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.
blackpanther stated: "I'm sitting straight up I wonder who purchased yesterday I predict that a big order is coming thru real soon starting with at least 20mill "
Really? Are you serious? You are wondering who purchased about $15 worth of shares?
Blackpanther stated: "The FDA removed this because it is the Oracle of cancer."
Your statement is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous.
The FDA dropped DR70 from the approved device list because Radient has not paid the required yearly product approval fee. Radient did not pay for 2012 and have not paid for 2013.
Blackpantherz, I remember reading about the study done at the Univ of Birmingham. They used dr-70 and several other markers combined for colon cancer.
The result of the study proved that the combination was better than CEA alone but it was NOT a clinically useful test.
If you are attempting to say that the test was useful, I suggest you read the results of the study.
"RESULTS:
Class prediction models based on CEA, DR-70 and sCD26 produced a modest increase in detection accuracy over CEA alone, particularly for early stage cancers. The sensitivity and specificity required for a clinically useful test was not reached."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21263188
The first trade today was for less that .0001
$0.0001 750,000 OTO 09:42:47
$0.00 1,639,999 OTO 09:40:19
Dcspka, What ended up with Mayo collaborative services was not a collaboration at all. Radient just ended up buying blood samples.
If you look at the filings, you will find an actual collaborative agreement but after the initial payment by Radient, they ran out of money and never proceeded. That collaboration was to do actual clinical trials on a substitute antibody. The current antibody could no longer be purchased and Radient had a limited supply of the FDA approved antibody. There cannot be much left of the actual approved antibody but since the FDA approval no longer matters, they could be manufacturing tests in Taiwan with some other non approved antibody.
If you research the filings more, you will see the comment that the agreement with Mayo was cancelled but the documentation for the cancellation and the purchase of the blood samples was never documented with actual filings.
I do not think there would be any doubt in a jurors mind that Mac swindled investors. This is not going to be up to a judge, a jury trial was specified and granted.
Question for you dcspka,
When you read the following statement, would you think the Mayo clinic was running trials with Radient for Onko Sure?
An honest answer would be appreciated.
"TUSTIN, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 01/18/11 -- Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NYSE Amex: RPC), a US-based company specializing in the research, development, and international commercialization of In Vitro Diagnostic cancer tests, announced today progress on its clinical study with Mayo Clinic ("Mayo") for the validation of the Company's US FDA-cleared Onko-Sure® in vitro diagnostic (IVD) cancer test as a useful tool in the detection of colorectal cancer in all stages of CRC, especially early stages where effective diagnosis leads to better patient prognosis. Based on recent advancements, RPC anticipates it will complete the clinical trial with Mayo in the first quarter of 2011. "
Mayo collaborative services provided samples to Radient. That was the extent of their involvement. Radient could have gotten the samples elsewhere at a lesser price but chose Mayo so they could hype them in a press release.
There was not any leak by Mayo leading to confusion.
The following is from a press release by Radient hyping a "clinical trial" to be ongoing with the Mayo Clinic. The following is the statement for the basis of the lawsuit.
"TUSTIN, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 01/18/11 -- Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NYSE Amex: RPC), a US-based company specializing in the research, development, and international commercialization of In Vitro Diagnostic cancer tests, announced today progress on its clinical study with Mayo Clinic ("Mayo") for the validation of the Company's US FDA-cleared Onko-Sure® in vitro diagnostic (IVD) cancer test as a useful tool in the detection of colorectal cancer in all stages of CRC, especially early stages where effective diagnosis leads to better patient prognosis. Based on recent advancements, RPC anticipates it will complete the clinical trial with Mayo in the first quarter of 2011."
The reality was that the Mayo Clinic had no active participation in any study or trial with Radient and there was no clinical trials being done. It was strictly an in house study done by Radient alone. The shareholders will win this case and Mac is in trouble.
"On August 29, 2011, due to lack of funding and activity, Umesh Batia resigned as CEO and Director of Nuvax."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
The univ of Florida was obviously given some non tradable shares in Nuvax when the deal was made in 2011. No additional funding was provided by Radient in accordance with the terms so Florida cancelled the agreement.
The Univ of Florida owns the shares in Nuvax but they are non tradable so they are stuck with them. The shares in Nuvax are worthless just like Radient shares are worthless.
"In January 2011, NuVax signed four exclusive license agreements with the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (“UFRF”), for the development and marketing of a cancer therapeutic product developed by the UFRF. In July 2011, the UFRF terminated the agreements due to lack of funding."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838879/000114420412037312/v316641_10k.htm
The Univ of Florida cancelled all agreements for a lack of payment from Radient. It is in the filings.
No, the agreement with UNI put UNI in charge of getting the patent application approved. Good luck with that. Radient anticipated doing nothing more with DR70
June 2014 is the expiration of the second patent on DR70 so unless the patent office approves the current application, there will be no patents in force at that date. The agreement with UNI put them in charge of attempting to get the application approved.
The following may explain why UNI was willing to give Radient $100K for all rights to DR70 until the patents expire. As of June 2014, the last issued patent for DR70 will expire and unless Radient is successful in their patent application approved, all payments from UNI will cease at that date and UNI will be free to use DR70 with no royalty payment.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21883455/reload=0;jsessionid=m5JM7U2wJqPIhOAzf0SP.38
Two methods of screening for colon cancer.
1. Colonoscopy
2. Check the stool for the presence of blood.
The screening test referred to just tests for the presence of blood.
This has absolutely nothing to do with DR-70 or RXPC and anyone who claims it does is just attempting to fool you.
Many sales in September at less than $.0001.
$0.0001 200,000 OTO 15:42:11
$0.0001 1,000 OTO 10:32:22
$0.0001 999,999 OTO 10:32:15
$0.0001 2,000,000 OTO 10:32:07
$0.0001 230,500 OTO 09:42:56
$0.0001 1,000,000 OTO 09/20
$0.0001 1,000,000 OTO 09/20
$0.00 7,000,000 OTO 09/20
$0.0001 490,000 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 2,210,000 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 690,002 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 999,999 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 999,999 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 999,999 OTO 09/19
$0.0001 400,000 OTO 09/18
c $0.00 6,000 OTO 09/18
$0.0001 250,000 OTO 09/17
$0.0001 99,181 OTO 09/17
$0.0001 600,000 OTO 09/17
$0.0001 500,000 OTO 09/17
$0.0001 300,000 OTO 09/17
$0.0001 80,500 OTO 09/16
$0.00 800 OTO 09/16
$0.0001 1,000,000 OTO 09/16
$0.0001 750,100 OTO 09/16
$0.0001 150,000 OTO 09/16
$0.00 400,000 OTO 09/16
$0.00 1,000,000 OTO 09/16
$0.00 2,000,000 OTO 09/16
$0.00 930,000 OTO 09/16
Total Assignments: 4
Patent #:
NONE
Issue Dt:
Application #:
11811590
Filing Dt:
06/11/2007
Publication #:
20070237760
Pub Dt:
10/11/2007
Inventor:
Ricardo J. Moro
Title:
Detection and treatment of cancer
Assignment: 1
Reel/Frame:
022896/0383 Recorded: 07/01/2009 Pages: 2
Conveyance:
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
MORO, RICARDO J.
Exec Dt:
06/11/2009
Assignee:
WHISPERING OAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A BIOCUREX, INC.
7080 RIVER ROAD, SUITE 215
RICHMOND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA V6X 1X5
Correspondent:
MICHAEL LOEW
C/O CENTRECOURT ASSET MANAGEMENT
350 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
Assignment: 2
Reel/Frame:
022896/0330 Recorded: 07/01/2009 Pages: 4
Conveyance:
SECURITY AGREEMENT
Assignor:
WHISPERING OAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A BIOCUREX, INC.
Exec Dt:
06/16/2009
Assignee:
CAMOFI MASTER LDC
350 MADISON AVENUE
C/O CENTRECOURT ASSET MANAGEMENT
NEW YORK, NEW YORK USA 10017
Correspondent:
MICHAEL LOEW
C/O CENTRECOURT ASSET MANAGEMENT
350 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Assignment: 3
Reel/Frame:
030034/0160 Recorded: 03/18/2013 Pages: 2
Conveyance:
CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
WHISPERING OAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Exec Dt:
10/27/2009
Assignee:
BIOCUREX, INC
7080 RIVER ROAD, SUITE 215
RICHMOND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA V6X 1X5
Correspondent:
MILTON SPRINGUT LAW PC
75 ROCKFELLER PLAZA, 19FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019
Assignment: 4
Reel/Frame:
030038/0042 Recorded: 03/19/2013 Pages: 4
Conveyance:
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
BIOCUREX, INC.
Exec Dt:
03/15/2013
Assignees:
CAMOFI MASTER LDC
C/O CENTER COURT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
11 EAST 44TH STREET, SUITE 1600
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
CAMHZN MASTER LDC
C/O CENTER COURT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
11 EAST 44TH STREET, SUITE 1600
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
Correspondent:
SPRINGUT LAW PC
75 ROCKFELLER PLAZA, 19FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019
Total Assignments: 3
Patent #:
NONE
Issue Dt:
Application #:
13502306
Filing Dt:
04/16/2012
Publication #:
20120270238
Pub Dt:
10/25/2012
Inventors:
Ricardo J. Moro, Ralph H. Schmid
Title:
Peptides That Bind the Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) Receptor and Uses Thereof
Assignment: 1
Reel/Frame:
030031/0874 Recorded: 03/18/2013 Pages: 22
Conveyance:
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
MORO, RICARDO, DR.
Exec Dt:
10/01/2009
Assignee:
WHISPERING OAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
7080 RIVER ROAD, SUITE 215
RICHMOND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA V6X 1X5
Correspondent:
MILTON SPRINGUT
75 ROCKFELLER PLAZA, 19FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019
Assignment: 2
Reel/Frame:
030034/0160 Recorded: 03/18/2013 Pages: 2
Conveyance:
CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
WHISPERING OAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Exec Dt:
10/27/2009
Assignee:
BIOCUREX, INC
7080 RIVER ROAD, SUITE 215
RICHMOND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA V6X 1X5
Correspondent:
MILTON SPRINGUT LAW PC
75 ROCKFELLER PLAZA, 19FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019
Assignment: 3
Reel/Frame:
030038/0042 Recorded: 03/19/2013 Pages: 4
Conveyance:
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor:
BIOCUREX, INC.
Exec Dt:
03/15/2013
Assignees:
CAMOFI MASTER LDC
C/O CENTER COURT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
11 EAST 44TH STREET, SUITE 1600
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
CAMHZN MASTER LDC
C/O CENTER COURT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
11 EAST 44TH STREET, SUITE 1600
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
Correspondent:
SPRINGUT LAW PC
75 ROCKFELLER PLAZA, 19FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019
I contacted the lender who seized the assets several months ago. Nothing is left of the business. He had interest in the shell but apparently, they were not interested in paying cash for his note. The shell actually would have no value unless his note is resolved. Even if someone takes what is left of the company into bankruptcy, his note still has to be resolved.
Moro apparently made several offers to pay him in shares but he said that he was fed up with being jerked around by Moro and just took all the assets.
Their website was taken down when they closed the Pacific BioSciences lab. They also took down the "dog RECAF" site. Nothing more is going to happen with bioCurex except maybe a reverse merger of some sort with the shell.
Todays trades:
$0.0001 150,040 OTO 11:05:46
$0.0002 182,500 OTO 10:19:12
$0.0001 220 OTO 09:50:08
$0.0001 20,000 OTO 09:30:01
Lets see, 182,500 x .0002 = $36.50
That small purchase certainly does not indicate much confidence when there are 215 million shares available at that price.
Jimtash, what is it about all those false positives even at 97% that you do not understand? Why do you still think this will be a fantastic test?
Jimtash, even the combination test anticipated by GCDx does not have enough specificity to be a screening test. Using the numbers given by Gartner, even restricting the test to smokers, the national cancer seer data shows that for every 1000 tests given as a screen to smokers, 12 would actually have cancer, 1 would have cancer but not be detected. The big problem would be the 30 false positives. That is unacceptable and no approval will ever be given to a test with a ton more false positives than accurate tests. Also, if you select a higher sensitivity to include the inaccurate false negative, the specificity would plummet.
Gartner may be excited about the test because there are a ton of naive investors who would think the test would be fantastic just as you have stated. What Gartner is really excited about is the amount of money he can put in his pocket during the process.
Jimtash, Nevada is used as the headquarters of many scam companies because the require a minimal of corporate reporting.
As an example, BioCurex was headquartered in Las Vegas with a postal drop box before moving to Vancouver, the king of all scam locations.
Without even searching, I would probably be accurate if Mac's new company had a Nevada drop box. Just for fun, I looked up the address and it is indeed an address for multiple companies.
Sidedraft, when you search the FDA registered product website for DR-70, if the product weas still in the FDA database, it would give all the information on the product. Since it is not found, the information no longer exists.
It is possible for Radient to apply and again pay the initial fee to reinstate the product and plus pay all new fees along with all past fees.
Radient would be in violation of FDA rules to be manufacturing a product without a lab inspection even for overseas sales. From the agreement with UNI, IMO, Radient intends to cease all manufacturing in Tustin.
Jimtash, you are attempting to make something out of nothing. Go Daddy has a headquarters in Scottsdale. Onko Sure is a cheap go daddy website. GCDx has a cheap go daddy website. My wife also has a cheap go daddy website and it shows a Scottsdale address.
The FDA has officially dropped approval of DR-70. It has been dropped from the FDA registration database and is no longer an approved product for lack of paying the annual registration fees.
The product clearly no longer has FDA clearance.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
If you enter DR-70 in the above searchable database, nothing will be found. Previously, the database indicated that the fees were due and had not been paid. Annual registration is the method the FDA uses to pay for facility inspections for approved and cleared products and is required to maintain FDA approval of the product.
Apparently Radient does not care if DR-70 / Onko Sure is FDA approved or not.
No mention of international sales.
He did mention TWO patent applications. My guess is they are provisional because they don't cost much to file at all. They are not published so you cannot find them either.
If this test is successful at all, the FDA may step in and stop the home brew sales just like they did with OVA Sure. The problems comes from the impact of false positives. Lab Corp was selling a lot of OVA Sure test when the FDA shut them down.
They mention a 97% specificity and 92% sensitivity. 97% is still not good enough to screen with acceptable accuracy.
The latest data I found on smoking and lung cancer was 158,000 cases per year out of 17 million smokers over age 45. That would only be .9% per year. Gartner will be testing those over 50 so the 17 million number will drop. Even if it drops by 25% to 12.75 million, that would be 1.2%.
So using Gartners figures, out of 1000 tests completed, 30 would have false positives, 12 would have a positive test and actually have lung cancer. In addition, one smoker would actually have lung cancer and be given a negative for the test.
You can see that the above numbers are NOT GOOD and doctors will not like the percentages in this test. Also, when doing studies, the sensitivity and specificity are usually inflated to better sell the test.
http://www.azbio.tv/video/76134461f30e472d8f08be36f73bc095
When testing smokers over age 50, about 6
Jimtash, the test was called OVA Sure and was a combination test of 5 biomarkers and the results of each test was combined via a computer analysis to determine the results. The FDA ruled it could not be sold under "home brew" rules because it had combined test results.
LabCorp Ovarian Cancer Test Sales Illegal
Date Published: Thursday, October 9th, 2008
Laboratory Corp of America (LabCorp) is in violation of the law by selling an ovarian cancer screening test without regulatory approval, U.S. health officials said yesterday. LabCorp’s OvaSure test does not fall in a category in which it can be sold without prior clearance from the agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said.
“Because you do not have marketing clearance or approval from the FDA, marketing OvaSure is in violation of the law,” the FDA said in a September 29 letter. The FDA also told LabCorp to “take prompt action to correct these violations.” LabCorp spokesman Eric Lindblom said the company was “disappointed” by the letter. “We are currently in discussions with the FDA over the next steps and of course we share the FDA’s determination to assure patients are protected,” he said.
LabCorp began selling the OvaSure blood test in June, saying it could detect early-stage ovarian cancer in high-risk women. According to American Cancer Society estimates, over 21,000 women will be newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2008 and over 15,000 women will die from the disease. The five-year survival rate is about 92 percent if the cancer is caught before it spreads; however, only about 19 percent of cases are detected at that stage. When the cancer is discovered in advanced stages, five-year survival drops to 30 percent.
The OvaSure test was developed by researchers at Yale University and a study of high-risk and average-risk women found that OvaSure was 95 percent accurate in detecting ovarian cancer, according to LabCorp when it announced the product’s launch this June. False positives occurred in 0.6 percent of women.
Meanwhile, some doctors have reported that the OvaSure test does not have enough data behind it to support its routine use. Also, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, in a statement issued in July, said “additional research is needed to validate the test’s effectiveness before offering it to women outside of the context of a research study.”
Ovarian cancer is cancer that forms in tissues of the ovary, which is one of a pair of female reproductive glands in which the ova, or eggs, are formed. Most ovarian cancers are either ovarian epithelial carcinomas—cancer that begins in the cells on the surface of the ovary—or malignant germ cell tumors, which is cancer that begins in egg cells. In 2008 in the United States, there were an estimated 21,650 new cases of ovarian cancer and an estimated 15,520 deaths.
While, early ovarian cancer may not cause obvious symptoms, as the cancer grows, symptoms may include pressure or pain in the abdomen, pelvis, back, or legs; a swollen or bloated abdomen; nausea, indigestion, gas, constipation, or diarrhea; and feeling very tired all the time. Some less common symptoms include shortness of breath; feeling the need to urinate often; and unusual vaginal bleeding, heavy periods, or bleeding after menopause. These symptoms are often not due to cancer, but only a doctor can confirm a cancer diagnosis.
Whether another company can develop a test for fibrin degradation products has nothing to do with the FDA. The Chinese test is not FDA approved and is supposedly only sold for research.
The test that Gartner proposes to sell will also not be FDA approved. He is using the "home brew" rule where they make their own reagents.
From the statement by Gartner at the bio conference, the test will use a computer algorithm to analyze the results. In the past, the FDA has forced labs selling home brew tests to cease when they contain a computer algorithm. Algorithms are not covered in the home brew rules so if the FDA steps in, they will shut him down.
The following are the claims listed for the patent application under review.
1. A method for detecting cancer in a subject, said method comprising the steps of: obtaining a biological sample from said subject; reacting said biological sample with an antibody preparation which binds at least three antigens associated with fibrin and fibrinogen degradation products (FDP) to form antibody-FDP complexes wherein said three FDP-associated antigens are fragment D, fragment E and D-dimer; detecting said antibody-FDP complexes; and diagnosing cancer in said subject.
2. The method according to claim 1 wherein said antibody preparation additionally optionally binds to at least one of fragment Y and initial plasmin digest products (IPDP).
3. The method according to claim 1 wherein said antibody preparation is a polyclonal antibody preparation.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said method comprises an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein diagnosing step further comprises at least one additional diagnostic test.
6. A method of monitoring cancer in a patient comprising: (a) obtaining a first biological sample from said subject, said first sample collected at a first sampling time point; (b) obtaining a second biological sample from said subject, said second sample collected after said first sampling time point at a second sampling time point; (c) reacting said biological samples with an antibody preparation which binds at least three antigens associated with FDP to form antibody-FDP complexes wherein said three FDP-associated antigens are fragment D, fragment E and D-dimer; (d) detecting said antibody-FDP complexes; and (e) determining the ratio of the level of FDP in said second biological sample to the level of FDP in said first biological sample; (f) determining that cancer has progressed; and optionally repeating steps (a)-(e) with additional biological samples taken at time points after said first and said second time points.
7. The method according to claim 6 wherein said antibody preparation optionally additionally binds to at least one of fragment Y and initial plasmin digest products (IPDP).
8. The method according to claim 6 wherein said antibody preparation is a polyclonal antibody preparation.
9. The method according to claim 6 wherein said reacting and detecting steps comprise an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
10. The method according to claim 6 wherein said cancer has progressed if said ratio is greater than or equal to 1.15.
11. The method according to claim 6 wherein said cancer has regressed or is stable if said ratio is less than 1.15.
12. A kit for detecting cancer in a subject, said kit comprising: an antibody preparation which binds to at least three antigens associated with FDP wherein said three FDP-associated antigens are fragment D, fragment E and D-dimer; a detection system; and instructions for measuring said FDP and correlating the presence of said FDP with cancer.
13. The kit according to claim 12 wherein said detection system comprises a detection antibody specific for at least three antigens associated with FDP wherein said three FDP-associated antigens are fragment D, fragment E and D-dimer.
14. The kit according to claim 13 wherein said antibody preparation optionally additionally binds to at least one of fragment Y and initial plasmin digest products (IPDP).
15. The kit according to claim 12 wherein said antibody and said detection system comprise an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
The following are the claims listed for the second patent that will expire in less than 11 months.
What is claimed is:
1. A method of purifying a cancer antigen comprising:
isolating a sample which includes ring shape particle;
collecting proteins from the sample; and
contacting the collected proteins with an affinity chromatography medium specific for proteins with a dinucleotide fold.
2. A method of purifying a universal tumor marker characterized by ring shaped particles comprising:
precipitating proteins from serum, wherein the serum is prepared from a patient suffering from cancer, with about 50% (saturation) ammonium sulfate;
collecting the precipitate;
dissolving the collected precipitate in a liquid medium;
applying the dissolved precipitate to a gel filtration medium;
collecting fractions from the gel filtration medium which bind to tRNA, to form gel filtration purified material;
applying the gel filtration purified material to a calcium phosphate gel;
washing the calcium phosphate gel and gel filtration purified material to remove unbound material;
eluting material from the calcium phosphate gel;
collecting fractions from the calcium phosphate gel which bind to tRNA, to form calcium phosphate gel purified material;
binding the calcium phosphate gel purified material to a cibicron blue containing chromatography medium;
washing the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium and the calcium phosphate gel purified material to remove unbound material;
eluting material from the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium; and
collecting fractions from the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium which bind tRNA, to form universal tumor marker.
3. A method as recited in claim 2 further comprising re-precipitating proteins from the dissolved precipitate with about 50% (saturation) ammonium sulfate.
4. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the precipitate is dissolved in a buffer comprising about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide.
5. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the gel filtration medium is equilibrated with about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide.
6. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein calcium phosphate gel is equilibrated with about 25 mM potassium phosphate, pH 6.8, about 1 mM dithiothreitol and about 20% (v/v) glycerol.
7. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the calcium phosphate gel is eluted with a linear gradient from about 100 to about 150 mM potassium phosphate, pH 6.8, in about 1 mM dithiothreitol and about 20% (v/v) glycerol.
8. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium is equilibrated with about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide.
9. A method as recited in claim 2 wherein the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium is eluted with a linear gradient from about 0 to about 0.6M potassium chloride in about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide.
10. A method of purifying a universal tumor marker characterized by ring shaped particles comprising:
precipitating proteins from serum, wherein the serum is prepared from of a patient suffering from cancer, with about 50% (saturation) ammonium sulfate;
collecting the precipitate;
dissolving the collected precipitate in a buffer comprising about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide;
precipitating proteins from the dissolved precipitate with about 50% (saturation) ammonium sulfate;
collecting the precipitate;
dissolving the collected precipitate in a buffer comprising about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide;
applying the dissolved precipitate to a gel filtration medium wherein the gel filtration medium is equilibrated with about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide;
collecting fractions from the gel filtration medium which bind to tRNA, to form gel filtration purified material;
applying the gel filtration purified material to a calcium phosphate gel wherein the calcium phosphate gel is equilibrated with about 25 mM potassium phosphate, pH 6.8, about 1 mM dithiothreitol and about 20% (v/v) glycerol;
washing the calcium phosphate gel and gel filtration purified material to remove unbound material;
eluting material from the calcium phosphate gel with a linear gradient from about 100 to about 150 mM potassium phosphate, pH 6.8, in about 1 mM dithiothreitol and about 20% (v/v) glycerol;
collecting fractions from the calcium phosphate gel which bind to tRNA, to form calcium phosphate gel purified material;
binding the calcium phosphate gel purified material to a cibicron blue containing chromatography medium wherein the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium is equilibrated with about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide;
washing the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium and the calcium phosphate gel purified material to remove unbound material;
eluting material from the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium with a linear gradient from about 0 to about 0.6M potassium chloride in about 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, about 1 mM dithiothreitol, about 20% v/v glycerol and about 0.02% w/v sodium azide; and
collecting fractions from the cibicron blue containing chromatography medium which bind tRNA, to form universal tumor marker.
11. A universal tumor marker produced by the method of claim 2.
12. A universal tumor marker produced by the method of claim 10.
The following are the claims listed for the expired patent number 5,459,035.
What is claimed:
1. A method for identifying the presence of tumors in a human patient comprising:
immobilizing ringed shaped particles (RSP) from an extracellular fluid sample on a solid surface, wherein the solid surface is coated with an RSP binding agent selected from the group consisting of tRNA molecules and anti-RSP antibodies; and
assaying for RSP immobilized on the surface with a labeled binding agent selected from the group consisting of tRNA, labelled peptides and anti-RSP antibodies, wherein the amount of RSP, two standard deviations above the mean of the values obtained with normal patients is indicative of the presence of cancer.
2. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the RSP specific binding agent is immobilized on a surface selected from the group consisting of wells of microtiter plates, glass slides, beads and nitrocellulose membranes.
3. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the label is selected from the group consisting of a radioactive agent, an enzyme, a dye, a bioluminescent agent, a chemiluminescent agent and colored beads.
4. A method for identifying the presence of tumors in a human patient comprising:
immobilizing RSP specific binding agent on a surface, wherein the specific binding agent is selected from the group consisting of tRNA and anti-RSP antibodies;
contacting a sample of extracellular fluid from a patient to the immobilized RSP specific binding agent to form a captured complex;
contacting the captured complex with a labeled specific binding agent to form a labeled captured complex; and
quantitating the amount of RSP in the captured complex, wherein the amount of RSP, two standard deviations above the mean of the values obtained with normal patients is indicative of the presence of cancer.
5. A method as recited in claim 4 wherein the RSP specific binding agent is immobilized on a surface selected from the group consisting of wells of microtiter plates, glass slides, beads and nitrocellulose membranes.
6. A method as recited in claim 4 wherein the labeled RSP specific binding agent is selected from the group consisting of labeled tRNA, labeled anti-RSP antibodies and labeled peptides.
7. A method as recited in claim 4 wherein the label is selected from the group consisting of a radioactive agent, an enzyme, a dye, a bioluminescent agent, a chemiluminescent agent and colored beads.
Did Gartner steal the technology? There certainly is no license agreement for Gartner to be selling a test containing DR70 technology on Aug 1. An agreement was made in 2012 to license DR70 for lung cancer and transfer of all technology needed to manufacture the test but Gartner never paid the fee and Mac cancelled the deal. Obviously, the technology was transferred per the deal and the money was not paid.
Did Gartner steal the technology? IMO, he did not. During the period of transfer of the technology, the first patent expired so there is no longer any need to have a license. Even the Chinese firm manufacturing the DR70 test began after the patent expired. I think Gartner can do as he wishes without a license. I also do not think any lawyer would file a suit for Radient when they are on the verge of bankruptcy even if it was a viable lawsuit..
Why isn't Radient suing the Chinese firm?
Was the agreement with Gartner a hoax in the first place? Was that the method Mac legally transferred the tech to Gartner so he could not be accused of giving away an asset by the lenders? Was the $6,000 finally paid the actual agreed sum paid to Mac?
Hi Lake, The patent for dr-70 does not specify a particular antibody and neither does the new application. It just states examples.
Gartner said he has a new patent application for his test. I suspect it is not really a filed patent application yet and just a provisional. From the video, it is a combination of some sort with another test/tests. IMO, Gartner could probably use the expired patent just like the Chinese firm. He could also probably get whatever antibody they are using. There is just no reason to pay Mac any money.
I do agree with you that August 1 will come and go without Gartner selling any tests. The video was just all about raising money which may or may not happen.
Also, if Mac and Gartner were still friends, why would Mac cancel the agreement? Why not just let it ride til gartner got the money? I think Mac realized that he had been snookered by Gartner and Gartner got all he wanted from Radient.
Jimtash, you need to watch the video of Gartner at the Az Bio.
Here is what he said. "The test will be available beginning the first of August and they will manufacture the reagents in house and sell the test for $99.
There is no agreement with Radient for GCDX to manufacture nor for them to sell the test. The agreement was cancelled....
What is happening is exactly what I said would happen. Gartner got all the information transferred to make their own tests and didn't pay Radient the fees. He just stole the process and intends to sell his test based on the expired patent. Score one for Gartner.
Most of the posters here do not have a clue about the pros and cons of a universal cancer marker. There are few if any real benefits from testing with a non specific test like Onko Sure.
If you use it as a screen for cancer, there is an absolutely HUGE number of false positives. You would get about 50 false positives for ever actual cancer that exists. How much would be spent in attempting to locate the cancer? The insurance companies certainly are not going to pay for the additional tests and definitely not medicare. How much money do you spend? CAT scans, PET scans, where do you start. Do you start at the big toe and work up or what would be the plan?
If you haven't figured it out by now, that is why this test has gone nowhere for the past 30 years.
There is no FDA "approval" in the works for GCDX or Radient. Gartner is just spouting garbage to entice them to fork over $1.5 million to fund GCDX. Any FDA approval of DR-70 as a lung cancer screen would take years, not a few months or even ever at all. It would take a PMA because there is no precedent for a 510k clearance.
Gartner knows this as well but that will not stop him hyping the test and putting money in his pockets as investors are fleeced.