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.
Gaboy wrote,
"Anyway, I just can find a logical explanation as to why Smithline would keep the price at .14/share when he could run it up to .28/share raise twice as much money and pay the loan off twice as fast. Or he could run it up to .42/share and raise three times as much money and pay the load off in a third of the time."
I could be off base, but here is my understanding of the trading that has been discussed.
Smithline can convert the loan to shares and make a profit if the shares can be sold for 14 cents or more. On the last share price rise to 29 cents, Smithline probably sold as many shares as possible but the selling overwhelmed the demand and pushed the share price back down. Smithline probably stopped the selling at 14 cents. So it isn't that he wants to keep the share price down but that the selling eventually pushes the price down. If there were significant good news then the demand to buy the stock could push the stock price high enough to allow Smithline to convert all of the loan and make a profit selling the shares.
I think Smithline converts the shares at 14 cents so selling the shares at a higher price does not mean the loan is reduced faster. It means Smithline makes more profit.
mcd
IMO, Abbott is doing nothing with Recaf.
The discussions may have gone something like this:
Abbott decided to return the license. Dr. Moro didn't want that and convinced them that Recaf would eventually be a commercial product. They modified the license to remove Abbott's responsibilities to develop further and let Abbott keep the $50,000. Biocurex will continue working with Recaf. If there is eventually a commercial product, then Abbott has the option to sell the product. Biocurex also has the option to cancel Abbott's license.
Basically, Abbott can just do nothing until someone else develops Recaf to a commercial product.
- I hope this isn't a duplicate. I wrote it once and lost it somehow.
mcd
Gaboy,
If it was just a theory up until now then WHY THE HECK DID IT TAKE 5 YEARS TO PUT THIS TOGETHER?
See Gold's post #23115
Dr. Moro should have at least started the PR with "Biocurex is pleased to announce..."
That might have made me feel better about it.
mcd
Quandongboy,
So the latest PR is great news even though we have known the following since 2004:
BioCurex to Present its RECAF Blood Test results at International Cancer Congress.
RICHMOND, British Columbia, May 17th 2004. -- BioCurex Inc. (BOCX.PK - News is pleased to announce that the ISOBM 2004 Scientific Committee has reviewed and accepted all five abstracts submitted by Dr. Moro and his scientific team on BioCurex’s patent protected technologies.
The abstracts report the results obtained with BioCurex’s Serum-RECAF(TM) blood test for Ovarian, Breast, Stomach and Lung cancers. Overall, the cancer detection sensitivity reported was in the vicinity of 90% with slightly over 95% specificity. The aggregate number of cancer patients was 175 and normal donors were 353.
The Lung cancer presentation also includes results using the Company’s Histo-RECAF(TM) cancer cell staining kit: Briefly, 22 out of 24 lung cancers were stained positively. Dr. Moro will also present a 5th abstract describing RECAF’s basic scientific background.
The scientific posters will be displayed June 22nd 2004 and the abstracts are to be published in a supplementary issue of the scientific journal “Tumor Biology”.
--------
-But now 5 years later, we are supposed to be excited that Recaf can limit false positives for Ovarian Cancer?
Hopefully you and Half are correct that this PR is just a hint of great things to come in commercializing tests for ovarian and colon cancer using Recaf, but I am skeptical.
mcd
Yes, for the most part I am saying that. When one test or one car is produced and the second test or car is essentially the same, just a different name.
Years ago, Dr. Moro claimed to detect multiple cancers with Recaf. Prostate cancer seemed to be the best choice to combine Recaf with PSA to limit false positives. That effort has not produced anything so far, and now we see the same effort to combine Recaf with CEA or CA-125. It may produce a test for the market or it may not. All I'm saying is that this isn't a new break-through in technology.
This is more Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird and NOT a Ford Mustang type PR.
Gold, that is exactly my point in this thread.
From the standpoint of technology advancement, the latest PR was no news at all, just a fresh twist on old news.
From a business point of view, I realize that Dr. Moro is trying to place shares, trying to get the stock price up to reduce dillution, and just keep the company going. IMO, that's what the latest PR was.
Will we see the same PR in the future with a different cancer being used? Will that be new news?
mcd
Half, how is the last PR an advancement of the technology?
We have known for years that Recaf detects prostate, breast, and ovarian cancer. We have known for years that a Recaf test combined with other markers could at least reduce false positives. What is new news about this PR?
Half says "Why can't we stop right there."
I know it didn't say anything about Recaf positive readings in the PR, since the PR was trying to only highlight the "good".
If the Recaf came back positive, wouldn't the Dr. have liability to let the patient know and then try to find cancer somewhere?
Half, you are not answering my question.
HOW IS THE LATEST PR DIFFERENT FROM NEWS FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO?
This PR is just repackaged information, IMO.
mcd
Half said "These tests that you state are not accurate anyway are being used every day all over the world.
1. Does that make good sense to you?
Now Recaf can take away the false POSITIVES. Would this not be a good thing to atleast take away the false negs that Goldseeker is so upset about for tests that are approved and being administered to millions of people?"
IMO, Recaf could help take away the false positives of these tests. But in doing that, a positive Recaf alone would raise more issues about what type of cancer is actually present.
Using Recaf to take away the false positives of PSA has been discussed for years. So far, no tests sold.
Tell me again how this latest PR is different from PR's from years ago?
mcd
Half says
"But, if biopsy shows no cancer then what does the doctor do?
So What does the doctor do now if CEA is elevated and no cancer is found?
So What does the doctor do now if PSA is elevated and no cancer is found?
So What does the doctor do now if CA-125 is elevated and no cancer is found?"
They assume the PSA, CEA, and CA-125 tests were wrong, since they are not that accurate anyway.
But if you have added a RECAF test and get a positive result, now the Dr. has to decide what steps to take next beecause there may be some other type of cancer somewhere.
So tell me again why this latest PR is any different than news from several years ago?
mcd
This has been discussed on this board many times.
If the PSA or CA-125 levels are elevated and RECAF is elevated then that would tell the doctor where to start looking for the cancer.
If a tumor is found in the prostate or ovary and is found to be cancerous, then this is a positive result.
But, if biopsy shows no cancer then what does the doctor do?
But, if PSA and CA-125 are not elevated and RECAF is elevated then what does the doctor do?
This same combined test "finding" was announced for prostate cancer many years ago. This latest PR is nothing new, IMO it is only a way to try to support the stock price with old information in a new wrapper.
I disagree,
QD - "The latest news is new and IMO exciting. It shows (quantitatively) that RECAF can be combined with other markers to give a more specific test for some early stage cancers. What's not to like? The announcement directly addresses the endless criticisms about false positives. It takes RECAF a step closer to being used for screening."
You are extrapolating from this controlled study that it can be just as useful in the real world. I disagree. RECAF will not provide any specific information, other than that some type of cancer likely exists. That paired with a "confused" CA-125 result will not tell you that early stage ovarian cancer exists. It may tell you that some type of cancer exists. Wasn't this same news reported years ago related to prostate cancer?
A different scenario where a doctor discovers an ovarian mass might be a better use of RECAF to see if the patient has cancer. If RECAF is positive then it might be more reasonably assumed that the ovarian mass is cancerous. But this obviously would not be early stage screening.
quan,
If CA-125 does not reliably detect early stage ovarian cancer, then adding a recaf test with it will only tell you that you have cancer. The test will not indicate the type of cancer.
This latest news is nothing new. RECAF will detect cancer, but not tell you the type of cancer. We have known this for years, but no tests have been sold in any format. Why?
mcd
Not so sure about that.
Half says:
If CEA says yes and Recaf says yes then it is likely that you just narrowed down where the cancer is located.
- But which cancer? breast, ovarian...?
If CEA says no and Recaf says yes...then the patient most likely has cancer and the CEA most likely showed a false negative.
- No, the patient may have cancer somewhere, but not sure where it is.
mcd
Today's news is really nothing new. We have known for years, that under a contolled study of normals vs. known cancers, combining RECAF with another marker provide confirmation of positive results. Same as discussed with PSA in 2006. But the real world is not a controlled sample. What if RECAF contradicts the the other marker used? What if recaf is positive and the other marker shows negative? Same problems still exist. So this news is nothing new, but IMO it is scripted in a way to appear new and seem to be a breakthrough way to eliminate false positives.
mcd
Dr. Moro,
For the price of a #1 combo at Wendy's for your employees, a mere $7 bucks each every two or three months, you could make the issue about employees selling odd lots all go away. Just round the number of shares up to the nearest hundred. Even if each employee got an extra 99 shares it wouldn't be but $35 bucks. It's no big deal since the shares aren't worth anything. What's a few hundred shares when the company will soon have 100's of millions of shares.
Oh well, just an idea.
mcd
The Bocx,
You say one possibility is that Moro may not have offered the ELISA test to anyone. Wouldn't that be pretty incompetent? I believe Moro most likely was discussing the test with interested parties, but nothing has come from those discussions. You would probably say though that the irons are still in the fire, that we don't really know what is happening.
mcd
I'm sure The Bocx will reply that....
It is just a coincidence that volume increases greatly two or three days before PR's are released. Assuming a leak takes place is just negative thinking. Also there was maybe one PR that wasn't preceeded by heavy volume. So that proves there are no leaks.
I don't buy those arguments. They just aren't reasonable to me.
mcd
Maybe in the future, Dr. Moro would make effort to make the press release more meaningful by contacting the person being quoted ahead of time. It might actually produce good results.
The latest PR seems crafted just enough to produce some intrigue and temporary excitement. But then again, Dr. Moro thinks these price spikes are great trading opportunities for anyone trying to make money on this stock. And also, the intriguing PR's have paid the bills for Moro for many years now.
mcd
Waived Debt -
If the employee still works there, maybe the debt was waived in lieu of paying salary?
"Licenses still held for a reason"
Hopefully for BOCX the reason will eventually produce results and sales. My optimism has waned after the Abbott amendment and after no aparent collaborations have been agreed to regarding ELISA. Dr. Moro seems to be in scramble mode to somehow keep the company afloat. How many times will Smithline extend the loan for a 15% increase? Dr. Moro seems to be willing to do that forever to keep the company going. Maybe that is fine. Maybe tangible progress will be announced (and verified) someday. Meanwhile the can keeps getting kicked down the road.....
I agree that something could happen to quickly improve the situation with the company. If it does then I will be missing out on the up move. However, we have been waiting for this to happen for many many months only to see the stock price fall and little signs of progress, other than optimistic PR's.
Still waiting for the real results.
I hope for everyone's sake that RECAF has a positive breakthrough soon. I just don't have much confidence in the way the business issues have been managed since Abbott signed their original agreement.
mcd
The Bocx said,
"Gold Seeker, I challenge you to cut and paste my words calling long term investors stupid or that it is stupid to be a long term holder of this stock."
The Bocx also said "You did not acquire stock in this company to hold it until it sold product or until Inverness made a statement. You bought stock to sell whenever it made a profit good enough for you and if the price moves up, FOR ANY OTHER REASON unrelated to Inverness and/or sales, you WOULD sell, you WOULD make a profit and you WOULD be very happy. If Lebed "The Horrible" moved the price up to $2.00, you would sell and enjoy your profits, even if you hate Lebed! Or are you going to try to convince us here that you would not sell and not realize the corresponding profit because the price increase is promotional and not related to the fundamentals; that is sales and word from Inverness?! Give me a break!
So based on The Bocx's words, why would anyone be dumb enough to hold this stock in anticipation of fundamental progress with this company and its products? Everyone should sell on the next news release (that is assuming it will push the price up and assumes there is any significant volume).
The Bocx, your attitude towards trading this stock and lack of concern for making fundamental progress with selling a product is what irritates me and caused me to continue to post. You seem to be satisfied that Dr. Moro puts out a press release every few months for a trading opportunity. You seem to be satisfied that the company lives month to month by using shares as dollars. Give me a break! Some of your shareholders actually believe the company will sell a product some day and that Inverness is still working on a product. Those shareholders have much more patience than I have.
The Bocx said
"You buy when you think a stock has a good chance of going up..." What a brilliant statement! That is great if you know when a PR is coming out of the blue. Maybe that explains the way you think. But for those simple shareholders who aren't able to time their trades so well, we are left thinking/hoping that the company might actually sell a product some day or Inverness might actually be making progress towards developing the product. Those outcomes seem less likely every day. Someone said recently that if the only thing you have left is hope, then it is time to sell. That's why I sold, nothing here but hope.
It is interesting and amazing to me that The BOCX would seem to favor the trading around the news strategy rather than taking the long term view.
It has been talked about on this board for years that volume seemed to always increase a couple of days before a PR would come out. So trading this stock has almost always seemed to be the best way to make money here. I remember a poster years ago who stated that as his strategy. I was wrongfully in the "long-term" camp at the time.
I agree at this point that PR news items aren't going to have much impact on the share price unless the PR is regarding a significant tangible financial improvement in the company's situation.
News of another "potential" way to find Recaf with "possible" future product sales in a "potentially" huge market just doesn't excite me anymore.
mcd
The Bocx,
<"However, those who bought at 6.5c and sold at 11c almost doubled their money in a few weeks, which is not bad.”
Just think how much shareholders benefitted from that market capitalization increase. Wow!
You have talked about short term trading this stock quite a bit. Seems you advocate the wise "buy low sell high" strategy. Are you a subscriber to the "channelingstocks.com" methodology? Just curious if you had any more stock trading pearls of wisdom?
The Bocx,
I believe you are wrong to say that my post was inaccurate. It would have been better to say that we just have a difference in style of investing. You seem to be saying that I would have had better investments results if I had better timing, sold more at the peaks, and were a professional investor. I think that is a pretty obvious conclusion.
You seem to be more focused on selling at any chance you can make a profit, regardless of the long term outlook. That sounds like someone who is trying to make money to pay the monthly bills. I was taking a longer term perspective, but that obviously did not pan out for me.
I think it is morally fine to make a profit in one hour, one day, or one year. No problem there. It is always good to take a profit.
I'm speaking more for the long term holders here who bought into believing that there was a long term positive outcome in store for BOCX. How do you square that with your comment that "I would imagine that for an OTC company 6 months is a reasonable time."
Are you planning to sell your BOCX shares during this 6 month(?) coverage period by Small Cap?
mcd
The Bocx,
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It seems you are very satisfied with short term share price increases, short term increased market cap, and a strategy of selling on short term price increases. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the long term price trend is downward.
I agree the IR firm was brilliant to pull off a 500% gain on this stock. Long term investors are the ones seeming to be putting money in the short term traders pockets. The best I could do was eek out a 65% loss. I guess the short term trading on hype is not my forte.
You said " If the price moves up 6c, then the return on those $25,000 would be 100 fold or 10,000%. This goes directly into the pockets of the shareholders."
That is only true for the quick traders who are fast enough to sell at that price before the stock deflates to a new low. That's not a very encouraging argument. Long term holders get left holding the bag.
I wonder if Dr. Moro is encouraging the people who make placements to be sure and sell all they can the next time we get a price pumping hyped newsletter?
mcd
The Bocx,
So you think Small Cap increases the companies market cap and value? Obviously the increase is only temporary because the stock is at multiple year lows. That has only worked out well for the traders following the pump and dump strategy. You said "they did a good job before for the shareholders who bought and sold along with them".
The Bocx, your comments seem to favor that strategy as well. Do you think all BOCX shareholders should be following that strategy?
I agree with Goldseeker that this strategy using Small Cap is wearing thin with investors. Everyone expects it to be a temporary hype attempt. Dr. Moro needs real news if he expects the share price to increase in value.
mcd
I will venture back over here to I-hub to respond:
GS, Thanks for your answer. Dr. Moro can feel free to comment in his next Answers if he disagrees.
What I was trying to get at is that, a biomarker may be listed in the patent application, the patent may get approved, the test may be a success, but the biomarkers listed in the patent application may or may not ever be included in the test. So an approved test does not guarantee future revenues unless the biomarker is included.
So what is the chance that the patent is approved, tests sold, but recaf never used in the test?
mcd
Kag, This shoots down Goldseekers argument..
GS has been beating the drum that a universal cancer maker is worthless in diagnostics, especially early stage cancer (my summary of GS 1,000's of messages).
Why would Dr. Pennington say "If the previous findings are confirmed in early stage disease, then a new paradigm for screening for common cancers will exist."
Obviously Dr. P thinks a "new paradigm for screening" is a GOOD thing! Obviously Dr. P does not agree with GS that a universal cancer marker is worthless.
GS, do you disagree with Dr. P?
Opp,
<<<I would bet the farm that he is thinking about testing for recaf in urine? Anyone else agree?>>>
I was thinking the same thing, but not in a good way. I hate to be negative but what's next after urine, hair samples, fingernails, etc.
I'm not going to get excited again until we see major developments from licensees, significant patents, paying off Smithline, or hints from independent sources of revenue potential. The PR's of new test formats have not helped the share price.
GS,
I think you are twisting words to match your "theory".
My understanding was that IF looking at license agreement to consist of expected revenues, then Abott would not be considered as a license agreement with expected revenues at this time.
However, there is still a license agreement with Abott where they could choose to get back involved under the agreed upon terms/royalties, etc.
So there is a license agreement with Abbott, but no revenues are expected based on the current activity.
It may be that the dates on the website are when it was loaded onto the site. The Whittenberg webcast may not be very recent. On the forum page the dates of past PR releases show as recent July dates.
OT - Apollo13
Just curious if you are still here and own shares.
QB,
I agree with you. I believe it was just our board "experts" who reasoned that it must be negative for our company. This has been discussed in great detail here by the same board experts who are currently nit picking every negative slant they can take. It seems like a full court press on the negative side.
mcd
Ted,
Here is a response:
"As far as yesterday's press release, I will leave the board with these questions to answer:
If ABT, who has a market cap of over $80 billion dollars, didn't want to spend/risk money on getting approval for their test, do you believe that clinical labs will individually fork over money to do so?"
Maybe it wasn't an issue of money for Abbott. Maybe they had other issues with selling the Division, keeping certification for their analyzers, internal management problems, etc. Maybe they wanted to keep the license with Biocurex and will be happy to sell our product in the future.
"If you were the head of one of these labs wouldn't you ask Dr. Moro to get the test approved first and then to come back once he does?"
Some might. But since there is a cost to the institution for the license agreement, some my just negotiate this as part of their cost.
"If you answered no to these two questions, then you should ask yourself 2 other questions:
1)Does Dr. Moro truly believe that he can convince these labs to do so?"
Probably not all of them but some of them. Some may be set up as only researchers and not as seekers of approvals.
"2)If he doesn't truly believe these labs will buy into his proposition, why put out such a press release?"
He does believe!!!
Found this while looking for the link Opportunity mentioned.
Recaf gets a mention, dated today.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080611/law038.html?.v=101
Targeted Anticancer Drugs - In Vitro Assessment and Non-Invasive Imaging of Patient and Tumor Status Will Determine Clinical and Commercial Success
Wednesday June 11, 11:00 am ET
New Medicine's Oncology KnowledgeBASE (nm/OK) tracks the development and use of patient and tumor assessment methodologies that represent one of the most unique opportunities in the oncology field
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif., June 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Drug development in oncology is at the threshold of a new era that may finally fulfill the promise of cancer becoming a chronic disease. It is becoming apparent that in order to successfully treat patients with cancer it is necessary to accurately profile their disease and closely and continuously monitor its development. Coupling the use of targeted anticancer agents with patient selection and monitoring using highly specific in vitro tests and/or noninvasive imaging approaches is creating a unique and powerful method for the effective treatment of cancer.
New Medicine's Oncology KnowledgeBASE (nm/OK) that has anticipated this trend is a unique resource of every aspect of patient assessment to customize cancer treatment. A unique functionality of nm/OK allows users to specifically retrieve information regarding diagnostic/prognostic approaches by developer and cancer indication; target assessment (overexpression, amplification, mutation, methylation status) by drug, marker, and clinical trial protocol; and biomarkers for clinical trial surrogate endpoints, among others.
There are over 1,000 molecular targets linked to some aspect of neoplasia currently in preclinical or clinical development or on the market. Among the approximately 500 novel molecularly targeted agents that have been evaluated in clinical trials (multitargeted agents may appear in several groups) are:
41 agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway
18 agents targeting the ErBb family (EGFr, HEr2, etc.)
13 agents targeting the Aurora kinase family
11 histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDAC)
13 agents targeting PDGF/PDGFr
11 agents targeting various heat shock proteins (Hsp)
10 drugs targeting various cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdk)
10 agents targeting c-Met
10 agents targeting IGF/IGFr
10 agents targeting FLT-3
9 agents targeting c-Kit
Additional targets include 20S proteasome; polyamine; 5T4 oncofetal antigen; a disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain 17 (ADAM17), TACE; acidic fibroblast growth factor (aFGF); activin receptor IIA (ActrIIA); adenosine deaminase; adenosine monophosphate (AMP); alpha5beta1 integrin; alphanubeta3 integrin; alphanubeta5 integrin; alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) receptor (RECAF); Akt; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK); androgen receptor (Ar); angiopoietin-1; angiopoietin-2; APEX; ATP synthase [alpha] subunit; axl; Bap31; Bcl-xL; Bcl-2; bcr-abl/abl (including mutated forms); B-FN (ED-B fibronectin); carboxyanhydrase IX (CA IX); carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA); cathepsin K (CTSK); C-C chemokine receptor 4 (CCr4); CD105 (endoglin); CD13; CD19; CD20; CD22; CD25; CD3; CD30; CD33; CD38; CD4; CD40; CD55; CD56; CD70; CD74; CD80; CD95 (fas); CD137 (TNFrSF9); centromere-associated protein E (CENP-E); cGMP- PDE; checkpoint 1 (Chk1); chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCr4); Chk2; chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 (CSPG4); C-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK); c- Myb; c-Myc; colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1r); CTNNB (beta catenin); cyclin E; cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (CDKN1A); cytochrome P450 1B1 (CYP1B1); cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4); dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR); DT-diaphorase (DTD); E2F; E2F1; endocytic lectin receptors (EELr); endothelin A (ETA) receptor (ETAr); ephrin B4 (EphB4); epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCam); estrogen receptor-alpha (Er-alpha); eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (EIF4E); exonuclease III; farnesyl transferase (FTase); fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2); FGFr; focal adhesion kinase (FAK); folate receptor (FOLr); FOLr1; galectin 3 (GAL3) receptor; gastrin 17 (G17); GD2; GD3; glioma-associated oncogene homolog (Gli- 1); glucoprotein A33 (GPA33); glutathione (GHS); glutathione S-transferase pi (GSTP1); glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT); glycoprotein NMB; B-lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS); gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH); GnRHr; growth differentiation factor (GDF); hedgehog (Hh); heparanase; hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF/SF); highly upregulated in liver cancer (HULC); human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG); hyaluronan (HA); hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1alpha); interleukin 13 (IL-13); IL-13 receptor alpha2 (IL-13ralpha2); inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH); integrin alpha2; interleukin 6 (IL-6); interleukin 8 (IL-8); placental growth factor (PGF); Janus kinase 2 (JAK2); JAK3; kinesin-like spindle protein (KSP); Lewis y antigen; lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (Lck); lymphotoxin (LT) beta receptor (LTBr); mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR); MAP2K1; MAPK/ERK/kinase (MEK); MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) kinases (MEK); matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2); MMP-9; melanin; mesothelin (CAK1); methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2); motility-related protein-1 (MRP- 1); mucin 1 (MUC1); murine double minute 2 (MDM2), HDM2; N-acetylated alpha- linked acidic dipeptidase (NAALADase); N-cadherin (NCAD); neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally downregulated 8 (NEDD8); NFkappaB; nicotinic acid phosphoribosyltransferase (NAPRT); nucleolin; 17 alpha-hydroxylase/C17,20 lyase; ornithine decarboxylase 1 (ODC1); p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAPK); p53; P-glycoprotein (P-gp); phosphatidylinositol 3`kinase (PI3K); phosphatidyserine (PS); PI3K, catalytic, delta polypeptide (PI3KCD); PIK3C2A; plasminogen activator, urokinase (PLAU); polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1); poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase (PARP); programmed cell death-1 (PDCD1); prostate specific antigen (PSA); prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA); prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA); proteasome; protein kinase A type I (PKAI); protein kinase C (PKC); PKC-B; purine nucleoside phosphorylase (PNP); ras; R1 mRNA; R2 mRNA; Raf/B-Raf; Rad51; RET; ribonucleotide reductase (RNR); ribonucleotide reductase M2 polypeptide (RRM2); Ron; SH2-containing protein-tyrosine phosphatase 1 (SHP-1); signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3); SLAM family member 7 (SLAMF7); somatostatin receptors (SSTr); somatotropin release inhibiting factor (SRIF) receptor (SRIFr); sphingosine kinase (SPHK); spingomyelin synthase; Src pathway; stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1); superoxide dismutase 1, soluble (SOD1); survivin; telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT, hTERT); telomerase; tenascin-C (TN-C); TGF-beta; TGF- beta2; thioredoxin-1 (trx-1); tie-2; toll-like receptor 7 (TLr7); TLr9; transferrin; transforming growth factor beta receptor I (TGFBr1); TGFbeta; tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 1 (TRAIL-r1); TRAIL-r2; tumor suppressor candidate 2 (TUSC2), FUS1; tumor- associated glycoprotein 72 (TAG-72); vitamin D receptor (VDr); Von Willebrand factor; X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP); etc. Hundreds of other molecular targets are in preclinical development.
New Medicine's Oncology KnowledgeBASE (nm|OK), residing at http://www.nmok.net, provides a complete knowledge environment in drug development in cancer. Contact us for an online demonstration of nm|OK.
Contact: Katie Siafaca
New Medicine, Inc.
Tel: (949) 830-0448; Fax: (949) 830-0887
E-mail: info@newmedinc.com
http://www.newmedinc.com
http://nmok.net
http://nmok.net/oksite/samprecords.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: New Medicine, Inc.
Opportunity,
I hope you are correct, but do you think this year's news and ISOBM Conference will help us any more than last year's conference? Do you think this year's news of the ELISA format test is more significant than last year's news?
Last year the ISOBM news took the share price from .46 to .86. That was great, but here we are back at .46.
IMO, we need the ISOBM - ELISA test news plus clear proof that Biocurex has made progress in this area:
Dr. Moro, CEO of BioCurex stated: ``This is an important milestone for us because it will allow us to (a) ship and demonstrate to the scientific community at large the significance of what we have developed; and (b) engage in the commercialization of Manual tests based on this format. It is worth mentioning that this format was developed in a rather short period of time because of the work done on the chemistry of RECAF over the past 2-3 years. It demonstrates our success in understanding the very unusual chemistry of RECAF well enough to suit the practical needs of a commercial test. The results are excellent and provide further evidence of the value of the RECAF blood test for cancer detection. Furthermore, our results with both formats show that bladder and kidney cancers are also detected with high sensitivity and specificity.''
BioCurex intends to expand on its plans to commercialize this test in future disclosures.
IMO, the share price won't be much better off without significant progress towards 1)validation from the scientific community, and 2) commercialization of the test.
Of course IMA could produce additional news.
mcd
That's really my point about the CMF chart. The price is going down, but the stock has been strongly in accumulation for months. Someone is working the trading to their advantage to buy more shares as cheaply as possible. The share price obviously is not down because there has been no heavy selling. The accumulation trend must be on expectations of good news to come. (IMO)
mcd