Replies to post #48029 on Cytogenix (fka CYGX)

[bigworld]

Paulness: Show me any material put out by the company, in any SEC filing, any PR, or any of Malcolm's interviews where it was mentioned that they were working on a method to produce synthetic or enzymatically produced DNA. What happened was that the company realized (but didn't publicize) the fact that traditional fermented DNA was too expensive and made ssDNA and other DNA based therapeutics too expensive to be economically viable. First, the cost of product to test was too expensive. Second, even if approved the cost of the drug would be too expensive. Perhaps stumbled is a bit too harsh. But the development of synDNA was certainly the byproduct of economic necessity and a fortuitous example of scientific serendipity. And no, I haven't sold a single share (much to my chagrin) and still hold approximately $100 K worth of this company at current prices. And it would be no problem to accumulate this stock at current prices. I perceive no buying pressure in this stock at the present time. I'm more worried about a further drop in the share price, not about an inability to buy more shares. Sometimes I think your love affair with the company detracts from your abilities to think rationally.

[nc4s]

Whether synDNA was stumbled on or not doesn't matter. Nylon was stumbled on, Scotch Tape was an attempt to improve sandpaper, two brothers named Johnson came up with some underweight bars of soap when they whipped in a bit too much air ( they were about 99 and 44 hundredths percent OK though), some guys named Wrigley and a failed Mexican dictator were trying to replace rubber couldn't vulcanize it and decided to chew up what was left and a fellow named Sutter was just having a big ditch dug. Some Italian guy named Chris something? Stallone, no, uh, oh, never mind....