DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

Whew, Robert, I evidently hit a nerve. Sorry

I am not about to respond in kind as I don't have the energy, but I will try to summarize.

Perhaps it is limiting to restrict the forensic products to just serial killers, but it is incredibly unrealistic hype to suggest that it will apply as a standard to all crimes. That is nonsense.

First ONLY crimes that justify such expenditure can be considered, so all petty thefts and misdemeanors are out. Second only crimes with DNA evidence and no known suspects (eliminates 90% of all violent crime)can make the cut and unfortunately the first DNA test will ALWAYS be a CORBIS screen. ONLY after that comes back negative will other tests be needed. No matter how easy it becomes, the number of uses will be small. Furthermore as the CORBIS database grows the market will continue to decline.

has not yet met our company’s standards for a product launch..

Trnslates directly to 'does not yet meet design requirements'. Sorry

If it does not meet... our internal FDA standards for discussions with the U.S. government

Then it does NOT meet FDA standards and cannot yet be in clinical trials. Sorry


As to accomplishments you can imagine that the textbooks are changing if you want (samples would be appropriate) but as a business and not a charitable philanthropy, accomplishments are products that generate revenue in excess of their development cost. BTW anyone can make money selling something for less than it cost, that is NOT an accomplishment.

BTW, Ancestry and DNAwitness are the only thing generating even minimal funds and they are both minor enhancements of Shrivers work that they 'purchased' from him and enhanced using his data. (read his commentary as to the accuracy of the results in todays news).

You can extrapolate clinical trials via the Moffit relationship if you want but you have absolutely zero evidence that DNAP has anything in the works in that arena. In fact you have nothing but your reading between the lines to support any of your conjuctures.

I'm sorry but that is not enough to support your claims.

regards,
frog