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.
Robert, Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am unclear why you took issue with the statement, "It can't be shorted."
I don't have any issue with it at all, but others will.
You go on to say That is just a fact ...
Again I have no objection. However, there is a large majority opinion shared by many here who have lost their entire investment over the years, that 'shorting' is the evil conspiracy that has absconded with their money.
I am sure you are correct, but unless you are willing to defend that position and back it up, you will be regarded as a basher yourself.
Just a friendly heads-up.
regards,
frog
Robert, You are not going to make any friends with a message like that.
It can't be shorted.
The conspiratorial 'shorting' of this stock is the last excuse remaining for the faithful to explain the performance of this stock. You had better be ready to defend your position or you will be quickly reviled as basher in disguise.
Good Luck.
frog
Duuuuude,
What an entertaining emesis. Thanks for the contribution. Rest assured that I have much more to contribute than angst. LOL
Are you interested in conversations/debates about the science of DNAG? Are you interested in discussing the patents? How about the financing successes?
Feel free to pick a topic and please understand that your contribution will be treated with the greatest respect and a mannerly response. As are all such posts submitted in like manner.
The board eagerly awaits your participation.
regards,
frog
But my friend, approval is not the only criteria, is it?
While nothing may meet my approval, several things elicit intense interest on my part. lol
Dude,
Please don't for a minute assume that I have any interest in 'building some relationships'. LOL
My 'condescending arrogance' is not lavished on everyone. Just those who have earned it. If I did not have a great respect for the majority of those who read these boards, I would not participate at all.
Is it fair to assume that after participating here for almost 48 hours that you are aligning yourself with those who have earned my contempt? Realize that it usually takes much more time that that to pass through such a threshold.
regards,
frog
Judge away friend.
Your opinion will be evaluated based on the value provided by all of yor previous contributions. (Nuff said?)
wrl, Allow me to apologize for making your job so much more difficult. Wouldn't it be so much easier to extract money from innocent investors if honesty and truth was banished from the boards?
Isn't it a shame that instead of being permitted an uninterupted stream of deceitful gibberish, you are forced to contend with such complications as facts and history?
It really is a shame that these boards can't exclude honor and integrity, it really would make life much easier for those of you who could then take full advantage of such an environment. My condolences.
regards,
frog
Really?
We have seen the lows.
Unfortunately we have heard this before. (About once a month for the last six years.) What is different this time?
Significant revenue streams on the horizon ...
Care to elaborate......or does your 'horizon' extend outward several years?
....should eliminate share dilution that has been occurring.
Has DNAG reduced their financial needs? Has Dutchess stopped trading cash for newly printed shares? Why should dilution be reduced?
We are on our way up.
Don't be too sure that you won't be looking back at this pps and considering it the grand 'good old days'.
regards,
frog
Pay attention.
And 15 investors each posessing 4%.
As previously stated.
..any investor or group of investors would have to announce their intentions to the SEC. This requirement kicks in at the 5% ownership threshold.
A group of 15 investors working together each owning 4% would collectively own 60% and would have had to announce their intentions back when they each owned 0.33%.
Look it up.
regards,
frog
Dr Frudaky. Your scenario assumes that Fudakis is inispensible to the continuation of the operation. I know that is a concensus opinion but true or not it is irrelevant to the takeover scenario.
I think bag8ger is assuming that if there is Intelectual Property that belongs to DNAG that is independent of Frudakis it might therefore make some kind of conspiracy viable. If he can build a case in his head for powerful forces to be manipulating reality he can continue to escape responsibility for the state of his investment.
Unfortunately, in order to obtain sufficient shares in a company to gain control, any investor or group of investors would have to announce their intentions to the SEC. This requirement kicks in at the 5% ownership threshold. As soon as such a group announced their intention, the DNAG managements 'protection' scheme would allow them to award sufficient options to each other to maintain operational control. As they have an infinite supply of shares available due to the power granted to them by the last vote and their ability to reverse split the share structure any time they like, such a takeover attempt is impossible.
regards,
frog
Virgil, It is not me avoiding the issue, it is you who will not aknowledge the subtlety.
If one embarks on a project that might or might not succeed, but in the full knowledge that success is irrelevant to his well being, what then is his intent and furthermore what difference does it make?
He could be a cad, who intends only to rip off his supporters, or he could be a hero, tilting at a windmill with great intentions. In either case the result is the same. The evidence is the same. The level of provable fraud is the same (none existent).
On what did you base your claim that the Super EPO will never make it to IND status?
History.
regards,
frog
Virgil, Let me congratulate you. This is as close as you have ever gotten.
....there is a big difference between trying to develop a product that might be marketable and pretending to develop a product that you know is positively not marketable.
There certainly is a difference between these cases, however these are not the only two cases involved. Within the constraints of the first case (trying to develop that might be marketable) are a large number of possibilites. Consider the case of trying to develop a product that might be marketable but the market is very small. Or how about the one where the market may be large but the obstacles are overwhelming. There's is the one that can easily be developed but will take years and will eventually lose money anyway. All of these cases are reasonable, credible and defendable efforts that all share the same characteristic. They will serve as a plausible excuse to continue to extract money from the investors for years to come. It is a foolproof plan. Should some miracle occur and the product actually succeeds then the managers will make a fortune along with the lucky investors. On the other hand, as long as the process continues to stay above board and plausible the managers will make a very good living anyway.
regards,
frog
Nah......yourself. As one who cherishes the expressive nature of the medium, one who sees not only the meaning of the phrases but experiences the textures, the rythms, the beat and even the colors of the words, you must also be aware of the ramifications.
Some twists of phrase can incite pleasure and others can produce pain, some can turn away anger and others can conjur mirth, all have their focus, but many have additional consequences.
It is sometimes necessary to waltz around the elephant in the room and pretend he isn't there. No one made any points by telling the emperor he was unclothed, but everyone was aware of the consequences of such an exposition.
So before I send you back to your desperate compulsion to exercise your art in a converstaion that you can't allow yourself to be seen in, (lol) let me leave you with a term to ponder.......consider the various tangents of the term 'actionable'.
bag8ger, I rest my case.
Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
There is no deliberate deception. No promises are made and the practice of selling shares for all operating costs and salaries is mentioned in every filing.
There is nothing 'unlawful' about the gain. It is totally legal and above board.
The only fraud taking place in this arena is that practiced by the pumpers as they lie and misrepresent the company to the nvestment community. All of the hype comes from them, not the company.
And your conclusion that I have no interest in the science is ludicrous.
It is a well established conclusion based on your pathological avoidance of every scientific tenet presented here. The principles of logic are studiously ignored and you hold fast to concepts long after the scientific world has dealt with them.
You may well have plunked down your money six years ago, you may well have been enamored by the promises made by a scientist, but you have never tried to understand the science.
I'll bet I was reading articles on genomics before you were out of high school.
I'll bet you weren't. 'Genomics' did not appear until the 80's and didn't take off until the 90's. The major tools and methods related to genomics are bioinformatics, genetic analysis, measurement of gene expression, and determination of gene function. None of these even existed in the 60's when I got out of high school. Try again. Perhaps you meant 'genetics', in which case you may be correct, but you have just cast significant aspersions on your claims regarding scientific understanding.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Fraud is your interpretation, it has never been mine.
...applied for for its "remarkable value" to us suckers who keep buying shares bercause of it .....
It's not the only reason you keep buying shares but it certainly helps doesn't it? You cannot deny that as an investor (regardless of your complete lack of interest in the science) you get excited about patents.
There are countless laymen who hold patents as some kind of magic talisman that bestows immediate credibility and promise on it's owner. Those people say such things as "everybody knows that the patents are key..." and other such drivel. What everyone should know is that patents have an entire spectrum of values and uses. Most often the patent is obtained to protect a companies IP. Not from copiers but from opportunists who apply for patents after the fact and then beat up the rightful owners with threats of lawsuits and injunctions. While these things can be fought, it is often easier and cheaper to just pay up. Other times patents are applied for to provide legitimacy to a startup company. We had a group of engineers leave our company several years ago and started up a rival company. We were startled to discover they had applied for a myriad of patents involving things we had all worked on together. The applications turned out to provide them both credibility and legitimacy and helped them obtain financing. Once the patents were awarded they gave us complete access to them.
There is nothing fraudulent about applying for patents, regardless of the motives. It is perhaps misleading, and if the action is accompanied by breathless excitement about the incredible value that will someday be obtained then it may even be unethical, but it is never fraudulent.
Please stop insinuating that I have suggested fraud. I never have. You are the only one who insists on using the word.
regards,
frog
LOL, With both you and chiggah searching for such a posting, I am sure we will have the proof quite soon.
Chiggah,
Since everyone of my posts is archived you will have no trouble obtaining your proof.
I am sure however, that you have already searched frantically through the archive for some support for your statement. Having been unable to find anything you are going to try to bluff your way out of it.
I repeat, you are a liar. Not a very good liar as anyone with half a brain would have obtained some back-up before spouting off, but a liar nonetheless.
And since you have obviously NOT read through the patent, I guess we can ignore your ignorant assumptions in regard to what modifications were made to it during the course of the patent process.
I have read the entire application and can safely say that all modifications, made to address the patent office's objections, narrowed the scope of the initial application. However, should you wish to assume that I am bluffing, you know how to respond don't you?
All you have to do is read the application and find some modifications that don't support my assertion. Have at it friend, your audience is waiting.
regards,
frog
chiggah, You're a liar!
Last year the Frog said he had 7 patents and was working on the eighth. Now it is 5.
I have never said any such thing.
How can someone prove that the latest patent was "narrowed" and not just made easier to understand, or modified in some other way.
By reading the application. The entire history from original application through each and every rejection and every change that was made. It's all there.
Feel free to check it out. I suggest you become more familiar with the subject before you start blathering out your 'assumptions'.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, That assumption predated the request for verification.
I know, let's just assume Dr frudakis never said it.
Your penchant for 'knowing' things that are otherwise defined as figments of imagination, is primarily responsible for your singular and decidedly unique viewpoint.
bag8ger, You will obviously have no trouble providing the quote.
regards,
frog
LOL Bag8ger, It was me who told you that.
I also told you that it was almost impossible to avoid getting a patent approved in one form or another. All one had to do was keep narrowing the scope of the application at each rejection until it was approved.
I was certainly worried there for a while as I had never seen such a drawn out process and so many rejections. It took at least a couple of years longer than normal.
As to your contrived assumptions that there was a strategy to keep 'secrets secret', I'm afraid you are missing the point. There was no 'new' secrets involved as the claims were narrowed further and further. The modifications just kept reducing the scope and the nature of the claims until they became more patentable but, unfortunately, less relevant.
regards,
frog
ps. FWIW, My fifth patent was awarded last month. Average duration from applcation to award is 20 months.
bag8ger,
Do you?
I understand the positive of a patent in hand from an application written by someone who knows the value of a patent or he wouldn't have applied for it.
I will grant you that the patent 'in hand' has a quite remarkable value. That value is evident in your support and defense of same, along with the giddy excitement of your cohorts.
As to the value of the 'applied for' patent, I'm afraid that we will never know. The 'applied for' patent is long gone. Every part of the original application has had to be expunged, rewritten or replaced during the process in order to get something (anything) through the system. Whatever Intellectual Property that was contained in the original application that justified the application is gone. The shiny new patent however, exists and is available for discussion.
Feel free to comment on any aspect of the patent that you feel appropriate. I will be glad to discuss whatever detail you feel comfortable with.
Method, method, method, you'll hark. But 'll bet you don't understand the method in its elegancy.
I am always willing to learn from those with something to share. Perhaps you will deign to explain the elegancy of the method so that we can all admire it.
Perhaps you will also be kind enough to reveal how such an elegancy came into being. Was it a result of the abandonment of the original application material? Was it a conscious effort to start with something completely unpatentable in order to allow a stealth campaign to gradually replace the content and arrive at the current state? Was it blind dumb luck that such elegance evolved through the process of expunging the original content? What?
regards,
frog
bag8ger, It is unfortunate that your infatuation with the concept of a patent doesn't instill in you the desire to examine the content of that patent. Since it is well known that 49 out of every patents never return the associated costs of the patent process, it would seem quite obvious that the content is of paramount importance. Yet here you are, completely ignorant of the content, touting the 'value' of the concept while dissing others for not seeing the positive side of the situation.
If you are willing to tout the positive without even knowing if it exists, why should the presentation of the completely understood negative be an issue?
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Fraud is your interpretation.
DNAG is by no means a fraud. They are a very well run, money making operation. There is not a hint of actionable behavior and they are very careful to make no predictions for which they can be held responsible. They are more than happy to let their pipedreaming investors make all the predictions and keep the ball rolling.
Ever since Gabriel took over they have run a very taut ship. He has managed to keep Frudakis' mouth under wraps and there have been no more egotistical excesses since that time.
I repeat it is not a fraud, but an operation managed with admirable efficiency. The morality may be questionable, but considering the arena that they play in, it should not be a surprise.
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. You have yet to understand a single thing I have told you, yet you insist on speaking for me. Please stop.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Have you been trying to change my mind?
and clearly neither of us will be convinced by the other to change his mind.
All I've heard from you is questions and misunderstandings, is that your technique for trying to convince people?
Believe me I have no interest in changing your mind, all I would like to see is that you be a little more careful when you make enthusiastic but misleading statements that others, less educated than you, take seriously.
If we have accomplished that, then we have not wasted our 8 weeks.
regards,
frog
Since so many others appear to enjoy my posts, perhaps it would be more efficient if you just stopped reading them.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Progress in terms of a development process assumes up-front that such a process exists. Development processes by their very nature actually develop things.
As we have never seen a 'developed' classifier since the inception of the company, it strains the credible to assume that something different is happening this particular time.
However, I will concede that should such a process exist, then progress has indeed been made. On the other hand, the business plan makes significant progress every day.
I assume from your lack of argument that your 'questions' have been answered. Is that fair?
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Thank you for the feedback.
Since you are one of the world's experts on dumb posts I will most certainly have to take your opinion under advisement. I will review the post carefully, taking into consideration my personal assessment of both your credibility and the value of your contributions to these boards. Upon completion of the review I will endeavor to modify any future postings to accomodate any changes I deem necessary.
Feel free to look for such changes in the future.
regards,
frog
Virgil, Forgive me for making an unwarranted assumption.
I assumed that since we were discussing the development of a potentially new diagnostic test that you were refering to scientific progress. However, as we were also discussing the DNAG business plan of extracting their funding directly from the investment community behind a scientific 'front', then you may well be correct. As fluff PRs are the meat and potatoes of such a process, then announcements about relationships and new opportunities could well be considered progress. I stand corrected.
As for the questions;
If the old project faded away, why bother with a new one? Surely there are more enticing new projects in the pipeline that could be used to induce more investor excitement than tired old ovarian cancer treatment?
I suggest that your own reaction to the 'news' is evidence enough of the viability of such a project. If the aim is to induce investor excitement, it has already worked.
Or could it be they actually intend to market this one?
What is different about this one? They haven't had to bother marketing a classifier yet and they have been quite successful, why rock the boat?
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Before, they did not have a relationship with NeoCodex. Now they do. That's progress. Before, they did not have a supply of DNA samples. Now they do. That's progress. Those are the facts.
Please provide a definition of scientific progress that supports your contention that 'announced' relationships and access to data is considered measurable progress.
Perhaps DNAG should just announce 'relationships' with as many companies as they can. They can suggest that they have a relationship with Exxon based on the station they buy their gas. They probably have a relationship with Microsoft based on the computer software they use. Maybe if they announce enough relationships some of the products will miraculously get finished for a change, due to the increase in progress.
Give me a break. Progress will occur when DNAG actually does something. Relationships and access to data are only potential opportunities, not progress.
There is also the fact they you still have not answered my questions.
I seem to spend all my time answering your questions and correcting your misunderstandings. Which specific questions are you blathering about now?
regards,
frog
Chiggah,
Progress is the measurable advancement toward a specific goal. Measurability requires a reference point. Since the reference point essential for the exploitation of a new product is the release of that product to the market, then that reference point and the associated 'timeline' is the perfect measure for the determination of progress.
..but maybe your proof lies somewhere other than a timeline.
Your apparent understanding of progress is comparable to a swimmer swimming upstream on a river. While the swimmer may be travelling at full speed through the water, to the observer on the bank he is going backwards and is essentially moving farther away from his goal. Such a situation could never be viewed as making progress. Sorry.
And please refrain from talking down to people,..
I don't talk down to most people, just those whos behavior warrants such a response.
...especially as a grandfather. Congratulations by the way.
Thank you very much.
regards,
frog
Chiggah,
I usually don't respond to your emotionally crippled postings but I will make an exception.
Prove to us right now, Froggie, that there is no progress with Ovanome. Prove it in unequivocal terms. Show your proof.
Here is my 'proof'. (I will offer the guidelines, you can get off your butt and do the legwork yourself.)
Go and review cosmic's latest fantasy pipeline report. See what is says about Ovanome's release. Realize that he has derived his information directly from DNAG announcements.
Go ahead..........I'll wait.
So....when did it say that Ovanome would be released?
2006?......This year? cool.
Now go and review your latest rant about Ovanome's progress. Tell us when it is now expected.
Take your time.....we've got all day.
So......what is the latest estimate....?
2008 you say?.......Hmmmmm doesn't sound like progress does it?
Specially not for a product that was supposed to take six months when it was first announced over six years ago!
Chiggah, as a rule of thumb. When a project slips from six months to six years and then to eight years.....that is not progress but is regress, the exact inverse of progress.
regards,
frog
Virgil, There you go again, equating PRs with facts.
If you have learned anything in the past few months you should have learned that they are not the same thing.
DNAP is making progress in the area of ovarian cancer chemotherapy treatment. You can play gotcha all you want, but it doesn't change this fact.
What fact? What progress?
The only fact that you could possibly glean from that PR as it relates to ovarian cancer chemotherapy treatment is that DNAG and NeoCodex are about to begin researching it. There is no 'progress', there is not even a guarantee that progress will be made. It is quite possible that they could find something that would set them back from their current understanding. It is possible that they will find nothing new at all. That is the way of research.
Progress in research does not just mean spending time and money. It means that you are adding to your existing understanding of the subject.
For instance I would say that you are making gradual progress in your understanding of DNAG as we work our disjointed way through the debate. The progress is painful and incredibly slow but it is progress nonetheless.
regards,
frog
Gotcha!
Apparently the only way to get you to admit your mistakes is to take advantage of your obsessive compulsion to argue with every statement I make, regardless of whether or not it reflects your viewpoint. lol
>You were claiming that Ovanome had been reborn based on the >Spanish collaboration, even though there was no mention of it >by DNAG. Have we put that to bed yet?
Apparently not.
This, after several attempts to describe the differences.
Eventually, after leading you by the nose for several iterations we get;
Fine. Change it to accomodate such a function and call it something else.
So, if it does something else and has a different name.....is it still Ovanome?
Finally, we finally get you to read the PR (with a little subterfuge. lol) and you discover the final piece of the puzzle.
...when fully developed...
Hark...do you hear that.....whatever is in the works with NeoCodex, it does not yet exist as a product, it is only another entry into the very long (and getting longer all the time) pipeline.
Can you do the math? if it hasn't been developed yet....are you ready?....It is NOT OVANOME.
I rest my case.
regards,
frog
Virgil, What are you smoking?
Or could it be they actually intend to market this one?
Market what?
There is no product. It is a research program. At the end of the program, DNAG will provide data to NeoCodex. Read the PR.
How do you propose marketing that?
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Slowly now.
The reason that the discussion revolved around what Ovanome was, is that Ovanome has not changed. It is still the same product that was tested on 80 patients several years ago. It is still the same product that supposedly went into Moffit's assessment program and never came out. It is an old unfinished and unused product.
The reason that Ovanome does not apply to the NeoCodex PR is that the NeoCodex program is specifically new research. Research into identification of the genes associated with the various drug reactions. Ovanome doesn't do that. It never has. If you change it to accomodate such a function it will not be Ovanome it will be something else.
I find it interesting that you do not see any significance in the obvious omission, by DNAG management, of any mention of Ovanome in the PR. Do you think they would miss an opportunity like that? An opportunity to promote one of their products. Even I give them more credit than that.
Ovanome identifies a specific pattern of snps from a high density snp panel and selects which patients will have a greater chance of benefiting from a specific drug therapy. These patterns are chosen statistically from several thousand possible patterns based on their predictability, not on their association with the genes responsible for the drug response.
The NeoCodex PR states that DNAG will use their platform to identify the specific genes associated with the various responses. These are not the same thing. I repeat, not the same thing.
I'm sure that your penchant for skimming the various high points of the technology and selecting those facts that you 'like' has provided you with some level of understanding. A simplistic level that assumes that any snp that appears in a statistical study of a drug response must be related to the gene in question, but you would be completely wrong. There is no direct link necessary between two such components. The concept of AIMs and how they work should have 'clued you in' to that.
regards,
frog
Vigil,
Approximately when was the "first attempt", the "second attempt", and when did Shriver bring AIMs and Admixmap to the rescue.
DNAP announced Retinome as the very first product out of the chute. It was to be the validation of the software/hardware platform. It predated Ovanome, Statnome and all the rest. Both of the original attempts predated Shriver. Shriver met Kondragunta at a seminar while Retinome was still in development. It was Kondragunta that brought Shriver to DNAP, originally to compare notes.
Several months after the controversial departure of Kondragunta from DNAP and the ensueing litigation, and several months after Ancestry and DNAWitness were released, Retinome was finally released under the Ancestry/Witness umbrella.
regards,
frog
Virgil, My answer was specific to the time of Ovanome's initiation based on your specific question.
"Wasn't the whole point of Ovanome to choose the best ovarian cancer chemotherapy treatment based on the patient's DNA..."
No it wasn't.
Currently there is more than one treatment. And if Ovanome only addresses one of them it still provides value by preventing treatment to a non-responder allowing the patient to go directly to an alternative treatment without the trial and error.
That is correct. However, your question was specifically about the original intention of Ovanome not any 'value' it has derived over time due to other treatments becoming available.
Furthermore we are getting further and further from the thread (as usual). You were claiming that Ovanome had been reborn based on the Spanish collaboration, even though there was no mention of it by DNAG. Have we put that to bed yet? Or do you still think that Ovanome functions in the same way as the PR description of the collaboration?
regards,
frog
Thank you all!
Virgil, No they didn't.
Hey Frogman, what about Retinome? Didn't DNAPrint develop that one on their own?
Retinome was supposed to be the first 'nome', it was envisioned as the first validation of the platform. There were several attempts to obtain valid data for the platform to work on, but they failed miserably.
The first attempt involved taking swabs from volunteers and having them fill out a card on which they 'self reported' their eye color. The retinome patents were based on this first attempt. When the results were in and the classifier was finished the ensuing validation effort was a fiasco. Apparently individuals often are completely mistaken about the color of their own eyes. The most common issue is people with grey, hazel, green, gold flecked and violet eyes quite often describe themselves as simply blue. Since the overwhelming majority of the planets population has brown eyes and since most of the others were unsure of the actual color of their own eyes, self reporting turned out to be not a viable protocol.
The second attempt involved computer scanning the iris color of patients in order to obtain better data. The data turned out to be exceptional but the platform was overwhelmed with the complexity.
Only 'after' Shriver brought AIMs and ADMIXMAP to DNAG was he able to find a viable approach. Realize that eye color is one of the main 'markers' for the determination of geographical ancestry.
The retinome name and project certainly pre-dated Shriver, but the eventual success was his.
regards,
frog