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.
geob, Don't worry.
You don't need to make me happy, I'm just fine thank you. lol
I don't have any questions for DNAP.
I asked YOU a question based on YOUR posts regarding YOUR interpretation of events. If that offends you, then perhaps you need to limit your exposure to such questions.
I have done my DD on the company and am quite confident in my assessment. On the other hand when someone shows up with seemingly unsuported claims and/or interpretations, it is only prudent to delve into those interpretations in order to discover their validity.
regards,
frog
geob, I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on that.
History is the futures best measure....
We've got nearly five years of history on the books already....
What's your point?
The $54 Million dollar patent is mentioned here all the time. It is not news.
The patent that started this thread is NOT the same one.
So, let me ask again; What are you trying to say?
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet is correct.
Whatever the scientific value of the theory is, and whatever addition to the 'thickness' of the foundation, this offers the oportunity for a significant backfire in the perception of the investment community, if it takes on the aura of fringe science.
While the historic value of the discovery of America has it's place in the textbooks, there is also the possibility that the public will expect to see DNAP analyzing hairs from Bigfoot next.
That would be a backfire of major proportion.
regards,
frog
Sorry friend, but the evidence says otherwise.
Not here to pump froggy
Your giggly little, 'I know a secret' act is a dead giveaway.
It was only a few posts ago that you wanted to...
"...scream at the top of my lungs, ILLWILL
I can hear the drums, I can hear the whole marching band!!"
Pull the other one. LOL
No. it suggests that many years ago, Dr.T was involved in LOOKING FOR a vaccine for breast cancer.
What's next is...he gave it up to pursue his present course.
Realize also that the patent was filed AFTER he left Corixa. His name is on it as a courtesy. Ethical companies often include everyone associated with a particular idea, whether they still work at the company or not.
If you are looking for fodder to support your pump, this doesn't look very viable.
regards,
frog
Why? It's a Corixa patent.
Miss Scarlet, I see that hopeful107 has returned under his previous alias, what I don't see is any record of posts authored by wishbone115. Has that alias been deleted? Is that why hopeful has returned?
best regards,
frog
Blue, Excellent analysis. Well reasoned and dispassionate.
I have two questions, if you don't mind.
First, you state that;
Share dilution with the Dutchess Agreement will provide DNAP with 35 million.
Could you please elaborate? my concern lies with the current market cap. As there does not appear to be any significant change in the status quo on the short term horizon, it seems to be a fairly large inconsistency to expect to extract $35 million via a dilutive process from a company valued at less than half that amount.
Second, You follow on with;
So it is likely that any push for a r/s is for greater returns for share dilution. As of right now I probably will not be voting for a r/s.
Given that the Dutchess $35 Million Agreement will require sufficient shares to support it, and realizing that under the present share structure there are less than 500 Million available shares, most of them already committed to LaJolla, how do you envision the completion of the Dutchess Agreement without a R/S?
As a reference, IF all of the current 500 Million shares were available, it would still require a pps of .14 to complete the deal.
I look forward to your response.
regards,
frog
Take your time........we'll wait.
bag, Well that's a start.
Although there are just as many (if not more) who spend an equal amount of time posting nothing but positive comments.
Next question.
Where do the traders get their "...accumulated millions of trading shares over the years..."
It would seem that anyone 'accumulating' shares over the years must have lost a lot of money by now. Conversely every trader worthy of your 'Lesson One' must have already sold every share purchased at less than a couple of cents during the last run. Wouldn't that indicate that the 'traders' would be either out of the picture by now (because they sold their cheap shares in the last run) or ready for the stock to rise now in order to make money on all those 'accumulated' shares that they bought above todays current levels?
bag, That's a comfortable little theory, I guess.
If I understand it's basic points, you suggest that all the harm was done many months ago to get the company into it's present state, and therefore no further action is required as the status quo is maintained by the large float and the debenture financing.
Can this be taken as an acknowledgement that since the present actions regarding runs and stops occur independent of the board, that activities that take place here have NO impact on the day to day actions of the stock?
I will pose further questions later. I have learned that if one asks too many at once, the conversation inevitably spins off, chasing tangents.
frog
Tell you what bag, forget the last run, give us a play by play on this one.
Tell us about all the pumping that is going on.
Tell us about all the new faces that appeared before it started.
Tell us about how the message board is controlling it.
Can't wait to hear how it all works.
Fine bag8ger, then enlighten us.
Let's use the last run as an example. It is still fresh in everybody's mind. Tell us how the pumpers orchestrated it, and how the traders killed it.
You can go back and tell us when all the new faces appeared in relationship to the volume. You can include the not so subtle 'insider' hints that prefaced it.
Don't forget to include the coincidental activity of the company in your theory. I'm speaking of the well timed R/S announcement and the 50 Million shares dumped into the run.
Many of us apparently don't understand it as well as you do, share your wisdom.
regards,
frog
bag, The case is nonsense.
The single most pertinent fact regarding the pump and dump as a board based strategy is the total lack of effect that occurs during incredibly long periods in the stock pps, even though the pumpers are in full force during the entire time.
Posters have zero effect on the stock pps.
Another piece of evidence is the total lack of syncronicity between pumping and volume that occurs during a run.
The run always starts before anyone is aware of it. It takes all of the players by surprise, especially the pumpers. They flood the board with questions. What's going on? Has anybody heard any news? Must be something happening, do you think?
All of the traders, whether momentum traders or shorters appear AFTER the run has established itself and the volume has tripped their alert thresholds.
Make a case that covers those facts....or you have to abandon your theory I'm afraid. lol
Laugh away Chris.
The FBI association does not protect DNAP from being a scam.
Remember ENRON was a scam and it was an integral part of Cheney's energy program. lol
bag,
You have assembled a few facts which seem to you evidence of a scam.
And you have assembled .....nothing. Yet you are not shy about accusing others of misdeeds, and blaming the condition of the company on the actions of scoundrels.
While I am happy to do the same (in terms of blaming scoundrels) I am willing to present my factual evidence. You rely on nothing but bluster.
bag, Don't pretend to rely on logical inference.
Such skills are beyond you, as they rely on unbiased interpretation of facts. They also require the assessment of alternative explanations and the reduction of choices via such devices as occam's razor.
There is nothing that you can present as evidence for your theories that can stand up to such rigor.
You had best remain behind the skirts of 'emotional outburst' and 'collective fantasy'. You will find yourself much more comfortable in such a nurturing environment.
regards,
frog
bag, I am never unwilling to accept fact.
But you seem unwilling to accept the fact that DNAP was forced into a dilutive position by the early antics of traders.
You need to learn the difference between a fact and an imaginary scenario. You seem to be able to interchange them at will. Unfortunately for you they are not the same thing.
ole vern, I can't help you with your perceptions.
..hmm...I find it difficult to perceive you as playing
Then you haven't been paying attention.
bag, If you read the original source of the information you will understand that the scam promoters are defined as those that are dumping the dilutive shares.
We all know the source of the shares, don't we?
bag8ger, That is an outright lie.
The distortion is your 180 degree misrepresentation of the quote.
ole vern, Are you serious?
***Exactly what would you have everyone do, post only on the
negatives? What kind of board would that be?
Of course not.
If there is going to be any balance to the discussion, both aspects need to be presented.
If everyone is presenting only the positives, then someone needs to play devil's advocate. Otherwise you just get cheerleading.
How valuable is that?
bag, You seem to be adopting the very tactics that you decry.
As you know, that is an indefensable distortion of what I said.
Also,
Short selling is the legal parent to its bastard, naked short selling.
and the wholesale dumping of shares by the company is the root cause of all the effects that are incorrectly blamed on both the illegal and legal short selling.
ole vern, I'm sure you realize to what level of esteem I hold you in, and therefore how much I am impacted by your opinion.
However, if you wish to chide me for 'selectively excerpting' from reports and concentrating on the negative side, then I am sure you are equally opposed to the inverse practice of only posting the positive aspects of those same reports as it is practiced by so many others.
I am amused by your behavior. Did you read the report yourself, see the disturbing aspects, realize that since it was counter to the prevailing opinion that I would pounce on it, and so you lay in wait for me to react? lol
I was expecting Froggie to pick up on this and run with it. He didn't disappoint.
I wonder why, given your immediate realization of the pertinence of the issue, that you didn't share it with the board in order to initiate an unbiased discussion. Instead you kept quiet and hoped to turn it from a concern, into a tool to confront me with. Talk about twisting the facts to meet your own agenda. Isn't that a form of 'selective exerpt'? lol
regards,
frog
samlion, I am amused by this part.
Funny how it is exactly opposite to the consensus opinion on why they need to provide this transparency.
In an email to Donaldson, Coulson had said “I believe that it is very important to require the disclosure of short positions because the lack of transparency is allowing promoters to defraud investors by blaming all selling on naked market maker short selling. Disclosure and transparency can easily remedy the issue.”
Apparently, the problem is NOT the short selling, but is the fraudulent gouging of investors by dumping shares and then BLAMING short sellers for the inevitable decline in the stock price due to the dilution.
Sound familiar?
regards,
frog
Scovillez,
The presently available 500 Million shares is already spoken for, committed to LaJolla and others.
In order to undertake any further financing or acquisitions a new source of shares is necessary.
By reducing the present O/S by 10 to 20 times, they free up a corresponding number of shares that can be re-issued. Hopefully at the post split value.
regards,
frog
Scovillez, They are only splitting the O/S.
The Authorized Share count will remain the same.
The approximately 1 Billion shares in the O/S will become 50 to 100 Million higher value shares. However the present 500 Million current value shares available to issue will increase to 1.4 to 1.45 Billion of the higher value shares.
The issueable shares will essentially increase in value from 30 to 60 times.
regards,
frog
This is where all my friends are!
GNSC may be slowing down but since DNAP has been going backwards steadily for the last five years, the taillights are nowhere to be seen.
The only valid way to measure progress is to see how many milestones have been met in how much time.
Five years ago, DNAP was going to have a classifier every six months and they had Ovanome and Statnome 75% complete, by their own reckoning. Five years later, Ovanome is still two years away.
The schedule went from 6 months to seven years in a span of 5 years. If they don't hurry up they nwon't get it done by the end of the decade.
Going backwards is no way to win a race.
Scotland Yard has been using it for a year!
Read the date on the PR. Probably DOESN'T explain this weeks action. lol
gunnabe, You wound me with innuendo. LOL
Truth is, I don't track that stuff myself. I read it sometimes when it is posted here. Most of the time I respond to the interpretations of others when they post them.
Given my recent interest in the 'coincidental' occurances of the last few days, I was curious as to how much short term influence that DNAP has over LaJolla's effect on the market. As you have pointed out, correctly I might add, LaJolla applies to receive their shares on a monthly basis per their own schedule.
However, there is a clause that permits DNAP to reject the application at any time they wish if the pps is below .025. So in theory they could reject the transfer if they wanted and just pay the interest to LaJolla for the month.
In the event an election to convert is made and the volume weighted
average price of our common stock is below $0.025 per share, in lieu of
permitting the conversion and issuing our common stock, we have the right to
prepay any portion of the outstanding Debenture that was elected to be
converted, plus any accrued and unpaid interest, at 110.0%.
I wonder if this has ever happened?
regards,
frog
Thanks. Do you have a link for the LaJolla agreement?
You are assuming that LaJolla starts selling at the beginning of the month according to its own schedule.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that DNAP controlled the schedule of the LaJolla payments. Don't they decide the date they wish to receive their periodic payment, and then LaJolla has to respond per contract?
If this is the case then LaJolla has no input into the schedule but it is entirely controlled by DNAP.
Given the fairly unsubtle 'insider' type hints and the uncanny timing of the events, it may appear to some that the previous weeks events were either well orchestrated or amazingly coincidental. I vote for coincidence.
Isn't it lucky that the emergence of the much anticipated but ominous R/S occured during the excitement and optimism of a significant price run. The wave of good feelings from the run seem to have washed over the previously dreaded R/S news, carried it along and transformed it into a new and positive aspect of the company's future potential.
To think the only 'news' that has emerged to explain the run is the twst article that simply reiterated old information. I'm sure it is only a coincidence that the two things came together when they did.
I wonder about the volume? Was there a pause in the normal dumping from LaJolla? How could that be? Who controls when LaJolla has to provide funds to DNAP and then has to sell the resulting shares? ........Naaah, forget it.
mikenickels, LOL
Don't you hate it when that happens?
gunnabe,
well, from the companies vantage point, what's the real downside of having extra shares.......
The downside is in the perception of the potential investor.
Here is a company that has just reduced the potential ownership share of it's original investors by a factor of 10 to 20 but still has the ability to run the share count out to it's previous size. The result of which, could bring the share price back to it's pre-split value.
Why would an investor not consider such a risk? Given the history of the company to date, why wouldn't he consider the possibility that the company will use the shares?
It would look much more reasonable to the potential investor if he knew his ownership share was protected to some degree by a limited A/S and the knowledge that it could not increase without his participation in a vote.
regards,
frog
If it was attainable and they were doing the R/S in order to get on an exchange, they would not need to maintain the A/S at it's present levels.
1.5 Billion shares with a pps of over a dollar is nonsensical.
regards,
frog
mikenickels, If you think that scenario through, it does not make sense.
I think many people 1) agree with me and 2) they believe that DNAP between now and the reverse split, will come out with some news that will push the stock at least over .10, and hopefully close to .20 at a minimum or higher. That way a reverse split would push the stock right off of the pennies and on to a major exchange. Given the risks inherent in a reverse split, I don't think any other reason warrants the move.
DNAP claims that they need to boost their share price and increase their share count via the R/S in order to finance their future acquisitions, programs etc.
If they were capable of pushing their pps to .20 or higher, given the 500 Million shares they still have in hand under the present structure, they would be able to finance $100 Million dollars via share issue already.
The ONLY reason for a R/S is that such a price is unattainable and proportionally many more shares will be needed to keep them going.
regards,
frog
stockboy, I know, I know, but if the boss ever caught me using a small number like fourteen billion in a situation where I had a twenty-eight billion value just as handy, he would have busted me back to minimum wage.
I hate when that happens. I always have to go back to working weekends as a valet parking attendant.
regards,
frog