Replies to post #53336 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[bag8ger]

Worktoplay,

Enjoyable, as usual!

If you've ever seen intention clothed in fancy words so as to disguise it, and to make it appear as if its off its intended course, you will see it again in frog's response.

[frogdreaming]

Technically, in 2000 they told us they were working on classifiers with high 90's percent accuracy.

Your own references from your proposed patent says;

As shown in Table 3, the results demonstrated that a Lipitor® patient could be classified into the non-adverse response (muscle reaction) group with 96% accuracy, and that 98% of the cases (individuals who exhibited muscle reactions) were properly classified...

However the current PR says that the marker which occurs in 15 to 25 percent of the population provides a 2.5 times greater susceptibility in those that have it vs those that don't.

Furthermore they state that of all of the subjects who suffered statin-induced myalgia half of them had the marker but half of them did not.

Now we can easily see where they get the ability to predict with 96% accuracy the non-adverse reaction as that is the current statistic. Only about 5% of patients with or without the marker are subject to statin-induced myalgia.

Unfortunately there is no way the marker in the PR can support the second part of the claim. The marker is not capable of a 98% accuracy in predicting adverse reaction. No way. The best they can do is tell half of them why they might be suffering. It is not the same thing!

You can infer dates and times and try to line them up with whatever historical info you wish to trot out, but until you resolve the huge discrepencies between the "98% statnome classifier" and the new 'Marker'. The marker, while it provides a higher susceptibility, does not indicate an actual adverse reaction nor does it's absence indicate a non-adverse condition. These characteristics are certainly newsworthy and quite possibly patentable but they are in no way mistakable as a 98% classifier.

Additionally the PR does not refer to old patents they use phrases such as:

With the filing of a patent to protect this discovery, the Company will be able...

Why would they say 'will be able..' if the patent was filed over two years ago?

It has taken until now to validate the original findings, but validated they are. The Company has filed a patent to protect this process.

If the patent they are speaking of was filed over two years ago, this is at best a misleading statement.

I don't know why you are insistent upon making this latest PR an example of regurgitated old news, but I think you are mistaken.

regards,
frog