I'm not forgetting anything.
Perhaps you are forgetting how many parties consider DNAPrint Genomics and its technologies in a very favorable light.
No one is suggesting that the science isn't interesting. It was interesting when they bought it lock stock and barrel from the assistant professor who invented it. That isn't the issue.
Perhaps you are forgetting that this is an investment, not a science club. It doesn't make any difference whether the science is interesting or 'cutting edge' if it has NO ECONOMIC VALUE.
The science has always been worthy of discussion, there has never been a hint of impropriety associated with the inventor. Nevertheless the attempt to package the thing up as a front for something else was always something of a mess.
From day one the costs associated with the processing of the kits exceeded the total sale price, without even considering the mark-up of the reseller. It was never a viable consumer product, not to anyone with any business savvy. Moving forward with it was an obvious ploy. Even at the time when there were questions about the viability, they were shrugged of with 'economy of scale' arguments. Arguments that, in the current situation, now seem absurd. What economy of scale benefits do you suppose are being realized with a single technician and a broken lab?
It is not possible to suppose that the credibility of the company can be built on the credibility of the science. It doesn't work. They are two completely separate and individual concepts. The science is real and interesting. Unfortunately it is economically worthless. It's only value is to provide an effective smokescreen for the bait and switch tactics observed here. Your own attempts to justify the actions of the company based on your findings in regard to the science are a testament to how effective a tactic it has been.
regards,
frog
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
