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.
frog...
I kinda miss you too...LOL
I thought posting the Chromaglas website would have been enough of a hint for the "DD" wizards on this board to realize that there's a problem here, and I intended to let it lie. But then one of the great unenlightened sent me a nasty private message...ssssooooo...
I could be here all night arguing with these "investors", but let's just deal with one of their key contentions. That RCCH has unique technology, as demonstrated by that EPA approval listing they found.
They seem to think that because IWS is the only system listed that they have some sort of corner on the market. The only reason they think this is that they have no understanding of how the regulatory system works.
First of all, the only reason RCCH/IWS submitted directly to EPA is because they HAD to. And they HAD to because Idaho is one of the very few states left that have not applied to become a designated regulatory authority under the NPDES provisions of the Clean Water Act. Nearly EVERY state in the union did so decades ago.
To become a designated agency, they must develop water quality standards and procedures for regulation of wastewater dischargers in their state that meet or exceed USEPA regulations. If they do, EPA will approve them to issue and monitor discharge permits in their state. Apparently Idaho would rather the Feds handle that for them, thus, in order to install one of these systems in Idaho, it would first have to be approved by EPA, not Idaho.
This is from the State of Idaho DEQ website:
NPDES Program Implementation
In Idaho, the NPDES permit program is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which means that EPA is responsible for issuing and enforcing all NPDES permits in Idaho. The state's role in this process is to certify that NPDES-permitted projects comply with state water quality standards.
State Primacy Consideration
Idaho is one of only a handful of states where the NPDES program is administered by EPA. States are encouraged by EPA to attain primacy for the program. Primacy enables states to assume responsibility for administering certain federally mandated programs, such as the NPDES program.
Montana, on the other hand, has at some point applied for and received delegated authority from EPA to issue permits directly as do most other states:
State Agency
Montana’s water quality laws are administered by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Protection Bureau.
Delegated Permit Authority
Montana has been delegated permit authority for the NPDES permit program including stormwater permits for all areas except Indian lands. Montana has also been delegated authority from the COE for the section 404 dredge and fill permit program.
This is no small point as the "investors" here believe their system to have some sort of unique approval from EPA. The reason I posted the Chromaglas website was to show the more astute that may be here that they're not alone in the universe...lol
If they'd like to see a true sampling of their competitors (BTW, I wouldn't consider any of those companies listed in that Granada Research report to be true competitors to RCCH), all they need do is take a look at the list of similar systems approved in the state of Arizona:
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/listpro.pdf
Go to any state DNR or DEQ website (as long as they have been delegated authority) and you'll find a similar list of systems approved for use in their individual state. While they're at it, they may wish to may a note of who is NOT listed.
If anyone takes the time to do any REAL research, they'll find that in every case, these types of systems are sold by the hundreds and thousands through Distributor networks or Manufacturer's Rep networks. Not by a guy in a condo in California.
Maybe that's why, having been in business since 1993, they've only sold 23 systems in two states. And since the Granada report itself tells us how many systems they've sold since inception, has anyone on this board sat down and done a quick calculation of how much revenue this company had generated in the last 16 years? Hint...it's not much.
Hey happy camper9...seems you're the one that needs to rethink his position.
Anyway, frog, I've done alot more here than I intended. I really do wish you the best in your future endeavors. And good luck with the locals.
Later,
W2P
PS...My personal background includes 10 years experience as a Capital Program Coordinator for a major US City Water/Wastewater Authority, Technical Specialist responsible for NPDES Permit negotiation with EPA Region V and DNR for that same City, staff person to former US Water Pollution Control Administration Administrator, and 15 years Manufacturer's Representative for some of the largest water/wastewater treatment equipment manufacturers in the world, including Lakeside Equipment Corporation.
johnny...
Nope. A friend of mine asked me to look at this company and tell him what I thought, since I was a rep in the wastewater business for 15 years.
So what do I think? Very little...
Later,
W2P
Frog...
If you're in need of a good SBR system, these guys have installed about 100,000 worldwide...come to think of it...these look awfully familiar:
http://www.cromaglass.com/
Here's some info on their installations:
http://www.cromaglass.com/newsletter/index.html
Funny they weren't mentioned in the "research report" as a competitor.
Later,
W2P
FYI
Seeing as how they just changed their fiscal year end to 9/30 - that would mean that second quarter 2008 begins January 1.
Later,
W2P
bag8ger...They just applied for the ISO accreditation. That too is in the latest filing:
During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, sales of our forensic services decreased by $7,417. We continue to market our forensic services and during October 2007, we put our application in for ISO accreditation for our laboratory. When we achieve accreditation of our laboratory, this will enable us to expand our forensic offerings to the law enforcement community. During the third quarter of 2007, we engaged one forensic distributor to assist us in marketing our services to the forensic community.
They talked about ASCLD accreditation in the past as something they intended to do in the future. Looks as if the filed for ISO instead.
BTW, I would assume that the "forensic distributor" they refer to in this paragraph was the "subsequently" announced relationship with Beckman Coulter.
Later,
W2P
winer...Perhaps this would help explain why she was less critical of DNAPrint's tests. Seems she's worked with some of our personnel in the recent past:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114082833/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Research Article
Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas
Brian M. Kemp 1 *, Ripan S. Malhi 2, John McDonough 1, Deborah A. Bolnick 3, Jason A. Eshleman 4 5, Olga Rickards 6, Cristina Martinez-Labarga 6, John R. Johnson 7, Joseph G. Lorenz 8, E. James Dixon 9, Terence E. Fifield 10, Timothy H. Heaton 11, Rosita Worl 12, David Glenn Smith 5
1Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235-7703
2Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
3Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712
4Trace Genetics, Inc., A DNAPrint Genomics Company, 4655 Meade Street, Richmond, CA 94804
5Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
6Department of Biology, Centre of Molecular Anthropology for Ancient DNA Studies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy
7Department of Anthropology, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
8Laboratory for Molecular Biology, Coriell Institute for Medical Research, Camden, NJ 08103
9Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309
10Prince of Wales Island Districts, Tongass National Forest, Craig, AK 99921
11Department of Earth Science/Physics, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069
12Sealaska Heritage Institute, One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400, Juneau, AK 99801
email: Brian M. Kemp (brian.m.kemp@vanderbilt.edu)
*Correspondence to Brian M. Kemp, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, VU Station B #356050, Nashville, TN 37235-6050, USA
Deceased.
Funded by:
Office of Polar Programs
The National Science Foundation
The United States Forest Service
Wenner Gren Grant
Keywords
mitochondrial DNA • ancient DNA • molecular clock • phylogenetic dispersion • Y-chromosome
Abstract
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA were analyzed from 10,300-year-old human remains excavated from On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska (Site 49-PET-408). This individual's mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) represents the founder haplotype of an additional subhaplogroup of haplogroup D that was brought to the Americas, demonstrating that widely held assumptions about the genetic composition of the earliest Americans are incorrect. The amount of diversity that has accumulated in the subhaplogroup over the past 10,300 years suggests that previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock may have underestimated the rate of molecular evolution. If substantiated, the dates of events based on these previous estimates are too old, which may explain the discordance between inferences based on genetic and archaeological evidence regarding the timing of the settlement of the Americas. In addition, this individual's Y-chromosome belongs to haplogroup Q-M3*, placing a minimum date of 10,300 years ago for the emergence of this haplogroup. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 25 March 2006; Accepted: 7 November 2006
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Later,
W2P
souza...They probably figured a mogul such as yourself already owned too many shares the way it is...didn't want you to have a monopoly...LOL
Take care my friend.
Later,
W2P
onebigbang...I share your amusement, and would only clarify your post by stating that we will know by way of an SEC Filing when DNAPrint has put it all together. As part of that filing, we will also know the name of the Investment Banker (or bankers, if there ARE bankers) handling the transaction. Until such a filing is made, the Corporation has a legal obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding any proposed offering of securities.
Oh, and by the way stocky, he said the names very quickly and without the proper spelling I may have heard it wrong, but I believe that Richard said that the Consultant that would come on board once funding is secured was a former Research Director at Dade Behring (I know he said "Dade", and it sounded like the second half of the company name was "Behring"). The individual's name I heard was Dr. Robert Bowles(sp?).
If it was Dade Behring, I think it would make sense that they'd add such an individual considering DNAPrint's product pipeline and objectives:
http://ir.dadebehring.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=135997&p=irol-overview
Why don't you ask Louise about this next chance you get.
Later,
W2P
asturiano, are you from Spain perhaps?
Later,
W2P
Why do you insist on wearing that "kick me" sign. OK, if you insist, you said:
I also noticed that you avoided defending your statement that all of the assets were being released.
Dutchess, whose Notes payable included a lien on all of DNAPrint's assets agreed as part of this deal to release their claim on the assets.
Care to elaborate on that one?
And for those board members who may be unfamiliar with the toad's tactics, let's just look at the full context. I said:
Dutchess, whose Notes payable included a lien on all of DNAPrint's assets agreed as part of this deal to release their claim on the assets. So now the DNAPrint Pharma shares that Dutchess is accepting in lieu of virtually all of DNAPrint's debt are both "virtual" and "unsecured". That IS what it says, although that looks to be a pretty big leap of faith on the part of Dutchess.
Big difference when you include the entire context. He'd like the argument to revolve around my failure to specifically insert the word "pharma" in front of "assets". Then we could go round and round about something that had nothing to do with the point of the paragraph or the subject at hand.
As can be seen by the full context, however, the point was that Dutchess was releasing a secured interest in the DNAPP shares and THEN accepting the released shares as payment against a secured debt. Let me say that again, they are releasing a secured interest (meaning basically that they are giving up ownership interest in the shares), so that DNAPP can turn around and use them to pay off DNAPrint's debt (held BY the entity that currently HOLDS the secured interest). And indeed, according to the PR they are:
...In order to complete the spin-off, Dutchess has agreed to release all the pharmaceutical, diagnostic and associated assets in exchange for the shares of Pharmaceuticals' common stock.
And if I were to leave it at this, the toad would likely come back with something like..."Whuh,(Spit, slobber, drool, jump up and down, sweat) that doesn't say anything ABOUT the DNAPP shares being unsecured, they're just releasing the pharma, diagnostic and associated assets that everybody KNOWS are worthless anyway!"
Then I'd have to write ANOTHER post, where I would point out the text from the 8-K:
...As part of the Letter Agreement, Dutchess consented to the transfer of certain assets to Pharmaceuticals and released its security interest in such assets and in the Pharmaceuticals’ common stock.
I thought my point was abundantly clear to begin with, but if not, it should be abundantly clear now.
Later,
W2P
You're welcome...and I have to say that judging by his reply, your ability to anticipate could well become legendary! LOL
Later,
W2P
OK, I see you're terribly confused as are others here on the Board. For those of you that have been questioning the clarity of the 8-K and PR, I have to disagree. It seems very clear to me as I'll try to explain. This post will address frog's fallacies as well, so bear with me.
First Issue:
I said:
Dutchess is taking 2,000,000 warrants in exchange for the $2,000,000 in "incentive debentures" attached to the DNAPrint Notes Payable.
To which the toad responded:
No they aren't. $2,000,000 is an imaginary upper limit.
Background:
The "Notes" referred to in the filing and PR were a series of Promissory Notes between an affiliate of Dutchess and DNAPrint. To be exact, the "affiliate" was Dutchess Private Equities Fund II, L.P. Each of the notes was non-interest bearing, meaning that the interest was built into the purchase price of the Note. For instance, they would issue a Note with a face amount of $840,000 for a purchase price of $700,000. The $140,000 difference between the face amount and purchase price would have been Dutchess's profit. But, the fund has to be repaid to receive the profit and with several of the Notes this has not occured.
Also attached to each Note was an "incentive debenture" that could be converted to DNAPrint shares at a predetermined rate. For instance, several of the debentures converted at $0.01/share.
You could look up each of the Notes mentioned in the 8-K or just go to the SB2/A, page 8 and see a table that summarizes the outstanding "incentive debentures". BTW, the total market price is approximately $2,000,000. Page 8 of the SB2/A also states that at March 31, 2007, the debentures would convert to 229,998,656 shares of DNAPrint stock if converted.
According to the PR AND the 8-K:
As full repayment for the Incentive Debentures, the Registrant would also issue a warrant for 2,000,000 shares of Pharmaceuticals' common stock to Dutchess which could be exercised at an exercise price of $0.01 per share (expiring July 31, 2012) If the balance on the Incentives Debentures at the time of the spin-off is less than $2,000,000, then DNAPrint will be deemed to have made a principal payment on the Notes in the amount of the shortfall.
I'm certain everyone here, with the exception of the toad, understands the first part of this paragraph. The Registrant (DNAPrint Genomics) would issue a warrant for 2 million shares of DNAPP, in "FULL REPAYMENT" for the $2,000,000 worth of incentive debentures. Nothing "imaginary" about that.
Second Issue:
I said:
Dutchess agreed to take "up to" 2,000,000 shares of DNAPrint Pharma (shares that don't exist yet in a company that doesn't exist yet) to discharge the other $4,000,000 in debt. That means if DNAPrint didn't pay them another nickel, Dutchess is willing to value (the non-existent) shares at $2.00/share and accept them as payment on DNAPrint's debt? I mean, that's what I see folks, unless someone can show me differently.
To which the toad responded:
This is different.
On July 24, 2007 the Registrant entered into a Letter Agreement with Dutchess whereby the Registrant will be permitted to repay a portion of the Notes and Incentive Debentures owed to Dutchess through the issuance of stock and warrants in a planned future spinoff of the Registrant’s wholly-owned subsidiary, DNAPrint Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Note the significant difference from 'all' the current debt vs. a 'portion' of the Notes.
Under the terms of the Letter Agreement, Pharmaceuticals would issue up to 2,000,000 shares of its common stock to Dutchess after the spinoff as a payment on the Notes due by the Registrant to Dutchess.
Notice the significance of the word 'payment'.
So we have in summary, a fraction of the Dutchess debt (as opposed to the totality reported in the spin) being exchanged for a huge share of the new entity that includes not only a major ownership share but a guaranteed share of any income.
Background:
First of all, I didn't say "all", you did.
I think what has many of you confused, especially the toad, is that some of the terms used in the PR and the 8-K are indefinite. There is a very simple reason, in fact, it is the very reason I chose to highlight "up to" in my original post.
Quite simply, only "some" of the Notes will be paid with DNAPP shares because, as is stated in the 8-K "some" will be repaid with the 4% of DNAPrint revenues, and "some" will be repaid with the 80% DNAPP Royalty Income (everyone here DOES realize that at this point in time DNAPP HAS NO Royalty income).
There is also another source of potential repayment, which is, that if DNAPrint's share price were to rise, Dutchess COULD end up converting some of the "incentive debentures". These debentures convert at prices between $0.01 and $0.023, although realistically the DNAG price would probably have to be much higher for Dutchess to take that chance. None the less, there is a reason for this statement from the 8-K and PR:
If the balance on the Incentives Debentures at the time of the spin-off is less than $2,000,000, then DNAPrint will be deemed to have made a principal payment on the Notes in the amount of the shortfall.
In other words, let's say DNAG's share price rises and Dutchess chooses to convert a portion of the debentures. They're still going to get the 2,000,000 warrants, because the letter agreement is that..."As full repayment for the Incentive Debentures, the Registrant would also issue a warrant for 2,000,000 shares of Pharmaceuticals' common stock to Dutchess"...But, conversion of some of the debentures would lower the balance below $2,000,000, and that shortfall would then be applied "as a principal payment" on the "Notes".
I presume this is another reason the PR says that "up to" 2,000,000 shares of DNAPP will be issued on the Notes. If Dutchess were to convert some or all of the incentive debentures, the "shortfall" (the difference between the market value of the remaining debentures and $2,000,000) would be applied to the debt left on the "Notes" (not the debentures, the NOTES), and would therefore reduce the number of shares needed to be issued to satisfy the remaining Notes. Get it?
Final point, according to the SB2/A, the total value of unpaid Notes is $4,971,798 AS OF May 31, 2007. Presumably, DNAPrint has paid 40% of the proceeds from the Biofrontera shares to Dutchess for the months of June and July. If so, and including the $2,000,000 in "incentive debentures", that would place the total indebtedness at about $6.5 million.
Compare this amount to the PR:
DNAPrint® Genomics (OTC BB:DNAG.OB - News) today announced that it has reached a payment agreement with Dutchess Private Equities Fund, Ltd. ("Dutchess") whereby approximately $6 million in notes and incentive debentures may be paid in full by the issuance of stock and warrants in connection with a proposed spin-off of DNAPrint's wholly owned subsidiary, DNAPrint® Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Pharmaceuticals").
And of course, Gabriel's statement from the PR:
"We are genuinely pleased to reach this agreement with Dutchess, which could settle its DNAPrint® Genomics debt in full with the planned spin-off of the DNAPrint® Pharmaceuticals division and help to ensure the stability of the parent Company's finances," stated President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Gabriel.
So I have to ask the toad, since both the 8-K AND the PR were out at the time of my original post (everyone can see that because I clearly referred to both in the text) how EXACTLY do you justify this statement:
So we have in summary, a fraction of the Dutchess debt (as opposed to the totality reported in the spin) being exchanged for a huge share of the new entity that includes not only a major ownership share but a guaranteed share of any income.
The sole justification of a spin-off is to free the new entity from the overhead costs and debt of the parent company so that they can exploit their assets without having to be weighted down with that burden. This 'virtual' spin-off has already been loaded down and constrained before it has even been gotten off the ground.
To the contrary, per the letter agreement, the "spin-off" will end up issuing a MAXIMUM of 4,000,000 shares to "retire" $6,000,000 in debt. At that point, neither the parent NOR the spin-off will be "loaded down and constrained".
Lastly, you DO realize that all of this assumes that the spin-off takes place, which means that by the time the share exchange takes place, DNAPP WILL ALREADY be "off the ground". In the meantime, all we have to pay Dutchess for the $5,000,000 in Notes is about $28,000/quarter.
Again, I'd say that's a pretty good deal. But as always, this is just my humble opinion. Please do your own due diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
I'll tell you what. I was gone on business for a couple of days and don't have time tonight to reply in detail to your latest batch of errors. I'll give you time to read the SB/2A that was just filed and correct any of your latest mistatements...and there are a couple of whoppers you probably want to rethink.
If I don't see any corrections by the weekend I'll try to take some time to address them in detail. OK?
I gotta tell ya though, I can't help but respect a guy like you that's always wrong, but wrong with such conviction...lol
Later,
W2P
So if I read the 8-K and the PR correctly, Dutchess is taking 2,000,000 warrants in exchange for the $2,000,000 in "incentive debentures" attached to the DNAPrint Notes Payable. Granted the exercise price is $.01, but so was the exercise price of the Convertible Debentures. In other words, it appears that Dutchess is accepting 2,000,000 shares of DNAPrint Pharma (shares that don't even exist yet in a company that doesn't even exist yet) rather than the 200,000,000 shares of DNAPrint the original debentures would have converted to. Unless my math is wrong, if DNAPrint eliminated $2,000,000 of debentures for 2,000,000 shares of Pharma, that's a buck a share for Pharma vs. $0.01/share in DNAP. Not bad.
Dutchess, whose Notes payable included a lien on all of DNAPrint's assets agreed as part of this deal to release their claim on the assets. So now the DNAPrint Pharma shares that Dutchess is accepting in lieu of virtually all of DNAPrint's debt are both "virtual" and "unsecured". That IS what it says, although that looks to be a pretty big leap of faith on the part of Dutchess.
Dutchess agreed to take "up to" 2,000,000 shares of DNAPrint Pharma (shares that don't exist yet in a company that doesn't exist yet) to discharge the other $4,000,000 in debt. That means if DNAPrint didn't pay them another nickel, Dutchess is willing to value (the non-existent) shares at $2.00/share and accept them as payment on DNAPrint's debt? I mean, that's what I see folks, unless someone can show me differently.
DNAPrint has to pay them 4% of quarterly revenues (about $20,000 based on the last Q), and Pharma has to pay them 80% of "Royalty" (royalty income, not Kit Revenues or Service Revenues, or IPO proceeds, or a portion of additonal financing proceeds) income until the debt is paid.
I honestly don't know what the rest of you are smokin', but I don't understand the objections being flung around the board. They virtually eliminated the debt of the parent, eliminated 200,000,000 shares of certain dilution in the parent, eliminated the lien on the company assets, and accomplished it using "virtual" shares in a "virtual" company. Someone would have to explain the problem because I don't see it.
Who gives up $6,000,000 (that they already loaned and DNAPrint already spent) AND their secured interest (for WHATEVER it's worth) in exchange for "virtual" shares in a "virtual" company?
As always, this is just my humble opinion. Please do your own due diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
Nothing quite like a flailing frog to entice the aligators into the swamp...lol
Thanks for the entertainment frogster.
Later,
W2P
Gee, you don't even read well. I gave you the answers, do I need to provide the questions too?
Let's see, it says:
Recent evidence suggests that "junk DNA" may in fact be employed by proteins created from coding DNA.
Your translation:
Translation: Previous beliefs about the insignificance of "junk DNA" that led to the labeling of such areas as "non-coding' were obviously in error as those areas are absolutely essential for the accurate 'coding' of the structural proteins.
Pardon me, but that's not even close. I can see the part that tells us the proteins are created "from" coding DNA. And I see the part that tells us the junk DNA is "employed" by the proteins. I just don't see the part that says the junk DNA is involved in coding.
You really just make it up as you go along don't you. And, of course that shouldn't surprise anyone. Afterall, the thread started with this proclamation:
Posted by: frogdreaming
In reply to: johnnyfiber who wrote msg# 66844 Date:7/19/2007 9:17:38 PM
Post #of 67011
LMAO. You can't be serious!
Telling me to get real in the same breath that you shout out the most absurd statement in the history of the board.
You are completely ignorant of the science or else trying to pull the most extravagant bluff in recorded history.
IT IS THE NON-CODING POLYMORPHISMS THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO DISEASE SUCEPTIBILITY.
Abject drivel.
I defy you to provide a single reference that backs up this nonsense. Even DNAG is not stupid enough to make such a claim. You have completely misinterpreted something or you are one of the most ambitious liars on the planet.
There may well be 'indicators' in the non-coding regions that provide some clues in terms of probabilities, but there is nothing in the non-coding regions that has any effect whatsoever on disease susceptibility or any other physiological characteristic.
(hint: It's called 'non-coding' for a very good reason.)
As I see it you have two options. Either find some stupid reference to blame your misinterpretation on or apologize for making such an egregious error. Those seem to be the only way to salvage any credibility in this instance.
Good luck,
frog
Still waiting for that humble apology...ROTFLMAO!
Later,
W2P
Can't resist one more post to point out to all of these fine folks just how much you attempt to mislead this board. You said:
I suspect that they are using the term 'non-coding' in the sense of something that disrupts (and perhaps stops) the code as opposed to something that is not involved in coding at all. So it is something of a misnomer. In order to disrupt the code it has to be involved with the coding process, in fact in a very real sense it has to 'code' it's information into the process in order to create that disruption.
First of all, words mean things, especially in science. When a group of PhD's says "non-coding", they mean "non-coding". If they meant it in a way that was atypical (as you are attempting to do here to cover your but_), they would certainly make that clear. But, in fact, as I have alreayd pointed out, the SNP's they refer to are in the Introns, i.e. non-coding, i.e. "junk" DNA, which, oddly enough, is why they refer to it as non-coding.
Now back to the original thread, which you'll recall was YOUR challenge to Johnny to produce even ONE reference suggesting a role for non-coding DNA in disease susceptability. All you had to do was a simple Wikipedia check to get the answer:
Noncoding DNA
In genetics, non-coding DNA describes DNA which does not contain instructions for making proteins (or other cell products such as noncoding RNAs). In eukaryotes, a large percentage of many organisms' total genome sizes is comprised of noncoding DNA (a puzzle known as the "C-value enigma"). Some noncoding DNA is involved in regulating the activity of coding regions. However, much of this DNA has no known function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA".
Recent evidence suggests that "junk DNA" may in fact be employed by proteins created from coding DNA. An experiment concerning the relationship between introns and coded proteins provided evidence for a theory that "junk DNA" is just as important as coding DNA. This experiment consisted of damaging a portion of noncoding DNA in a plant which resulted in a significant change in the leaf structure because structural proteins depended on information contained in introns. Some non-coding DNA can be a non phenotypical RNA virus historical relic.
Later Lightweight,
W2P
Is this where I should point out to you that Introns ARE Non-Coding DNA? That coding and regulation are two entirely different concepts? That the very purpose of this research was to study the possibility that "junk" DNA DOES in fact have a function?
Nah, Johnny's doing a good job with your education. Think I'll just let him handle it. But I WILL be looking for that apology.
Later,
W2P
horsepuckey...In both of these studies they are referring to SNP's in the Introns of the genes. I have realized for years that you have no idea what you're talking about, but these posts pretty much confirm it.
Here you go buckshot:
Intron
Introns are sequences of "junk" DNA found in the middle of gene sequences. These sequences are excised before the mRNA is translated into a protein. The function of introns is not known.
This from the study discussion:
The SNPs in intron 2 reside in a region of marked DNA conservation between mouse and human. Such conserved nongenic sequences were recently proposed as additional regulatory elements (29). Indeed, SNPs 2351, 2399, and 2949 alter putative binding sites for transcription factors TATA, MZF1 and P300, and SP1, respectively (Fig. 3, online appendix). Of these, SNP 2399 is predicted to abolish binding for MZF1 and P300 and SNP 2949 is predicted to abolish binding for SP1 transcription factors. Thus, this region might alter CASQ1 or perhaps PEA15 regulation and contribute to diabetes risk.
In other words, they are suggesting that the subject SNP's, within intron i.e. "junk" region 2 serve as some sort of regulatory element. They don't have to "code" to impact protein synthesis. The authors are in fact suggesting that their effect may be through a "regulation" of the coding process itself.
Now, by my read Johnnyfiber has it exactly correct and you have it completely wrong. How about a legitimate apology, rather than an attempt to lie your way out of it.
Later,
W2P
Just wanted to let the board know that last week when TKO seemingly stopped trading one afternoon (well, actually it did stop trading)...as well as the no trade start today were due to AMEX system problems. No AMEX trades could be placed at the open, just as AMEX trading halted altogether that afternoon last week (I forget which day it was).
Not that there isn't slow volume at times, but these last couple of occasions that had the board buzzing had nothing to do with TKO. Just an FYI...
Later,
W2P
Chris...It's really very simple. To make this easy, simply open the link you provided, then do a "Find" on the word "term". You'll want to check the box for match exact word.
That will take you to three relevant paragraphs. One describes the Option itself. A second decribes the "Term" of the Agreement. And the third takes you to the reference you are asking about.
What you'll find is that the option only applies to SNP Intellectual Property developed during the seven year "term" of the agreement...which should expire Sept 19, 2007.
The 25 year provision only applies to SNP Intellectual Property developed during the "term", AND that has not been previously sold or partnered.
Later,
W2P
liar
I get the picture...what you're saying is that you can't figure out how DNAPrint management turned a $2 million dollar investment into $5.9 million in less than two years, and then managed to get cash out of the restricted Biofrontera shares so as to help fund current operations, AND maintain an option to repurchase depending on what happens to the value of those Biofrontera shares between now and October...is that what you mean?
BTW, you DO understand that should Biofrontera's trials go well, and the shares appreciate above $16.13 euro per share, DNAPrint would likely seek a way to reacquire the shares.
Later,
W2P
Still telling those "whoppers" I see. You said:
Don't forget that both Gabriel and his wife were major shareholders of Biofrontera before they ever came to DNAP.
I guess you consider less than 1% ownership a "major" position...lol
This from the most recently filed SB-2/A:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000135448807001035/dnaprintsb2v2.htm
We also negotiated to acquire a stake in Biofrontera, a privately held German Biotechnology company. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Richard Gabriel and Ms. Monica Tamborini were common, non-voting shareholders of less than 1% combined ownership in Biofrontera AG. Mr. Gabriel was made aware of the opportunity to invest in Biofrontera AG and presented it to our Board of Directors and was given instructions to proceed with the investment opportunity.
Don't feel like you're alone though Frog. Since that investment only tripled in less than two years, I'd say Cotton has no idea what he's talking about either. You guys make quite a pair...lol
Later,
W2P
For anyone interested (and I don't read everyday so apologies if this is already posted), here the details of the MSTI reverse merger:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070530/fitx8-k_a.html
30-May-2007
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Completion of Acquisition or Di
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
The Merger
On May 18, 2007, Fitness Xpress Software, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("FXSI-NV"), was merged with and into Fitness Xpress Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("FXSI-DE"), for the sole purpose of changing its state of incorporation to Delaware from Nevada pursuant to a Certificate of Ownership and Merger dated May 18, 2007 and approved by stockholders on May 18, 2007. Under the terms of the Certificate of Ownership and Merger, each share of FXSI-NV was exchanged for 1.0563380282 shares of FXSI-DE.
On May 22, 2007, FXSI-DE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") by and among FXSI-DE, Microwave Satellite Technologies, a privately held New Jersey corporaton ("MST"), and Microwave Acquisition Corp., a newly formed, wholly-owned Delaware subsidiary of FXSI-DE ("Acquisition Sub"). Upon closing of the merger transaction contemplated under the Merger Agreement (the "Merger"), Acquisition Sub will be merged with and into MST, and MST, as the surviving corporation, will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of FXSI-DE. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, following the merger FXSI-DE's name will be changed to MSTI Holdings, Inc.
In addition, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement:
· Each share of MST common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the closing of the Merger will be converted into the right to receive 120,000 shares of FXSI-DE common stock. In addition, $5,000,000 of outstanding indebtedness of MST to Telkonet, Inc., a Utah corporation and MST's 90% shareholder prior to the Merger ("Telkonet"), will be converted at $1.00 per share into 5,000,000 shares of FXSI-DE common stock. As a result, an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of FXSI-DE common stock will be issued to the holders of MST common stock.
· In a private placement (the "Private Placement"), taking place immediately after the closing of the Merger, FXSI-DE will issue units ("Units") consisting of 46,620 shares of FXSI-DE common stock and a five-year detachable redeemable warrant to purchase 23,310 shares of FXSI-DE common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share (the "Investor Warrant"), at a purchase price of $25,641 per Unit. The minimum authorized amount to be issued is $1,999,998 in 78 Units, and the maximum authorized amount to be issued is $3,999,996 in 156 Units.
· Concurrently with the Private Placement and the Merger, the Company will receive up to $7,500,000 (prior to the payment of placement agent fees) from the issuance of 8% Secured Convertible Debentures due April 30, 2010 (the "Debentures"), convertible at $0.65 per share into up to 12,541,806 shares of FXSI-DE common stock, and five-year warrants (the "Debenture Warrants") to purchase in the aggregate up to 6,270,903 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share.
· Immediately following the closing of the Merger, under the terms of an Agreement of Conveyance, Transfer and Assignment of Assets and Assumption of Obligations, FXSI-DE will transfer all of its pre-Merger assets and liabilities to its wholly-owned subsidiary, FXS Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SplitCo"). Thereafter, pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement, . . .
Item 2.01 Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets
As used in this Current Report on Form 8-K, all references to the "Company," "we," "our" and "us" for periods prior to the closing of the Merger refer to MST, and references to the "Company," "we," "our" and "us" for periods subsequent to the closing of the Merger refer to FXSI-DE and its subsidiaries. Information regarding the Company, MST and the principal terms of the Merger are set forth below.
Merger
The Merger. On May 22, 2007, FXSI-DE entered into the Merger Agreement with MST and Acquisition Sub. Upon closing of the Merger on May 24, 2007, Acquisition Sub was merged with and into MST, and MST became a wholly-owned subsidiary of FXSI-DE.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at closing the stockholders of MST received 120,000 shares of FXSI-DE's common stock for each issued and outstanding share of MST's common stock. In addition, $5,000,000 of outstanding indebtedness of MST to Telkonet was converted at $1.00 per share into 5,000,000 shares of FXSI-DE common stock. As a result, at the closing FXSI-DE issued 20,000,000 shares of its common stock to the former stockholders of MST, representing approximately 50.7% of FXSI-DE's outstanding common stock following (1) the closing of the Merger, (2) the closing of the Private Placement for $3,078,716.50 and (3) FXSI-DE's cancellation of 3,169,014 shares in the Split-Off, and taking into account the issuance of 10,117,462 shares of FXSI-DE common stock issuable upon conversion of the Debentures. See Item 3.02 below for a description of the Private Placement.
Before giving effect to the stock issuances in the Merger and the Private Placement, and after giving effect to the stock cancellation in the Split-Off, 3,788,874 shares of FXSI-DE common stock were outstanding. These shares constituted the part of FXSI-DE's "public float" prior to the Merger that will continue to represent the shares of FXSI-DE common stock eligible for resale without further registration by the holders thereof, until such time as the applicability of Rule 144 or other exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), permits additional sales of issued shares, or a further registration statement has been declared effective.
Prior to the closing, there were no options or warrants to purchase shares of capital stock of FXSI-DE or MST outstanding. Immediately prior to the Merger, the Company adopted a 2007 Stock Incentive Plan that will provide for the grant of up to 4,500,000 shares of common stock as restricted stock or stock options to employees, directors and consultants. Except for the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, neither FXSI-DE nor MST had adopted an equity incentive plan or otherwise reserved shares for issuance as incentive awards to officers, directors, employees and other qualified persons in the future. Upon consummation of the Merger, the Company granted options to purchase 2,000,000 shares and 1,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company at an exercise price of $0.65 per share to its Chief Executive Officer, Frank T. Matarazzo, and its President, Ronald W. Pickett, respectively.
The shares of FXSI-DE's common stock issued to former holders of MST's capital stock in connection with the Merger, the shares of FXSI-DE common stock issued in the Private Placement, the Debentures, the shares issuable upon conversion of . . .
Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities
In connection with the Merger, as of May 24, 2007, we accepted subscriptions for a total of 120.07 Units in the Private Placement, each Unit consisting of 46,620 shares of the our common stock, par value $0.001 per share and a detachable redeemable Investor Warrant to purchase 23,310 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share for a purchase price of $25,641 per Unit from accredited investors pursuant to the terms of a Confidential Private Offering Memorandum, dated May 7, 2007, as supplemented. We received gross proceeds from such closing of the Private Placement of $3,078,716.50.
As of May 25, 2007, we issued $6,576,350 Debentures that are convertible into an aggregate of 10,117,462 shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $0.65 per share and Debenture Warrants to purchase an aggregate of 5,058,730 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share. The Debentures were issued with an 8% Original Issue Discount. As a result we received $6,050,000 from the issuance of the Debentures (before payment of the placement agent fees and other fees).
The Private Placement and the issuance of the Debentures was made solely to "accredited investors," as that term is defined in Regulation D under the Securities Act. The securities issued in the Merger, units and the common stock, the Debentures and the shares of common stock included therein were not registered under the Securities Act, or the securities laws of any state, and were offered and sold in reliance on the exemption from registration afforded by Section 4(2) and Regulation D (Rule 506) under the Securities Act and corresponding provisions of state securities laws, which exempt transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.
Net proceeds received from the Private Placement and Debentures are expected to be used to pay-off the remaining indebtedness of approximately $1,000,000 to Telkonet as well as for research and development, sales and marketing, an investor relations program and repayment of debt and for working capital and other general corporate purposes.
We agreed to pay placement agents the following fees in connection with the Private Placement and the issuance of the Debentures: (i) a cash fee equal to 7% of the aggregate purchase price paid by each purchaser of Units in the Private Placement and Debentures, (ii) five-year warrants to purchase that number of shares of common stock equal to 7% of the common stock on which the cash fee is payable under clause (i) above, at an exercise price of $1.00 per share, with mandatory registration rights covering the shares of common stock underlying the warrants, and (iii) reimbursement for all reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with the engagement, including, but not limited to, the reasonable expenses of counsel, up to $25,000.
Description of Securities
Immediately following the Merger, the Split-Off and the closing of the Private Placement for $3,078,716.50, there were 29,386,538 shares of common stock issued and outstanding and no shares of preferred stock issued and outstanding.
Description of Common Stock
We are authorized to issue 90,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share. The holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share on all . . .
Item 5.01 Changes in Control of Registrant
Reference is made to the disclosure set forth under Item 2.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, which disclosure is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers
FXSI-DE's sole officer and director resigned as of May 24, 2007, immediately following the closing of the Merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, our new directors and officers are as set forth therein. Reference is made to the disclosure set forth under Item 2.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, which disclosure is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 5.03 Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws; Change in Fiscal Year
On May 24, 2007, our board of directors approved an amendment to our certificate of incorporation, recommending a change of its name from "Fitness Xpress Software, Inc." to "MSTI Holdings, Inc." On May 24, 2007, stockholders representing the requisite number of votes necessary to approve an amendment to the certificate of incorporation took action via written consent, approving the corporate name change. On May 24, 2007, we filed the amendment to the certificate of incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.
On May 24, 2007, our board of directors approved a change in our fiscal year from a fiscal year ending April 30 to a fiscal year ending on December 31. The change in our fiscal year will take effect on May 24, 2007 and, therefore, there will be no transition period in connection with this change of fiscal year-end. Our 2007 fiscal year will end on December 31, 2007.
Item 5.06 Change in Shell Company Status
As a result of the consummation of the Merger described in Items 1.01 and 2.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, we believe that we are no longer a shell corporation as that term is defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act and Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
(a) Financial Statements of Businesses Acquired. In accordance with Item 9.01(a), MST's audited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 and 2006 and MST's unaudited financial statements for the three-month interim periods ended March, 31, 2007 and 2006 are filed in this Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1 and 99.2 respectively.
(b) Pro Forma Financial Information. In accordance with Item 9.01(b), our pro forma financial statements are filed in this Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.3.
(d) Exhibits.
The exhibits listed in the following Exhibit Index are filed as part of this Current Report on Form 8-K.
Exhibit No. Description
2.1 Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization, dated as of May 22, 2007, by and among Fitness Xpress Software, Inc., Microwave Satellite Technologies, Inc., and Microwave Acquisition Corp. (1)
Later,
W2P
Not that everyone here doesn't already realize you're a habitual liar...but kindly point out where it says "Notice of default from Harvard"...I must have missed that.
Later,
W2P
david...Sorry for the late reply. Awfully busy lately. Hope all is well with you.
Take Care,
W2P
johnny...It was the audio archive, actually from the Specialty Pharma Conference on December 12th 2006. Here's the link:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/5/75735.html
Listen at minute mark 23:00 where Gomez says that they are in the process of spinning off DNAPrint Pharmaceuticals and would like to eventually take it public.
Believes the company is presently worth in the $35 million range. Is looking for $10,000,000 Series B round with which they believe can take the company value to $86,000,000 in twelve months. Would look for a Series C injection after a year of $50,000,000 that would take us to $149,000,000 valuation.
Later,
W2P
Kermy...Let's review:
- DNAPrint provides $2,000,000 +- to Biofrontera in exchange for 445,000 +- shares of the company. Biofrontera uses the capital infusion as part of a finance package enabling them to float a 20,000,000 euro bond, promising the investors 8% return on the bonds, with a fixed conversion option at 16.13 euros/share should Biofrontera successfully execute an IPO.
- Biofrontera, in turn, uses the bond proceeds to expand and support clinical development of their drug pipeline, which along with the capital from the bond, allows them to IPO the company to garner additional capital. After the IPO, DNAPrint's Biofrontera stock is worth $15 +- euro/share but is RESTRICTED for one year.
- DNAPrint attends December 2006 Venture Capital event seeking capital for DNAPrint Pharmaceuticals. At the end of the presentation Gomez and Gabriel tell the audience they are looking for $10,000,000 and believe that would appreciate to $86,000,000 in the next twelve months.
- February 2007, DNAPrint reopens Bookbinder's court mediated, signed and sealed agreement. The new agreement provides an unconditional release from ALL future claims, and further stipulates that the settlement is to complete by a date certain - February 20, 2007. In the SEC filing announcing the change to Bookbinder's settlement, DNAPrint documents that Sytkowski agrees to accept shares in lieu of the cash payments he was previously scheduled to receive and that they hired a securities attorney who also agrees to be compensated in shares of DNAPrint stock.
- Only one week after the date certain mentioned in Bookbinder's agreement, February 27, 2007, DNAPrint completes an agreement to sell 83% of the RESTRICTED Biofrontera shares for $5.9 million cash, with a call option to repurchase the shares at 16.13 euro/share (same as the bondholders conversion price) starting October 31, 2007.
OK, you're the CEO that just orchestrated this series of events. You clearly were about to have the cash to pay Bookbinder, Sytkowski and the attorney. Why did you change the agreements if you had the cash? Why did you sell the Biofrontera shares?
AND...what do you do next?
(BTW, as a side note, your 6% simple interest is much too low, even if you COULD get a loan using equity securities as collateral...margin interest rates, for instance, are about 12% right now...the Biofrontera bond itself pays 8%)
Later,
W2P
johnnyfiber...Let me add something to this mix. Frog has spent years fighting windmills, attempting to create the impression that DNAPrint's science is somehow second rate. Yet in the face of his twisted arguments stands the ever growing number of highly respected scientists working collaboratively with DNAPrint.
The recent collaboration with Emory is an interesting example in that Dr. Mark Bouzyk only recently assumed his position at Emory. For the prior 8 years, he worked for Glaxosmithline in a position which would make him eminently qualified to pass judgement on the merits of DNAPrint's approach:
Mark Bouzyk, PhD
Director, Center for Medical Genomics, Emory University
Dr Bouzyk is the new director of the Center for Medical Genomics (CMG). The CMG is a core facility that provides state of the art laboratory capabilities to enable high throughput genetic linkage and association studies ranging from candidate gene to genomic screens all supported by a robust and flexible data management infrastructure. Dr Bouzyk has come to Emory with more than eight years track record in a global pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline, where one of his roles was to serve as Director of Genetic Laboratory Sciences leading the company’s high throughput genotyping efforts in Europe.
I believe it notable that a man of his obvious credentials would provide this quote in DNAPrint's PR announcing the collaboration:
"This technology will be very useful for population stratification, and will serve as an extremely important quality control, particularly for large scale case control genetic association studies. Additionally, it will provide benefits in other areas, including pharmacogenetics,"said Dr. Mark Bouzyk, Director of Emory's Center for Medical Genomics.
Who to believe...Dr. Bouzyk...or Kermy...not a tough choice for me.
As always, do your own Due Diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
Sytkowski taking his payment in shares is both interesting and encouraging...Bookbinder agreeing to take less cash in exchange for shares is interesting...What I find MOST interesting is DNAPrint's new attorney, who appears to specialize in corporate securities and regulatory matters, who is also agreeing to be compensated in shares:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000123174207000102/ex102.htm
Here's a little biographical info on Amy Trombly:
AMY M. TROMBLY serves as Principal of Trombly Business Law, a securities and corporate law firm she founded in May 2002. Prior to founding Trombly Business Law, Ms. Trombly worked as an Associate at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. from February 1999 to May 2002 where she managed public transactions including initial public offerings, follow-on offerings and tender offers and counseled clients in compliance with the federal securities laws. Ms. Trombly served as Vice President at State Street Corporation from September 1998 to February 1999 and worked in the Division of Corporate Finance in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from September 1994 to August 1998. She was Special Counsel at the time of her departure. Ms. Trombly received her B.S. from Babson College and her J.D. from Suffolk University Law School.
Her engagement is very recent. The letter agreement is dated February 16, 2007.
As always, do your own due diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
GLL..."Chances" of Asisi (C.C.) are slim...
Later,
W2P
Interesting article Bag8ger...perhaps DNAPrint will simply file a "continuation" as they did with the Pigmentation Patent:
(Sorry, can't post a link, but this is from the most recently published Pigmentation Patent Application)
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/156,995, filed May 28, 2002 which claims the benefit under 35 USC .sctn. 119(e) of U.S. Application Ser. Nos. 60/293,560 filed May 25, 2001, 60/300,187 filed Jun. 21, 2001, 60/310,781 filed Aug. 7, 2001, 60/323,662 filed Sep. 17, 2001, 60/344,418 filed Oct. 26, 2001, 60/334,674 filed Nov. 15, 2001 and 60/346,303 filed Jan. 2, 2002. This disclosure of the prior applications is considered part of and is incorporated by reference in the disclosure of this application.
Of course the relevance to this discussion is :
http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=1795
Once claims are presented and canceled, an applicant’s only recourse is to pursue them in a continuing application, which must be filed before issue of the patent.
And this:
Before the patent issues, the patent owner should always consider filing a continuing application. As long as the claims are supported by the application as filed, there is almost no limitation on the scope or subject matter of the claims that may be pursued in a continuing application. There are always alternate ways of claiming an invention.
From my cursory look at the ongoing arguments by frog and fraud, you'd get the impression that any rejected claims could never be recovered. It appears to me that a continuing application is a viable way to readdress rejected claims. I'm surprised fraud's "friend" didn't comment on this. Perhaps he will now.
AND, it seems that DNAPrint has already availed themselves of that strategy with regards to the pigmentation patent applications and the ancestry patent, which they list as a continuation-in-part of nearly their entire patent portfolio related to their complex genetics classifiers. Whew, good thing THEIR patent attorneys seem to know what they're doing.
BTW, I noted that the Patent Office has replaced the original examiner for the Ancestry Patent. This appears to have been done very recently.
All JMHO. As always, do your own due diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
There haven't been "press releases", but there clearly have been results. Here is just one example, ondansetron results, which were only recently presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists on October 15, 2006:
http://www.asaabstracts.com/strands/asaabstracts/abstract.htm;jsessionid=C8F2EDAAE628B56E3A987BFE175...
In fact, far from Moffitt distancing themselves from DNAPrint, the "Discussion" contained in the abstract indicates that there will be further collaboration between the Moffitt and DNAPrint researchers with respect to ondansetron:
Discussion
Overall, our findings are consistent with previous reports for the incidence of PONV and response to treatment. We have found an association between SNPs and PONV that appear consistent with the pharmacology of the PONV triggering medications. All of the SNPs with p< 0.05 values will be tested in a validation study with independent subjects to identify which genes and SNP variants are predictors of PONV and the efficacy of Ondansetron.
I would also point out that this project wasn't even included in the original agreement, but was added for some reason. Tell me Doc, if the platform was not producing results in the originally intended areas, why would Moffitt expand it's use into other indications?
Thanks to mingwan0 for the link which he posted some time back on the Nap Heads II board.
Later,
W2P
And here I thought someone would ask me about "irrevelant"...LOL
Later,
W2P
Not to disagree with those expecting the "next" PR to launch the stock to the moon, but allow me to offer a couple of observations concerning today's PRs:
1) The company needs cash to execute it's business plan. It secured that cash today in the form of the private placement and warrants.
We don't know exactly WHEN this placement was negotiated, but I think it safe to assume that it wasn't TODAY (which makes comparison to today's share price a bit irrevelant, don't you think?). And given that in the last several weeks the share price has come from the $2.30 range up to the current value, $2.50/share is not IMO an unreasonable price for this type of financing. Irregardless, someone with some fairly deep pockets thinks enough of TKO to pony up $10 million...that should say plenty to TKO shareholders.
2) The two acquisitions announced today are not as yet FINAL. As such, I would certainly not expect TKO to include the names of the companies in the PR. Do the shareholders REALLY want any of TKO's competitors or potential business partners to know the identity of these companies and to know that they would entertain a buy-out offer? This is business, we're not sharing the name of our favorite geranium with the local garden club. For the same reason, I would not expect them to provide any detail on current revenues or cash flow from the two companies until signed agreements are in place.
3) The two acquisition candidates should bring additional revenue to TKO. Both sound as if they have significant numbers of existing client relationships. From the PR:
...the Company has entered into a Letter of Intent to acquire a leading technology developer of energy management systems. Their proprietary energy management controls eliminate wasted energy from heating and cooling unoccupied spaces. Tens of thousands of systems have been deployed in a wide variety of settings. Telkonet plans to incorporate the Telkonet iWire System(TM) to network these energy management controls.
and...
...The contemplated acquisition would increase Telkonet's current hospitality base from 300-plus hotels to 1,800-plus hotels, with more scheduled for installation, adding significantly to Telkonet energy management opportunities as well.
4) Ultimately, sustainable share value derives from revenues and earnings. This "leading US wireless hospitality company" no doubt provides their services on a recurring revenue basis. If that's the case, it would seem to me that 1800 hotels would generate a nice revenue stream. The energy management developer has "tens of thousands of systems" deployed. It seems a safe assumption that they will bring revenue to TKO.
5) Successful businesses are successful because they sell stuff. In business, your best prospect is an existing client. These acquisitions provide TKO with literally thousands of built-in prospective clients in two of their niche markets.
My last piece of friendly advice would be to think more like investors and less like stock traders. Management took a couple of nice steps today to capitalize and expand their business. IMO, Investors should view this as optimistic.
Traders....well...they didn't get the instant gratification they were looking for. Maybe next week...
Later,
W2P
jever...Those are Euros, not dollars. Current exchange rate is 0.769349 Euro per Dollar meaning today's Biofrontera closing share price in dollars = 16.1/0.769349 = $20.93/share x 442,000 = $9,249,638.00
All one has to do is to read DNAPrint's SEC filings to know that their interest in Biofrontera will appear as an asset on their next quarterly filing, Dr. Fraud's baseless innuendo notwithstanding.
As always, do your own due diligence and make your own investment decisions.
Later,
W2P
If I had to guess, I'd say the next news is coming from Biofrontera:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=B8F.DE
With DNAPrint holding +- 442,000 shares of Biofrontera, it appears that our net worth got a nice bump today...
Later,
W2P
skier321...I was researching a member of their Scientific Advisory Council in connection with another one of my investments. I knew that their business was technology transfer...sort of a technology match-maker...and in the course of poking around on their site I came across those RFP's.
I know that there are a number of very active members of this board and suspected they would know what to do with the links.
See, I was right about that...LOL
Later,
W2P
They might have interest here as well:
http://www.utekcorp.com/technologies/TSR_333_SM.pdf
Later,
W2P