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.
DorseyE, WOW. That is probably the most interesting PR I have ever seen from DNAP. (I'm not kidding.)
Did anybody else notice a fairly significant omission from the text?
That is probably the first time I have ever seen a PR that did not contain it.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet,
Your memory is fine. Vikki Cook has been around since the very beginning. Additionally your skepticism regarding the veracity of the current source of information is equally appropriate.
The nature of the source would seem to indicate such a relationship would be improbable from the get go.
However, given the previous example of the receptionist (and her holding company, both significant investors) turning out to be Tony's sister, the concept should not be dismissed out of hand.
We will just have to wait until further clarification presents itself.
Best regards,
frog
Doctor, She may well be.
Wouldn't it be interesting if she was both, Carl Smith's significant other AND Tony Frudakis' mother?
Wouldn't that stir up some interesting questions?
regards,
forg
Yep! According to Wishbone.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6627438
Blue, Sounds good but you don't have enough options. lol
I= investor
T= trader
L= long
S= short
Tr= trapped
B= buy
H= hold
S= sell
A= avoid
O= owner
N= non-owner
Ro= reluctant owner
regards,
frog (ITrARo)
OT: aries4747, Think nothing of it.
According to your alias, the poem has a place in your heart also. It is one of my favorites. My father gave me a framed version of it when I was much younger. He is long gone now but I still have his well worn book of the collected works of Kipling.
Best regards,
frog
aries, Try to keep up!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6602178
You should avoid that. I owned that once and it took me a really long time to get rid of it. I barely got my money back.
It's a great location and all, but there is just no market.
ebo, I want to thank you for posting a verse from one of my favorite poems.
I recently memorized Kipling's IF, in order to be able to recite it on the occasion of my youngest son's twenty-first birthday.
It always seems to have relevance to our day to day experiences, don't you think?
The opening verses seem pertinent to me on occasion, when posting on this board...lol
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
The next verse has value to the investors here;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
I know you claim to have me on ignore, so you won't be able to post a response to this post without looking like an idiot, so don't do it.
Thanks again.
regards,
frog
ebo,
If you can make one heap of all your winnings,
And risk it on one turn of pitch and toss,
And lose and start again at your beginning,
And never breath a word about your loss......
regards,
frog
Let's be clear about the difference between truth and conjecture.
Truth- Gabriel states it does not meet DNAP standards, is NOT ready for FDA.
Conjecture-
"They have a product that has a 96% success rate....
They, with the help of Moffit are under going a clinical study as we speak....
We can expect results and issuance to the FDA in or around 6 to 9 months....
DNAP's ONLY obstacle to date was the $1,000 per patient....
To perform the OVA test....
It seems that this obstacle has been overcome.....
96% is not supported, they have no verification data.
We have heard that the patients are being recruited by Gomez for the last two years. We have no evidence that the full clinical trial is underway yet.
There are many other potential obstacles besides the $1000 per patient. To suggest it is the only obstacle is a lie.
6 to 9 months is a pipe dream. It will take much longer than that AFTER the clinical trial is fully populated and begun.
regards,
frog
I missed nothing.
The 100 patients are part of the design and development process. The process isn't finished until the design is verified.
Until the design is verified it does not meet it's requirements.
regards,
frog
So OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT yet have a product with statistically significant validation to provide proof to the FDA that their product meets it's design requirements.
IF you don't have statistical verification, THEN the product does NOT MEET it's design requirements.Period.
Nonsense.
FDA guidelines are not directed at product requirements, those are the responsibility of the manufacturer. What the FDA demands is that both design and manufacturing practices ensure that those requirements are met.
The FDA guidelines for manufacture are spelled out in the GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice). They also provide guidelines for design practices.
Those guidelines require simply that all requirements are specified at the beginning of the design phase and that the company's design process spells out how those requirements will be met.
FDA approval will not be granted until those requirements have been met and verified with statistically significant analysis.
Gabriel has specifically stated that Ovanome does not yet meet DNAP standards and is not yet ready for the FDA. That means, in no uncertain terms, that the product does not yet meet it's own design requirements.
If 95% is the design goal, perhaps they can't meet that level of accuracy, or perhaps they can meet it but not in a reliable and repeatable manner. Whatever the obstacle, the company has clearly stated it's status. It does not yet meet it's requirements and therefore is not ready for the FDA.
regards,
frog
uncxman,
If anyone can think of one positive things that dr frudaky has said since he has been here please bring it to my attention.
Didn't he once comment that you couldn't possibly be as stupid as you sound?
Given the reference point, that would appear to be a 'positive'.
regards,
frog
uncxman, Your intellectual grasp of reality is astounding.
Please accept my condolences.
Perhap you would be so kind as to provide a link to any reference of mine to 'gloom and doom' brought on by 'unknown force..'.
A note of advice. You might want to avoid any of cosmic's interpretations, as his grasp of reality is no match for yours.
regards,
frog
Cosmic, WOW!
I wonder how all those dark clouds are mine when they are all emmanating from your keyboard. I mentioned no such 'forboding disasters'.
There is a common strategy employed on these boards that I call the 'Ostrich maneuver'. It is most commonly presented as a denial of misfortune based on the 'fact' that an investor has not yet 'realized' his actual losses by selling his shares at the current market price. He maintains that because all shares carry the potential to go up in price eventually, his holdings still maintain their original value. Sort of, 'if I don't awknowledge the current market value of my stock then I can maintain my pipedream'. It is akin to the premise that an ostrich, by sticking it's head in the sand, can deny any danger because it can't see the approaching lion.
While the strategy is intellectualy nonsensical and practically unsupportable, (try to suggest to your banker that the value of your portfolio is not related to the current market price. lol) it is nevertheless a comfort to it's practitioners and they should continue to use it if it helps them sleep at night.
It should not however, be twisted into something that it is not in an effort to convince others that the strategy is sound. The roulette metaphor was such an attempt.
The roulette metaphor, while accurately representing the investment as a gamble, fails to account for the declining value of the wager during the period that the ball is spinning.
Let me elaborate.
Under normal conditions if you bet a dollar on a number on the roulette wheel and your number comes up, you will win 36 times your bet. Bet a dollar win 36 dollars.
At any given instant, while the ball is spinning your dollar bet is STILL worth a dollar up until the ball stops spinning. At which time it is either gone or replaced with your winnings. My suggestions of pausing the game in mid spin was merely trying to capture this point.
In the current investment scenario, however, your 'dollar' is NOT still worth a dollar. During the time the ball has been spinning the original investment has been reduced to a fraction of it's original value. It's as if your stack of chips gets smaller and smaller as the wheel spins. When the ball stops you will only get the benefit of whatever wager is left. If it doesn't stop spinning soon, you will have to hit your number just to get your original bet back.
In summary, regardless of your avoiding the issue, you have lost a significant amount of money on this investment so far. That you chose to hide behind an accounting trick to avoid awknowledging that fact to yourself is your perogative. Good luck with that. Unfortunately your attempt to spin that denial into a different and inappropriate metaphor has run into a bump in the road.
regards,
frog
OK cosmic, Forget it.
If you need to swap metaphors in mid-response in order to evade the discussion, I'm not interested.
How we got from 'roulette' to 'dark clouds' and 'desperation' is beyond me, so let's leave it at that, shall we?
regards,
frog
No cosmic, not desperate, (there is very little on the horizon to indicate a change of fortune in the near future), just trying to get a clearer analogy.
Of course casino's are 24/7.
I was just trying to point out the difference in the instantaneous value of the investment (gamble) as it related to the your analogy.
In your analogy, the chips you bet, (your original investment) still maintain their initial value up until the ball stops. IF there were a scenario that would terminate the game before the wheel stopped spinning naturally, your original investment would still exist. You would not lose anything.
This differs from the current state of affairs, in that should the 'game' stop now, because of some outside influence, you would NOT get your original investment back.
Thus the analogy is inappropriate. That's all.
regards,
frog
cosmic, Bad analogy!
In your analogy, if they stop the game in mid spin because the casino closed, you would get to keep all your original chips.
A better gambling analogy, is a poker game where you are down significantly for the night, but you are still in the game and haven't seen your hole card yet in the last hand. If you get your card you will stay in the game and might win back your losses, but if they close the casino, you only get to keep what chips you have left.
regards,
frog
Nonsense.
If what you say is true and public knowledge, there are no restrictions.
You can say "I hate CocaCola". You can say "Enron is a scam."
You can say, "DNAP management lies."
You are prevented from using a trademark or company name in any use that implies that company endorses your viewpoint.
Geob, Very Good. You have found that there are restrictions on the use of trademarks. Now go and read them and see what they say.
You will find that anyone can use the names and trademarks when refering to the company as long as that usage does not imply any relationship or endorsement of the users company or products.
Anyone can say that they bought and ate a Whopper at MacDonalds. What you can't say is that MacDonalds has a provided you with a non-exclusive license to purchase their Whopper. (Even if it is true.)
regards,
frog
geob,
No one said anything about liberal thought.
The missing Zocor and Lipitor manufacturers are the result of very poor marketing and an unfinished web page design.
Baycol was singled out because it is the only example of a statin that has been withdrawn from the market, so far, due to the specific side effect under discussion.
Of course it is legal to mention trademarks without permission.
You are just grasping.
regards,
frog
It is impossible to 'ill use' freedom by practicing it.
There is no proof!
There isn't even a good train of thought.
It takes a very liberal reading of the text to come up with such a connection.
regards,
frog
So far, what passes for the intellectual elite on this board thinks that the good Doctor is either Stockholder, Spook, Dr Dnap, DragonEsquire or tdiamonds.
Or perhaps all of the above.
This is better than TV. LOL
Bag8ger, Let me offer a heartfelt acceptance of your apology, and say that I look forward to a much more fruitful relationship with you in the future.
... I apologize to the board for having virtually flooded it with pointless conversation yesterday and today.
I might, under different circumstances, suggest that the nonsense has been pointless for more than the last two days, but that would be unkind in light of your contrition.
As to your 'no longer engaging them'. I will be interested in observing your contributions to the board as we move forward. Given your past 'modus operandi'in which the majority of your posts were in fact reactionary, I wonder if you will have anything of value to provide, apart from the occasional 'good job' to a nice post.
I suppose you could always fall back on that tired old strategy of 'second order response' that you use when you can't prevent yourself from responding to someone you supposedly have on ignore. You know the one, where you have to wait for someone else to respond and then pretend to have only seen the response.
Anyway, it wil be interesting. Good luck with it.
regards,
frog
Doctor, One wonders why all of those 'leech' level offers have not impacted the pps.
Surely even 'insult' level interest by the evil pharma consortium would have registered on the market and bumped the pps to some degree.
frog
Doctor, Given our great power and our apparent mercenary leanings, I am amazed that we have not been approached by the company with a counter offer. LOL
Stakddek, Your logic is twisted. I certainly can't show you what I haven't been doing. lol
Please show me your post where you haven't been editorializing or slanting on others favorable comments about DNAP.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to find a post that supports your thesis. (Make sure it is something I said, not directly supported by the company's published remarks.)
regards,
frog
bag, I agree completely.
...longs are able take unhesitating steps beyond the information the SEC limits DNAP to tell us about-- steps which tell us the dream is still very much alive.
As long as the dreamer sleeps, dreams can last forever..... can't they?
regards,
frog
Stakddek, Feel free to use innocent bystanders as a foil to avoid responding directly to me. Luckily Miss Scarlet is capable of withstanding such nonsense with a weary smile.
I feel Frog is being shortsighted when he states the only purpose is "more dillution."
Frog said no such thing.
The company said they needed the extra shares to sustain their ongoing efforts. The company said the net effect would be dilutive.
Isn't it funny that when 'frog' repeats what the company says, it suddenly becomes sinsiter and dark.
You people are amazing. bag8ger talks about the imaginary differences between DNAP company and DNAP pps. I am slowly beginning to appreciate his characterization.
When he talks about DNAP 'pps' he really means DNAP 'reality'. When he discusses DNAP 'company' he really means the idyllic dream company that doesn't really exist, but resides in the back of his mind.
The evidence for this disconnect is that whenever DNAP lies to the investors, the lies are ignored because they don't correlate with the dream. Alternately, whenever DNAP tells the truth and it still doesn't correlate, that also is ignored. Not only ignored but when repeated by a poster, that poster is condemned for being negative.
regards,
frog
Bag, This is the crux of the discussion right here.
Look, Mike, it doesn't make sense for a r/s unless there's something more, something which will support it, as it did at Orchid.
The company has already explained the reasons for the R/S. They need more shares to gain revenue through dilution. They are quite specific. There are no hidden agendas nor secret promises.
The R/S makes 'perfect' sense, in order to achieve this goal. It will free up a multitude of shares to generate revenue. Nothing more is required.
And then you launch into this twist.
But frudaky assumes, and wants us all to assume, there's nothing, only the r/s.
Frudaky is just repeating the companies line. It is you, who 'assumes' there is something more, and condemns Frudaky for not awknowledging it.
Realize that it is two of your assumptions that guide your diatribe. One that the R/S doesn't make sense on it's own, two that there MUST be something more.
Both are your own personal view, neither are supported by the company.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, You are always good for a laugh.
Let's see now, you want to talk about Dutchess buying shares and it's effect on the pps, but you don't want to talk about the dilutive effect nor the market cap of the comapany.
So essentially you want someone to tell you about supply and demand, but leave out the supply part and lets ignore the demand part. LOL
What the hell, let's try it.
Dutchess will be buying shares, at a discount, directly from the company, meaning NOT on the open market. So since they will not be competing with other investors for those shares there should be zero effect on the pps.
I know you would like to invoke the expectation that if some outside entity is buying up the float then the pps will rise, but that is not the case here. Here there is an unlimited and exclusive supply of shares that is totally isolated from the market by the discount. Sorry.
regards,
frog
gunnabe,
I have already told you what Dutchess is up to.
There is no option. If the Dutchess involvement is anything more than just another 'false front' then they cannot avoid owning the company.
Once the current investors share is reduced from 100% to 5% or 10% by the R/S, Dutchess will only be able to exercise a fraction of the $35 Million value, before they will own the company outright.
Do the math.
regards,
frog
My apologies, bag8ger.
Since the post came in the middle of a somewhat serious discussion, I assumed you were being straightforward. I was obviously unaware of the sudden change in your demeanor from serious to sarcastic........and apparently back to serious again, as the discussion progressed.
Since I would never call you a liar, I will of course accept your explanation.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Perhaps.....I misread it.
Maybe you could clarify.
frog,
While I am tempted to agree with your suggestion that activity of the board plays no role in current day-to-day machinations of the pps, I am reminded of the presence here, more especially on rb, of persons who spend an inordinate amount of time spewing negative comments about DNAP, so much time, in fact, and so many negative comments, in fact, that I wonder if you and I are missing something, perhaps that they, at least feel as if they are having some effect on the pps, so strongly feel, that maybe they are.
It is something we should maintain a vigilance for, just in case we are wrong.
My take on the previous paragraphs is that you tend to agree with me regarding the role of board activity on the actions of the pps. You also suggest that the players themselves 'think' they have an effect. You summarize by suggesting we keep an eye on the process in case we are wrong.
Since I assume you mean that we can only be wrong IF board activity HAS an effect on the pps. Logically then, you are saying that board activity has NO effect.
I look forward to your clarification.
regards,
frog
mikenickels, You are welcome.
I agree and sympathize with the difficulty of giving up a dream. No one should give them up willingly or without a fight.
I might prefer that they reserve their ire for the Pied Piper they have been following, rather than the guy telling them about the cliffs that they are heading for, but we can't have everything, can we?
regards,
frog
bag,
The 'worst recession' affected everyone, so every company that has grown their profit levels since the recession would satisfy your challenge.
TBA was, and still is Frudakis's fault.
Prove that Big Pharma has NOT been working toward personalized medicine for the last five years.
As to the last three points, you already conceded (in our conversations of a couple weeks ago) the 'basher/trader' activity over the last few years was irrelevant and did not affect the pps. According to your analysis it was the sole fault of the dilutive financing that DNAP was 'forced' to endure.[Do I have to go and find the link?]
regards,
frog
Bag8ger, Get serious.
Please don't try to suggest that Frudakis invented the concept of Personalized Medicine. That is just too ridiculous for words. The completion of the Genome Project launched thousands of forays into solving the complexities of DNA for the expressed goal of understanding human biology at an individual level.
A simple google search of the phrase "personalized medicine" together with any target year you like.....(personalized medicine 1998 for example), will provide over 300K hits.
'Personalized Medicine' was a groundswell at the end of the last century that carried a huge number of researchers into the present one. Frudakis is just one of a myriad of surfers on that wave.
Anyone who has based their investment on the understanding that Frudakis is the originator of the concept has misled themselves.
regards,
frog