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, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to emphasize the difference between an experimental compound and the finished bottle of pills.
When we talk about super-EPO it is quite easy to assume that it is a finished product ready to be loaded into the bottles and sold at the pharmacy, and not a new compound just entering the development cycle.
It has never come close to being tested on a patient. It's performance has only been demonstrated in a test tube or on a blackboard or in a mouse. There are many hoops that it will have to jump through before it reaches it's final form.
I was trying to indicate that a drug isn't a drug until it has moved far enough along the trial process to be actually used on patients.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Again with the assumptions?
Aren't you able to read the invention in the patent issued, wouldn't you know whether or not variable response had been addressed?
Since you clearly HAVEN'T read the patent, how can you imagine what is or isn't included?
Do you think that drug patents (for drugs that have not yet been tested on anyone) can possibly predict the variable responses to the drug by the patient populations?
If that what possible, why would we even need to test them? We could just write the patents and distribute the drugs....what a much more efficient system. (Hey, maybe we could patent the same drugs WITHOUT the variable responses.)
bag8ger, Regardless of the applicability of AIMs to personalized medicine, THERE ARE NO PERSONALIZED MEDICINE PRODUCTS!
NO evidence?
That's right, no evidence!
bag8ger, It means no such thing.
Non variable response would mean that the variabilities the current EPO drug has experienced has been removed through invention in the new compound.
There are way too many assumptions contained in such a statement. First you assume that the drug works in exactly the same way as it's predecessors. In order for the variabilities to track, the performance must also track. Since this new drug would be a waste of time if it were identical to those already on the market, we can clearly assume that it has some changes that presumably enhance it's performance. You cannot assume that those changes will not affect the variability response. (You can't even assume that they will not render the drug unuseable.)
Let us put that aside, however and assume that all things are equal, the effect, the variability, everything but the enhanced (super) results. How will that increase in performance effect the dosage? Are the variabilites of the existing drugs a result of a dosage that has to be increased to maximize the effect. Perhaps a lower dosage of the super drug will reduce the variabilities to an insignificant level.
All I am saying is that you cannot make such astonishing assumptions without some level of analysis.
That isn't likely, so variable response is almost certain.
Everyone...... the good bag8ger has spoken! Take it to the bank! LOL
Virgil, Well we appear to be making progress.
Can't we have at least some confidence that the Super-EPO will probably benefit from DNAprint's personalized medicine technology?
We can suppose that IF DNAprint has a personalized medicine technology, (There is currently no evidence to suggest they have.) and IF the Super-EPO ever manages to get close to the end of the drug development pipeline (the vast majority of drugs do not complete the process) and IF there is any variability in the results across the patient spectrum, THEN the drug may benefit from DNAprint.
And what about the other theranostic and diagnostic products in the pipeline? Don't they have a real connection to personalized medicine?
IF they actually exist, then some of them will certainly connect to personalized medicine. Unfortunately while the pipeline seems to get longer and longer with new things being inserted all the time, nothing related to personalized medicine has ever come out of it. Even those products that have been imminent for five years now seem to be retreating from the outflow at a noticeable rate.
I am also interested in knowing how you are so sure the Super-EPO is just an "experimental compound." How do you know it is so far from the stage when we will know if it presents the same variable elements as EPO?
We will not know if it presents the same variable elements until it is tested on patients in a clinical study. Clinical studies are regulated by the FDA and are reported to the public. The process through the various stages takes years. It has not yet begun. We are a long way from obtaining variability data on which to construct a classifier.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, You can't be serious.
frog, I read the post, the answer was not there.
here is the post:
frog,
You said:
"The new EPO drug for instance has no real connection to personalized medicine as it is expected to compete in the same markets with the existing 'non-personalized' versions."
I must have given the wrong understanding to "has no real connection to personalized medicine."
Did you mean, currently has no connection?
What is a 'real' connection?
The answer is; The new EPO drug not only does not yet exist, but it is not personalized. Any assumptions that it will be personalized are just that, assumptions. I repeat "there is no real connection".
Here is the relevant part of the post you responded to;
Try these simple facts.
A drug cannot be personalized until it exists. (The new EPO does not yet exist as a drug. It is a development compound based on theoretical analysis that has been created on a lab bench and undergone some chemical evaluation and may have been tested on lab animals.)
A drug cannot be personalized until it has been tested on patients (in a controlled environment) AND provided some variability in effectivity. (If it works the same for everyone, it cannot be personalized.)
A drug cannot be given to human patients UNTIL it has satisfied several regulatory performance requirements, including animal testing for safety.
So far so good?
Given the current state of the new EPO development, the following facts are self evident;
It has not been personalized.
It has not been shown to be 'personalize-able'. (I made that word up.)
To suggest that it 'will' be personalized in the future makes a number of unwarranted assumptions and is wishful thinking.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, For goodness sake man, READ THE POST!
bag8ger,
As far as your other post, I was responding to the one I pasted the quote from.
I know. That's why I brought it up.
In the future, do me the courtesy of reading the post you are responding to, it will not only aid other readers of the debate, but it will prevent you looking so foolish.
If you had only taken the time to read the post, you would have found the exact answer that you asked for.
bag8ger, If you would read the text of the message you are responding to, instead of cutting a pasting from a previous message, you would realize that the answers you are requesting are right there.
regards,
frog
Sorry Virgil,
The good Doctor and I agree completely.
EPO exhibits an element of variable response that DNAPrint management believes Company technology can help address.
In his text he clearly refers to two separate designators. 'PT-401' is the new experimental compound, 'EPO' refers to the existing products on the market. EPO does exhibit elements of variability. No one suggests otherwise. If DNAG chooses to address that variability they may be able to help. I don't think there is any indication that they are pursuing such a course.
IF PT-401 presents the same variable elements, when and if it eventually gets to that stage, then it will become a candidate for personalization. it isn't anywhere near that point yet. Furthermore that point is years away.
It is doubtful that anyone following the news releases pertaining to the new EPO is under the assumption that the new compounds success is dependent on DNAG's ability to personalize it. The emphasis of the press has been on the 'extra strength' capabilities of the compound and it's proposed share of the entire market. If there has been any mentions on the personalized aspects of the development they have been muted.
I stand by my assertion that as DNAG has evolved from a research oriented classifier developer into a drug pipeline holding company, they have moved several steps away from the personalized medicine focus that they originally captured our interest and participation with.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Please don't compound your mistakes by trying to put words in my mouth.
Try these simple facts.
A drug cannot be personalized until it exists. (The new EPO does not yet exist as a drug. It is a development compound based on theoretical analysis that has been created on a lab bench and undergone some chemical evaluation and may have been tested on lab animals.)
A drug cannot be personalized until it has been tested on patients (in a controlled environment) AND provided some variability in effectivity. (If it works the same for everyone, it cannot be personalized.)
A drug cannot be given to human patients UNTIL it has satisfied several regulatory performance requirements, including animal testing for safety.
So far so good?
Given the current state of the new EPO development, the following facts are self evident;
It has not been personalized.
It has not been shown to be 'personalize-able'. (I made that word up.)
To suggest that it 'will' be personalized in the future makes a number of unwarranted assumptions and is wishful thinking.
To suggest that I said it will not be personalized, is a lie.
best regards,
frog
bag, I'm not sure what you are smoking, but your understanding of drug development is quite flawed.
Your explanation does not reflect either existing nor anticipated development processes. Nor does it reflect the capabilities or expertise of DNAG. It is a misguided pipedream.
frog
bag8ger,
Then there is an opportunity for DNAG to 'personalize' the existing drugs. That's all.
Any extrapolation of adverse reactions from existing drugs to new and theoretical drugs, is an exercise in exagerated wishful thinking.
To suggest otherwise is hyperbole.
frog
Virgil,
To begin with, throwaway comments that do not address the point being made do not qualify as 'point by point' responses.
With all due respect, that makes no sense at all. Perhaps our definitions of personalized medicine differ. It sounds like you are saying that if the new EPO competes with non-personalized EPO then it must also be non-personalized. That is illogical. That's like saying if a light bulb competes with a candle then it cannot be a different technology.
With all due respect, that's a ridiculous comparison. Is it your contention then, that because DNAG has sold itself as a 'personalized medicine' company, that it's new drug is by definition 'personalized'?
The basis of personalized medicine and DNAG's initial claim, is that they can sample the DNA of patients who have taken a drug and either had successful outcomes or adverse reactions. They can analyze those samples and determine the specific patterns that determine the success or failure of the drug in question. Upon completing this study they can proactively test new patients and accurately predict the outcome of taking the target drug. This ability will lead to drug therapies that are specific to the particular individual. Lo and behold 'personalized medicine'.
Realize that absolutely necessary criteria for developing such a predictive approach include a drug, a group of patients who have taken the drug, an adverse reaction or lack of response to the drug and the time and effort required to develop the test.
In the case of the new EPO we have none of those criteria. It does not yet exist in a form to present to patients, it has therefore never been taken by a patient, there are no adverse reactions or response efficiencies, and there has obviously been no opportunity to develop a test (if one is even warranted).
Every projection of the market for the new EPO assumes that it will compete on an equal footing to the existing variants on the market. None of which are personalized. For you to claim that the new EPO is a 'personalized' drug can only be based on your own wishful thinking, as not only is there no evidence to support such a claim but the opportunity to provide such evidence has not yet occured.
Furthermore, while you still cling to your assumption that delays in the advent of personalized medicine are the reason that investors are avoiding DNAG, you are avoiding the obvious and 'begging' question. If personalized medicine is many years away, and DNAG is developing personalized medicine, and they have been claiming it to be imminent for the last five years, then who is responsible for the delay, and why is it still years away?
regards,
frog
Virgil, This is a telling statement that might represent the root of the disagreements here.
As for your (and my) opinion that personalized medicine is surely the wave of the future, there are surely people who doubt this...
To begin with there are no credible voices suggesting that personalized medicine is not inevitable. To claim that there are, is a fairly week 'strawman' argument. Personalized medicine is the specific promise that provided the foundation for the Genome megaproject in the first place. It is in no danger of being sidelined or abandoned EVER. Personalized medicine WILL become the new paradigm, it is beyond doubt.
On the other hand, while there is global consensus on the advantages and promise of personalized medicine, there is no evidence that there is any real connection between the practice of personalized medicine and DNAG. A case could even be made that DNAG has made significant moves away from personalized medicine as it has evolved over the years. The new EPO drug for instance has no real connection to personalized medicine as it is expected to compete in the same markets with the existing 'non-personalized' versions.
The arguments pro and con regarding DNAG, are not based on the viability of personalized medicine they are based on the authenticity of DNAG itself.
regards,
frog
Easyman51,
Don't always grasp at the obvious interpretation.
As DnaPrint was again placed on the SHO list for shares that "failed" to be accounted for, this bears consideration and I personally would appreciate your response on the subject.
It is a common misconception that 'shorters' need the stock to drop 'immediately', in order to minimize their risk. It is known that the naked shorters will suffer serious harm if they are forced to cover their short position and so they wish to drive the stock down quickly in order to provide some protection. This viewpoint is based on a single assumption. That assumption is that the variations in the pps are 'legitimately' driven by a free market and the 'shorters' would be at the mercy of a legitimate rise in price, should it occur.
Consider for a moment a not so free market. A market dominated by a very few entities. Entities that control the entire population of shares that enter the market. A number of shares that greatly overwhelm the legitimate shares that are in play as a result of normal trading. Can you imagine such a stock?
Suppose those entities, (lets call them LaJolla or Dutchess for convenience) knew that they could never be caught 'short' because they had the ability to dump as many shares as they wanted to into the market at any time they wanted to, thereby protecting any short position taken by any of their 'associates'.
Consider further, that these entities wish to make as much money from the effort as possible. Instead of the normal stock market mantra of 'buy low, sell high' they have the inverse "sell high, buy low'. To maximize their profit, and knowing that they can close out their positions at any time with a well controlled dump, they need to maintain a 'sell high' situation in the stock for as long as they can. The more shares they can sell short at higher levels the better. In fact, and here's the couterintuitive reality, they want the pps to stay up for as long as possible in order to support a long term sell off of 'short' shares. The longer they can keep the stock level or only gradually declining the more money they will make when they actually 'tank' the stock.
Finally consider the circumstantial evidence. DNAG became a fixture on the SHO list at the same time the Dutchess transactions began. At exactly the same time, we got a bunch of new arrivals on the boards, (some of them from Canada, coincidentally) touting the stock, suggesting we 'hold and buy the deals' and predicting that NEWS is just around the corner. All techniques that, if successful, would lead to a stable price and extend the availablity of higher priced shares. Realize that is impossible to 'short' huge numbers of shares in a brief period without driving the stock down and limiting your ability to short more. On the other hand a constant low level effort can be sustained for long periods, resulting in many more shares shorted.
I would advise that you keep an open mind when you consider the short sellers, they might not be who you think they are.
regards,
frog
Virgil, I don't think it's that simple.
I think we are all agreed that IF nothing changes, another r/s is highly likely. However, it seems to me that the real question here is how likely is it that nothing changes. It seems to me that we are getting closer every day to generating some significant revenue.
'Significant revenue' is not enough. There is another qualification required in order to stave of another R/S and that is the time period involved. That significant revenue must occur within a time period limited by the remaining shares available for dilution. At current rates that is a matter of months, not years.
Significant revenues two years from now will not be sufficient. Neither Handelin's projects nor the Biofrontera promises suggest any changes in near term revenue increases.
Unless you can foresee significant revenus streams occuring in the next few months, that "maybe" is going to get uncomfortable.
regards,
frog
Virgil, You are obviously a reasonable person and you have done well to try to keep these discussions on a well mannered plane. It is only polite therefore to grant you some concession in 'term'.
Instead of 'foregone conclusion' or 'done deal' when referring to the next R/S, how about 'high liklihood'?
Realize that this is the OTC where the standard operating procedure for low cap stocks with OS counts in the billions, is a continuing series of reverse splits. For the majority of it's history DNAG could claim that it was immune to such a scenario by presenting it's lack of even a single instance of that strategy. Unfortunately since the initial R/S the share count has been escalating at a rate that approaches the exponential. Barring a significant change in the financial condition of the company, the 'next' R/S is rapidly approaching.
The share count is not increasing in a linear manner. It took weel over a year for the pre R/S share count to increase from 500 Million to 1 Billion. Since the R/S the equivalent share count has increased from that 1 Billion to well over 5 Billion to date. That's the equivalent of 4 Billion shares in 6 months.
So while 'foregone conclusions' and 'done deals' are incorrect as literal descriptions of the next R/S, some description other than 'maybe' is required in order to accurately rate it's liklihood.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Blah, Blah, Blah...
Tap dancing aside, people have been hurt if they adopted your viewpoint. No one has been hurt by adopting mine. Conversation over.
bag8ger, I love it when you wax philosophical.
Nonsensical rhetoric aside however, can you say with a straight face and a clear conscience that no one has lost any money by basing their investment decisions on your interpretations of reality?
Can you?............Didn't think so!
regards,
frog
On the bright side, no one who based their buying decisions on such inputs has lost any money.
It's too bad that the apologists can't make the same claim.
regards,
frog
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
Eventus stultorum magister
FSAIL, Grow up!
To start with you should look up the definition of the word 'slander' before you go making 'false' accusations. Secondly you should explain how you arrive at the conclusion that it is 'slanderous' and not, for example, a term of endearment.
Perhaps the 'slap in the face' resides entirely in your own mind.
Regardless of your indignation, there is nothing that makes Dr Frudaky's choice of alias unacceptable to the rules of this board.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger,
Perhaps you have not followed the discussion between Spitfire and Theo, in which the use of disparaging variations of a posters alias was addressed. Your attempt to insult Dr Frudaky by twisting his name is 'frowned' upon.
On the other hand your offer to discuss the negative aspects of the DNAG investment is a welcome idea. Can anyone play or is this just a personal gambit that you are using to try to put Dr Frudaky on the spot?
regards,
frog
Savetheworld,
Isn't it interesting that the one who tries the hardest to get people removed from the board, is also one of the clearest violators of the TOS constraints? LOL
Arch, A very important statement.
I like this part best.
The FDA approval covers those patients with particular genetic mutation on one chromosome that results in the inability of the bone marrow to produce enough normal red blood cells and blood-clotting platelets. Patients with this type of MDS require periodic blood and platelet transfusions and treatment with antibiotics for infections to remain well.
Did you notice how the FDA approval covers, (and no doubt, requires) both the mutation and the specific physiological discrepency related to that mutation?
regards,
frog
ebo, Why would you suggest that big pharma has been "fighting off" reality? The article you quote explains that they (Pfizer, Affymetrix and Lilly to name a few) have been collaborating with Perlegen since 2002. That is hardly the behavior one would expect of companies characterized as 'fighting off' reality.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, Interesting article.
Does any one know the method DNAG will use to produce the drug?
The article suggests that Amgen has patents that cover any EPO molecule produced with mammalian cells, such as hamster, mouse or even human cells.
One company is even trying to get around that patent by producing their version with insect cells. (Hope they don't mention that in the commercials!)
Will it be injectable or in pill form?
regards,
frog
Arch, Surely you understand that when you buy shares on the market, that the money you pay does not go to the company. It goes to whichever investor just sold them to you.
The company receives absolutely no benefit or support from your investment.
You know that, right?
Virgil, The mistakes we are discussing are not high tech unexpected obstacles, they are specific untruths told in the course of speaking to investors.
I'll stop calling them lies in order to protect your sensibilities, but untruths have been told specific to such things as the participation or lack thereof of the race car driver.
You cannot dismiss such things as cutting edge issues related to a new technology.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Fair enough. You have demonstrated your own belief in the honorable nature of your management. You have also chosen to assume that any detours from truth that have transpired are the result of honest mistakes as opposed to dishonorable intention.
Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, and then consider the following;
If the rather large number of 'detours' is attributed to 'honest mistake', why are such supposedly intelligent people making so many foolish mistakes?
You and your belief structure may well prefer to assume that a high technology start-up is managed by honorable fools as opposed to clever crooks..........but it isn't much of a choice, is it?
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
So are we to assume that although you have read everything about the science that was recommended to you, you have since forgotten all of it?
Yet we are also to accept that your memory of long past events is sufficient to support your personal attacks based on events that occured years ago?
How interesting.
Your admission that you don't care about the details since you know that Frudakis is a heaven sent spirit with the key to save humanity, is perhaps the most telling statement yet. Together with your explanation of your mission...How did you put it?
I didn't come to the board necessarily to understand what Dr Frudakis was doing, it was to explain that he was sent to us by the Universe, you know the way others have been sent before when we needed them. He was born with that key...
What a wonderful coincidence that you reveal this evangelical mission at this most appropriate, saviour oriented, time of year. LOL
Bag8ger, I think you need to get your medicine adjusted. Those little displays on the corner with the child in the manger and the pretty young mother, are about something else entirely....not Tony Frudakis!
regards,
frog
bag8ger, let's not slide out from under anything, that's defeatism.
If you are not able to remember the discussions, we can certainly reconstitute them. If you would like to discuss the technology, I am quite willing to do so at any time.
How would you like to go about it?
Would you like to start?
Perhaps you could give the board your understanding of the platform technology and we can use that as a foundation and build from there. We can explore the details of SNP detection, SNPstream methodology and how it relates to the understanding of ADMIXMAP and AIM's. We can begin to appreciate the awesome secrets locked up in the human genome and the unimaginable benefits of unlocking those secrets.
Such a discussion would provide a welcome reference for all those who would like to understand something of the details of the technology in which they are invested.
I'm not sure why you have this fixation with Genaissance, but if you want we can explore your understanding of that topic as well.
It's quite feasible to also fold in the high points of the Icelandic Study if you so wish.
So go ahead and lay down a foundation for what will inevitably be an enlightening discussion. After all, the free sharing of our understanding and ideas are the real benefits of these forums.
I'm sure I speak for many who look forward to your welcome and much appreciated participation.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Your memory has obviously been adversely affected by whatever maladies that aflict you.
I have ALWAYS been a proponent of the technology that is SUPPOSED to be at the heart of DNAG's little adventure.
I'm sure you will recall that mingwan0 and I spent a number of memorable posts defining and explaining exactly what DNAG (DNAP at the time) was up to.
I have explained many times the benefits and the expectations of the technology and the window of opportunity that exists for it. If you don't remember this history then you would be well advised to either review it in order to comment effectively, or limit your responses to whatever few memories that might still remain.
The technology is the driving force behind almost everyones participation here. It is an obvious and well understood area of investigation that six years ago was unspoiled wilderness. That DNAG has not been able to lay claim even a small part of the rapidly diminishing real estate is what upsets the informed investors.
Your own misguided understanding that metaphorically DNAG is the only firm with 'a pick and a gold pan' exploring this new gold rush territory, allows you to assume that they are guaranteed to strike gold eventually. Unfortunately Orchid and all the other manufacturers of 'gold pans' was giving them away five years ago in exchange for a share of the gold dust and a contract to buy the consumables. (Much like giving away phones in exchange for a two year service contract) There are many other miners out there, all of them staking out territory and many of them are not trying to 'salt' their claims. lol
I admit the technology is strong in potential, I always have. It is both obvious and competetive. There are numerous players some legitimate some not.
regards,
frog
Virgil, You can't be serious.
'Guilt by association' is a very questionable premise, are you seriously going to base your argument on it's inverse, 'Honor by association' ? LOL
Would one of the country's most prestigious cancer research centers partner with a management team of questionable ethics?
Would Beth Isreal Deaconess Medical Center allow themselves to be bamboozled by a management team of questionable ethics?
Such a concept's validity would require that no reputable organization has ever be taken in by a disreputable one. Is that valid? (Don't think so.)
Realize that disreputable organizations ONLY take advantage of reputable ones.
Your examples rely on a connection between the validity of the science and the scientists, and the reputability of the management team. (No one will ever cast any aspersions on Shriver for instance.) Such a concept also confuses the various aspects of the business, there are no rules that prevent a disreputable firm from masking themselves with a plausible technology. (Enron ??)
No Virgil, it is a tired old argument and it has been discredited many times. The reputation of the victim in no way supports the reputation of the liar. Nor does the plausibility of the technology insure the honor of the company.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
You are being obtuse.
While intent is a criteria that differentiates a mistake from a lie, PROOF of that intent is not the only method of establishing the lie. It is sufficient to provide such evidence as motive, opportunity, untruth and previous dishonorable behavior.
The level of credibility currently enjoyed by management along with their questionable ethics, provide an environment in which every statement made by them should be understood to be untrue, until it can either be verified separately or until they regain some level of trust. Unfortunately, trust is much easier to lose than it is to re-establish.
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Intent is not the only criteria.
I just do not see any evidence that they lied. It is a question of intent.
When honorable people realize they have made a mistake, especially one that affect other people to whom they hade made a promise, they explain themselves. Sometimes it is a simple restatement of the schedule to account for the slide. At other times a major unseen obstacle is encountered and an entire restructuring of the project is appropriate. In either case, honorable people face up to those they have let down and explain the issues and accept the responsibility.
The behavior of management in regard to the Ovanome announcements is inexplcable when reviewed against normal ethics. They continue to restate the end date over and over, with no explanation and with an obvious disregard for the inevitable decline in credibility that accompanies such a tactic. This is NOT the behavior of honorable people.
While you may rationalize their actions and act as an apologist for them, I am quite sure you would never behave the same way yourself. Ask yourself, would you ever make a prediction of such import and then pretend it never happened when you have to restate your schedule? I doubt it. Knowing that so many people were counting on the successful completion of the project, would require you to explain what happened. You would know it was the right thing to do.
regards,
frog
ps. I find it quite humorous that when DNAG management repeatedly cries 'wolf' in regard to the completion of the Ovanome project, the participants who defend them are among the same ones who revile Jever for doing exactly the same thing. LOL
bag8ger, Why do you do this?
You consistently challenge my posts, get your head handed to you and then crawl off into the woodwork for a few weeks before returning to start over. Don't you get tired?
What part of he left the Northwest and moved to Florida do you object to? Did his father live in Florida at the time, did they join together in business? Is Daddy a bad term to use?
The 'cloud' is a reference to a comment by his business partner at the time he started DNAPrint, a 'co-founder'. You know it well, don't play dumb.
A half decade ago, DNAP's goal was to create classifiers for drugs at a rate of one every six months and license them to manufacturer/distributers. That goal and entire business plan, has been abandoned.
DNAP was NOT doing ancestry studies until they met Shriver and realized that his approach would enable them to solve the problems that had thus far prevented the completion of even one classifier. All programs reset when they turned their attention to Shriver's AIMs.
They started talking 'Drug' company at the exact same time that the shareholders agreed to extend the AS to 1.5 Billion shares. The same time that Frudakis promised that every release of shares would be voted on by the investors. The same time that the massive dilution and the cutthroat financing began.
If you observe that the current 'dilution financed Drug/holding company' is not a reinvention of the original Retinome/Ovanome/Statnome classifier developer, then perhaps it is your ability to 'see' change that is in question.
regards,
frog
thetide,
Happy Holidays to you too friend.
Spend the time celebrating the season and the return of the sun. It has reached it's southern limit and will now return us to warmth and light.
Enjoy the companionship of loved ones and share in the collective warmth of their presence.
Eat hearty and drink responsibly....but remember moderation is for monks. Gulp the wine.
If you get a minute and you have the inclination you might even take in football game or two....lol.
Best regards,
frog