Frog... Why such a limited view of possibilities...?
You said:
"Moving the forensic stuff to a microchip is an improvement in process and should increase the efficiency of the technology but it is a very limited market and will never produce significant revenue. There are a very small number of serial killers out there, that's why they are so notorious and generate such headlines."
* Good example of your limited future vision. Possibilities for DNA Witness far exceed your small market of serial killers. Try to extrapolate it to most all crimes and DNA Witness becoming a standard "field test kit" to help...immediately...eliminate suspects... Then try to extrapolate that to global sales.
As far as "never produce significant revenues"...please state what amount would be considered "significant revenues" so we have a baseline for discussion and state your projections of what the market cap for DNA Witness will be so we can look back to see...and remember..."never" is a loooong time.
"Ovanome and Statnome are STILL in development, regardless of all the speculation that they are imminent. They have not even entered clinical trials yet..."
* Frog..you are either seriously misinformed or intentionally distorting. Please re-read Richard's comments:
"We are working on our first pharmacogenomic product (our first target is Taxol), in conjunction with the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, and should be able to predict, with 95% accuracy, whether or not a cancer patient responds to a particular medication.
* Hard for me to imagine that you don't make the connection that Moffitt DOES clinical trials and DNAP IS working with Moffitt in 5 cancer researh areas which already are or will be clinical trials. This current Ovanome/Taxol research IS clinical trials. Do you not remember the Moffitt PR stating DNAP and Moffitt are working on the Xelox/Xeliri clinical trials as well?
Why would you say they are not...? Agenda...or simply misinformed with very poor DD on DNAP?
You also said: "in fact they do not yet meet their own design requirements according to Gabriel."
Nice but inaccurate twist suggesting to mean they haven't even started clinical trials yet
If you re-read the statements, you will see Richard stating "the company's research doesn't meet the company's standards for a product" clearly indicate THE RESEARCH IS IN PROCESS...already started. At issue is high product standards for the current Ovanome clinical trial, not the design of trials yet to start...
"Although our company’s research in pharmaceutical prediction has not yet met our company’s standards for a product launch nor our internal FDA standards for discussions with the U.S. government, we are highly encouraged by our discoveries, as are the doctors and scientists at Moffitt and their patients with whom we have talked."
* Not yet meeting the "company's standards" is not a bad thing BTW...it's called quality control...just as they did substantial validation work on Retinome to insure it's high percentage of accuracy..and with FDA approvals looming in the near future, it's nice to be extra careful and hold to gold standards for our products. Richard and the DNAP team clearly want a 95% accuracy or higher for Ovanome.
"DNAP has 'successfully accomplished' nothing of significance since it's founding. While there are still vast and unfulfilled promises in abundance, there are no accomplishments yet."
DNAP's innovative discoveries in molecular genetics have produced many "historic first-of-it's kind" products revolutionary "accomplishments"...discoveries that are changing biology textbooks. DNAP's discovery of markers for complex physical traits like eye color is unsurpassed as of yet by any other company, big or little.
Maybe you devalue the discoveries of the most important ancestry markers on the human genome as insignificant...and it seems you totally discount DNAP's innovative products and other patent-pending discoveries. Moffitt, Dr. Paul McKeigue, The New Scotland Yard, FBI and others cleary see what DNAP has.
Or maybe you truly do not understand the science of molecular genetics to accurately place DNAP in proper perspective...or maybe it's that agenda thing again...?
"I'll take real innovative products producing real multi-stream revenues with potential global sales any day myself.....where are they?"
* AncestryByDNA, Euro DNA 1.0, DNA Witness, Retinome, genotyping services, etc... Small but steady revenue streams for DNAP. But you know this. You know DNAP is making money. It's almost sad to see you make such obviously absurd statements to the contrary...they have a twinge of you desperately running out of FUD stuff to say.
"The doctors and research scientists at Moffit have so far said nothing about DNAP's discoveries, apart from the blurb from the initial PR which must be taken with the grain of salt that should accompany every press release."
* Granted...you are right..it's Richard's take on things based on his conversations with the doctors and patients in the clinical trial...and yes, it is better taken with a grain of salt...tho my point remains that I would take Richard's excitement and public comment (and lots of grains of salt) over your negative prognostications any day.
I would love, however, to hear some first hand testimonials from the "patients" just for the heck of it.
"As far as comparisons to my arguments.....perhaps you would like to submit a scenario which fits the available evidence, lord knows there's nothing else around here to talk about."
* Frog...herein lies the crux of the matter...and it's the key to the whole investment thing... Investments are about possibilities...strategies and world views. I see DNAP having these great possibilities for huge returns on my "penny stock" and that's why I invest..and you obviously don't seem to see them (or choose not to for unobvious reasons)...but yet you continue to stick around.
Begs the question over and over about your being here with such constant negativity about DNAP...
Merger's and acquisitions are still on the table, the funding is under DNAP's control, articles published, patents filed, the research continues, sales continue...all GOOD things in my investment strategies...and I think it well worth the risk of a penny.
You on the other hand seem stuck on your considerable worst-case scenarios for DNAP and I continue to question your purpose, paid or otherwise...as well as having concern for your health after all these years of you looking for the worst in DNAP...
Such constant negativity could lead you to stress and chronic heart failure and needing DNAP's Statinome. ..and that would be an interesting turn of events.
Take care of your health, Frog...lol!
God Bless,
Robert
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
