I know you are the master of minutia, but I suggest it is you that needs to reread the PR:
The marker was the primary discovery from the Company's Statnome project initiated in 2000 and the manuscript to be published in JPG describes the validation of this finding in different patient samples.
The clear implication is that the discovery came from the original Statnome project...old, not recent, thus the marker "was" the primary discovery...the completion of the validation study is the recent event.
"This is the culmination of a project that was begun when the company was founded," stated DNAPrint President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Gabriel. "It has taken until now to validate the original findings, but validated they are.
Now, you aren't REALLY suggesting that they discovered this variant and proceeded to conduct a validation study without FIRST filing a patent on the discovery are you? And just so we're clear here, you DO need to first discover it prior to conducting the validation study. How long after the discovery do you suppose they filed the patent? How long after filing the patent do you suppose they organized the validation study?
Let's see, according to you the patent was filed two years ago - 2004? Doh...what have we here from one of the DNAPrint quarterly reports:
Statinome: During 2005, we began a study with Genomics Collaborative Division of Seracare Life Sciences Inc. that also included the statinome program. Samples have been received from them and used to conduct a validation of the test. An abstract was presented at the last meeting of the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (March, 10, 2006 in Baltimore). Also, a paper has been prepared and submitted for publication.
Tell me Mr. Strawman...the timeframe looks pretty plausible to me...what do YOU think? Let's see, they just received the "validation" samples in 2005. They first presented the validation results as part of an abstract back on March 10, 2006. Why, that would probably mean the "discovery" was made and a patent filed PRIOR to 2005, wouldn't you say? 2004 perhaps?
As far as our "brief" exchange last week, you need to understand that I don't live here like you and your buddies do. I have no interest in getting involved in one of your circular semantic exercises. If you'd like to deny that the clear implication in your messages leading up to my post was that DNAPrint's tests were useless because SNP's were being relegated to history then all I can say is...Aunt Jemima your waffles are done. I could post message after message of yours containing that clear implication and you know full well that that was the subject of my response.
If you insist on a contention that a short statement in my quickly written post to Bag8ger was the crux of our discussion then let's just end that here as well. Let's see, you took a short segment of the post, separated it from the context of the message and claimed that to be "specifically what this dicussion was about". First of all, I didn't say "ALL" CNV's as your followup claims. I used the word identify, as in the ability to isolate as opposed to "discover". In order to do large scale research a geneticist needs a means of identifying the CNV's in multiple samples in an efficient way. The point was that they are an invaluable element in genetic research, and that one of the key benefits of using the Affymetrix Mapping Array was the resolution and ability to isolate the boundaries of the CNV's using SNP based technology. A point VERY clearly substantiated by the words of one of the lead researchers in my followup post.
Now, if you'd like to discuss why DNAPrint's classifiers are NOT greatly impacted by the Nature Discovery I'd be happy to discuss it. But you have to cut your usual "bull" because I don't intend nor do I have the time to hang out here all day and play. And I can't promise that responses will be posted within hours or even days. I have a life...unlike some here.
Later,
W2P
AI
