frog,
I truly am disappointed. You suggest that the opening I gave you to discuss Genaissance was all you needed to launch in to a teaching situation that would be informative to us DNAP longs, but, instead, you seek to convince us of your experience as one conversant with tne nexus between the health care industry and government.
While I personally find that commendable, I am not surprised that you play a role in the healthcare industry which in someway gives you and interest in observing and making comment on what it is that DNAP does.
As for the "slithering", I am becoming convinced that you and yours are in competition with DNAP, and that your effort to teach us has been all along an effort to gain our trust, which I have read on this board is one of the assumptions of character a good basher makes.
You know, I even wondered if you really emailed all those questions to DNAP--that was just now, not at the time. At the time you had my complete trust.
Surely you must know that most , if not all, of the influence peddling between industry and the FDA takes place at the very highest of stations. That is if you can believe what you see on TV.
So I can see "amusing" grins spreading across the faces of underlings whose honesty is depended upon by the agencies involved, for it is they who come into contact with the gullible public. It is they who build up trust. It is only when persons such as the one who blew the whistle on tobacco, and now the drug industry come along, that the dishonest higher-ups regret having solicited such honest people as employees.
That you are with a company which has significant clout partly explains the ease with which you traverse the system.
On the other hand, poor lil ole DNAP, totally cloutless, unless someone up there recognizes that their continued inventiveness will be useful to humanity, thus constituting clout, the odds that DNAP will be awarded patents for their discoveries, are not what I consider warm and fuzzy.
Now, let's hear about Genaissance.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
