GEOB, it is PR, if there is a 'lie' involved it is in the interpretation of the info by the readers.

I can unveil to my family the new sedan in my driveway. If someone gets the impression that I built it myself and tells some one else that I did. That's a lie.

Since Shriver was an employee of DNAP, being paid for his assistance and direction, why would he object?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Pattrn, If I were you, I would reevaluate that 'good' account. It doesn't appear to hold up to even the slightest analysis.

If the technology had a 'value' to someone six years ago, then that value can only have increased over the interim.

There is NO WAY for such an offer to occur in the real world without an instantaneous reflection of that offer in the pps.

If it had that value to one suitor, (even if he abandoned the effort in a huff) it would be equally valuable to one of his competitors.

There are no reliable channels to information about such an offer. All parties involved have agendas that would benefit from the exploitation of such an 'offer', whether it occured or not.

In light of the circumstances, (potential agendas vs. market behavior) it is improbable that such an offer occured.

regards,
frog

Blue Moon, You are absolutely correct, no one at DNAP has made any such claim.

Unfortunately that does not stop many of the participants on these boards from claiming that ADMIXMAP is DNAP's exclusive territory and is the vehicle for their imaginary leadership position in the industry.

Many of the shills, GEOB in particular, flog the premise without shame.

regards,
frog

Sounds an awful lot like this doesn't it?

We have developed a first working version of ADMIXMAP, a statistical analysis program that can be used to model admixture and to test for linkage. This program is based on a Bayesian approach in which the posterior distribution of parental admixture and individual ancestry at each locus is generated by Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation [8].

Our research on admixture mapping is supported by the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council, the Arthritis Research Campaign, and GlaxoSmithKline. We are working closely with the Department of Anthropology, Penn State University on the application of admixture mapping to African-American populations, and on the development of marker sets for admixture mapping. We are collaborating with other researchers in the Caribbean region.

DNAP(G)?........er No!

http://www.ucd.ie/conway/cv1_324.html

This is the original work done by Paul McKeigue and Mark Shriver. DNAG's version is merely an off shoot of this work, it is not the origin of it.

regards,
frog

Pattrn, Not so fast...

What is apparent is that Dr. Frudakis has been able todate to identify, with certainty, thru ADMIXMAPtm to determine the ancestery of an individual. No other company has been able to accomplish this to my knowledge.

If you wish to adhere to a strict interpretation of your statement, then perhaps you are correct. "No other 'company'...". However, we are all aware that Shriver was successfully identifying the ancestry of individuals based on AIMs and ADMIXMAP before he brought his work to DNAP. Frudakis and Co. definitely were able to contribute to the work and made it more commercial, (under Shriver's direction), but it was not their invention.

Furthermore..

If he has a "lock" on something that would give an edge to a Pharmacuetical Company, then I can see why there (might) be adverse pressure being applied to DnaPrint to obscurity.

That is an 'if, then' statement that leans very heavily on the IF, and is a little weak on the THEN.

Why wouldn't any company that knows enough to see the potential in the technology waste six long years trying to stall it, when they could have it for a pittance?

It is all well and good to assume that Tony turned down an 'insulting' offer, but such a scenario does not stand up to analysis. If it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars then the big boys would be fighting over the rights to the technology, not sitting back and waiting six years to fight over the pieces. Unless you can put together a conspiracy that includes every big pharmaceutical company on the planet, a conspiracy that includes the 'sharing' of the technology once it is obtained, then your scenario falls apart. All that is required to blow such a long term strategy out of the water is for one of the conspirators to decide to take the technology for himself and offer a couple of hundred mil for it. If you think anyone, Tony, Gabriel or the shareholders themselves wouldn't jump at such an offer, your are not being rational.

If you think that such a sum isn't small change to big pharma, who would rather play silly penny ante games on the OTC for six years then you are also deluding yourself.

I'm sorry, but there are no bogeymen out there ruining your investment, there is just a tiny little genomics company with little to show for itself that is failing to live up to your unfounded and unsuported expectations. It is not the bogeymen that you should be blaming for your losses.

best regards,
frog

loch3, You should definitely review the terminology.

Admixmap is not the exclusive domain of DNAG. It is a freeware product developed by others and available on-line for anyone.

That DNAG has taken this database and played with it is not in doubt, but it is certainly NOT representative of 'first, one and only".

Do a google search using 'admixmap'. See if you find anything familiar....that you may have been led to believe was DNAG technology.

regards,
frog

Straw, I don't know about you but I'm getting tired of this job, and I don't see how the end game is going to work.

Like you, I have been working these boards for over five years. At any kind of decent wage, (including benefits and a good 401K) I've got at least a half a mil coming to me for my efforts.

The problem is, that I don't see how the payoff is going to work.

As you know either collectively or even as individuals we can't own more than 4.99% of the OS without making a filing and becoming 'known'.

Since there are about 100 million shares out right now, if we were to stop holding the price down and let it run from here we could collect about 5 million shares and stay under the radar. Divided among all six of us would give just under a million shares each.

Do the math, just to break even and 'make wages' the pps will have to run up to 50 cents a share. For a profit and some return for six years work and whatever the boss expects, it will have to go a damn site higher than that.

Collectively we are about $3 million in the hole and banking on making a killing of a company with a capitalized value of less than 60% of that.

What the hell are we doing? What do you think they are up to? Have you heard anything?

I'm getting fed up.

frog

Speaking of lies ebo, you are now guilty yourself.

Two patents HAVE received 'final rejection'. This means that they are no longer viable in their present form. This is the definition of 'failed'.

That there are avenues available to continue them, after complete rewrites, is a fact that you are clinging to, but it does not detract from the failure of the initial patents.

It is as if one were designing and building a rocket ship only to see it explode on the launchpad. If one then gathers up all of the pieces and melts them down with the intention of building a bicycle out of the scrap, it can be argued that the project 'continues' and is not dead. Regardless of the eventual success of the bicycle, the rocket was a failure.

I would also like to comment on this travesty;

People on this board KNOW that Tony's leading edge science is so far beyond the knowledge of the patent office's low paid reviewers that they can't understand it and he has to keep explaining it to them.

Isn't it unfortunate that all of the people on this board that KNOW such things are incapable of explaining them to anyone else and are, in fact, ignorant of the science itself? Their 'knowlege' is based on their wish to believe, not in an actual understanding of the science. It is also unfortunate that all of those people that actually understand the science (and there are many) don't share your beliefs.

regards,
frog

Geob, Didn't you and jever show up here together?

Aren't you the only two players here that advise investors to BUY and HOLD?

just curious,
frog

OT: stakddek, LOL

Who Knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Da Shadow do....

Yes, I say you are pushing the limits of decorum.

I also say you are playing a very dangerous game.

You ask, (with feigned inuendo), but nevertheless accurate insight;

so who would sell their shares ......

for less than they paid for them .......

on an extremly HUGE VOL day .......

the end of the day we saw a dump .......

now what investor .......

unless they had an other motive .....

other than profit .......

would try to drive the SP down? .......

And I answer....no one!

No one is selling for less than they paid...no one!

No one is trying to drive down the price...no one!

Those are the red herrings that you use to cover the reality and attempt to mislead those that want desperately to believe you.

The shares are NOT being sold by someone who has previously 'paid' for them. We know exactly where those shares came from, don't we? Straight from the printing press.

I defy you to compare today's volume with the releases of shares as recorded by the transfer agent and NOT find a correlation.

The drop in SP is a direct consequence of too many shares chasing too few investors....and you know it!

You are a phony, and a shill.

Only the most gullible listen to your crap.

Believe it or not, I communicate privately with a number of the members on this board, (from both sides of the aisle lol) and the consensus on you is quite consistent.

regards,
frog

Geob, Tread carefully here.

Even though you represent a positive voice and are not in the crosshairs of the majority of participants here, you are nevertheless pushing the limits of decorum and ethics.

Even the most blatant of the pumpers that have been here for years are very careful to qualify their positions.

No one with any integrity advises others to buy stock. They all suggest that investors do their own DD and make their own risk decisions.

You, on the other hand, are quite blatant in your 'hold and buy more' pronouncements.

Realize that no one has lost any money on this stock by paying attention to Dr. Frudaky and regardless of their opinion of him they cannot blame him for their decisions.

You, on the other hand have the potential for serious losses on your conscience, providing of course that you possess one.

regards,
frog

Very funny!

If you want to even the odds....you are going to need a few dozen MORE frudaky's. lol

And any time you want an intelligent realistic conversation regarding the science, the pros and cons, or the viability of the company, just let me know.

Feel free to pick the time and the subject and jump right in.

But be prepared to back up your arguments with something a little more substantial than what you have presented so far.

regards,
frog

Dr Dew, Are you serious?

Is it your contention that as long as one says a few negative things for 'balance' then one is free to wax lyrical about the wondrous possibilities of the company without being bound by reality or subjected to censure?

Is it also your contention that as long as one sticks to a focused and narrow viewpoint then one can be dismissed out of hand regardless of the truthfulness of one's message?

regards,
frog

A little hypocritical Dr Dew, don't you think?

In consecutive posts you first characterize cosmic's positive 'assumptions' of future products, as 'impressive achievments' and then deride Dr Frudaky's 'assumptions', for the crime of not being neutral. lol

If you wish to appear to be objective you are going to have to do a better job of concealing your biases.

regards,
frog

Come on Cosmic, You know that didn't happen.

..to see a small biotech company increase shareholder assets over $9 million dollars in one day..

Please explain how DNAG increased it's assets by $9 million dollars.....without using any qualifiers such as 'if' and 'may'.

TIA
frog

gunnabe, I cannot take any responsibility for your selective memory.

"They have suffered no losses from the dilution but have remained whole throughout the process"


what have i missed?


i don't recall seeing them remaining "whole" as you state.

In case you were not aware, Glenda attended the latest investors meeting and provided a very in depth and detailed report on every word that she recorded directly from Frudakis.

In that text he clearly states that the individuals within management will be protected from the dilutive effects of the R/S. They would essentially 'remain whole' throughout the process.


Perhaps you don't consider such a guarantee as carrying any weight. Perhaps you consider it another in a long string of lies, and therefore you have dismissed it. Nevertheless it is a part of the historical record and you should have been aware of it.

Try to be a bit more discerning in your choice of what to remember and what to ignore.

regards,
frog

His shares may appear to be diluted, but his income has been substantial.

His 'loan' program was a study in legal but questionable exploitation of the system. He made a fortune of that escapade.

Also, his shares have NOT suffered the same dilution as yours as he has granted himself the ability to replentish his share count along with the rest of management. They have suffered no losses from the dilution but have remained whole throughout the process.

regards,
frog

pattrn, Sorry friend, but I have nothing to do with THIS industry, regardless of your theories.

And there is nothing inept about Frudakis. Inept people do not make a fortune while their company flounders. Inept people suffer along with the company.

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere either. lol

regards,
frog

pattrn, How do you suggest that such a mission could be accomplished?

Everyone assumes that Frudakis has some special power that enables him to pick and choose whoever he wants and he can remove them at will. You need to wake up to the facts.

The CEO is hired (and fired) by the Board of Directors. The board is elected by the shareholders.

The huge numbers of shares granted to the management over the years give them a level of influence that is no longer within the power of Frudakis himself to overcome.

Remember when Apple pushed Steve Jobs out the door?

Well that is the situation now. Frudakis is as likely to be removed as Gabriel, if it ever came down to a conflict between them.

Just because Frudakis brought them on board, does NOT mean that he still has the ability to get rid of them. Gabriel required significant compensation in terms of shares in order to sign on. Many people here have made the number of shares owned by Gabriel and Tambori a big deal. Assuming that those shares provided an incentive to advance the share price. What they did not consider is those shares provided other advantages that did not depend on share price. They offered protection from any attempts to remove them if they were not inclined to leave.

They are here until THEY decide that they have had enough. Your own wishes are irrelevant.

regards,
frog

Geob, Do you really think that people are so stupid that they are fooled by your 'half sentence' presentations into ignoring the content?

Let's see...

It is not a concept of banning (sic) together....

But it is..

900 against a few ......

safety in numbers .......

do not give in...

For those of us who speak in complete sentences that describe coherent thoughts, could you explain the difference?

TIA
frog

Geob, Interesting concept, (for the longs to band together and try to influence the value of the pps), but not original.

When it was proposed a number of years ago, by a member of the RB board, he was roundly condemned as a stock manipulator. To this day the old timers, bag8ger in particular, still refer to the incident when they revile him.

Given your membership among the faithful, it will be quite interesting to see what a reception you get to your scheme.

I will be watching with interest. LOL

regards,
frog

Miss Scarlet, I hope you are paying attention to the weather near you. Looks like you need to keep your head down, tornadoes in your area. Hope all is well.

Good luck.
frog

I doubt it....

Perhaps that's why it is so relevant.

ifida, Two objections.

First it is not a good read, it is an excellent read and should be required reading for every investor here.

Second it should NOT be designated OT, it is as 'On Topic' as any message can be.

regards,
frog

Give it up gunnabe,

That post was a response to your childish schoolyard taunt...

maybe you are frud, eh??

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7478089

I cheerfully take ownership of it. It is a valid and truthful response to the question. Can you refute it?

While it is a valid response it unfortunately contains no information and merely accentuates the stupidity of the original question.

Now are you willing to take ownership of that question, or are you going to lie about that too?

gunnabe, Now your lying!

This stupid 'maybe' thread was started by you and you alone. But you knew that too, didn't you?

'Maybe' is one of those unanswerable accusations, that cannot be countered.

Maybe you're not stupid....maybe you are.
Maybe you're the Easter Bunny...maybe not.

Maybe you'll continue this nonsense......maybe not.

It only 'evolved' as a means for you to wiggle out of your original hypocricy.

As to the validity of the statement.......it is unavoidable.

That's the way it works when you protect your sleazy inuendo with a word like 'maybe'.......But you knew that when you wrote it, didn't you?

connect away, gunnabe..

Given your apparent abilities in regards to dot connection, as evidenced by your efforts here, you could use the practice.

regards,
frog

But ifida.......I have never bashed the stock....

No gunnabe..

the point of my post to you didn't revolve around "denying the claim"...

The point of your post 'revolved' around attacking me for 'knowing' something. Not repeating something, or reacting to something, or defending something, but just knowing it.

Since you knew it too, you're a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

frog

gunnabe, Sorry for the delay in this reply, I have been busy with more important things.

In response to my claim that the term 'Frudaky' was not necessarily an insult, but was, in fact, a term of endearment used by the Doctor himself when refering to himself in the third person. (using his Stockpimpdaddy alias) You wrote;

frog, if you can recall that by memory or even if you took the time to go research it again now, then you really are truly tied to the hip with your mission here.

Let's look at that statement, shall we?

To start with, your immediate response would naturally be to deny the claim. The fact that you didn't, means one of two things. Either you already 'knew' that it was true, (Meaning that you also could recall it from memory. lol) or you knew exactly where to look to research the matter.

In either case, you are apparently 'tied to the hip' (sic) to your mission as well. LOL

I find it interesting that people exist who knows things to be true, but then attacks others, not for revealing those truths, but instead for just 'knowing' them. Isn't that the definition of a hypocrite?

regards,
frog

maybe...

ole vern, You are mistaken.

So you chose an alias designed to show your contempt
for the name of the company's founder, and
calculated to inflame the investors.

As anyone who has been paying attention knows, 'Frudaky' is a term of endearment used by the good doctor when refering to himself in the third person.

it was first rolled out many months ago by Doctor Frudakis under his alias 'Stockpimpdaddy' in his first panicked response to eyecolor0.

Since it is a pet name that the company's founder uses himself, it is doubtfull that anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature would consider it an insult. (Or if they did, they should reconsider.)

regards,
frog

Pattrn, You need to base your questions on things you know as opposed to things you want to believe.

frog, you seem to be so much closer to the workings at DnaPrint than a mere layman.

I am no closer to DNAP than you are, regardless of your inuendo.

What I am having problems w/ is why, if Dr. Frudakis was so inferior in understanding, as I interpret your statements, did Dr. Shriver come on board?

The reasons for Shriver's arrival, as well as Frudakis inferior understanding of the technology have been documented on these boards by others, you have just ignored them.

I have often wondered what axe you have to grind w/ DnaPrint.

Then you haven't been listening, I have repeatedly explained my 'axe grinding' motives. Perhaps you just choose to ignore them also.

If there is anything you can say that would contribute to our awareness of what "has" occured, please make bold to post this.

That's what I do. LOL

regards,
frog

Pattrn,

From the "get go" he indicated that he felt his "science" could/would unshelve drugs that had been withdrawn from the market due to adverse affects.

Realize that the "get go" science was abandoned long ago.

The original concepts on which Retinome, Ovanome, and Statinome were based, all proved to be unworkable. They were ALL completely retooled after Shriver came on board with ADMIXMAP.

Any discussions that Frudakis had with big pharma (if any) would have been based on those long since abandoned premises. Since they didn't work, there is no possible avanue for DNAG to make any hay out of decisions made during that time period.

regards,
frog

bag8ger, Suit yourself.

By the way...Is it begging now?

Arch, Are you losing your mind?

So far today you have wished for me to be drawn, quartered and shot, and now you want Dr Frudaky's children to be killed. Do you not think that such outbursts are a little 'over the top'?

frog

Bag8ger,

You said,

I have never traded it. I have added when the price practically begged me to.

Could you be more specific?

How many times has this occured, and at what prices?

What were the conditions at those times that you interpreted to be a 'begging' price?

One presumes that such a pps, when purchased, conferred some advantage to the purchaser that set it apart from other times and prices. Can you elaborate?

TIA
frog