Replies to post #16222 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[carter]

I disagree with the notion that drug classifiers cannot make alot of money. I do agree that the revenue from a single classifier test (done once per Pt) cannot compare to the huge $$ from someone using your product multiple times/day for months or years like drugs. However, the amount of pts who could benefit from the classifier is huge. In the outpatient setting, imagine a $100 test that could choose the best HTN med for an individual Pt. Another that could do the same for Statins. Ins would likely cover it if costs are not too outrageous b/c it 'll save them alot of money realted to trial and error and decreased future events related to side effects and poor outcomes. These tests, if proven beyond a doubt, could become the standard of care

[carter]

Forgot to add that IF DnaPrint gets the necessary patents to protect their technique and is successful in the first several classifiers (they need this to get more funding), they could make classifiers for just about evry CV, chemo, allergy, reflux, asthma, pain, anti-inflammatory cuurently on the market over the next several years unless someone else finds a way to do it another way. Likely competitors would be Big Pharma (who has no real incentive to compete). Being a pioneer is fraught with difficulties but the rewards are massive.

Go ahead and become a drug company but first things first.

[novicetx]

I got the impression from talking with Tony at the conference in Austin that they were more likely to "tweak" drugs to come up with something more effective or to eliminate side effects or to work with/buy companies that have drugs already in the pipeline. Grateful, was this your impression also?

[retired investor]

i agree it raises many questions.

<<As you have mentioned the drug companies are not necessarily interested in supporting such a niche.

On the other hand, a side benefit of the effort to create a classifier also renders other information. Information that can, if discovered early in the development process, actually influence the eventual drug. Perhaps making it more 'universal' in scope or conversely, more finely targeted to a specific trait or population group. While this is a beneficial outcome to the patients and the industry, it does not necessarily have a viable business application. It is obvious that while such a service would be beneficial to a drug manufacturer, if there is no associated classifier there will be no revenue stream for DNAP.>>

frog, i think this is the crux of what tony is inferring about the classifiers not being where the big money maker is; but his goal is to use his knowledge of this to develop his own drugs with classifiers, and not simply to help big pharma either to make more money or find out how to keep the status quo.

i don't have any real idea or knowledge how the collaboration with moffit will pan out, or where the money making opportunities from it will be for dnap. perhaps in the long run just the knowledge and insight they gain for their use in developing their own drugs from all the research being done. with my limited knowledge in this field i have to be content on my basic belief of what tony is trying to do, and wait for him to succeed or fail. there is so much speculation here about what is happening and what dnap should be doing which is interesting; but, i'm basically waiting for pr's from the co to let me know what progress is being made. as i stated in a previous post, i went to the mtg, to see and hear in person the people involved; what they had to say and their tone and demeanor. in that regard i was satified. i tried to relate some things that were said, but don't want to pretend that i have some deep knowledge of the science and what they are trying to do. hope this helps.

[worktoplay]

frog...Tony believes that the BIG money is in becoming a pharmaceutical themselves. Bear in mind that their business model for the Ovanome classifier alone, anticipates generating peak year income of $16 million, and to continue at that pace for several years. His point, though, is that that sum pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions or billions that could be made with laser guided drugs.

Secondly, you said:

On the other hand, a side benefit of the effort to create a classifier also renders other information. Information that can, if discovered early in the development process, actually influence the eventual drug. Perhaps making it more 'universal' in scope or conversely, more finely targeted to a specific trait or population group. While this is a beneficial outcome to the patients and the industry, it does not necessarily have a viable business application. It is obvious that while such a service would be beneficial to a drug manufacturer, if there is no associated classifier there will be no revenue stream for DNAP.

I would point out that in order to market a drug that is "finely targeted" to a specific trait or population group, you will absolutely need the classifier to identify the patient (target) from amongst the general population. In fact, the classifier would have to be a part of the FDA submission for approval to market the drug.

Later,
W2P