What I was referring to was back when Dr Kaplan had just been appointed to the board. I think that someone here (not you) suggested that people here email him with questions about the science. If I get time I may go back and check but there was a very large amount of traffic on the board at the time and it would take a lot of time to cover the several weeks involved.
I'm not sure that would be worth it.
The real point is that it was an excessive amount of inappropriate emails that drove Dr Kaplan to withdraw from the board. That clearly puts KBLB in a very awkward position as to how to handle it. Since the reason for his withdrawal was publicity it would be reasonable to hope that he might return when things became less controversial (as they IMHO most definitely will when and if pure spider silk has been achieved) or even serve now in an informal basis (instead of being on a retainer, get paid on a per consult basis meaning he's not technically "on the board" and doesn't have to be listed). In such a case a PR would be impossible to do with real accuracy without severely exacerbating the problem that drove Dr. Kaplan to withdraw in the first place.
The company has already communicated to the board what the real nature of the problem is. If anyone doubts that they should contact the KBLB's PR person, Ben Hansel and NO ONE ELSE. It would be stupendously inappropriate for anyone to email Dr. Kaplan anymore and IMHO would indicate a flagrant disregard for the welfare of KBLB if not worse.
When you say "other board" that's the same other board and the same poster that was saying that I've been here "pumping" since Sep and Oct 2010? I WISH! I could have bought shares much cheaper back then than the 10 cents I got in at. If I'm not mistaken the same "calculation" was posted here and thoroughly discredited/debunked.
The ludicrously low valuation on the patent with the correspondingly ludicrously low valuation on the shares given for it are a standard legal gambit (I suspect a tax dodge) and have no relationship whatsoever to the real valuation of either. This is like "boilerplate". You have to learn to not get freaked out by such things if you want to invest in biotechs.
I'm sure the reason Kim didn't "just loan the company the (up to) 1.5 million" is that he would have had to sell $1.5 million worth of his own shares to do that. How would the market interpret THAT?!! "CEO dumps $1.5 million of his stock in the company" It would indicate that he thinks the interest on the loan is more that the SP would gain before it's repaid. In essence he would be (presuming the company was successful) just giving a lot of his gains to shareholders. That suggestion just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever IMHO and to me suggests that you may be allowing your emotions to skew your thinking.
How do you know that the patent "doesn't even exist". IMHO that's one of the most implausible claims I've seen here yet. It can be difficult to trace what the patent is if you only know a past assignee, and don't know the number, inventor, title, or even the subject or even whether it's been granted or is just an application. It's quite possible, for example, that *at*that*time* Kim had a patent application in for something related to using the silkworm as a production platform for spider silk and then later it because evident that that patent was superfluous once KBLB gained rights to the piggyBac use in the silkworm, the rights to 200 spider genes and eventually the exclusive rights to the use of zinc fingers in silkworms. (and note that THOSE rights (exclusive use of ZFs in silkworms) are what the platform worm is all about!! <<<HIGHY SIGNIFICANT!!!! IMHO that patent may have been pending and dropped because the exclusive rights to ZFs in silkworms include it and much much more. Why not ask Ben Hansel if this concerns you so much?
It is always risky to draw conclusions from the absence of something without first thoroughly checking for good explanations OR HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING WHATSOEVER FROM THE RECENT INCIDENT WITH THE ABSENCE OF A SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR?!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
