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.
Virgil, It wasn't your best, it was your most pathetic, I was being merciful by ignoring it.
But if you insist.
Or maybe Pfizer has a similar product in development that they feel is better than the Super EPO. They license the Super EPO and sit on it so as to eliminate a potential competitor. Even though they think the Super EPO is not as good they still believe it could cut into their market share especially if it goes to market sooner. When BIDMC says they breached the license agreement Pfizer says no we didn't and a fight ensues. The Harvard lawyers come to the rescue and Pfizer loses the license in closed door negotiations that cannot be found by a simple Google search.
-So we have a better drug in process that is further along in development.
-Even though Pfizer knows that Super-EPO is inferior they license it for a pittance just to keep it out of the way.
-The possibility of it going on the market sooner is a pipedream as every new drug needs to go through the same process.
-There is no fight, as there is no record. Perhaps you mean two executives had cross words over dinner.
-SInce Pfizer has Oxford lawyers that eat Harvard lawyers for breakfast, I'm not sure what your reference to Harvard lawyers signifies.
-Whatever the eventual outcome, whether it shows up on a google search or not. You have built a scenario that AGAIN supports my contention that Pfizer made an assesment of the value of Super EPO and made a financially beneficial decision to allow the license to revert without a fight, becasue they deemed it NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.
Are we done yet. You have done everything to support my original claim and nothing to detract from it, even though you had to turn Super-EPO into an inferior product in this latest attempt. Haven't you had enough?
I think it's time you threw in the towel, I imagine even your ardent supporters wish you would stop flopping about like a boated fish.
regards,
frog
Virgil, I said;
the only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
I stand by it.
Every scenario you stated supports the statement.
Yet you admit that it is possible that they did not meet the terms of the license.
Unless there were obstacles that prevented Pfizer from meeting the terms of the license, then any failure to meet those terms would be a voluntary choice and support my statement that they did not consider it worth the effort. There is also the possibility of abject stupidity. (But even you have dismissed that option.)
...the license was revoked because Pfizer sat on their butts and did nothing with the license.
The violation of the license terms for a multi-billion dollar drug under such conditions would be either voluntary or stupid. If voluntary, it supports my claim, if stupid well...you know.
...and Pfizer said it wasn't really in their business plan as a target market or product,..
That's a good one. What business plan does a global pharmaceutical mega-corporation have that doesn't include multi-billion dollar slam dunk drugs? Nevertheless if they chose not to pursue it for business reasons it supports my claim. Stupid? lol
Or maybe Pfizer's image was so bad with lawsuits over Viagra causing blindness, Lipitor causing problems with women over 65, Celbrex causing heart attacks, and Bextra being in the same class as Vioxx, that they just didn't think fighting Harvard for the license so they can shelve it...
Again we get to the concept of 'shelving' a multi-billion dollar drug. Do you have any 'scenario' that supports such a fantasy? It seems to me that the nonsense spewed in that last quote would make them more than interested in a 'slam dunk' drug to help improve their image. However, if they decided not to pursue the license in order to protect their image, then they did not think it worth the effort, and supports my claim.
I don't know, it seems like there are several possible scenarios beyond the "only" scenario you think is possible or can be rationalized.
Well then, let's hear one that makes sense.
regards,
frog
Virgil, The operative word here is 'let'. Pfizer 'let' it go.
In your own words they 'let' it go because it was financially beneficial to do so.
There is no financial benefit in allowing a multi-billion dollar drug license to revert to it's owner.
Now back to the matter at hand. Can you support this statement?
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
The statement has been supported several times. It is you who have failed to imagine a scenario that does not also support it.
Here is a reincarnation of a prior attempt, previously abandoned but now re-instated.
I'll make it simple. Is it possible that Pfizer did not meet the terms of the license, in which case BIDMC had the right to revoke the license,...
Of course it is. How would you like to rationalize such a scenario, ...Pfizer couldn't afford the license fee? .....They couldn't meet the drug development milestones?.....What? Were there obstacles they could not overcome?... Did they not know how to do it?....What? Where they just stupid and lazy?
Tell us.
I say that arguement does not hold water since it is possible they tried to tie it up but failed.
Then where is the evidence of the attempt?
Before a judge can review a legal action and 'reject' it , it has to be filed. Even a failed legal action would leave a trail. A filing, a ruling, a possible appeal, all would be public record. It is a fantasy to suggest that any effort took place without leaving evidence. So it is NOT possible that they 'tried and failed' only that they didn't try.
So we revert to the fact that they 'let' it go without a fight, after they established it's value and made a decision based on their own financial best interest.
If you cannot provide a scenario that contradicts these quotes of yours then let us put the discussion to rest. You have just about run out of room to maneuver.
regards,
frog
Virgil, As I predicted you have changed your tune.
Way back in the thread regarding you promoted the concept of a legal battle and built your theory of Pfizers relinquishing of the license upon it.
I do not accept your dismissal of my theory until you show me some evidence that they did not have a legal battle,
Since then we have argued the 'logic' of obtaining evidence for something that never happened. You have 'agreed' that any such lawsuit would be on the public record and therefore the lack of any such record is sufficient to show that such a lawsuit never occured.
Now that we have established through the many google searches that you attempted that there was no lawsuit, you have modified your position;
I have never claimed there was a lawsuit.
A singularily obvious change of tune. lol
Now back to the matter at hand.
My quote;
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Seems to upset you, even though you apparently agree with it.
We have your own quotes;
Is it possible that Pfizer saw value in the Super EPO and still let it get away?
Which implies that Pfizer made a conscious decision to allow the license to relapse after they had established it's apparent value to them.
Then we have;
Whatever the reason, you can bet that somehow it was in their financial best interest to shelve it.
Which states that the decision they made was a financial one.
So how can we resolve these statements, Pfizer new what it was worth to them......they made a financially beneficial decision.....and let the license go.
Fair enough, that's what I said, it was not worth the financial effort to Pfizer.
regards,
frog
Virgil, The chances it was not documented as infinitesimal. If it occured you can 'take it to the bank' that a google search will turn it up.
And we all know what you will be doing till 'tomorrow' don't we?
Yes, let's end this thread. I will address your other post tomorrow and we can go from there.
You will be scouring the internet looking for that little piece of information you need to win the bet and the argument. When you don't find it you will change your tune to something tangential to your present argument. But we will all KNOW what really happened, won't we?
See you tomorrow. lol
regards,
frog
I conclude no such thing.
Your whole arguement hinges on your assumption that if there were a fight, then big, tough Pfizer would have won it. Since there is no evidence of Pfizer winning a fight, you conclude that no fight ever existed.
I conclude there was no fight because you have found no evidence of it even though even a smidgeon of such evidence would have ended this discussion and you would already be crowing about it. lol
I am confident enough in my conclusion that I will offer you the following wager;
I will state unequivocally that Pfizer made no attempt to retain the license via a lawsuit.
If you can find evidence to the contrary in the next 48 hours I will admit my mistake and leave the board. If on the other hand you find nothing, you will admit that the EPO was not considered worth fighting for and do likewise.
What do you say? Realize that you have very little to lose as you will be leaving the board soon enough anyway due to the inevitability of your losing your bet with Doctor Frudaky. lol
regards,
frog
Virgil, You are almost sounding reasonable, although you still don't understand logic.
You asked for 'proof', not 'trust'.
Your argument is based on your trust of the documentation.
"If we can trust the documentation then....."
The 'IF, THEN" construct cannot be used in a proof unless you can prove the variable.
We so far have: "If the documentation is comprehensive and there is no record of a lawsuit then we can conclude that a lawsuit did not occur."
For this to be acceptable as a proof, you would first have to prove that the documentaion is comprehensive. Good luck.
On the other hand IF you are not looking for proof, but are just looking for assurance, AND you accept the fact that the public documentation is complete THEN you already have obtained said assurance via your unsuccesful Google search.
We're done, and you have your answer.
regards,
frog
Virgil, You are making a fool of yourself.
The question is proof of 'existence', not inclusion on a list.
I can see where you might confuse a list with documentation and the discussion we are having, but it is NOT the same.
Do you imagine that by showing that the name 'frogdreaming' is not on your list, that therefore the name frogdreaming does not exist? Or are you trying to uggest that I do not exist?
You CANNOT prove that something does NOT exist by being unable to find evidence for it.
And yes, I still defend that statement........and contrary to your "I still disagree"......you don't. lol
Virgil, Try harder.
I am more than happy to defend the statement. Unfortunately for you it doesn't say what you want it to.
In the context of the actual post (which you cleverly ommited)which discussed the liklihood of BDMIC 'taking back' their license from Pfizer if in fact Pfizer wasn't willing to give it up, is the following quote.
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort.
In context, it means that the only way BDMIC gets their license back is if Pfizer 'lets' it go back without a fight.
Perhaps I should have clarified (for the thicker readers);
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort to fight for it.
Humorously you have echoed the exact sentiment with a quote of your own;
Is it possible that Pfizer saw value in the Super EPO and still let it get away?
Of course it's possible. It's what I said.
Whatever "value" Pfizer saw, they nevertheless "let it go anyway" when they could easily have fought for it. Clearly they didn't think it worth the effort of a fight.
regards,
frog
Virgil, Nonsense.
I started this discussion because it appeared that you were of the opinion that Pfizer is so big and powerful that they could do whatever they want to do.
You jumped into the thread by claiming that Pfizer could not meet milestones that DNAG could.
Couldn't the terms of license have had milestones that were not met by the licensee, thus requiring them to return it? Oh wait, that would be implying that DNAPrint is capable of something that the original licensee is not. Could that be possible?
You have since distanced yourself from that theory because of the serious difficulties that arise when it is analyzed.
You have recently modified your theory to one that suggests that Pfizer obtained the license with the singular goal of keeping it off the market for unknown reasons.
We continued along that ludicrous path when you claimed that a multi-national corporation set out to do something but failed to do it. I asked you why they failed, were they stupid or lazy? You said no.
I asked, if they wanted to keep it off the market, why didn't they tie it up in court? You claimed they did but all the evidence has vanished.
I have only ever asked you to defend your position. You seem incapable of doing so.
As to your attempts to upset the applecart of hundreds of years of logical thought. lol
I posted the following;
IF the documentation is complete and can be trusted, and there is no documented record of a lawsuitTHEN, it can be concluded that such a lawsuit was not documented.
You modified it to;
IF the documentation is complete and can be trusted, and there is no documented record of a lawsuitTHEN, it can be concluded that such a lawsuit never existed.
I will say it slowly because you obviously can't read fast.
You....cannot....prove...something.....doesn't.......exist...just...because....you.....cannot....find....evidence....for....it!!!!!
It is a true but tired old saw.
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Get over it. Better yet go and ask someone to explain it to you. Preferably someone with more than a grade school understanding of logic.
regards,
frog
Virgil, We have definitely hit an impasse. It is the corner you have painted yourself into and are unable to extricate from.
We have a set of accepted facts, and we have a variety of theories to explain them. All of the theories come from you....none from me, regardless of your attempts to put words in my mouth.
We have discussed the theories. I have taken your presentations analyzed them and then asked questions that explore the ramifications of the assumptions contained within them. Based on those questions you have abandoned some theories. You are left with a rather farfetched 'belief' that should be supportable with a simple amount of research yet you cannot support it. You have resorted to the ludicrous tactic of asking for proof that your theory never happened, as opposed to researching for evidence that it did.
Your attempts at logical constructs is laughable. You start out with a reliance on a belief structure on which to base your 'proof', yet your 'proof' is presented in the form of a conditional variable not a proof at all.
Allow me to clarify your structure.
IF the documentation is complete and can be trusted, and there is no documented record of a lawsuitTHEN, it can be concluded that such a lawsuit was not documented.
See anything wrong with that?
Do you still think it supports your proof?
hint; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. lol
And stop putting words in my mouth.
Is it possible that Pfizer saw value in the Super EPO and still let it get away? I say yes and you say no.
I have said no such thing.
regards,
frog
Virgil, you are still trying to dance around.
You believe that Pfizer licensed a multibillion dollar drug and then sat on it. Discounting of course, the reality that such an action is stupid, given the other more reasonable options, (Such as developing it and making billions)we are expected to accept the fact that they did so in order to keep it off the market. This leap of faith is demanded by the bizarre attempt to 'back annotate' an unfounded belief onto a collection of 'known' facts, as opposed to trying to understand them on their own merit.
At every turn the attempt to force a belief onto a set of unwilling facts creates difficulties. For instance, if a company with unlimited resources sets out to do something why don't they do it? The process is fairly straightforward (if underhanded)and the obstacles would be evident from the beginning. The mitigation of those obstacles would necessarily be a part of the original plan.
To suggest that they would NOT attempt a lawsuit because they would deem it unwinnable is absurd. The purpose of the lawsuit would not be to win, it would be to 'tie up the process'. Success would not be meaures in winning or losing but in how long it could be delayed.
As to your total lack of understanding in regards to logic, allow me to present the following imaginary thought game that conforms exactly to your understanding of 'logic', but contains a significant logical flaw. I will leave the discovery of the flaw itself to you and the reader.
Judge: "Mr Hilts, you have been accused of killing your neighbor by stabbing him to death with a dinner fork. What do you have to say in your own defense?"
Mr Hilts: "Your honor, I can prove that I did not do it. I have here, for the court's review, several videos to enter into the record. These videos contain the record of all eighteen people that I have killed with a dinner fork, a careful review of them will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that my neighbor is not among them. What more proof could you require?"
regards,
frog
Lord of the Dance, I would have you believe no such thing.
You would have us believe that if Pfizer really wanted to tie up the Super EPO they would have tied it up in a legal battle.
It is YOUR claim that Pfizer only obtained the license for Super-EPO to tie it up and keep it off the market. YOURS not mine.
My question is, if in fact Pfizer wanted to tie it up, then WHY DIDN'T THEY?
Furthermore I don't need to provide proof for allegations as I have made none. You on the other hand have demanded proof that a legal battle never existed, because the 'possibility' of a legal battle supports YOUR allegations.
Do your own homework.
As to;
You said that a legal battle would have tied it up for years. My point was that we don't have much information on the timetable here. Isn't it possible that Pfizer did in fact tie it up for years and it was just recently released from the legal process and the appeals last year?
Again, a simple search on your part could determine the timeline that would support YOUR allegations. Help yourself.
It seems quite obvious that you already know the answers and are determined to find some method of avoiding them. lol
And as for your silly attempt to prove a negative, you really need to understand logic. You CANNOT prove a negative. This is not my personal opinion it is a recognized fact.
Feel free to look it up.
regards,
frog
Lord of the Dance, Are you serious?
I do not accept your dismissal of my theory until you show me some evidence that they did not have a legal battle..
You want me to show evidence that nothing happened...? lol
I'm sorry friend, where did you go to school?
I am amused, not only by your attempt to seek a proof for a negative (can't be done btw) but also your attempt to twist about. Clearly a lawsuit involving BIDMC and Pfizer would be public knowledge and a ten second Google search would turn it up. Since such a reference would immediately validate your argument it is inconceivable that you have not already attempted such a feat. Your weak alternative to try to get me to attempt the inverse is not only comical but evidence that you have come up short.
If I drummed up a bogus lawsuit against Pfizer saying that they stole my patent for Celebrex, would they have to stop selling it until the case was settled?
Of course they would. I'm assuming of course that you have documentation that grants you exclusive license, signed by the patent holder (you in this case) and also that you could make a case that the circumstances that led to your loss of the license were in dispute. In such a circumstance you would be granted immediate injunctive relief and they would be constrained from continuing in any way until the suit was settled.
In our case the fact that DNAG has been allowed access to the license is quite telling, although it is obviously not proof. lol
regards,
frog
ps. Can you provide evidence that you do not enjoy dressing up as a woman? If not can we assume that you do? lol
Virgil, Oh, very good, the 'heel toe shuffle'. lol
That's not what I think. I think a more plausable explanation is that the people at Pfizer were smart. I am running with the notion that they purposely shelved it to keep it off the market. ......... Whatever the reason, you can bet that somehow it was in their financial best interest to shelve it.
Then Virgil, my friend, why didn't they?
I love the conspiracy theories, they are my favorite.
Let's explore the possibilities, shall we?
I think we can immediately dispense with the possibility that they were just being good faith guardians of their competitors turf (Amgen), can't we? It seems a little over the top even for this crowd.
Virgil even mentions the possibility that Pfizer has one of their own competitive drugs in development....what can we deduce from that eventuality?
Well, if they had access to both of them Super-EPO and the competitive drug, could we expect them to develop the best one? Nahh...that would imply that they were smart and we have Virgil's underlying assumption that they are stupid to contend with. (I know he 'says' they're smart, but then he creates scenarios for them that only an idiot would attempt.) Perhaps the other one was farther along in the development path....hmm plausible. Let's see all of this took place a couple of years ago right? And aren't all FDA phase actions public record? We must therefore be able to look up Pfizer's EPO competitor, isn't that right?
What if there are 'unknown' reasons for keeping it off the market? After all, 'unknown' is a much easier scenario to defend (even if it is stupid). But wait we also have the qualification that "...whatever the reason, you can bet that somehow it was in their financial best interest..."
So we have an 'unknown' reason that is in their 'financial best interest'. Sounds good on the surface, but then we are left with the begging question.."Why didn't they follow through?"
Surely an entity with the finances and resources of a multi-national company could have strung the license along for as long as they wanted or in the worst case tied up the license in court for decades, even IF they didn't keep up their end of the license agreement. Why would they relinquish such a valuable resource when they didn't have to? They could have easily embarked on a legal battle (even in a cause they knew was doomed). The costs would have been trivial to them but onerous to the licenser. The appeals process would have guaranteed them several years of grace. Nope, I'm afraid this one bites the dust as well.
In summary, it looks like the conspiracy theory is coming up short. Anybody got anything else?
regards,
frog
Virgil, You really are humorous as you perform your tap dance.
Neither you or bag8ger can restrain yourself when it comes to leaping out onto the slippery slope and then jumping up and down with glee, prattling on about your interpretation of reality. Only when you realize where your words are taking you and the imminent and inexhorable results of them, do you start to backpedal as fast as your little legs will carry you. lol
You try to pretend that your original words were not serious but were 180 degrees from your original position, bag8ger drags his side of the conversation over to the cowards board and talks about 'my' scenarios, when I have never even proposed a scenario in this thread but have only tried to obtain clarification of the scenarios presented by others.
eb0783 on the other hand is the most humorous of all as he hisses and spits about 'crime club' and liars, when all that has been written has been in support of his position and the only lies told were those told by his cohorts when they dismissed his position. lol
In summary then, we have evidently abandoned all pretenses that DNAG obtained the license because they have some technology that big pharma lacks that will allow them to develop EPO when big pharma cannot. We have now decided that the reason that big pharma gave up a multi-billion dollar slam dunk blockbuster drug was because they were stupid and couldn't be bothered with it due to the huge backlog of multi-billion dollar slam dunk blockbuster drugs already in their pipeline. (A very 'reasonable' concept perhaps, to an idiot, but one that has not been made much impression on the market. lol)
We have resorted to such a premise because the show stopping implications of the previous one are so ominous and readily apparent. Because IF big pharma reached an impasse in the development of the drug. An impasse that only DNAG's technology can overcome, THEN all of the delusional suggestions of partnerships with big pharma become null and void.
BECAUSE..........(it means that) ...........DEVELOPMENT by big pharma EITHER reached the HUMAN testing stage or reached a level of testing that ASSURED that ...........there was a substantive and serious SIDE EFECT caused by the drug.
Can you say "Vioxx", can you say "Baycol".
Can you imagine anyone wanting to partner up with such a possibility, even with a '90 something' per cent accurate classifier? Can you?
regards,
frog
Here you go bag8ger, I told you he would be upset that you called him a liar.
What is your response now?
How does it feel to be called the 'crime club'? lol
bag8ger, That first sentence assumes that you have ever had an idea.
As for;
t must rankle you that while we both agree that the previous licensee (I have to accept Ebo's word of what he heard) could do nothing with it, DNAG can and will do something with it.
What is to rankle?
Whether DNAG can or cannot do anything with EPO remains to be seen, and the prospects look exceedingly dim. The discussion however, is based on the reasons that the previous licensee was unwilling or unable to bring a multi-billion dollar drug to market.
If you would kindly refrain from stepping on the conversation perhaps we can elicit a reasonable response from Virgil, who after all initiated the discussion.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
You may not!
As usual you have jumped into a conversation without understanding it. You have (inadvertently, I assume) made every point I was trying to make in my coversation with Virgil. Every point that he was trying as hard as he could to avoid.
I am quite sure that you only jumped in based on your knee jerk obsession with opposing anything I write, but this time you missed big time.
While many would appreciate your support in a debate, I am afraid that I must decline it. Your support in any intellectual debate immediately detracts from the credibility of whoever you agree with.
regards,
frog
Virgil, Fair enough, you were unable to get your point across due to the difficulty of translating mockery into text.
Why don't we start over?
What are the possible sets of circumstances that might lead a competitive multi-national pharmaceutical company to relinquish it's license for a 'slam dunk' multi-billion dollar drug?
Next step. Of those sets of circumstances, which ones would prevent one of it's multi-national competitors from snapping up the license immediately it became available?
What circumstances can be conceived that prevented all of the potential players in the global pharmaceutical business from entering into a bidding war to obtain said 'slam dunk' muti-billion dollar drug?
Once we have pared the list of scenarios down to those that meet these tests we can analyze each one independently and sort out how we got to such a state.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, You will have to take that up with eb0783 as it was he that provided the report. I don't remember if he was quoting Gabriel, Gomez or Frudakis, but feel free to ask him.
I would advise that you be careful how you ask the question however, as you are already on record as dismissing his contributions as untrue. Whether you are calling him a liar or his source in management a liar, it will make little difference to his interest in providing a civil response.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Stop snivelling and trying to weazel out from under your own words.
You countered and put the words "could not meet" into my mouth. I'm not going to play that game.
Then please supply us an explanation of the following quote that does not in any way suggest that DNAG can meet a milestone that the original licensee "could not meet".
Couldn't the terms of license have had milestones that were not met by the licensee, thus requiring them to return it? Oh wait, that would be implying that DNAPrint is capable of something that the original licensee is not.
Answer that and we can move on to the next part of the questions regarding the actual worth of a returned license.
regards,
frog
Virgil, That is a bit slippery don't you think? (As well as being a lie.)
I substituted no such thing, go and read your own post.
Did you not ask?
Oh wait, that would be implying that DNAPrint is capable of something that the original licensee is not. Could that be possible?
And is not..
What milestones could 'big pharma' not attain, but DNAG could?
A fair response to such a premise?
You specifically said the milestones "were not met" (NOT 'did not meet').....then you went on to say that perhaps DNAG 'could' do something that the original licensee was not capable of. Any 'sane' reader would understand you to be saying the original licensee 'could not meet' the milestone.
So here we are again, after your attempt at diversion, back to my original question.
What obstacle might 'big pharma' have encountered in their attempt to bring a blockbuster drug to market?
Remember to try to imagine something that would not qualify the following (in your own words.)
..or was it returned because there was something wrong with it then foisted off on DNAPrint as you have said so many times in the past?
regards,
frog
cloud477, Feel free to fade back into the peanut gallery if you want, but realize that intelligent discourse is the one ingredient that is so very scarce on these boards. Your participation enhances the board whereas your simple passive observation allows it to return to a lower state.
Just one thing that I think needs mention in regards to your statement;
If the dimer is as good as advertised, I don't have any explanation for exactly how DNAG wound up with it. Nor do I think that the investment community (which DNAG addresses only a tiny portion) considers the compound worthless.
THe 'investment community' is not some unfathomable entity that works in the dark and has secret meetings to plot it's strategy. It is you and me and people just like us. It represents all levels of interest and expertise, it includes experts in all fields and all disciplines.
The 'investment community' knows all about DNAG and the dimer, they are collectively aware of all of the scientific papers (as well as all of the suitors for the drug (past and present as the case may be) they are aware of all of it's triumphs (and all of it's failures).
The pps is the guage of the communities interest. There is no other. 'Value' is the negotiate price that is arrived at between buyer and seller. I therefore stand by my assessment that the investment community does not value EPO. Since there are ample sources that suggest that the compound is successful, I suggest there must be some counteracting energy that is neutralizing the benefit of that success. The 'rumoured' first licensee would fit that bill.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", is also a favorite of mine. However one has to be careful how it is applied as the inverse is NOT valid. Furthermore, absence of evidence where evidence should exist needs to be explained and not dismissed.
It has been a pleasure conversing with you.
regards,
frog
cloud477,
Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree about the previous involvement of big pharma. Unfortunately whether they were involved up front or not, the fact that they show no interest today presents a formidable obstacle.
You have provided significant evidence that the dimer version of EPO shows outstanding promise as a therapy. Given the evidence at hand, what is your explanation for the complete lack of interest in the compound to date?
Contrary to your initial assumption that the compound had not been made, there is ample evidence to suggest that it has been made several times and tested extensively, the scientific papers are evidence that the compound has completed much testing and all public evidence indicates that it is a success. Why then is the license of the compound deemed to be worthless by the investment community?
It is often said that there are no secrets from the market and every indication seems to support that view. If 'big pharma' was interested in super-EPO, either in obtaining it outright or in some form of collaborative effort, the market would be reacting to that interest.
So back to the question at hand.....how is DNAG going to fund the Phase 1 process?
If the pps does not improve there is not enough shares left to sell to obtain the funds. If no one with the available money is interested, then the milestones will not be met and the license will be returned by default.
What avenue do you see that would enable a successful conclusion? Do you have any support for such a scenario other than just hoping it might happen?
regards,
frog
Virgil, Nice to hear from you.
Couldn't the terms of license have had milestones that were not met by the licensee, thus requiring them to return it?
And what milestones might those have been, friend Virgil?
What milestones could 'big pharma' not attain, but DNAG could?
Before you answer, think carefully....don't want to fall into a trap.
If 'big pharma' was not capable of meeting the milestones necessary to develop a 'blockbuster' drug, what obstacle did they encounter?
Try to imagine an obstacle that doesn't qualify as support for your initial sarcastic paragraph. lol
...or was it returned because there was something wrong with it then foisted off on DNAPrint as you have said so many times in the past?
Welcome back.
frog
cloud477,
Not to pick nits..
"But it has not been made in a production capacity and formally tested until now."
That is an unknown. As eb0783 has confirmed, DNAG received the license on the rebound from 'big pharma'
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11958443
That being the case, there can be no absolute assumptions that the 'big pharma' previous licensee never made production level amounts of the drug nor tested them formally.
As for the question of the drug being returned by an unknown entity....it's still a question with little merit. We don't even know that the drug was ever placed with another company. There is precious little "proof" and after looking at the scientific evidence of the dimer compared with the monomer, I would absolutely need some kind of reasonable evidence to even consider a previous placement.
According to eb0783, who, while something of an angry reactionary, seems also to be quite capable of reporting what he has heard and observed at the shareholders meeting, it would seem that the information came directly from DNAG (via eb0783). Of course if that is not evidence enough then we are at a standstill.
As you suggest the 'successful' completion of phase 1 would provide an immediate reaction in the pps, however, even that eventuallity will require more money than DNAG can come close to managing. How do you propose we get there....from here?
You said;
...after looking at the scientific evidence of the dimer compared with the monomer....
And what, pray tell, scientific evidence, have you observed?
Can you post a link to the pertinent paper?
regards,
frog
regards,
frog
ebo783,
What a crock!
Did you write "real truth" with a straight face? lol There is not an ounce of truth in it. How can you call others liars and then tell such a whopper yourself?
Perhaps you do not understand the intricacies of license agreements. Licensers do NOT get to 'take back' their license on a whim. The licensee has to violate the terms of the license. Do you really suggest that 'big pharma' was uninterested or incapable of paying their license fee? Do you think they would be incapable of developing the drug? Especially one with the capability of being a blockbuster, are you nuts?
The only scenario that allows BIDMC to retrieve their license is if the licensee decided it wasn't worth the effort. (Realize that even if your paranoid scenario of them wanting to keep it off the market was true, they were more than capable of stringing the process along for years without relinquishing their license. The costs of doing so would be trivial to them.)
BIDMC gave it to a small company for a pittance, only because no one else was interested.
cloud477,
Logic? You want to resort to logic on this board? Fair enough, tighten your seat belt. lol
What do you mean?
"But it has not been made until now."
The current owners of the patents 'made it' when they developed it. They did the bench top in-vitro experiments that proved the efficacy of the concept. Where do you think the 'super-EPO' claims came from?
If you are laboring under the assumption that everything licensed by DNAG was just theoretical ramblings on paper, then you have a lower opinion of DNAG's scientific/management capabilities than I have. (and that would be remarkable.)
Here are a couple of excellent questions, the significance of which seem to have eluded the entire board for some time.
For instance, who had previously licensed and researched a dimer EPO? Under what circumstances was this drug "returned"? Again, just asking good questions.
Wouldn't those answers go a long way towards resolving the value of the new drug? Isn't it interesting that while we have heard that the drug was licensed and returned, we have never heard the particulars as to WHY it was returned?
I am in no position to answer those questions, as DNAG management (who surely know the answers) have never provided the information. We have only the fact that they were fortunate to obtain the license 'after' it was returned. Since most such dealings take place out of the public eye, if the first licensee and the licencer don't volunteer the information, we will not become privy to it. It is only in the case of a company trying to make a little mileage with their shareholders that we have heard as much as we have. The careful filters that have been placed on the information will have to be analyzed in their own right.
As far as I know we heard that from Gabriel, but I would not be surprised if the source was Frudakis. In any case it was reported by one of the obsessive list keepers or meeting attendees. Others, more conversant with the details will be able to find the original quote. I believe at the time the situation was 'spun' as an opportunity for DNAG, due to their purported ability to resurrect a drug that may have serious side effects via the addition of a customized classifier.
Another good question.
"At what stage of drug development do you think that the deafening silence you refer to will evolve into a cacaphony of buy orders?"
Since the vast majority of drugs that enter the development process fail to complete said process, ( believe the success rate is in single digits), then perhaps the cacaphony will begin when the drug has successfully completed the ordeal. That would be approximately 'a few hundred million' dollars from now.
I look forward to your 'logical' response.
regards,
frog
cloud477, Are you listening to yourself?
Do you honestly think that a dimer EPO will not create interest in the rest of the pharma industry?
Realize that the dimer has been 'known' to the pharma indusrty for years now. It was offered to the entire industry long before DNAG got involved. It has already been licensed once by someone in the industry.......it was researched by that entity and then returned.
Now, given the deafening silence emanating from the pharma industry at the present time, would you like to rephrase your question?
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
LOL. Just because you were stupid enough to lose your investment here, do not assume that those 'wiser' than you who did not lose their money here were destined to lose it somewhere else. It stands to reason that those wise enough to avoid stupid losses would be in a better position to maintain (or even increase) their funds.
Why would anyone who had chased people away from a disaster feel stricken, those with a conscience or otherwise?
Do you not understand the relationship?
Preventing people from losing money.......is a GOOD thing.
Encouraging people to lose money.......is a BAD thing.
Surely you can see the difference.
Dreams of eventual turnaround are irrelevant in the assessment of the current situation.
When (and IF) there is a turnaround, and when (and IF) we can look back to today and see the return on any respective investments, you may have a basis on which to build your case, at the moment you have nothing and no moral high ground to pontificate from, nor is there any in sight. lol
regards,
frog
Nonsense.
Any and every investor who was "chased away" by the voices of caution during the endless downward spiral, can, should the imagined upturn ever materialize, invest their money and reap rewards that are completely unatainable by those who have held and followed the pumpers into the depths.
No they haven't lost!............but everyone who followed your lead has lost, and those losses are, and will always be, unrecoverable.
Good work!
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Don't put words in my mouth.
You and others say that what people post on this board has no influence on its readers.
I don't say any such thing. If posts on this board had no influence on readers then no one would ever react to them.
Some argue that posts on these boards has no effect on the stock price and that is a fair assumption given that the majority of investors in stock are unaware of these particular boards, but to suggest that there is no influence on the individual readers would be absurd.
I make no excuses for Dr Frudaky, I doubt that he requires any. I do maintain however that people are responsible for what they post, they are responsible for the potential effect of their posts on the individuals that read them, and that anyone who has provided advice that were it followed would result in a loss to the follower, shares a significant blame for that loss.
The significant difference between those who pump and those who don't, is that those who are influenced by the pumpers have lost significant amounts of money, whereas those who have heeded the voices of caution have lost nothing.
I know for a fact that no one who has been influenced by anything I have posted, (and, by the way, I have NEVER given investment advice), have ever lost anything. Can you say the same?
No you can't!
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Are you trying to argue both sides of the premise.
Do you suggest that those that might argue for a hands off approach to this investment actually exert some kind of influence, but those who pump the stock incessantly do not?
Furthermore, based on this understanding, you condemn the first group but exonerate the second.
Is that your position?
I understand your wish to get as far away as possible from your original question but let us try to remain on topic. I have clearly demonstrated the blame that applies to Jever and Stocky, if you have no substantive counter argument can we assume that you concur with it?
regards,
frog
Perhaps you will allow me.
I note that you failed to address my query as to why you blame Stockholder and Jever for costing investors money.
Regardless of what delusionary concepts you cling to, anyone who read Jevers or Stocky's crap and were in any way swayed to invest, has LOST money.
The share price has declined from when they purchased the stock. The net difference from the purchase price to now is, by every definition, a loss. The simple fact that the same amount of money invested today would return MORE shares is an absolute indication that value has been LOST.
Whether or not investors should or should not be influenced by the mindless jabber of such luminaries is irrelevant. The simple possibility that such influence may occur places a certain responsibility on the pumpers.
So, I repeat, if anyone was influenced in any way to invest based upon the drivel of either Jever or Stocky, then those degenerates are to blame for their part in a measurable loss.
regards,
frog
dislexia strikes again.
It was post 47916...and it wasn't good, it was terrible.
He misquoted his opponent and then called the misquote a lie.
Typical behavior from his ilk.
regards,
frog
Virgil, Nonsense!
When Dr Tony said there would never be a reverse split it was about four years before the r/s actually happened.
He said it four years before the split, he said it three years before the split, he said it two years before the split, he said it one year before the split, he said it every month in between whenever he was asked. He was asked at every opportunity since it was obvious to anyone with a minimum of neurons and the ability to do the math that it was inevitable, given the conditions (falling pps and immense share count). Until the announcement of the actual split, every time he was asked he said it would be unecessary.
As I recall, last year the shareholders voted on the r/s. I assume they would have to vote on any subsequent r/s as well.
Assume away. It was 'assumed' from promises given that the shareholders would get to vote every time a new batch of shares was registered for sale. So much for assumptions.
How likely is it that they would call a special shareholders meeting to vote on a r/s between now and next year's meeting?
If conditions continue to deteriorate and management deems it necessary, it is not only likely.....it is guaranteed.
regards,
frog
No it isn't.
Is this the pot calling the kettle black or what?!
One would have to be significantly demented to accuse nitya of anything remotely inappropriate. On the other hand, the behavior of those who regulate these boards is following the patterns that we have come to know and expect. It is unfortunate that things have never gotten any better over the years.
Perhaps it is time to attempt alternative pathways.
Why do you suppose Monica left?
Conscience?
Self-Preservation? (Can you say "Andrew Fastow"?)
There is apparently a stock restructure in the offing as evidenced by the talk of a pharmaceutical spin-off. Now we know from experience that the distribution of the shares related to the spin-off will favor managements interest at the expense of current shareholders. That's a given. Is it possible that our Ms. Tambori did not want to get too close to such a transaction, given the current climate of corporate oversight by the SEC?