Replies to post #91935 on Kraig Biocraft Laboratories Inc (KBLB)

[TRUISM]

If you bought because they were reporting doubling capacity in PR and you were, thereby, led to believe that would show in their accounting for the next period or a few periods later, and it did not show... then you decided there was not any inventory from production so you sold... and then later you saw there was unreported inventory... you have a Class Action lawsuit.

With all due respect,this reminds me of that auto commercial in which they begin speaking in German and after 3 times stating the same thing,they are upset and come to the realization in english that merely saying something repetitively doesn't make it so.


If one decided on their own that certain things may or may not have been....

And at the very least didn't reach out to Investor Relations for a possible explanation,then i'd say that said individual didn't make the most of all the avenues of possible information before concluding logic.

Proper due diligence to me is using all the information readily available to you.

This includes but is not limited to filings,articles,press releases and Investor Relations.

There's a part in the latest filing that states one cannot solely rely on the information provided in the filing,as it is incomplete.

Though it stated otherwise in previous filings I knew that all the answers to possible questions I have aren't contained solely in the filings.

This was one of the reasons I spent countless hours contacting people in the know,etc,etc.,....

Until I felt comfortable enough in taking a position in KBLB.


One of the reasons that I eventually look forward to an S-1/A being deemed effective by the SEC,is due to the fact that the recent filing admits that all figures are n't accounted for in a specified enough manner.

This leads me to believe that we will no longer be hearing about the vagueness of "doubling" or "ramping up," without more detail added to the explanation.

Hopefully we will see soon enough.



Blessings to All

TRUTH

[rayovac812]

You mistake the idea that I am not hearing what you're saying....however that is a lot of logical leaps. Read what you just said. ((and then....) It does not equate. Keep in mind I am saying there is a balance sheet agreement between Notre Dame and KBLB. You are conveniently leaving out the collaboration there. If you want it spelled out, well this is the real world. There are other collaboration agreements. There are ways, unless you don't want to see how. So your selling might incorrectly be linked to what you thought. It happens all the time. Own your own mistakes. Here is a thought, lets wait and see.

[es1]

If you bought because they were reporting doubling capacity in PR and you were, thereby, led to believe that would show in their accounting for the next period or a few periods later, and it did not show... then you decided there was not any inventory from production so you sold... and then later you saw there was unreported inventory... you have a Class Action lawsuit.

If you bought because they were reporting doubling capacity in PR and you were, assuming that would show in their accounting for the next period or a few periods later, and it did not show... then you assumed there was not any inventory from production so you sold...


Then you made a wrong assumption and should not have traded without your DD.

Your fault. Not Kims

You can not sue

but...
If you bought because they were reporting doubling capacity in PR and they did double capacity....

You cant sue

So now lets see what assumptions you have made in the statement and see who is the fault of your losses (If you actually had any)

Because in order to constantly have more and more worms you must have more and more feed going into the costs.

First you assume that the count of worms increases every time. The fact is if they want to produce a pound a day they need to hatch about 4000 worms a day. The amount of worms is set. When they decide to increase the supply of worms an increase in expenses would follow.
So ..

No increasing costs means nothing

The feed for the worms is a major line item of costs and it exceeds their reported costs if you assume they are producing substantial inventory.

The feed for a major amount of worms would be a major line item.
Before you can even begin to assume this you would need to define "substantial" and "major"
I know that Kim has a substantial amount of silk compared to Amsilk. But is that "substantial"?

It grossly exceeds their reported costs once you deduct from those reported costs all of the other identified line items (such as salaries and marketing and shares for professors, etc.).

It does?

How do you know what the costs are? Have you raised silkworms before?
Do you have ANY clue how much they are producing? If not how can you know what it would cost?
How much are the salaries and marketing?
What are the "costs" of issuing shares to professors?

But, you cannot produce silk from silkworms without feeding them and all of the other costs of caring for them. So, maybe now it looks like the synthetic approach to growing proteins that are the same as spider proteins has a huge potential advantage because of the lowered costs

You can not produce silk in a goo vat without feeding the microbes as well. You just think they put these cells in a vat and they produce goo for free?

A pound of silk will require well over a pound of food and it doesn't matter if you are getting silk from worms or microbes.

It takes money to make money right? that is ultimately what you are trying to say.

So the costs of food for microbes will be "substantially" more than silkworm food.
Why?
Because the silkworms do not live in their food. They live in a room that can be controlled. Microbes live in their food. Improperly mixed the food can kill on contact so there is a "major" cost involved in food preparation.

I can stretch a concept as well as you can. My statement is just as empty of fact as yours.

Fact is that the majority of the costs you are wanting to see is supplied by the university.

Labor, food, worms, trash clean up etc ALL supplied by the university in the course of their normal operations.

Or do you think that the students that are taught at the university are getting their education from Kim?

When you are working in a college the college supplies you with your work. Kim pays the college to do this.
So now since the silkworms are being used by the university don't you think the university would be keeping them alive?

the above example is not fact. It is only to show that there are lots of ways that the costs you expect are not where you expect them to be.

So while I love your assumptions I would like you to start proving your "facts" and not just claiming they are facts because you cant explain the alternatives.

Start with the "major costs" and "substantial silk"

Define those 2 things and we can begin again.

[first mike]

bacteria can NOT produce Spider silk protein!

Hi Cee-it,
If you wish to debate intelligently on the merits of various approaches to producing protein based technical fibers, you need to do a Lot more reading about not just KBLB but also about their various would be competitors.

Your current argument is based upon assumptions of the cost of silk worm chow that are incorrect as are your assumptions about the cost of labor and the cost of environment.

But on the other side of your inequality comparison you are making even more widely inaccurate assumptions.

First and foremost of these is your assumption that bacteria or yeasts can produce "...proteins that are the same as spider proteins"

The major Spider drag line silk strength proteins, S1 and S2, are very high molecular weight polymers, MW in the thousands.
(This means that the full polymer protein is a very large very long chain molecule.)
Bacteria and yeasts are incapable of producing such high MW products simply because the single cell organism is not large enough to contain them nor does it have a sufficiently strong metabolism to produce them.
Normal bacterial products are in the range of 50 to 100 MW.

If you read some of the scientific papers behind Amsilk (not the advertising hype, the Science) you will discover that they had to enhance and tailor the metabolic pathways of their bacteria to be able to produce proteins similar to spidroin.

The best results as reported in these papers are a bacteria that can produce a protein similar to a fragment of spidroin up to 250 -> 450 base pairs long, approximately 1/10th the MW of true spidroin.

Since it is a very reasonable assumption that in such polymers fiber strength is proportional to MW (true for Kevlar, Spectra, nylon , all other such known) It can be assumed that the Strongest possible fiber that can be produced from such goo, "...depending on the conquest of spinning" as you so positively "spin" 5 years of failures by Amsilk, will still have only a fraction of the strength of real spider silk.

The silk worm, Bombyx mori, on the other hand is a large complex multicellular creature with 60% of its total body weight devoted to spinning silk.
Bombyx mori IS capable of producing the very high MW proteins of spider drag line silk and in fact has been altered by KBLB to do just that!
(And then it spins it into fiber for us!)

Mike L.