Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Gaboy47, no, I cannot do any better than that. When I first began following this stock, I did not know that RECAF could not give the location of the stock. I have never had any self-serving strategy with this stock. As far as you or anyone else is concerned, you can buy or sell or whatever you want to do with this stock. It doesn't matter one iota to me. kag
Mata Hari, Yes, you are correct, back in 2006 I was optimistic about BioCurex's prospects right up to the time when I learned that a RECAF test does not give the location of the cancer. The next fly in the ointment for me was a May 16, 2006 BioCurex press release that stated:
“But, if we did sequential blood tests on each person and assuming their RECAF value is rather constant over time, then a small change in the level of circulating RECAF would detect cancer at the earliest stages. We do not know yet if the normal RECAF concentration is constant enough to make this personalization possible.”
So, Mata Hari, early on, when I thought BioCurex was a possible good investment, I posted that. Later, around mid 2006, I began posting my concerns. So far, for me, those concerns are still valid. kag
Gaboy47, do you read my posts? "Never add to a losing position" was not my investment advice. It is the advice of successful investors. Just Google what is in quotes above and see how many different, independent sources give that same investment advice. kag
Half Full, on never adding to a losing position, you are disagreeing with investment experts, not me. But you have the right to do whatever you want to with your own money. kag
Gaboy47, first, let's get a couple things correct. I do not call other people idiots and never adding to a losing position is advocated by a huge number of investment experts. Do a Goggle search using the words "Never add to a losing position" and see for yourself how many hits you get. Here is one, and the link. kag
"1. Never, Ever, Ever, Under Any Circumstance, Add to a Losing Position… not ever, not never! Adding to losing positions is trading’s carcinogen; it is trading’s driving while intoxicated. It will lead to ruin. Count on it!"
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/category/trading_styles/
The Bocx, you posted: "Let me explain something Kag: If it is about to happen, it CANNOT be a fact... Facts cannot exist in the future."
My comment: The sentence in discussion was "It's about to get ugly for the doubters." So, according to you, a person could also say "It's about to get ugly for BioCurex shareholders." and that would not be stating an opinion as a fact. What nonsense. kag
I_invest_utrade, you posted: "You cannot point out Opportunity's opinions and not do the same for GS."
My comment: I do not recall Gold Seeker (1)complaining, over and over, about someone posting an opinion as a fact and then (2) committing the same act that he had been complaining about. That was the point of my post. kag
Opportunity Knocking, you just posted: "It's about to get ugly for the doubters."
My comment: You just posted as a fact that it is about to get ugly for the doubters. You did not say it was your opinion, you stated it as a fact. What is a fact is that no one actually knows yet if it is going to get ugly for the doubters or not. Aren't you as guilty of doing what you accuse others of doing, which is stating opinions as fact? kag
Mata Hari, you just posted: "don't you go believing anonymous posters' postings either-they may have a not so hidden agenda."
My comment: We are all anonymous posters including yourself. And, according to you, no one should believe what anyone posts. Does this also mean that your posts should be disregarded too? kag
Mara Hari, we have been told twice on this board that the SEC has notified. What are your thoughts on a possible SEC investigation into BioCurex stock trading and other matters of importance? kag
Mata Hari, yes, your shorting, manipulating, churning entity may be getting a little nervous concerning a possible SEC investigation since we have been told the SEC has been notified. kag
Mata Hari, why don't you go ahead and present your evidence that ties Abbott, Inverness, and Trinity Biotec together. kag
Mata Hari, it looks like the SEC may soon be on the trail of any illegal manipulating/shorting/churning activities and who knows what else involving this stock. It has now been confirmed twice on this board that the SEC has been alerted. kag
Half Full, an SEC investigation of this stock would be their investigation. Not yours or mine or anyone elses. We have been told on this board that the SEC has been notified. The rest is up to the SEC. kag
Half Full, you posted: Think you can be anonymous online? Most people simply have no idea how easy it is for law enforcement officials -- and other litigants, like someone suing you -- to gain access to personal email, Google searches, and other online information users think is "theirs."
My comment: Well, we have been told that the SEC has been notified, and you have pointed out that if the SEC wanted to find out who a person was, they likely could do that. kag
The author of post 22506, dated September 12, 2009, stated “I have asked the sec to look at the trading actions in this company.” Who knows, the SEC may look at several things. kag
The Bocx, you posted: "Thank you, but it is just common sense and some elementary arithmetic using the data provided by GS."
My comment: Sure it is. kag
Mata Hari, if the $350,000.00 note(s) was a done deal waiting for the closing, why not wait a few more days until it was all done, and then announce that the money to pay the agent managing the sale of BioCurex's 3 million Public Offering was in place. But that isn't what happened. Now who is going to put up that kind of money for an unsecured note or notes? kag
Nuthinbutnet57, you posted: "Not too late to make some money with this stock."
My comment: It is also not too late to lose some money with this stock. Don't you realize that BioCurex has just 19 days to raise at least $350,000.00 to avoid default on the new agreement with Smithline? This is not money going to Smithline, it goes to the agent who is managing and trying to sell the 3 million BioCurex Public Offering and to fund some working capital. kag
It should be pointed out that the $350,000.00 BioCurex must raise prior to October 1, 2009, to avoid default, is needed in order to pay the expenses associated with the $3,000,000.00 Public Offering and fund working capital. None of the $350,000.00 that BioCurex must raise prior to October 1, 2009 is scheduled to be used to reduce the Smithline debt. kag
Dakota, how can anyone say, at this point, that we will see a different run company now? That is something that time will only determine. However, one thing is already known. BioCurex management still believes it should dilute its present shareholders by 300,000 shares to pay for the coverage provided by the OTC Journal. That seems to be business as usual. kag
The OTC Journal coverage cost BioCurex 300,000 newly issued restricted shares. Below are the details and link. kag
Coverage Period: September 10, 2009 - March 10, 2010
Company Symbol: BOCX
Compensation: TGR Group LLC, an affiliate of MarketByte LLC, has been paid a fee of 300,000 newly issued restricted shares by Biocurex for coverage of the Company.
http://www.otcjournal.com/disclosure/compensation/section/profile/
BioCurex has a history of filing amended filings, but I am not aware of any being amended within two days of the original filing. The fact that today's amended 8-K gives the details of the new Smithline agreement is interesting. kag
Tommyb, you posted: "I think it's only prudent to let the smoke clear a little before investing any more money in Biocurex."
My comment: Although a person can do whatever they want with their own money, your advice is excellent. It is my opinion that investors will need to see profits before this stock does much of anything. The 1990's are gone. kag
I have a few comments on yesterday’s OTC Journal Blurp.
The OTC Journal stated: “First, most of you know how biotech works - a huge portion of a stock's gains come before the biotech company makes its first cent.”
My comment: That was generally how biotechs worked during 1990’s when the stock market was riding high. But this is 2009, and the trend for some time has been for investors to want to see the profits first before putting in their bucks.
The OTC Journal stated: “All I'm saying is with biotech, if you're not out in front, then you're automatically behind.”
My comment: If you are out in front, then your investment dollars automatically are at greater risk because the profits may never materialize.
The OTC Journal stated: “I don't know for sure what's coming next in terms of announcements, but I'm certain I'd rather wade in now between the $0.04 to $0.11 range instead of trying to chase BOCX if the next news item catapults the stock.”
My comment: There is always the possibility that there will never be any news that catapults the stock. BioCurex is not on Wall Street’s radar. If an investor follows the stock, and there is compelling news, there will always be an opportunity to jump in but then at reduced risk.
The OTC Journal stated: One of the supporting clues to the theory is today's somewhat mundane news release (below) from BioCurex. A couple of new directors were named to the board.”
My comment: I agree that BioCurex’s news release yesterday should be view as somewhat mundane. Why? Only time will tell if the two newly appointed directors make an improvement in the management of BioCurex. Also, in fairness to investors, why didn't the OTC Journal mention the Smithline loan with its lien on BioCurex's assets, and the $350,000.00 that BioCurex needs to come up with before October 1, 2009?
kag
Mata Hari, you posted: "wittenberg and moro have done an incredible job so far protecting shareholders from dilution."
My comment: I disagree. kag
Mata Hari, you just posted: "but understand why inverness looms so large: they have now purchased and are now growing a large disease management division that will use recaf in their point of care analyzer."
My comment: Please post a link or reference that factually indicates Inverness will use RECAF in their point-of-care analyzer. kag
Mara Hari, you posted: "But adoption of the Piccolo xpress hasn't happened as quickly as some analysts anticipated. General practitioners haven't been that quick to switch to point-of-care analysis."
My comment: And therein lies one of the many problems. The medical community is very slow to make changes and there are a couple of other factors at play that quickly come to mind. (1)Doctors do not like creating liability for themselves. Thus, tests are analyzed elsewhere and the results sent back. (2)In my part of the USA, there is a large regional medical center complete with its own in house lab for testing samples. The doctors in the outlying towns work for this same regional medical center and their samples are sent to the same lab for testing. There are no independent (work for themselves) primary care physicians where I live. I would guess that the same regional medical center business model exists in many other places in the USA. Thus, the change to point-of-care analysis may occur slowly if at all. The difficulties you have mentioned should be of great interest to investors interested in point-of-care technology. kag
Mata Hari, regardless of the possibilities for the current low bid, investors are not hitting the $0.069 cent ask. With silence from the company, default on the Smithline loan occurring over three months ago, and a proxy in the works for millions more authorized shares, it is understandable why investors might be a little hesitant to buy shares. Enough shareholders are already underwater. kag
Mata Hari, you posted: "our shorting/manipulating entity is shaking the tree very vigorously for shares."
My comment: Another posibility is that $0.0525 cents a share is all any investors are willing to bid this morning. kag
Gold Seeker, you posted: “The Abbott glass is totally empty.”
My comment: Given the statement "Abbott shall have no further due diligence obligations whatsoever to commercialize or perform any further Research and Development on any product" that is stated in the March 31, 2008 amendment to the Abbott license agreement, and also the fact that it is going on five years since Abbott obtained its RECAF license, it is my opinion that a wise investor would not price anything from Abbott into the value of BioCurex stock. kag
Half Full, since your previous methods have failed, it is obvious that your latest attempt to discredit posts you don't like is to use the ruse of labeling the poster as "inconsistent" or "flip flopping." Why don't you deal with your BioCurex investment based on its own merits rather than resorting to attacking other posters? The former might actually be of some benefit to you. The latter is a futile effort. kag
Mata Hari, you must be right about the churning of this stock. It is difficult to imagine any legitimate buyer hitting the ask on this stock right now. First, they don't need to, and second, with the proxy, the potential for huge dilution looms over this stock. kag
The Bocx, you posted: “We do not know how long it takes to develop that assay and therefore a wise investor could not make a decision by THEN based on the time elapsed.”
My comment: The abstract conclusions at the 2007 ISOBM states "Our future studies will focus on increasing the cancer/normal ratio to create a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay." Did you notice that it said “our future studies” as in plural or more than one study. Studies generally require some period of time. Wise investors generally don’t just sit on their thumbs. They make adjustments to their investments as required. Otherwise, they may get separated from their money. kag
The Bocx, you posted: "On the positive side, the company keeps going (against all the predictions from our resident Guru) and the technology works - perhaps the most important of the 'fundamentals' you mentioned."
My comment: How about some proof that a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay exists. That would be an important fundamental. kag
The Bocx, you posted: "How long does it take to get a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay?"
My comment: I don't know how long it takes to get a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay. What I do know is that, as of the date of the 2007 ISOBM, a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay did not exist. If one has been produced since that time, it has not been publically announced. kag
Half Full, I repeat, just man up and accept the responsibility for the shortcomings of your investment in BioCurex and stop all the other nonsense. kag
Half Full, sure you know what is going on. Like the fact that I do not trade this stock, period. Like the fact that I am not paid in any way or form for posting on this board. I post what I believe is factual about BioCurex, and I invite you to prove otherwise. Your concern about what is posted on this board is so misguided. You appear to believe that if a few of us would cease posting on this board, all of your BioCurex investment problems would go away. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perhaps it makes you feel better attack others for your lack of success with this investment. Like it has nothing to do with the basic fundamentals of BioCurex. Man up a little bit here, and accept the responsibility for the shortcomings of your own investment decisions. kag
Half Full, are you so desperate with this investment that you have to be concerned about the time of day that another person makes a post? kag
The Bocx, why don’t you relax a bit and let the basic fundamentals of BioCurex take care of your message board concerns. After all, according to your posts, BioCurex shareholders have nothing to be worried about. That is correct, isn’t it? kag