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.
Glenda, Thank you for the extraordinary effort. Your transcripts have provided an exceptional, in depth picture that we could not have gotten any other way. You are to be commended.
I have been intrigued (naturally) by the explanantion of how the management team will not be affected by the dilution, how their share percentage would be maintained regardless of the share structure. 'Anti-dilution' he called it.
Did he give any indication of how this would be managed? A continuous share allotment perhaps, whenever new shares were released, or a lump allotment up front that would artificially inflate their ownership until the dilution eventually reduced it back to it's target.
I wonder if there was any mention of the process that perhaps did not get captured by your tape recorder in a clear enough manner that you are comfortable transcribing, but you may have some understanding anyway.
Thanks again for your efforts.
regards,
frog
The company never said any such thing.
We were told that the rs would accompany/follow good news and a rise in sp.
Only the pumpers made any such claims. The company has been quite straightforward in this regard. From the very beginning they said the R/S would be enacted in order to maintain an income source via dilution. They made no promises regarding any news or rise in sp. The only variable they offered was the scope of the split, 10 or 20 to one. Even here they did not stray outside of their word.
While there were numerous fantasies offered by members of the cult. Many that were repeated under various possible scenarios of news and increases in sp, not to mention qualification for various stock exchanges, none of them came from the company.
If you have anyone to blame for your expectations in this regard, it is not the company.
regards,
frog
p.s. BTW there are MANY things to blame the company for (lol), just not this.
hi Bag, Welcome back.
haven't heard from you since;
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6505570
I will no longer engage them.
Nice to see ya!
regards,
frog
stakddek, No.
Hi Frog: I recall you had stated in the past that you had or had participated in some patents. Did you perchance have the "final rejection letter" mailed from the patent examiners affecting your applications in any of those cases?
All of my patents were approved on the first go round in about a year and a half from the filing date. I have never gone through the rejection process either 'final' or 'non-final'.
I have my fingers crossed that the two that are currently in process will come through unscathed as well, but they have been in the loop almost 20 months now, so who knows.
regards,
frog
Blue, That works if you only consider the final 'rejections' that occured in the last few days. However there have been numerous non-final 'rejections' over the past few months.
I find it difficult to swallow that he was unaware of those.
I am much more inclined to think that what he was saying was that the patents were still viable. I also prefer to assume that some of his loyal (and defensive) followers heard what they wanted to hear and then paraphrased the reply.
For the CSO to suggest that patent office rejections are an 'outright lie' given the facts, would be an incredibly foolish response.
It is no secret that I think he is a liar and a cheat, but even I think he is much too smart to make such a blunder.
regards,
frog
loch3, I think you are probably right.
I think he meant what most of us already knew...a rejection isn't necessarily final, and to suggest that it's fait accompli is a lie.
But as I have suggested over and over, no one has suggested such a thing.
It is a strawman. Every knowlegable post has mentioned the available appeal process. So there are no 'lies' to be adamant about.
It smacks of showmanship.
loch3, lol
And I marvel at the number of ways that are employed to avoid answering a simple and direct question.
A simple yes or no at any point in the dance would obviate all of the painstaking attempts that become necessary to winnow out a smidgeon of information.
Do you think the obstructive effort is extended in an attempt to hide truth, or to diminish embarassment?
ebo, You are tap dancing around the issue.
There have been multiple rejections of patents by the patent office.
NONE of the patents are lost, they ALL have available avenues of appeal.
You reported that Tony said the rejections were 'outright lies'.
Since that is not correct, the rejections are public record, the question in play is;
Did Tony use those exact words, 'rejections' outright lies',
or did he indicate the patents were still viable using some other phrasing, and YOU innocently misrepresented it?
We are hoping that you made a simple mistake in transcribing the conversation. Otherwise, if Tony made such a claim, then it is a much more serious issue. It would tend to indicate some effort to mislead.
We would appreciate your clarification.
regards,
frog
Thank you cloud, for that explanation. In truth no-one has suggested that the patents are lost. We have known since Blue and Doctor Frudaky kindly informed us of the rejections that an appeal was still viable.
The question of the moment however, is not about whether the patents are lost or not, but ebo's fairly unbelievable assertion that Tony Frudakis claims that the patents have not been rejected.
Given the direct link to the patent office web site and the recorded rejections both non-final and final, it is a wonder that anyone could make such a claim.
The question that immediately arises is; Which one of them is lying? Ebo or Frudakis?
Thanks again,
frog
Pattrn, You really are quite the little conniver aren't you?
You start by totally misrepresenting something Frudakis said. In this instance it doesn't matter whether it was an intentional lie, ignorant misunderstanding or innocent daydreaming.
When I correct your mistake, instead of 'copping' to it with some semblance of dignity, you attempt to hide it behind some 'holier-than-thou' diatribe, that tries to paint my 'correction' into part of a sinister plot trying to destroy the company.lol
Sorry pal, but I have zero interest in the demise of the company, nor do I wish any harm to come to those innocent investors who are losing their money here.
I'm not going anywhere. It must really frost you that you can't wipe me off this board at your whim. I wonder if that is why you originally took the monitor job in the first place.lol
While you may be able to delete a post here and there, realize that better men than you have tried to get rid of me and while some of them are long gone, I am still here.
I don't violate the TOS, and until I do, you're stuck with me.
regards,
frog
Easyman51,
I don't want to let you down, so..
BUT ALSO to thwart, and here I use creative liscense, an unfriendly takeover!!!!!!
I am sure that the "Board Bashers" will find all kinds of holes and reasons to discredit what I have just posted, but this is the (picture/impression) that I just can't shake.
You have exceeded the 'creative license' criteria by engaging in an absolute 180 degree flop of the reasons Frudakis gave for the new authorization. His actual statement said nothing about 'thwarting an unfriendly takeover' it said the authorization might be needed to support a 'takeover by a friendly'.
I'm amazed at how those rose colored glasses filter reality for you.
regards,
frog
Whatcoloristheskywiththosethings?
So what did you mean by...
Sure, there is great sympathy for the dreams of a great scientist and his... misshapen soul!
Dr Frudaky,
I will offer an opinion.
Her posts are based on her well measured opinion. As has been mentioned here many times, there is precious little true knowledge available here to post.
I suspect that you may be taking the words of that particular post out of the context in which it was offered. The post you reference was aimed directly at the insidious practice of those pretending to have insider information for the purposes of influencing the board.
Miss Scarlet has always spoken out against those who practice such subterfuge, and rightly so. As I mentioned in a previous post she is a formidable presence here. She does not toe any particular party line, although her heart is on the side of those who expect good things from the company, and who can blame her.
Many of us have fallen foul of her expectations and been reminded of the fact in no uncertain terms. Members of both sides of the aisle I might add.
So I will gladly offer my support of the post in question, even though it may appear to be a 'gem', I think if you investigate further you will agree.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, You have evidently missed my point. Obviously my fault, I'm sorry.
You stated that altruism as a motive for hanging around and contributing to the board was not possible. I merely took issue with that statement.
While you may not judge the morals or integrity of others, you perhaps consider them in your logical inference. The statement...Any reasonable individual with morals and integrity above reproach would not fasten themselves onto a star to which they do not belong. Nor would they 'hang around' for purely altruistic motives. would seem to suggest that anyone who does not 'belong' here or who lacks altruistic motives, is thereby lacking in morals and integrity.
I did not suggest that you discredited Dr Frudaky. I was refering to the discreditation of altruistic motives.
I cannot speak for conscience of others, stung or otherwise.
best regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, Why not?
Any reasonable individual with morals and integrity above reproach would not ....... 'hang around' for purely altruistic motives.
Aren't altuistic motives the best evidence of unreproachable morals and integrity?
Wouldn't such an individual be 'expected' to hang around?
I am not suggesting that the individual under discussion necessarily qualifies for such distinction. I am merely suggesting that this particular argument lacks merit.
It is a tired old refrain that never goes away. It apparently is based on the assumption that anyone who is not on our side is obviously devoid of integrity and therefore cannot possess altruistic motives so they can be discredited out of hand.
I suggest that altruism is a viable motive, whether it is in play in this instance or not.
regards,
frog
Blue, I would like to expand a little on this theme.
<b.It’s extremely hard to quantify patent revenue from afar without having DNAPrint’s strat plan. However, considering that statins, as a group, are the world’s most prescribed drugs, you could discern that the statin patent could pay nicely.
This is one of the foundation blocks that keep investors interested in this stock through all of the turmoil. It is the 'mother lode' who's very existance is a comfort.
The concept, while seemingly straightforward, is nevertheless a little nebulous. The basic assumption is that a drug classifier will be used to test patients 'before' they take a specific statin drug to determine the suitability of that specific drug to that specific patient. So far so good.
This current discussion however, is a little bit removed from that, as it talks about the revenue potential of the statin 'patent'. First one must understand that the 'revenue' will come from the classifier itself, not the patent. All the patent will do is protect the classifier from competition, the classifier will need to be completed in order for any revenue to occur. The patent will not generate revenue. It may impact share value, but not revenue.
If we turn our attention then back to the classifier we need to assess it's value, not in a vacuum, but in relationship to the current status quo. Currently, statins are prescribed, taken for a brief period, the patient is tested to see if the precursors of liver damage are evident, and the drug is either approved for that patient or not, based on the test.
In this case there is very little risk to the patient, there is a simple and relatively inexpensive test, and there is no delay in therapy. This is the status quo for the majority of statin patients. Those that have issues with the test sometimes have to loop through the process a couple of times with different drugs, some patients exhibit other symptoms that have to be addressed.
While it is often the case that we concentrate on the low percentage of exceptions, the reality is the economic value needs to consider the entire market. For DNAP to gain a foothold in this arena they need to provide a service that is noticeably better and economically more valuable than the existing and accepted process.
If the statin classifier (once completed) does not delay the access to therapy and if it can be offered at a competetive price to the entire market, (Meaning, not just more economical for those patients who need to loop through the existing process more than once, but more economical for the entire market, with the exceptions amortized out over the entire population) then it can be a viable and lucrative product.
Just remember it is not sufficient to have a great solution, it is also necessary to have a problem in need of such a solution. There is nothing more frustrating than having a profound and clever solution but no appropriate problem to solve with it.
regards,
frog
Questions for the stockholders meeting;
Where is Tony? Although seemingly important PR's have occured recently, Tony has not been mentioned or quoted. Has a change in corporate strategy occured in relation to the voice of the company, or has Tony's role changed within the company? Or is he just too busy to deal with the public? What is he concentrating on?
What did Dutton mean by 'stagnant' R&D? The PR's would suggest that there are lots of irons in the fire, from Moffit, to the 3D/forensic work of Shriver, to the EPO work of the new guy on retainer(I forget his name)to the continuing work on Ovanome, Statnome, etc. Does Dutton's assessment cast doubt on these claims or does it somehow discount them? What is the real situation?
Is Dutchess allowed to accumulate more than 5% of the total float? If not, how will they benefit from their involvement, as there is seldom time to dump shares with only a 4% discount and make money. (The spread is often as much as that.) If so, how will they avoid owning a controlling interest in the company given the current capitalization and the proposed value of their investment?
Is the latest acquisition trade (Trace) based on the current share structure or does it assume the post R/S structure? What about the included option? Pre or post split?
Does DNAP intend to aggressively appeal the latest patent rejections or not? Are there any new patent applications in work? What does the management feel is the likelihood of further rejections or approvals based on the current climate?
There are numerous scenarios that have been proposed regarding the disposition of shares after the R/S has occured, what is managements estimate of the expected disbursement? Just a small percentage of the available shares will be needed, or a large fraction of those available will be sold to support continuing operations?
What is the most optimistic timeline estimate for the company to start receiving significant revenues? Significant,i ths case, meaning a large enough income to offset expenses such that further share dilution will become unnecessary.
... la femme formidable!
Whatever you say Arch. So how will the investors that Dutchess is fronting for, avoid ownership of the company?
It makes no difference if Dutchess is the actual owner or the front for the real owner, they will own over two thirds of the shares of the company. They will control the company.
Geob, So if Dutchess owns 310 million shares and all of the previous investors own a total of 140 million shares (assuming a 10/1 R/S, 70 million @ 20/1), then who controls the company?
frog
Thanks Blue,
We do find this information useful.
As promised, I stated that I would update the board from time to time on DNAP Patent movement. By the term movement I mean that there has been another step initiated by DNAP or the US Patent Office. This movement may be a non-final rejection, final rejection, responses, forwarding information, etc. However, movement means that we are closer to the potential of getting a patent. I hope the board finds this information helpful.
Although, only when you post it.
When that dastardly Dr Frudaky posts exactly the same information we 'know' that he is lying.
Isn't it funny how things have changed. Truth used to be a fairly simple concept, but now it has been twisted into a 'variable' that depends on the opinion of the listener and the identity of the speaker. Oh well.
Thanks again.
frog
illwill, You are an interesting (fellow?).
You have the vague aura of a long time participant on these boards, yet you appear to have shown up quite recently.
You offer cryptic encouragement and infer upcoming events, yet the events when (and if) they arrive, never quite match the expectations.
Your posting style is unique, yet it gives the impression of being contrived. (Perhaps to disguise a previous incarnation.)
You make a significant effort with your misspelled 'angeles' gambit to ingratiate yourself with specific parties. (Perhaps mocking those who have previously scorned an alter ego.)
Your spelling and grammar is very reminiscent of a recently exposed multi-alias with similar cryptic offerings.
I am not yet ready to formalize my suspicions into an actual accusation, but I am watching with interest.
regards,
frog
(This is better than TV!)
hey Ice, Where ya been?
Haven't heard from you in a week!
OT Miss Scarlet,
I doff my chapeau.......you are merciless! lol
best regards,
frog
inabattleofwitstheyareunarmed..
So where's Tony?
Last week we were told that he was too busy with the new EPO stuff to be bothered with Forensics, so Shriver and Gaskin were speaking for them.
Today we find that Gomez is fronting the EPO stuff.
Curious.
Glenda, Haven't you been listening?
Frog, oh Frog, pray tell, how will we ever pay this?
How much is it..$300 Grand? That's about 20 Million shares into the float under the current share structure, or about 1.3% of the A/S.
After the R/S (20/1?) It will only take a little over 1 Million shares, but the best part is, it will only use up 0.06% of the A/S.
Think of all the deals they will be able to do with that many shares available to them. The sky is the limit.
Unxcman, we could start this thing right now. Pass me my pina coloda!
Starting now might be a good idea. lol
regards,
frog
worktoplay, An excellent recap of the conversation to date.
My initial amazement at the lack of Frudakis participation.
Your examples that show the change has occured over a larger time period than I had been aware.
So we are back to the present and the fact that his role has changed.
Where do you want to go from here?
Do you still want to continue with your argument that since the change occured over time, and since it wasn't noticed till now, it's not really a change and it doesn't count, or can we accept that a change has occured (however minor) and go on from there?
You do realize don't you, that for things to get better, they have to change?
Change isn't always bad.
Just because I broached the subject does not make it a threat to the well being of the company. lol
regards,
frog
Are you being intentionally dense?
The premise is, (in it's simplest terms);
Frudakis used to be the face of DNAP for ALL of it's technological milestones.
He is no longer in that role.
Whether his role has been eliminated or merely reduced is irrelevant.
It has changed.
Now this would appear to be a fairly simple concept to grasp.
But perhaps not.
You know Easy, I'm not sure there is any value in conversing with you either. You insist on labeling me wit your own made up nonsense and it is getting very tiring.
Why do people want the destruction/demise of a business they aren't involved in?
Where do you get this stuff?
I defy you to present one word that I have ever spoken that suggests that I am trying to bring about the demise of the company. The only thing that is ever at risk from my participation is the demise of the overblown and unsupported fantasies of the cult following. The company will not succumb to anything I contribute, I guarantee it. Nor do I wish it to.
regards,
frog
Worktoplay,
I don't think 'division of labor' is a viable explanation. Hopefully the CSO of a company can divide the detail level management of the various projects within R&D, among his lieutenants, without losing the capability of overseeing all of them. It is a little simplistic to suggest that he has to give up such oversight in order to concentrate on a single aspect of the development himself, apparently leaving management of the rest, to Gabriel.
The strategy in question, however, is not about who is doing the actual work. One presumes that there are more than a couple of people within the company capable of running a project. The question focuses more on the apparent change in philosophy in regard to the public voice of the company.
It cannot be argued that Frudakis has always been the technological voice of the company, regardless of who was doing the actual work, he spoke to the investment public as the scientific representative of the company. He now, suddenly, is no longer fulfilling that role.
This board has the capability of launching into gleeful ecstacy over a minor change in the company's web site or a link to an obscure south-east asian start-up, and yet no-one seems to think that such a change in the public face of the company is worthy of comment. Curious.
regards,
frog
worktoplay, I agree.
Something has changed dramatically in the face the company presents to the public. As you have correctly pointed out, the change did not happen with this most recent PR, but had happened some months ago.
What do you think is the reason for pushing the company's founder into the background?
He used to be the spokesman for the scientific advances of the company, in essence it's technological voice. Now he seems to have faded into the background and the lesser lights (Gaskin and Shriver) are providing the technical voice, backing up Gabriel.
The company's public face seems to have undergone change. What is your interpretation of the strategy behind it?
regards,
frog
Baby what?
bigdrive,
I think you misread the response. Ifida's answer was directed to Miss Scarlet. Apparently he thinks she is such a person. He didn't mention me.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, My humble apologies. I am unable to resolve the question.
Don't know anything about her being Tony's Mother though. That's news to me. Anyway of finding out for certain? ie, not hearsay - unless of course it is confirmed by a credible poster.
As you can see, I tried to find a credible poster to confirm or deny the premise, but I was unable to get past the schoolyard antics. I'm sorry.
Best regards,
frog
Look you can continue with your gleeful little schoolyard games if you want. I don't care.
You claimed that you knew who Vikki Cook is.
You were asked if she was Tony's mother.
If you don't want to clear up the confusion that's fine too. Such an attitude will be telling on it's own.
There are a number of board members who have expressed an interested in the answer. Be careful that your sixth grade antics towards me, do not cause you to alienate them.
regards,
frog
So you don't know after all. Nuff said. EOM
ifida, I am not sure what you are trying to say.
None of these linked posts is mine. I am just trying to get to the bottom of the matter.
You said that you knew who Vikki Cook is. Fine.
Hopeful, Slopster, Wishbone says she is Tony's mother.
Can you confirm or deny the statement?
So far you have both derided and eluded the question at the same time.
Now either you do know who she is and can confirm or deny the connection. (Which is what you were asked in the first place.) Or you can continue to elude the question because you don't know. (Which of course makes your original claim, a lie.)
We would certainly appreciate you putting an end to this thread with some form of closure.
Again...TIA
frog
ifida, Is that a yes or a no?
May I refer you to the following links that are the origin of the information?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6627438
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6634494
While the source of the information has always been of questionable reliability, the subject has nevertheless drawn some interest.
regards,
frog
ifida, Excellent!
..I know who Vikki Cook is, ...
So who is she?
It is the consensus opinion that she is connected directly to TBF, and you have mentioned that, but according to questionable sources, she may also be Frudakis' mother. Can you clear that question up?
TIA
frog
DorseyE,
There's a name missing!