Replies to post #35201 on Kraig Biocraft Laboratories Inc (KBLB)

[manshoon1]

Greg, the company will not publish or release results pertaining to the tests of their silks, UNTIL the scientists publish to a scientific journal.

This is why I have made a point to question the absence of a journal publication, not saying it is faudulent, but that it keeps the company silent about silk performance.

It is specifically written in the nd/kblb agreement that the scientists publish..... If Kim were to release info related to the silk, then the journal would not publish the scientists submittal as it would not be newsworthy....since Kim would have already reported on it.

additionally, there is a bit of a question regarding "monster hybrid"
In the PR Kim says monster hybrid is significantly stronger than the original commercial strain
was kim talking about:
monster silk the commercial strain
or
the commercial sized NON TRANSGENIC

Given that uncertainty, we dont know whether monster hybrid is stronger than monster silk. We do know monster silk was cross bred with a large worm.. so using common sense it would seem it would not be, but I might be wrong of course.

[first mike]

There are no such links.
The information and the name of the testing lab were never divulged by KBLB. They do not want to give such detailed information to competitors.
Even if you knew who to ask, that testing facility would never even admit to having made the tests nor anything else about the silk or KBLB.
They are certain to have signed a nondisclosure agreement and if they talked they would be in violation of both criminal and civil law.

Mike L.

[ZincFinger]

IMHO that's a good question to submit to the CC.

From what I've seen it appears to be a fairly common practice to quote only selected information from such testing (check a few other companies websites). There are a number of possible reasons, some innocent, some not:

A company may want to emphasize it's strengths and not get attention diverted to characteristics that may not be very relevant to its intended commercial uses (such independent testing often comes in standard panels which list a lot of qualities. [[Note that research is heavily directed toward improving commercially relevant properties so results on non relevant properties are generally not so good]] Quoting a singe very important and good figure has a more powerful impact than the same figure lost among a dozen or so other figures which may all be not nearly so good but of little commercial significance to the product in question.

OTOH, there could be other figures which ARE relevant and which are "other than good".

What it boils down to is that you can trust the figures given (very few CEOs would be so extraordinarily stupid as to publish false data!). But you have to trust the company insofar as what may NOT have been given. As explained above, the lack of inclusion of other figures in and of itself does not indicate a problem And given the way that most companies post their data (I havent' seen any that post a full report) that's probably an inescapable reality.

The hardest part of investing is dealing with what is NOT said! That's where the real and unavoidable uncertainty comes in.

Note that for things like "feel" and "texture" (which are where some of Monster Silk's most remarkable properties apparently were and are some of the most important for the silk garments and accessories market) there are no (AKAIK) objective measures. We'd have to wait for the customers to rule on that one.