails I have read seem to appreciate the extents to which we have worked to keep DNAPrint healthy during this economic downturn. We are still here, and we haven’t had to fire employees or sell our first born to stay alive. Don’t we deserve some credit for that? Does this not suggest that when management says it wants to sell 100 million or 200 million shares to provide operating capital, that it is in your best interests as shareholders for this to occur?
Does DNAPrint need money to operate? The answer is yes. We are no different from any other cutting edge technology company attempting to forge new markets.
What is the warrants plan? This is a mechanism by which we can raise funding to help us reach self-sufficiency. Each shareholder as of a set date, which is yet to be determined but will be very soon, will acquire the right to purchase a unit which is comprised of shares and a
warrant. The warrant gives you the option to buy another unit if the price of DNAPrint stock makes it profitable for you to do so, and so on. It is a means by which we can make it profitable for you to invest in the company, and for us to raise operating capital. If you want to have access to the warrants program you will need to be in possession of your shares as of the set date for the plan. The idea is to make the plan profitable in the short term for investors, but if you are a long-term investor you will benefit by being among an exclusive group of people able to maintain and possibly grow their position at discount to market. If you are a short-term trader, since the shares would be registered, you could possibly profit soon after purchase, depending on our share price. The shares purchased would be registered and freely trading, and we would engage respectable and major PR firms (largely through Jacks contacts) that help us grow our investor base. Wait until you see the warrants plan. I think you will be very pleased. The final details have not yet been worked out, but it is designed to make it profitable for you, the existing and loyal investor, to fund DNAPrint and profit in the process. Ill put it this way: I am an investor in DNAPrint, and though I will not be able to participate in the warrants plan, I am excited for what it could do to our market cap and cash position. In this market, it is easy for a cutting edge company to starve to death, and you have to fight and kick to stay alive. That is what the warrants plan is – in this case the best defense is a good offense and the warrants plan is very offensively minded and aggressive.
Must the warrants plan be approved by shareholders? It is my understanding that most significant issuances of stock must be shareholder approved so the answer to most any type of issuance would be yes. However, since the warrants plan is to shareholders themselves, it does not require this approval so we are going to execute it as soon as the increase in shares is approved, if it is approved.
Is the warrants plan some sort of red flag to investors? If you mean, does the company need operating capital in the form of investment because it is not profitable, then the answer is yes and the answer is the same for every cutting edge technology company. If you mean, is DNAPrint as a developer of new technology unusual in that it needs capital to forge new markets and provide for flexibility and sustenance in a major bear market, the answer is no.
How much could the warrants plan net the company? It would seem quite optimistic to expect this plan to bring more than $1M to the company, but if the increase in shares is approved, the shares will be available to bring much more. What would DNAPrint be worth if we had $10M in the bank? Jack has raised several tens of millions at previous posts using this type of plan. Having money in the bank to operate is a good thing for your company, and DNAPrint has never had the luxury of having significant money in the bank. The warrants plan is designed to change that. If selling company paper to put significant money in the bank bothers you, you need to rethink what it is you expect from your investment in DNAPrint. We are a development stage company trying to develop a new breed of product and forge new markets and this normally requires a more solid financial backing than we have had to date. The warrants plan is our plan for acquiring this backing without going to
venture capitalists who would take advantage of depressed market conditions to “rape” current shareholders and management.
Why the positive spin from DNAP management? Would you prefer that we were pessimistic? We are not. I am excited enough about DNAPrint to spend my weekends working on DNAPrint manuscripts, patent applications and grant applications, so that tells you where I am coming from. I have made no more money running DNAPrint than I could have working any other job in biotech or outside, yet I wouldn’t trade places with anyone else in the world. The night it dawned on me that our AIM patent could help us corner the market on practical genome screening, I could not sleep and began writing the patent. To this day I feel that when that patent is granted, it will be by far the most significant achievement in my professional career. It is ok to be skeptical of the enthusiasm of others, but if you could spend a day in my shoes you’d understand why I am enthusiastic. It seems to me that those who profit by being early stage investors are those who know whose enthusiasm to trust and whose not to trust. My feeling is that if you have trust issues with DNAPrint, or me then it is probably best that you invest in another company. I am not a salesman, and I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. I am a scientist, and I hope that my enthusiasm is catching so that it helps me realize my dreams as a scientist and entrepreneur.
Why the speculation about deals? I cannot discuss ongoing negotiations, and nobody else should be discussing them with you either. I instruct my people to not discuss material non-public information and if I confirm that any have, they will be released. It is not good professional practice and it is against the law. Not only might it impact those deals if investors began calling the third party, it would place me in a position of liability.
Doesn’t it require blind faith in DNAP management to remain a DNAP investor? I suppose it does, but this is true of any company, especially a technology company trying to change the world. We are required to keep you informed with quarterly and annual statements, but we have gone above and beyond this obligation by communicating liberally with investors through letters such as this. How many CEOs would prepare this type of letter, for example? Not many – they would be worried about liability, or putting their foot in their mouth. However, I am different. My only concern is not self-preservation but building a company. I think DNAP management has done a good job building a technology company from nothing but ideas, and keeping it alive during the worst bear market since the depression. DNAPrint has spent much less, and accomplished more than most other genomics companies, and it is for this reason that I believe we have been relatively successful to date in terms of our market capitalization. For those investors who are impatient, you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that it is difficult to make money on stock purchases in bear markets, and there is little management can do about this, but you should also know that it is our solitary desire to reward those who invested in our company during its development stage.
Where did the shares go to get to 500M? We have been funding our operations by selling DNAPrint shares. This is why we are publicly trading – it provides us a vehicle by which to fund the
development of our products. Many of these shares went to investors such as yourself that participated in our private placements. I am one of those as is George, and we have been funding the company for the past year through loans. Each dollar we spend on research must come from product profit or investment. We have just begun generating product profits, and we have a ways to go before our products have penetrated the markets well enough to eliminate the need for investment.
How does the current funding plan work and why cant we just keep doing that? George and I have kept DNAPrint going for the past year. Obviously, the company is not in position to pay back the loan we have provided, so George and I are effectively purchasing shares of DNAPrint stock. You should refer to the recent proxy and notice that the position of both George and myself has increased, even though there are not enough shares under the cap to issue even half of the shares I have personally purchased so you are only seeing part of my holdings that I have purchased. I purchased this stock on faith, - faith that the increase in shares would be approved, my shares issued and that our science and management will make the purchase a profitable one. I am not obliged to purchase even one share – the fact that I do so should make you feel comfortable about your investment. In other words, how many CEOs put their money where their mouth is? Nonetheless, George and I are not in a position to continue doing this indefinitely as our resources will eventually run dry. We simply need to find a more powerful funding mechanism to grow the company, and to provide basic sustenance when our current mechanism expires. That is what the warrants plan is all about and why the increase in shares is needed.
Thanks for your support of DNAP, and thanks for taking the time to vote. Your management is working hard to realize the goals we all hold in common. If you have other questions please send them and Ill prepare a similar letter to coincide with the upcoming shareholders meeting.
Tony.
Dr. Drew, it's "you're", not "your".... most 3rd graders know the difference. Have you made it past 3rd grade? Probably not, that would explain 'your' childish behaviour and name calling. You are here to be disruptive, it is obvious, so I'll waste no more time on 'your' petty ways. Sure would be interesting to find out what all the personal attacks towards posters interested in DNAG is all about.
I'm interested in such things as these, if you will, mr bag8ger. "Posted by: IVRT
In reply to: None Date:7/14/2002 12:02:55 AM
Post #of 39029
The new DNAP newsletter:
Dear Shareholders,
I am happy to send you our second company newsletter. First, let me say that I consider DNAPrint’s scientific achievements thus far to be a great success. Rest assured, however, that our efforts are just beginning. We have written, applied and patented some of the most algorithmically complex and advanced genomics data analysis programs on the planet. In one year, these algorithms have helped us solve genetic problems (such as variable human iris color) that had perplexed geneticists for decades. I believe that your investment has helped create a formidable player in the genomics based testing market.
The Company has seen many developments since our last newsletter. We have changed the composition of our Board, announced several new scientific partners, and announced the discovery of three new forensics classifiers and their imminent product launches. We have also achieved a significant equipment upgrade that reduced our overhead and accelerated our throughput - at no cost to us. Further, we announced our foray into commercial genotyping, which we expect will help establish a revenue base upon which to grow. I will discuss some of these items one by one:
RETINOME - We have announced our intention to have either a beta trial or a partnership with a large company in place by the end of the year. This is an important part of our business strategy you should understand. We would prefer to partner our products with capable partners so we can devote ourselves to discovery and grow our revenue base more rapidly. However, if we cannot obtain satisfactory terms from a prospective partner, we will market a given test ourselves. This would provide us more profit from each test, but would increase product development costs and reduce the number of tests we could develop. We are currently in discussions with four large corporations to help us commercialize this test.
On a different note, my recent Washington D.C. presentation for RETINOME was very well received. In fact, I sensed that people are shocked that such a small company could do what we have done. Realize that RETINOME is the first complex genetics classifier to be presented in the post human genome age. Larger companies with more resources have yet to announce such a development - some have announced SNPs or haplotype associations, but we are the first to present a complex genetics classifier that performs well upon blind challenge. This bodes very well for our ability to make drug classifiers since most of these will also be complex! As we have always maintained, the key is our math.
OVANOME - Earlier this year, our University of Miami collaborators and I presented the results of our Ovarian Cancer pharmacogenomics study at the Society of Gynecological Oncology Miami and at BIOIT Boston. Our study is unique because we are focused on the variable response to firstline treatment (a pharmacokinetic problem, not a tumor genetics problem). To my knowledge, we are the only company with successful results there. We have applied for an NIH grant to fund a prospective trial at Miami, the data from which will go into an FDA application so that we could be approved to sell the kits. Until this process is complete, we will offer Taxol genotyping services (preferably through a licensee), which are not subject to FDA regulation. This brings up a second point that you should understand about our drug classifier strategy (as opposed to our forensics test strategy). For each kit we produce, there will be a service phase and a supply phase. Making an FDA approved kit (i.e., the supply phase) is more profitable, but it takes time to get kits approved by the FDA. So, until we receive FDA approval for our drug classification kits, we will perform services using our kits ourselves (i.e., the service phase). Companies like Myriad Genetics have had great success performing genetics testing services. In the case of the Taxol classifier, our licensees and affiliates will begin performing classifications for prospective Taxol patients at the University of Miami while we compile the FDA application. We will add future customer sites based on customer satisfaction at the primary sites, and we hope that word of mouth will travel fast since peoples’ lives are at stake. We believe that this service/supply commercialization model will help us maximize return on investment.
OTHER TESTS - We have finished both the genotyping and the computational screening for Lipitor and Zocor, and we have finished the genotyping but not the computational screening for about 15 other drugs we have good sample sizes for. As we complete these projects, we will disclose the results within a formal, peer-reviewed setting such as a professional meeting or in the scientific literature.
SNPs - From a screen of thousands of SNPs, we have settled on a panel of 346 SNPs in about 50 xenobiotic metabolism genes for our pharmacogenomics screening. These SNPs have good characteristics (minor allele frequencies) for the sample sizes we employ - which mean they are of potentially good statistical use. Validated SNP panels like this one, of potential statistical value, are not easy to find and impossible to purchase - the chip-based sets available commercially typically apply onlyto a few cytochrome P450s, but our set covers 50 genes. We are quite proud of this panel.
ACADEMIC DEALS - We have inked new deals with the New York University and Penn State University, and added a world-renowned geneticist to our Scientific Advisory Board. These agreements supplement our existing agreement with the University of Miami. The fact that some of the nation’s leading medical universities want to work with DNAPrint speaks highly of our science.
CORPORATE - Earlier in the year, we changed the composition of our board of directors. Our new board members are providing top-notch advice and are prospecting for new deals and corporate investors. To help with this, we have consulted with professionals to greatly simplify and update our business/marketing plan. Our existing $2M funding source for the next year or so has so far been quite reliable (about $650,000 of it has so far been funded). I think it reflects favorably on our company that friends, officers and directors prefer to fund it rather than offer the opportunity to an outside venture group. We are currently evaluating and planning for our research needs after the existing funding term, and we will continue discussing this topic in the upcoming months.
OTHER ITEMS - So far, we have filed for a total of 8 patents - 5 mathematical methods/software patents and 3 classifier patents. Four of these have been converted to date to regular utility patent applications, the other four are to be converted within the year. We add data to each provisional over the course of time to make it as strong as possible before converting it. The patent process is an ongoing process, of course, as they naturally flow from our work here. The patents filed here at DNAPrint are my life's greatest scientific achievements, by far. Mostly because of the challenging level on which the work has been performed, I find them more rewarding than others I have been involved with in the past. We have written 2 scientific manuscripts and are writing a third. For products that may be partnered, the publication dates are set through the process of negotiation (i.e. we are not a University and we do not rush to publish everything we have as soon as we have it.). We have 4 grant applications pending at present and 2 more in preparation.
While we cannot control the financial markets or the financial performance of our partners, we can control the quality of work we do. We believe our share price will ultimately reflect this quality, in addition to the quality of our business decisions. Keep in mind, however, that our aim is to build a company for the long term. I know most of you are long-term investors, and it is with your interests in mind that we shape every decision made here. I think we have performed well to date and I hope you agree.
Until the next newsletter then,
Respectfully,
Tony
Anyone care to comment? I'm a little bit confused, thanks!
Dr. Dew- Don't call me a liar. If I'm mistaken, prove me wrong. From what I understand, you can't run around claiming people are liars here---I could be wrong, and you would like to prove it, probably. And by the way, when you post to a public message board, it's everyone's business!
" endeavoring to find the positive posts for DNAP."
Why not try and present a 'fair and balanced' view of DNAG, and post the negative too? I would like the BAD along with the GOOD. And certainly don't like someone spamming the board with 'positive posts', in an attempt to manipulate other people's perceptions of DNAG. That should be illegal.
Actually Dr. Drew, YOU were the one instigating the name calling. Is this the only tactic you have left, to try and malign a poster for his/her opinions? What a sleazy cast of characters.
Wow, I thought this board was monitored for such juvenile activities?
Wow, someone has been exposed
as the lying fool that he is on the RagingBull Board!
Interesting, Ann. Looks like competition.
Sorenson compiling huge DNA database
By George Anders
The Wall Street Journal
James LeVoy Sorenson loved his 1999 trip to Norway retracing the steps of distant ancestors. When he got home, he invited geneticist Scott Woodward to his office and told him, "Let's analyze all of Norway's DNA!"
James Sorenson The scientist gulped. Both men recall that Woodward stared across a conference table and declared, "That would cost $500 million. I don't think you can afford it."
Sorenson shot back, "Oh, yes I can."
The 83-year-old Salt Lake resident and entrepreneur is a billionaire several times over thanks to his development of plastic catheters and heart-monitoring equipment plus a half-century of wise investments. Sorenson ended up dropping the Norway idea, but he did so to pursue an even greater ambition. He wants to dominate the fast-growing field of connecting people with their roots through genetic testing.
Sorenson scientists are popping up everywhere from California to Cameroon to build a database of human DNA. So far, they have persuaded 50,000 people from nearly 100 ethnic groups to hand over DNA samples and family lineages.
The data belong to the nonprofit Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. But the man who made a killing on Utah real estate and Abbott Laboratories stock also sees a glint of profit potential in his latest obsession. A Sorenson company called Relative Genetics Inc. is selling tests for $50 and up that help people figure out where they fit in the database — and sometimes connect with specific ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago.
New technology is setting off a genealogy gold rush inconceivable in an earlier era when people had to rely on old courthouse records and half-remembered family lore. Scientists now have several ways of using DNA to determine ancestry. The simplest involves the Y chromosome, which is found only in men and accumulates small changes over the centuries. If men have nearly identical Y chromosomes, it means they share a recent ancestor going up the male line. Another method uses mitochondrial DNA, which passes from a mother to her children. It can be used to determine ancestry through the female line.
Such tests used to cost thousands of dollars apiece. Now they're relatively cheap — and some entrepreneurs see both scientific and commercial potential. This month, the National Geographic Society announced it was teaming up with International Business Machines Corp. and Family Tree DNA of Houston to build a database of 100,000 samples from ethnic groups around the world. National Geographic is selling a service — for $99.95 plus shipping and handling — in which people can send in their own DNA and find out where they fit on humanity's family tree. For example, it might show that a person's ancestors on the male line came out of Africa, through Central Asia and into a particular part of Europe.
Family Tree DNA and several other U.S. companies already offer more narrowly focused services designed to help amateur genealogists solve family riddles. African Ancestry Inc. of Washington, D.C., uses DNA to help individual black Americans figure out what part of Africa their ancestors came from. Trace Genetics Inc. of Richmond, Calif., provides a similar service for Native Americans, among others.
To this race, Sorenson brings nearly 60 years of experience as one of America's most prolific entrepreneurs. The son of a Mormon livestock-yard operator, he was born in 1921 and grew up in a tar-paper shack in Yuba City, Calif. He hoped to become a doctor, but instead spent part of World War II as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine. After 11 years at Upjohn pitching drugs to doctors, he formed a series of health-care companies. Some of his designs for surgical masks and plastic catheters still are used in hospitals today. In 1980, Sorenson sold his medical-device company to Abbott Laboratories for $100 million of Abbott stock. He kept the shares and profited greatly as they soared.
As a Mormon, Sorenson belongs to a faith that places great emphasis on family history, sometimes with the goal of posthumously baptizing ancestors. For most of his career, though, genealogy seemed too humdrum to command his attention. His wife, Beverley, took the lead, filling their home with pictures of their 47 grandchildren and various forebears. In an interview, she proudly noted that she is a descendant of John Taylor, leader of the Mormon church in the 1880s.
Eventually, Sorenson's views changed. "The older you get, the more you feel connected with those who came before," he says. "You even start to hear your dad's voice when you speak."
In the 1990s, Sorenson helped relatives develop charts of his forebears as far back as 15th-century Switzerland. He got his feet wet in the genetics business by acquiring a DNA-testing service called GeneTree in 1997, focusing on paternity issues. And he befriended Woodward of Brigham Young University, who was analyzing sheepskin DNA in ancient parchments. "I told him, 'Scott, why don't you study people instead?' " Sorenson recently recalled.
Woodward soon embraced the idea of building a database that could rival anything in academia. After Sorenson got back from his trip to Norway in 1999, the two settled on a plan for the Sorenson foundation. It would collect small samples of many populations, focusing on the Y chromosome. Once typical profiles for each one were established, people could plug in their own data and figure out what region their forebears along the male line might have come from.
The idea didn't stop there. Woodward decided to get detailed genealogies from those who contributed their DNA. Eventually, he figured, some people would be able to submit their DNA sample and find a connection not just to a region but also to a specific ancestor. To protect donors' privacy, the Sorenson team decided not to release details about anyone born in the past 100 years.
In early 2000, notices began appearing on BYU's main campus in Provo, inviting students to visit Woodward's office so they could contribute blood samples and at least four generations of family history, including birthdates and country of origin. Unsure whether anyone would bother, Woodward offered participants $10 apiece for their trouble.
Right away, Woodward's office was mobbed. Seventy students hovered outside the door at 9 a.m. on the first sampling day, March 6, 2000. It took eight hours to process them all. That stampede repeated itself daily for months.
While BYU students' enthusiasm helped generate thousands of samples in the first few months, it also left the project overweighted with people of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic or Scandinavian origin. Seeking greater diversity, one of Woodward's graduate students, Ugo Perego, pored through Census Bureau data in search of unusual immigrant enclaves in the United States.
Starting in 2001, Perego visited towns such as Red Lodge, Mont., to sample people of Finnish origin; Malad City, Idaho, for Welsh-Americans; and New Bedford, Mass., for Portuguese-Americans. To get past airport security with his attache cases full of test tubes, Perego recalls that he had to get a letter from the Centers for Disease Control.
When a Mexican politician visiting Utah offhandedly suggested studying the indigenous Totonac population, Sorenson researchers rushed days later to a remote corner of eastern Mexico. No matter that researchers hadn't heard of the Totonac until then. They returned with more than 100 DNA samples.
Most of the Sorenson effort overseas targets countries of ancestral significance to many Americans, such as Nigeria and China. Sorenson scientists also decided in 2003 to emulate other geneticists' adoption of a painless alternative to blood sampling. A brisk mouthwash rinse, it turned out, could collect enough cheek cells to generate reliable lab results.
In 2003, the project severed its ties with BYU and relocated to Sorenson's corporate headquarters in Salt Lake City. The university was running out of lab space, and the switch helped allay any concerns among non-Mormons that the project might have a religious agenda.
Leaving BYU also gave Sorenson free rein to develop the business side of his genealogy project. In 2001 he had started Relative Genetics as a for-profit company to handle the samples coming in from the Sorenson foundation. Within months, it started selling testing services to the public, looking for business among those curious about their ancestors.
The more data that the Sorenson researchers gather, the more they crave. "We started out believing that 100,000 samples would give us a good cross-section of the world," says Woodward. Now the foundation's latest forecasts call for 500,000 within five years. It is also beginning to expand into mitochondrial DNA, the kind that traces the female line.
Customers who get their Y chromosome tested at Relative Genetics can log on to the Sorenson foundation's Web site and find out for no additional charge what other families have similar genetic markers. Disclosures are most extensive for likely matches with people born at least 100 years ago. For example, the database might show that a man is closely related to a man of the same surname born in England in 1860. Because of a rule barring release of detailed information for people born in the past 100 years, Web-site visitors can't get names and phone numbers of living people who might be distant cousins. Eventually, the foundation may set up ways for limited contacts to occur if all parties want them.
Other research centers are growing fast, too. Family Tree DNA has gathered 31,000 samples so far, and it groups this data into 8,000 surname files so that amateur genealogists can figure out how they relate to people with the same or similar surnames. "If someone's last name is Mauch, they can look at Mock, Mok, Mauck and plenty of other variants in our database," says Bennett Greenspan, chief executive of the Houston company. Sorenson site users are guided only toward the best genetic matches, without the same freedom to probe many surnames.
The new National Geographic-IBM venture has a more academic focus. It is led by Spencer Wells, a leading advocate of the theory that all modern humans descend from a small group that lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago. Wells hopes his data will fill in large blanks in the history of human migrations since then. People who send DNA samples to National Geographic won't be able to connect with specific relatives; they'll only get a general sense of the path their ancestors took in the last 60,000 years. (Separately from its regular business line, Family Tree will conduct the DNA tests on National Geographic's behalf.)
Bonnie Schermer, a novelist in Mishiwaka, Ind., suspected for years that her grandfather kept separate families in North Carolina and the Midwest. Last year, she met Sorenson researchers at a genealogy gathering and they offered to test free of charge genetic samples of Schermer's father and a North Carolina man she thought might be a descendant of her grandfather. Their DNA markers were essentially identical.
Schermer says the news was a shock at first. But now, she says, it gives her a deeper understanding of her past and "more sympathy for our ancestors and their frailties." It also has led her to make friends with her long-lost North Carolina cousins.
In other cases, Sorenson data has disproved theories about family ties. Woodward dealt last year with a Pennsylvania family. The family had grieved for decades about a male relative who wandered away from his parents during a New York City visit as a toddler in 1910, and was never seen again. They speculated he had ended up in an orphanage. If so, the Pennsylvanians thought that a casual acquaintance — the son of a New York orphan — might be their cousin.
The orphan's son closely resembled the Pennsylvanians in appearance. When DNA tests were run, however, it became clear the two families weren't connected. "They were disappointed," Woodward recalled, "but at least they had an answer."
The testing has helped Sorenson make a discovery of his own: One of his distant ancestors probably was a Russian Jewish bookkeeper named Jakob Levinsohn. "I guess I'm a member of the tribe of Levi," he says.
Anyone have any input on this finding, and what it may mean for DNAG?
December 16, 2005
Researchers Identify Human Skin Color Gene
Ten years ago researchers embarked on a study of zebrafish--a quick breeding aquarium pet. While searching for cancer causing genes, they ended up isolating the gene that makes European skin white, thanks to the golden variant of the fish.
The genetic basis for human skin color has eluded scientists for years, with previous studies pointing to more than 100 different genes involved in the production of melanin--the pigment responsible for skin color and a natural sunblock. Cancer geneticist Keith Cheng at Pennsylvania State University and his team determined that the golden zebrafish--a lighter version of its "wild" cousin--has a genetic mutation that cuts short a protein critical to the production of melanin.
ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)
Simply adding the normal length protein to the golden zebrafish returned it to a darker color. More significantly, adding the human gene SLC24A5, which is responsible for production of that protein in people, to zebrafish embryos also restored the darker coloration. Cheng then turned to Penn State anthropologist Mark Shriver, who had been studying the evolutionary genetics of human skin color, to determine whether the gene played a similar pigmentation role in humans.
Using the human genome database, the so-called HapMap, the researchers found that SLC24A5 has just two variations. Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of the gene with one type of amino acid, threonine; nearly everyone else has another, alanine. This suggests that a so-called "selective sweep" for the gene, wherein a gene variant confers a benefit and is thus selected for, took place among European ancestors.
The researchers then measured the effect of this gene in 308 individuals of mixed European and African heritage and determined that those who predominantly carried the threonine variant of SLC24A5 were the lightest, whereas those who predominantly carried the alanine type were the darkest. Those subjects who possessed both versions of the gene fell somewhere in between, reflecting the broad array of skin hues in the human palette. Using a relative pigmentation scale, the researchers concluded in their paper, published today in Science, that variation in SLC24A5 accounts for between 25 and 38 percent of the skin color difference between Europeans and Africans.
Uncovering this gene, however, does nothing to solve the question of why Europeans developed lighter skin in the first place--though it is believed to represent an effort to boost production of vitamin D in sun-deprived latitudes. Neither does the work reveal the genetic basis for the lighter skin tone of some Asians. The finding does promise, however, to yield new insights into potential skin cancer treatments and other skin-related diseases.
"We know so little about the genetic and evolutionary architecture of human traits," Shriver notes. "We cannot expect to use human genetics to understand complex diseases most effectively without first working out how fundamental characteristics, such as eye, hair and skin color, are determined." --David Biello
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002E7CA-F27B-13A1-AFAA83414B7FFE9F
Has this been posted here?
December 16, 2005
Researchers Identify Human Skin Color Gene
Ten years ago researchers embarked on a study of zebrafish--a quick breeding aquarium pet. While searching for cancer causing genes, they ended up isolating the gene that makes European skin white, thanks to the golden variant of the fish.
The genetic basis for human skin color has eluded scientists for years, with previous studies pointing to more than 100 different genes involved in the production of melanin--the pigment responsible for skin color and a natural sunblock. Cancer geneticist Keith Cheng at Pennsylvania State University and his team determined that the golden zebrafish--a lighter version of its "wild" cousin--has a genetic mutation that cuts short a protein critical to the production of melanin.
ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)
Simply adding the normal length protein to the golden zebrafish returned it to a darker color. More significantly, adding the human gene SLC24A5, which is responsible for production of that protein in people, to zebrafish embryos also restored the darker coloration. Cheng then turned to Penn State anthropologist Mark Shriver, who had been studying the evolutionary genetics of human skin color, to determine whether the gene played a similar pigmentation role in humans.
Using the human genome database, the so-called HapMap, the researchers found that SLC24A5 has just two variations. Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of the gene with one type of amino acid, threonine; nearly everyone else has another, alanine. This suggests that a so-called "selective sweep" for the gene, wherein a gene variant confers a benefit and is thus selected for, took place among European ancestors.
The researchers then measured the effect of this gene in 308 individuals of mixed European and African heritage and determined that those who predominantly carried the threonine variant of SLC24A5 were the lightest, whereas those who predominantly carried the alanine type were the darkest. Those subjects who possessed both versions of the gene fell somewhere in between, reflecting the broad array of skin hues in the human palette. Using a relative pigmentation scale, the researchers concluded in their paper, published today in Science, that variation in SLC24A5 accounts for between 25 and 38 percent of the skin color difference between Europeans and Africans.
Uncovering this gene, however, does nothing to solve the question of why Europeans developed lighter skin in the first place--though it is believed to represent an effort to boost production of vitamin D in sun-deprived latitudes. Neither does the work reveal the genetic basis for the lighter skin tone of some Asians. The finding does promise, however, to yield new insights into potential skin cancer treatments and other skin-related diseases.
"We know so little about the genetic and evolutionary architecture of human traits," Shriver notes. "We cannot expect to use human genetics to understand complex diseases most effectively without first working out how fundamental characteristics, such as eye, hair and skin color, are determined." --David Biello
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002E7CA-F27B-13A1-AFAA83414B7FFE9F