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.
mysscat: 16k traded...who cares.
half-full: he is Kuwaiti
half-full: my guess is that he has a fixation with the SEC because he comes from a part of the world where totalitarianism and secret police are the norm, and due process is non-existant.
good-pal: if the late stage data comes in weak, the LAST thing you should be worrying about is an SEC investigation. This stock will become worthless faster than you can blink.
PS: according to my securities lawyer the matter you are describing would be a shareholder claim, not an SEC claim.
but of course he'd say that right? he makes a living off of shareholder claims!!!! :)
like i've said before i've used this firm on consignment before, and I doubt they'd be willing to take a case against BOCX in the event of bad data because there is nothing on the balance sheet to claim.
regarding the lung cancer study i just posted (which I hope everyone has already read many times over and is not seeing it for the first time now), it is clear that the procedures and statistical methods used to come up with the results are SOUND. the only question marks are with regard to the SAMPLE SET itself..for example:
1) they say "there was no comparison with samples from patients with other pulmonary diseases" (question: is it a truly representative sample?)
2) they do not say where and how they obtained the samples (question: is it a truly blind sample?)
NOW...if I read that study on it's own, with BOCX having ZERO CREDIBILITY, I would say: "looks very good, but there are a lot of questions"
BUT...with Abbott having completed blind sample verification, I can be much more confident in the data believing that Abbott's due diligene process is truly blind and representative. Clearly, though, there are no certainties unless something is actually PUBLISHED that convinces the shareholders and the market that RECAF performs well on a large, blind, and representative sample.
toothsaver: if he works in blood diagnostics, if it is not too much to ask please have him do some basic due diligence on RECAF to let us know what he thinks. not for the purpose of a roche contract (obviously), but just so that we can get his take on it.
Please have him read these two files:
1) SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF RECAF:
http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/pdf/review.pdf
2) BOCX'S LUNG CANCER DETECTION STUDY: (published in response to the SEC)
http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/pdf/BioCurex-Lung-Explanation.pdf
are you kidding? even if BOCX reports 5% accuracy in large sample trials the SEC would do nothing. that kind of stuff happens all the time...a company will see extraordinary preliminary results that are not replicated on a larger sample.
now, the share price will crash and their is always potential for shareholder suits, but the SEC has no basis for charges unless they find malfeasance in the original data sets. that development is totally independant of any results obtained from large sample testing. LMAO...if the SEC charged every company who's late stage data didn't match up with their early stage data, we'd have to increase their budget by a factor of a 100!!!
good-pal...congratulations...you've really outdone yourself as far as ludicrous commentary.
toothsaver: does he work in the diagnostics division?
The question is can we get high accuracy with the 95% cutoff we've been using. THAT is the remarkable part about the data. Anybody can adjust the cutoff curve down and get 80 - 90%, but we've been doing it while achieving only 1 out of 20 false positives.
This really works in our favor when considering the possibility that certain "bugs" could come up in large sample RECAF testing (ie: it picks up on certain other diseases and conditions). Since we have achieved the incredible results with such a high cutoff, we have a TON of leeway to adjust our specificity/sensitivity curve down to absorb any "bugs" with false positives.
what we need to see is ABBOTT make some moves. they have had RECAF in their labs for around 7 months now. when will they go public with something? (other than the email to HALF_FULL or Headache or whoever it was)
the problem with the 510k process is that all testing, etc is done out of the public view and the application is simply submitted to the FDA. so, we may not hear much from abbott until they actually file the 510k. for those indications that a PMA will be required, we can expect dockets to be posted at clinicaltrials.gov so we will definitely know when they start recruitment/enrollment.
obviously, one would expect them to initiate some sort of medical PR campaign before product launch -- ie; peer reviewed publishing, the conference circuit, etc. but they may choose to do this AFTER fda approval, or during the 510k review period. all of that is up to Abbott, not BioCurex...which is kind of a pain in the a**.
toothsaver: that's what i'm hoping as well, but we have zero data published to date on the imaging and little information regarding it. a blockbuster announcement on that front would be much appreciated, although i hope there are no blockbuster announcements until after we got off of the pink sheets.
unfortunately the company doesn't have much of a choice...a material development is a material development and per reg fd must be reported immediately.
PS those of you who keep posting news of other cancer markers...I hope you realize that this news is good for BOCX, not bad. Without a host of cancer-specific tests, RECAF has little value in the marketplace.
lmao good point good-pal....the company is obviously liberal with their definition of "independant" -- I won't be totally satisfied until I see Abbott get behind some data.
good-pal: the reason why management has not YET isolated problems with RECAF is that they simply do not have a large body of data. the primary risk with BOCX is that large sample studies reveal "deal breaking" problems with RECAF's commercial viability.
now...something that adds confidence is the fact that abbott has already gone through the blind sample verification process. i posted many months ago on RB a discussion i had on the blind sample verification process with several of the lab personnel at BOCX...they said there were a very large amount of samples and it took quite a while to complete (BOCX is not exactly using ARCHITECT lol). that tells me Abbott most definitely threw in "trick" samples -- ie inflammatory diseases, benign tumor, etc. but it by no means removes the primary risk to this investment.
RECAF's ability to perform well on a large sample size is the primary risk to an investment in BOCX, which is why the share price will skyrocket once that risk is meaningfully removed. to put it another way, stop focusing on commercialization and start focusing on the DATA -- bulletproof, large sample, independant data from Abbott or somebody sponsored by Abbott. pivotal data is the big catalyst for all biotech/medical device/pharma stocks, not commercialization.
a tip: if the data is superb, and market expectations are thus raised very high, you want to sell BEFORE commercialization because you don't want to deal with the earnings game on products with lofty expectations from the market.
headache: he could be right or wrong, but you are right that he has no factual basis for his predictions, as usual.
good-pal: i'm the marty glotzer of BOCX.
good-pal: I expect ANY management team that is not taking salary to sell shares quite regularly...to cover both cost of living and the tax liabilities created by excercising nqso's.
good-pal: the reason they excercised the options was to lower their tax basis on them, since they assumed the price would be higher post abbott p.r and thus they would have a huge, immediate tax liability. you have to remember that these guys don't take a salary, yet they have immediate tax obligations when they excercise (without any offsetting income until they actually sell the shares).
so, when people whine about the officers selling shares, i wonder how else you expect them to pay the 6-figures tax liability they incur on themselves just by excercising nqso's.
good-pal: I've repeatedly said that while BOCX claims RECAF will be filed under a 510k, the decision is not theirs to make.
gaboy: this year as in 2005? I don't think so but there's a chance. Clearly, the company plans on releasing SOME KIND of data very soon as mentioned in the recent update p.r.
But I think we'll have to wait till 2006 for the big kahuna.
I'd love to see them get the ball rolling with the imaging application, and the update p.r indicates they will be.
good-pal: BOCX management has repeatedly told me that they believe the 510k process applies in this situation. I believe it is also in the 10-K they filed not too long ago. As I've posted many times, despite what BOCX says it is ABT's ultimate decision. My impression is that ABT is keeping BOCX almost entirely out of the loop, which makes total sense at this stage in the game.
My personal opinion is that a 510k will almost definitely apply for the general screening indication and certain other indications, but the FDA might ask for a PMA on indications like post-operative followup.
good-pal: although I first brought up that example I don't think it is a good parallel case to BOCX. the data released by BSM was early stage data for an indication ("tri-modal super-therapy") that is around 3 years away from FDA approval. since they are under the PMA process, the data released was not considered "pivotal"...rather, it was "preliminary" data. The Phase 3 trials currently underway for BSM are the "pivotal" trials since they are under the PMA process...if good data is released from those trials, the share price will be MANY TIMES the current level.
in BOCX's case, we are under the 510k process so any large, independant data set would be considered "pivotal"...so my point is that you have to compare apples to apples, or in this case, pivotal data to pivotal data, and BSM has not released pivotal data on their tri-modal super-therapy.
good-pal: any and all projections right now are jerk off excercises...yours, mine, half-full's, green baron's, the company's, and everyone elses.
the market is HUGE, but we do not have enough information about the data and abbott's strategy to make intelligent projections at this point.
but what the hell, it's fun to jerk off a little so leave his projections alone.
i agree good-pal...$4+ if not delisted. but don't forget that we wouldn't be able to buy shares at a laughable $30 mil market cap if we weren't delisted. the SEC created quite the investment opportunity for us, but of course it will take some time. 2006 will be nice.
i'm on vacation again...will be back next week. take it easy everybody and someone please get good-pal a stiff drink. he needs it.
gaboy: a buddy of mine who is a partner at a small fund.
gaboy...
i spent over 2 decades as a futures local and options market maker.
lol...i love it. seriously though, now i get why you continually repeat negative stuff about the company in hopes that i will debunk it and thus calm you down. LMAO!
i'm not a Moro crony or an insider. i'm just a shareholder like you, the difference between us being that i'm probably three times your age and have most likely worked on wall street longer than you've been alive.
goodman: they DEFINITELY read the message boards. there's no doubt in my mind. and yes, I think they might post from time to time but I haven't been able to figure out who it is. headache is a possibility since he recently revealed that he was canadian...lol. bruce_badeau also seemed connected, too...perhaps with the european side (george pompideu hospital?).
re investigation...i have used the term too but the fact remains that the sec never filed an investigation. the sec enforcement process is three-fold: 1) discovery 2) investigation 3) action
Step 1 is private...the SEC files nothing. For Step 2, THE SEC MUST FILE A DOCKET BY LAW. Step 3 also requires a docket to be filed.
My only point is that the SEC never got to Step 2 in their enforcement process...they simply did discovery and went away, never filing an investigation. take it or leave it. Enough on this point there's much better stuff to discuss now.
It almost seems like the P.R was directed at DC-Steve...LOL. Systematically debunks his arguments. Interesting to see what we the stock does today...my bet is nothing ;)
COME ON JP TURNER GET US OFF THE DAMN PINK SHEETS.
good-pal: SEC is required by LAW (the Securities Exchange Act) to inform the public of all investigations via dockets filed known as "Report of Investigation" dockets. There was no investigation, because no docket has ever been placed on the sec's website. BOCX is once again being loose with semantics. Once again...this isn't Kuwait. The SEC by law must inform the public of all investigations, be it "formal" or "informal."
I just hope we get off the pinks before they drop any more news. It's just a total waste.
Foam, we assumed that JPT would be the sponsor but the company never indicated as such. I don't think we can rule it out based on the lack of mention in this latest P.R -- it just makes too much sense for JPT to be the new sponsor. JPT is a NASD b/d, and more importantly they do not need the incentive of a 30-day exclusive market maker for BOCX. Their incentive to get BOCX listed is built into their investment banking relationship. Maybe there is some conflict of interest rule, but I don't think so...I'll check with my securities lawyer.
I still believe JPT will get us off of the pinks and, if they are worth a sh*t, unto the AMEX or NASDAQ. Heck, if JPT can sell a few mil shares at a $1 we have an instant AMEX listing. I'll take 10% dilution for the AMEX.
my thoughts on the update...
overall excellent release. great to finally get updated on some of these things. it's clear that the company really took their time to put this p.r together. i like the confidence and optimism oozing from the document...some random thoughts
-- "however, it is anticipated that publications by independant researchers will follow in the SHORT-TERM" ...you guys all know that is what i'm looking for. we need to start building a body of bona fide, credible documentation. glad to see the word "short-term" being used in this context.
-- they are filing a patent on imaging! awesome! they also say later in the document that they are very excited about the results they've been getting with imaging. all of this is most likely in conjunction with Goshen.
-- nice full explanation of what has been the hold up getting off of the pinks. makes total sense and explains a hell of a lot. what took them so long!!!
-- why no mention of J.P Turner in the context of helping them get off the pinks? i get the feeling that JPT will not be sponsoring them even though they're a b/d!! i don't understand that at all. it seems they would have said so if they were banking on JPT as the new sponsor.
-- under the "investment banking" section, i would have liked the company to expand on the mysterious bomb they dropped on us re acquisitions. still a big question mark to me.
-- the "Markets" section is a pure jerk off session...just cracks me up but fun nonetheless.
-- (for goodman) the company references an SEC "investigation" ensuing after the halt...they are, once again, being loose with their semantics . the SEC did "discovery" and no more -- an investigation would have been the next step but that step was never reached. pursuant to the securities and exchange act, the public must be notified of all SEC investigations in the form of dockets filed by the SEC known as "Report of Investigation" dockets. the SEC never opened an investigation, because no docket was filed. they filed one for the trading suspension, but no "Report of Investigation" was ever filed. they performed discovery and were OBVIOUSLY SATISFIED.
BOCX Update:
BioCurex Update
RICHMOND, British Columbia - October 6th, 2005
As a result of frequent discussions with shareholders, the Company wishes to update investors and interested others on several specific issues of importance:
The current state of our technology.
The size and scope of our targeted markets.
A discussion of our financing procedures.
Pink Sheets and alternative listing
Investor Relations
Investment Banking
Our Conclusions
RECAF Technology:
The RECAF technology has been developed in formats for tissue testing and for blood tests to date. We have focused the corporate efforts towards licensing of the technology rather than continued supportive and validating testing at other facilities for many reasons. For example, the current version of our RECAF blood test uses a trace amount of radioactivity (RIA). Current security regulations make it much easier to test blind serum samples in our facility rather than shipping out the kits containing radioactivity to different locations. Due to the workload that this procedure represents, we have given priority to companies interested in licensing the technology rather than scientists interested in publishing results since the major biopharma companies invariably do their own technical due diligence and do not rely significantly upon other data. However, it is anticipated that publications by independent researchers will follow in the short term.
We have been asked frequently about the progress of our major licensee. Confidentiality terms preclude us from making any specific comments at this time. We cannot speculate about launching dates, milestone dates or values. Nothing has changed since we signed the agreement with the exception of the work which is advancing. In the most general terms, we are very pleased with the way things are moving along.
BioCurex is not only based upon a blood test for cancer detection. It is based on the many applications of the cancer marker RECAF, of which blood testing is only one. That is a main component of our strength because it minimizes the risk of having a one-technology/product company even though each application is very large.
As we mentioned in previous communications, our strategy is to focus on the development of an application of our technology to the point of ‘proof of concept’; then demonstrate it to possible licensees. Further, as we subsequently undergo the licensing efforts for that technology (as we are doing with the blood tests), we start working on the next RECAF application. In the past few months, we have made substantial progress towards the clinical work previously announced (imaging and therapy). The results will be the subject of a new patent application and therefore, for the time being, we cannot disclose our findings.
Markets:
The following are market estimates based on information from Kalorama Information, statistics from the American Cancer Society, and the results we published in the peer reviewed journal IVDT:
(i) The PSA (a marker for prostate tumors) market is approximately $450M per year.
(ii) RECAF may be used in conjunction with PSA (men), but since RECAF also works in women for other types of cancers, the number of potential users (and market size) therefore doubles.
(iii) Our studies indicate that RECAF can detect most types of cancer, including breast and lung cancers. Whereas in the USA 230,000 new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed per year, the number for lung and breast cancers is 390,000.
All of the above suggests a potential RECAF market size in excess of $1B/year. Even assuming a modest albeit typical 10% royalty, this would represent $100M/year in licensing fees without commercialization or manufacturing costs. Considering a 15% profit over gross sales, $100M in royalties would be the equivalent to gross sales of $650M/year, without the liabilities and investment involved in manufacturing and selling a product.
It is uncertain at this time what percentage of that market potential will be achieved by BioCurex - Therefore, this analysis should NOT be construed in any way as a revenue projection and should not be considered in the decision to buy or sale shares of the company.
Financing:
Since early 2003, when new management took over, we have financed the company at the required levels by selling restricted stock at a limited discount to the market. It is doubtful that we would have been able to secure a PIPE or other similar financing instrument in exchange for 12 month restricted stock at a limited discount. We have also avoided any toxic financings. Therefore, the effort has been successful in minimizing dilution while providing necessary funds for corporate development.
This micro-financing practice has served us well: We have become ‘meaner and leaner’ and we have avoided the usual financing cycles that go from the wasteful euphoria when funds are secured; to the weak negotiation position when funds are short and desperation sets in.
We have been able to develop a technology that we have licensed to Abbott Labs and advance a great deal on other technical fronts. In the past 2 years, contrary to the occasional commentary that the company may be under-funded, we have not once had any difficulty in meeting our obligations.
Pink Sheets:
In April 2004, the SEC imposed a 10-day trading suspension on BOCX. The ensuing investigation resulted in no further action to date. The Company and its Management fully cooperated with the investigation while maintaining our position that we had done nothing wrong as was clearly expressed in the press releases following the suspension.
A suspension for longer than 4 trading sessions results in an automatic delisting from the OTC:Bulletin Board. Re-listing requires a dealer/broker to ‘sponsor’ the company and that, in turn, demands the pertinent due diligence which is more demanding when there has been a trading suspension. The broker/dealer must demonstrate to the NASD that they know the case in depth and they have to make sure that there are no irregularities in the company. In exchange for their efforts, the sponsor becomes the only market maker allowed to make a market in the stock for one month. Many consider that fact as a very small incentive compared to the amount of work required, and this makes the process of obtaining a sponsor more difficult. That is also why we do not approach more than one broker/dealer at a time.
When the NASD receives a request from one of its members to re-list a company, it makes sure that the sponsor has done its due diligence by providing a number of questions to the sponsor. The broker/dealer might then realize that it is too onerous a process to follow, and choose to withdraw the request, as has happened in the past. However, in that case, even though the questions were directed to the sponsor, many of them required input from us. Thus, we have responded directly to the NASD regarding all the questions that have pertained to the company in order to minimize the number of further questions asked to another sponsor. It must be stressed, however, that only a sponsor can obtain a listing.
We shall continue this process as many times as it takes, as there is more involved here than just a ‘better exchange’ for trading our shares. There is the vindication aspect that we feel out company, our management team and our shareholders justly deserve.
Investment Banking
We have recently selected JP Turner and Company for their assistance in introducing BioCurex to an advanced level of the financial community. We are pleased to have a national firm represent us to their own associates as well as to other firms. We anticipate many direct and indirect advantages of the relationship due to their wide ranging contacts and support of our many efforts detailed above.
Investor Relations companies:
We have hired IR companies for two reasons: One is to help with the numerous calls we have received, in particular, following significant announcements. The other reason is to spread the news of what we are accomplishing to a wider audience. We believe our technology is significant and will eventually touch the life of many people that will be diagnosed with cancer. We have been judicious in the amounts spent and in those cases in which we have used shares to pay for their services, the end result has generally been positive. We are aware that the most effective way to obtain a proper representative valuation of the company is to expose the company to a greater number of investors.
Conclusion:
In the past 5 years, BioCurex has spent an aggregated amount of slightly over $7M. Part of that relates to the expenses for financial statement purposes, of the 'cost' of stock, options and warrants we have issued for services rather than actual cash used for operations. We believe that we have been frugal and effective in managing funds as well as creative in the ways we have financed the company while keeping the number of shares at a reasonable value, especially if one considers that a great deal of the financing had to be done between 10c and 20c per share at one point in time. We have solid support from long term investors. With that relatively small amount of money, spent over several years, we have been able to develop technology that has been licensed by one of the largest diagnostic companies in the world.
We are also at different stages of the process with a number of other companies, some of them equally large, some smaller. Given the semi-exclusive nature of the original licensing agreement, we must be careful in our selection and think long term. We are also advancing in the development of the basis for other applications in the areas of tumor imaging and cancer therapy and we are finding promising results, which we shall release in due course.
Since new management took over – two and a half years ago - we have delivered on what we have promised - and that includes a new way to detect cancer - despite very difficult times for small cap companies and an arguably unwarranted SEC suspension. In those two and a half years, the value of BioCurex has increased by approximately 2,500%. We have vowed to have the company's shares traded on a better exchange, with recent steps supportive of that goal. Whatever it takes, we will continue to do what is in our power to succeed; that is why, at a considerable expense, we keep the company fully reporting in its financials.
We anticipate a continued expansion in our company due, in part, to the preliminary results that we are obtaining with other applications and we are positioning the company accordingly from a financial point of view. As we have done in the past, we shall continue our efforts to best manage the interests of our shareholders.
Foam, I concur...that is just AWESOME
goodman: congrats for finding the ONE AND ONLY regulatory action ever taken by the SEC against BOCX: a trading halt. I guess even you can learn, too.
(PS: the language you capitalized regarding "brokers, etc should consider the foregoing" is STANDARD SEC LANGUAGE that is included in all trading halt notices on sec.gov).
pink sheet listing = 100% NASD, and has nothing to do with the SEC. In fact, it was the NASD rule that delisted BOCX to the pinks. But whatever floats your boat....boy is it amateur hour in here.
lol...
lol you still don't get it do you: the SEC will never come out and say "WE ARE NOT GOING TO INVESTIGATE BOCX"...it doesn't work like that! if they ever initiate an investigation -- be it "formal" or "informal" (the SEC classifies them as such) -- we will know about it. but it doesn't work the other way around.
given your confused interpretation of the facts, you will forever be nervous about the "SEC issue". answer this question...just what are you looking for to confirm that the "SEC issue" is resolved? please answer that.
are you looking for the SEC to inform us that they have dropped an investigation that never existed? LMAO.
if BOCX gets off the pinks, will that mean to you that "SEC issue" has been resolved? LMAO again. That is an NASD issue and the SEC has zero involvement in that.
so...just what will confirm to you that the "SEC issue" has been resolved? I'm waiting...