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.
Uccajucca haven't heard of the first two. I wonder where Tony Frudukas will re-surfact next. It was funny just for the hell of it I went back in time on the IHUB Dnag posts clear back to 2001 & 2002. It was amazing of the optimism of the time. This technology is becoming mainstream - just too bad DNAG couldn't pull it off. I really do think they were intentionally defrauding everyone here in the last 2 years knowing all the time they weren't going to make it.
This is the 3rd and last penny stock I have been burned on - luckily I did recoup most of the losses. But one thing has held true - the bashers were always right - every damn time. Good luck everyone in this crazy economy!!!! It's been a trip with DNAP/DNAG.
Sam (and everyone) I can't believe you are still posting anything "positive" about DNAG. It's OVER. Fat lady has not only sung but has left the building. We go scammed. I think DNAG started out noble but then really mis-managed things over the past few years. I knew it was pretty much over after that last reverse split I think in 2003 or 2004. If anything at all is salvaged in anyway this present share structure is KAPUUUT. Just take the tax write off and consider it a lesson learned. I will say one thing - I am through with the penny stock world.
Bill O'Reilly had a damn good point. This stock is dead - it's posted on their website - they are kapuute.
Bill O'Reilly made a good point about the stock market last week. He stated there is so much corruption on Wall Street that you really cannot trust the books of these corporations (large and small). It's close to impossible to make accurate investment decisions on that basis. You just don't get the true story. Good argument for staying out of the stock market unless you really really know the company. DNAG was a perfect example of that.
Thank God I got out when I did - sold all remaining shares @ .0022. I think these clowns started out noble years ago but became corrupted along the line as they fumbled the operation. They then continued to deceive the shareholders on purpose. There should be a criminal investigation.
Well everyone I'm out of this. Sold it all off today. This latest mickey mouse up/down bounce was the last straw. I am just getting tired of it. Just when you think something "is up" the SP goes back down again. Tired of the games that have been going on for the past 8 or 9 years now. I should have sold off when it really spiked during the Louisiana Killer trial some years ago. But I thought they were "going to da moon" then and I held. I'll keep an eye on it for a year or so and if something really substantial happens I'll get back in while still low. But for now have shifted my DNAG monies into the Canadian CEF gold/silver fund. I know I can easily recoup my DANG losses there. Good luck to all.
Dnag up over 16% on opening trading. Has something happened. This is kind of wierd.
Quite a spike today - did something happen?? Does anyone know?
Well they don't need all this new garbage - that is for sure.
Yes Ann we are going to need alot of help. This is now a very hostile economic environment for a start up company.
Ann that's a damn good find!! If DNAG can weather this economy right now and with government support there just might be a chance.
Dawn of Low-Price Mapping Could Broaden DNA Uses
October 6, 2008
By ANDREW POLLACK - New York Times
The cost of determining a person’s complete genetic blueprint is about to plummet again — to $5,000.
That is the price that a start-up company called Complete Genomics says it will start charging next year for determining the sequence of the genetic code that makes up the DNA in one set of human chromosomes. The company is set to announce its plans on Monday.
Such a price would represent another step toward the long-sought goal of the “$1,000 genome.” At that price point it might become commonplace for people to obtain their entire DNA sequences, giving them information on what diseases they might be predisposed to or what drugs would work best for them.
“It’s a shockingly low price,” said George M. Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard who is an adviser to Complete Genomics and to several other sequencing companies.
Then again, the cost of DNA sequencing has dropped by a factor of 10 every year for the last four years, a faster rate of decline than even for computers, Dr. Church said.
DNA consists of a string of chemical units, usually represented by the letters A, C, G and T. The order in which those letters appear governs a person’s inherited traits. Sequencing involves determining that order. The human genome — the complete set of DNA — consists of about six billion letters, counting both members of each pair of chromosomes.
The first human genome sequence, completed by the federally financed Human Genome Project in 2003, is estimated to have cost a few hundred million dollars. Last year, the genome sequence of James D. Watson, a discoverer of the structure of DNA, was completed at a cost of about $1 million.
Today, the cost is about $100,000, said Chad Nusbaum, co-director of the genome sequencing and analysis program at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass.
Complete Genomics will not begin its service until the second quarter of next year. By then, the cost of competing technologies will no doubt have fallen further. Just last week, Applied Biosystems, a leading manufacturer, said it expected that its newest machine would allow a human genome to be sequenced for $10,000, although that includes only the cost of consumable materials, not labor or the machinery.
Knome, a company that offers to provide consumers with their DNA sequence, charges $350,000. But that is a retail price that includes not just the sequencing costs but also the analysis of the data and the customer service.
Complete Genomics will not offer a service to consumers. But it will provide sequencing for consumer-oriented companies like Knome.
Knome is already exploring farming out its sequencing to Complete Genomics. “We anticipate we’d be able to significantly drop our price,” said Jorge C. Conde, the chief executive of Knome, which is based in Cambridge, Mass.
But Complete Genomics expects most of its customers to be pharmaceutical companies or research laboratories that are doing studies aimed at finding genes linked to diseases. Such studies might look at the DNA of 1,000 people with a disease and 1,000 people without the disease.
Right now, such studies look at only particular locations in the DNA because it is too expensive to determine the entire DNA sequence. But presumably, an entire sequence would provide more complete information.
Pharmaceutical companies are also collecting DNA from participants in many clinical trials, hoping to find genetic patterns that could predict which patients will have the best response to a drug.
Complete Genomics, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., was started in 2006. But its sequencing technology has been under development by its chief science officer, Radoje Drmanac, since the 1990s — first at a federal laboratory and then at Hyseq, a genomics company that subsequently shifted to drug development and changed its name to Nuvelo.
Complete Genomics has raised $46 million in venture capital so far, including a small investment from Genentech, the biotechnology pioneer.
Complete Genomics’s sequencer does not work that much differently from rival machines. But company executives say that miniaturization allows their sequencer to use only tiny amounts of enzymes and other materials. Outsiders have not yet examined the accuracy of the company’s sequences.
Rather than selling machines, as most sequencing companies do, Complete Genomics will offer sequencing as a service. That also might help keep prices low because its machines do not have to look as pretty or be as foolproof as they would if they were being sold.
“We’re not losing money at $5,000,” said Clifford Reid, the chief executive of Complete Genomics.
The company’s first project will be for the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, whose president, Leroy Hood, is an adviser to Complete Genomics.
Mr. Reid said Complete Genomics hoped to perform 1,000 human genome sequences next year and 20,000 in 2010, with a goal of completing a million by 2013. That assumes the company can raise the money and find partners to build 10 sequencing centers at a cost of $50 million each. It also assumes there will be enough demand.
To put that in perspective, the number of human genomes sequenced to date by all parties combined is, at most, in the double digits. Knome, for instance, says it is on track to have 20 customers by the end of this year.
Volume, of course, could further drive down prices. “If we’ve got a million genomes sequenced by 2013,” Mr. Reid said, “it’s going to be very hard for anyone to compete with us.”
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Sam let's hope our idiotic government finally starts getting it's sh_ _ together and cleans up Wall Street. If the people get angry enough it will happen.
SEC Issues New Rules to Protect Investors Against Naked Short Selling Abuses
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2008-204
Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2008 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today took several coordinated actions to strengthen investor protections against "naked" short selling. The Commission's actions will apply to the securities of all public companies, including all companies in the financial sector. The actions are effective at 12:01 a.m. ET on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008.
New Short Selling Rules
"These several actions today make it crystal clear that the SEC has zero tolerance for abusive naked short selling," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "The Enforcement Division, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, and the Division of Trading and Markets will now have these weapons in their arsenal in their continuing battle to stop unlawful manipulation."
In an ordinary short sale, the short seller borrows a stock and sells it, with the understanding that the loan must be repaid by buying the stock in the market (hopefully at a lower price). But in an abusive naked short transaction, the seller doesn't actually borrow the stock, and fails to deliver it to the buyer. For this reason, naked shorting can allow manipulators to force prices down far lower than would be possible in legitimate short-selling conditions.
Today's Commission actions, which are the result of rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, go beyond its previously issued emergency order, which was limited to the securities of financial firms with access to the Federal Reserve's Primary Dealer Credit Facility. Because the agency's exercise of its emergency authority is limited to 30 days, the previous order under Section 12(k)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 expired on Aug. 12, 2008.
The Commission's actions were as follows:
Hard T+3 Close-Out Requirement; Penalties for Violation Include Prohibition of Further Short Sales, Mandatory Pre-Borrow
The Commission adopted, on an interim final basis, a new rule requiring that short sellers and their broker-dealers deliver securities by the close of business on the settlement date (three days after the sale transaction date, or T+3) and imposing penalties for failure to do so.
If a short sale violates this close-out requirement, then any broker-dealer acting on the short seller's behalf will be prohibited from further short sales in the same security unless the shares are not only located but also pre-borrowed. The prohibition on the broker-dealer's activity applies not only to short sales for the particular naked short seller, but to all short sales for any customer.
Although the rule will be effective immediately, the Commission is seeking comment during a period of 30 days on all aspects of the rule. The Commission expects to follow further rulemaking procedures at the expiration of the comment period.
Exception for Options Market Makers from Short Selling Close-Out Provisions in Reg SHO Repealed
The Commission approved a final rule to eliminate the options market maker exception from the close-out requirement of Rule 203(b)(3) in Regulation SHO. This rule change also becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. ET on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008.
As a result, options market makers will be treated in the same way as all other market participants, and required to abide by the hard T+3 closeout requirements that effectively ban naked short selling.
Rule 10b-21 Short Selling Anti-Fraud Rule
The Commission adopted Rule 10b-21, which expressly targets fraudulent short selling transactions. The new rule covers short sellers who deceive broker-dealers or any other market participants. Specifically, the new rule makes clear that those who lie about their intention or ability to deliver securities in time for settlement are violating the law when they fail to deliver. This rule also becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. ET on Thursday.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-204.htm
American (and world) economy is deteriorating at a rapid rate especially after the serious news we got over the weekend. I do believe now "all bets are off" regarding DNAG's ability to recover in this economic environment. I just hope they can weather this economic storm.
Merck's (MRK) current generation of drugs are under siege, some because they will go "off patent" and others because of FDA troubles. The Big Pharma operation has managed to get its shares near a 52-week low at $34.50. That is down from a period high of $61.62. The cholesterol drug Vytorin had over $5 billion in worldwide sales last year. Merck markets it in a partnership with Schering-Plough (SGP). Medical experts have expressed significant concerns that the treatment causes cancer. Merck still faces some level of risk from suits involving its drug Vioxx. Drug Cozaar/Hyzaar goes "off patent" in 2010 and Singulair loses its protection in 2012. According to Morningstar, these drugs were 30% of revenue in 2007.Merck has 60,000 employees. It will have to do with a lot less.
Come on DNAG where are you???????
Well Dgplexus at least you are doing something constructive. We need all the help we can get right now. I do applaud you for that.
Oh Frog - don't post that nasty 8K!!!
Dgplexus that is exactly right and is the big reason why I am so baffled that DNAG is "floundering" right now. They are in the right place & time and still no progress.
That's bizarre - over 16MM shares traded and NO budge in share price positive or negative???
Thank you MB. Maybe someone will listen.
Let us pray you are correct. But even if DNAG manages to get out of the woods alive the R/S on the existing float will be horrendous.
Great day yesterday!!
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS MORE DEADLY THAN COCAINE, HEROIN, AMPHETAMINES
Posted On: September 2nd, 2008
Source: Naturalnews.com
(NaturalNews) When handsome and talented young actor Heath Ledger died last winter, the New York City medical examiner's autopsy report revealed his death was due to an unintentional life-ending cocktail of prescription drugs, including anti-anxiety medications Alprazolam (Xanax), Diazepam (Valium) and Lorazepam (Ativan), the sleeping pill Zopiclone (Lunesta) and the sedative Temazepam (Restoril), which is also used for insomnia.
So this was just one of those rare tragedies that mostly happens to troubled or hard living Hollywood stars, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, people from all walks of life are dying by the thousands across the U.S. due to prescription drugs. And a new study, Florida's annual report on Drugs Identified in Deceased Persons, dramatically illustrates this truth.
Relying on autopsies performed in 2007, the state report concludes prescription drugs (anti-anxiety benzodiazepines, the muscle relaxer carisoprodol and all opioids, excluding heroin) continue to be found in both lethal and non-lethal amounts in the dead far more often than illicit drugs.
The bottom line: the rate of deaths in Florida caused by prescription drugs is over three times as high as the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined.
The study shows 2,328 Floridians died of opiate, or painkiller, overdoses while another 743 lost their lives from over-consuming benzodiazepines, which include the drugs Valium and Xanax. On the other hand, about a third less number of people, 989, died of overdoses from illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine ("speed").
In a statement for the press, Bill James, Director of Florida's Office of Drug Control, said: "Prescription drugs are not safe and must be secured. Doctors and pharmacists must help law enforcement identify and stop doctor shoppers. We are also looking for ways to curb illegal internet sales. Only through a comprehensive, coordinated strategy will we be able to reverse this tragic, unacceptable trend."
That's a nice goal and it is true some people abuse prescription drugs. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration states as many as 7 million Americans are abusing prescription medication -- far more people than those using cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants combined.
And the truth is, even when legal medications are taken as prescribed, they are too often dangerous and even deadly. In fact, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), an estimated 1.9 million adverse drug reactions occur each year, and up to 180,000 of them could be life threatening or even fatal.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released data showing that at least half of all Americans take one prescription drug and one in six of us takes three or even more prescribed medications. And this love affair with pharmaceuticals for health problems is no doubt why prescription drug deaths are now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease, cancer and stroke.
Drug companies: Big Pharma besieged from all sidesBlockbusters are expiring, pipelines are emptying and watchdogs are growlingJulia Kollewe The Guardian, Saturday August 30 2008 Article historyThe pharmaceutical industry is under siege with the looming end of blockbuster drugs, imminent patent expiries on top-selling medicines and government pressure to lower prices amid accusations of profiteering.
GlaxoSmithKline's new boss, Andrew Witty, has likened discovering a blockbuster - with annual revenues of at least $1bn - to finding a needle in a haystack. Many of the big-selling medicines launched in the 1990s are about to come off patent, allowing generic drugmakers to make cheaper versions. Only four of the 10 major companies have enough products in their pipeline to plug the looming revenue shortfall.
"We've seen the end of the very big blockbuster, the likes of Lipitor," said Kate Moss at PricewaterhouseCoopers. "There's not enough time for a product to become a massive blockbuster. There's so much competition in the market."
The world's top-selling drug, Lipitor, will lose its patent in 2011, threatening Pfizer's $12.7bn (£7bn) annual sales from the anti-cholesterol drug.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who chairs health watchdog Nice, infuriated the industry last week when he accused it of overpricing vital new medicines. But drugs companies reject the charge, pointing to initiatives on pricing. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) says UK drug prices have fallen by 21% in real terms over the past decade.
"It takes £550m - and 10-12 years - to bring a new drug to the patient," said a spokeswoman. "It's an investment in public health. It's only natural that the companies need to make a return on this initial investment."
Nice refused to approve expensive new kidney drugs for NHS use, saying they are not cost effective - despite an offer from Pfizer to pay for the first round of treatments.
The move highlights efforts by Big Pharma to be more flexible on pricing. Under an innovative funding scheme, Johnson & Johnson allowed the NHS to recoup the cost of its Velcade medicine for bone marrow cancer if patients show no or minimal improvement. At GSK, Europe's biggest drugmaker, Witty has proposed a "pricing for value" model. Under the formula, companies would be paid little for new drugs at the outset but would be reimbursed fully once their value is proven.
Richard Barker, ABPI director general, said: "Nice needs to combine pure economic arithmetic with other considerations: the severity of the condition, the availability of alternative treatments, the consequences of refusing treatment in terms of the length and quality of life, and the savings in the use of carers."
Nice and early
In another important move, the industry and Nice would get together at an earlier stage to discuss which drugs the government is likely to fund when they come to market. Under a recent pilot project, Swiss group Novartis discussed new drugs with Nice before clinical trials were designed. GSK now talks to the health watchdog from phase II of drug trials - the intermediate stage of development - rather than afterwards.
"The idea of early dialogue is now accepted on both sides," said Barker.
Moss pointed out that regulators at Nice will need to have the right skills to analyse early clinical data. Drugmakers, for their part, should carry out tests to determine which patients benefit from a drug so that their use can be targeted.
The cost of R&D has risen as companies chase fewer new molecules. Alan Sheppard at consultancy IMS Health reckons the chances of discovering a blockbuster have halved from 10-1 to 20-1. He cited competition, pricing, safety concerns and fewer unmet clinical needs. "The increased rigour in being able to get a product to market means that far more molecules have to be screened before a likely candidate can be positively identified," he said.
In response, companies are targeting niche drugs for cancers and neurological diseases - expensive treatments for relatively small numbers of patients.
"We can expect drug research in large, well-served areas like pain relief to be reduced," said Marc Gerstein, a former consultant to US firms Eli Lilly and Pfizer. "New drugs for niche conditions are likely to be fantastically expensive. In many cases, it will seem like blackmail. Without government assistance or insurance, treatment will simply not be affordable for many."
The outcome of the US election could have a significant impact. Senator Barack Obama wants Medicare to negotiate directly with companies to drive down drug prices that are on average twice as high as those in Britain.
The industry has also been hit by large-scale public health scares. In his recent book Flirting with Disaster: Why Accidents Are Rarely Accidental, Gerstein analyses US drugmaker Merck's Vioxx disaster - the painkiller had to be withdrawn in 2004 after causing thousands of heart attacks and strokes.
"Could this happen in the UK?" he asked. "The odds seem lower than in the US, but the pressures to enhance drug marketing and co-opt the regulators are ever present. There is a lot of money at stake."
In Britain, GSK had to issue new safety warnings after its diabetes drug Avandia was linked with an increased risk of heart attacks last year.
As blockbusters become rarer, drugmakers such as GSK have switched their focus to developing a range of "middle earners" with annual revenues of £200-300m. Witty declared in July: "GSK must change if it is to be successful in the future." There is a new focus on vaccines - which are hard to copy - and household brands like Ribena, Horlicks and Lucozade.
Biologics and generics
Companies are also investing heavily in developing biological medicines, which can often be used to treat several conditions and are harder to replicate than conventional chemical drugs. Roche offered more than $40bn to take full control of US biotech partner Genentech in July. AstraZeneca, the UK's second-largest drugmaker, has acquired biotech firms Cambridge Antibody Technology and MedImmune, and aims to derive 25% of its new drugs from biologics by 2010.
GSK set up a new biopharmaceuticals R&D division in June, headed by Ian Tomlinson, the former boss of the acquired antibodies firm Domantis. He described it as "a big move for GSK". He wants to take biological products from 6% to 20% of GSK's pipeline by 2015.
Companies are organising R&D into smaller groups of scientists, to operate more like speciality pharmaceuticals groups such as Shire, Britain's third-biggest drugmaker.
To boost revenues, Big Pharma is also venturing into the generics market. Global generic medicines are now worth $71.7bn, a tenth of the entire world drug market valued at $712bn.
As companies focus more on producing costly treatments for rare diseases or benefiting certain patient groups, the NHS will face new spending dilemmas. IMS Health's Sheppard wondered: "Are we still underfunding our health service? We get good value for money but if we put more money in, would people's health improve?"
Yes I agree Friday's transaction was very wierd.
Dgplexus there should have been a PR on this and there wasn't. Even DANG thinks this is insignificant.
I think Louise at this point is really Tony in drag. They're just trying to make it look like they have more employees than they really do. Just my opinion.
Dplexus maybe "science wise" they may have something but "business wise" our friends at DNAG are at say....elementary school level.
Olderthanu WE are the ones that should be bringing our attorney's into play against DNAG!!
Dgplexus how do you explain today's rotten performance?
Dgplexus as I said before, you obviously have alot more information than the rest of us. I don't see it at all.
Well Dgplexus obviously you have very important insider information most of the rest of do not. My apologies.
Dgplexus outside of the share price and the last 8K I can't think of any explanations.
Biofrontera is a much better run company than DNAG. DNAG management are pretty much clowns.
Sam can you tell me what is different with DANG now as opposed to the disasterous 8K posted by them not all that long ago? Why are things better now? Do you remember that last 8K? The company is not telling us anything.
Sam this is really old news. Do I need to re-post the last 8K?
Yah Dgplexus BUT remember the last 8K. DNAG probably doesn't have any kind of relationship with DnaDirect anymore.
Sam1933 even IF DNAG were to survive and go on to achieve great things the R/S they would impose would be so horrendous most shareholders would be wiped out.