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.
The Bocx, you also stated that the press release says: "If the daily variation in RECAF for any given individual is small (which we do not know) then a personalized test would make the assay work even BETTER."
My comment: Ok, point out the words "If the daily variation in RECAF for any given individual is small (which we do not know) then a personalized test would make the assay work even BETTER." in the May 16, 2006 BioCurex press release. Hint: Those words are not there, but these words were in the same press release: "But, if we did sequential blood tests on each person and assuming their RECAF value was rather constant over time, then a small change in the level of circulating RECAF would detect cancer at the earliest stages." kag
The Bocx, you posted: "The press release you brought up to criticize the company says two things:
1) The assay works very well without personalizing it."
My comment: Ok, show me the words "The assay works very well without personalizing it" in the May 16, 2006 BioCurex press release. Hint: Those words are not there. But these words are in the same press release: "However, we do not know yet if the normal RECAF concentration is constant enough to make this personalizaion possible." kag
The Bocx, you sound like you think no one else understands significant figures, but I have news for you. kag
The Bocx, words have meaning and "pretty constant" does not have the same meaning as "constant." Hint: constant means it does not change. According to the press release, the amount of RECAF in a normal person is not constant. kag
The Bocx, you posted this paragraph: "So that you understand what this means, if a group of normal people have very different amounts of RECAF in blood, then you need a high cutoff value in order to eliminate all (or 95%) of the normals. However, if the value is very different from one individual to another but the value is pretty constant for that individual, then you do not use the average of all normal people, you use the average value for that person."
My comment: Do you realize that in the above quoted paragraph, you admit that normal people can have very different amounts of RECAf in their blood and also that the amount of RECAF in the blood of one individual can be "pretty constant." There is certainly a difference between "pretty constant" and constant. Also, if the average RECAF value for a person is used for that person, you have admitted the need to personalize RECAF in some persons. kag
The Bocx, you declared my post#21163 as BS. Let’s take each sentence of my post, verbatim, and see if it is factual or not.
First sentence: “Mata Hari, back in February through the early part 2006 it is true that I was positive on RECAF’s potential.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.
Second sentence: “However, by June 2006 I was posting concerns about RECAF.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.
Third sentence: “In particular, there was a BioCurex press release which indicated the need to personalize RECAF.” My comment: The press release stated: “But, if we did sequential blood tests on each person and assuming their RECAF value is rather constant over time; then a small change in the level of circulating RECAF would detect cancer at the earliest stages. We do not know yet if the normal RECAF concentration is constant enough to make this personalization possible. However, if it was consistent, this suggested approach might prove to be a winning strategy in the fight against cancer. We could then have an exquisitely sensitive tool to detect many types of cancer.” Again, my comment: Why was personalizing RECAF even mentioned in the May 16, 2006 press release if there was no need or importance in personalizing RECAF? That is factual and not BS.
Fourth sentence: “It stated that the amount of RECAF varied from person to person and even within the same person from time to time.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.
Fifth sentence: “As an investor, that immediately caused me to become cautious with this investment and I have been very consistent with a cautionary tone in my posts since then.” My comment: That is factual and not BS. So it is a fact that your BS remark was just BS. kag
I_invest_utrade, you just posted: "It also hasn't been announced that it is not commercially viable, yet you and GS continue to harp on the eventual demise of the company and RECAF."
My comment: The following statement is pretty close and is copied verbatim from the September 2007 ISOBM abstracts: "Our future studies will focus on increasing the cancer/normal ratio to create a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay." kag
Half Full, you appear confident in your knowledge of RECAF technology and the sums of money you will make on any investment in BioCurex. Please pay no attention to the consistent cautionary nature of my posts since about June 2006. This stock is really cheap, so load up. kag
I_invest_utrade, it has not been announced yet if the combination of a RECAF test (to detect an early-stage cancer)and the use of some other technology to locate the same early-stage cancer will work together successfully enough to be commercially viable. kag
Opportunity Knocking, you posted: "It is my understanding that there is big news on the horizon."
My comment: From where did you gain the understanding that big news is on the horizon? kag
Half Full, yes, I once thought this stock had some potential. That was going on four years ago. But I did my homework and carefully read the press releases and SEC filings. It didn't take long (a few months) to come to the conclusion that RECAF had some problems. Those same conclusions are even more evident today because of all of the time that has passed with no evidence of anything moving toward meaningful commercialization. kag
Half Full, you posted: "Or we get some great news and the stock goes above $1.00 per share. At that point, I will be weeping for the bashers and the short holders.NOT!"
My comment: Although there have been many opportunities, I have never made a single snide remark about anyone's misfortune with this investment. kag
The last trade for BioCurex was 0.086 cents. Based on recent trading history, watch for the stock to soon be quickly traded back down to about seven cents. kag
Mata Hari, back in February through the early part 2006 it is true that I was positive on RECAF's potential. However, by June 2006 I was posting concerns about RECAF. In particular, there was a BioCurex press release which indicated the need to personalize RECAF. It stated that the amount of RECAF varied from person to person and even within the same person from time to time. As an investor, that immediately caused me to become cautious with this investment and I have been very consistent with a cautionary tone in my posts since then. kag
Half Full, as I have posted multiple times previously, I do not trade this stock. Nor am I compensated in any way for posting on this board, nor do I know anyone who is compensated in any way for posting on this board or any other board. Following this stock for a number of years has been interesting. From reading literally thousands of posts, it is my observation that few investors do a sufficient amount of due diligence. An investor should never allow themself to lose the ability to look at each situation with a critical eye and make adjustments as necessary. kag
I_invest_utrade, thanks for posting the conversation. Can you add anything about the lady's voice inflections? In other words, saying that "everything was okay" could convey a lot depending upon how it was said. kag
Half Full, what difference does it make what anyone's view is on this stock? Don't you understand that the current low stock price is due to the fundamentals of BioCurex and nothing else? It is such a fallacy to believe that if only positive posts are made on BioCurex, that your investment in BioCuyex would be going ballistic. No poster on this board had anything to do with getting the Smithline loan with a lien on all of BioCurex's assets. No poster on this board is responsible for you not knowing the current status of the Smithline loan. No poster on this board had anything to do with the wording contained in the August 2008 SEC Form 8-K/A. No poster on this board had anything to do with the fact that BioCurex has used stock to pay employees and other services. No poster on this board is preventing any investor from buying BioCurex stock if they want to, and yet the stock price is currently in single digits. kag
Mara Hari, your "shorting/manipulating entity" may be ordinary traders going about the business of doing whatever they do. Your suggestion that they need anyone to help them seems a bit preposterous. Keep in mind that the share price of BioCurex has deteriorated to single digits where the percentage profit or loss is significant. kag
Mata Hari,you just posted: "kag, i guess abbott and inverness are naive buyers too."
My comment: Well, it is not looking too good for Abbott after reading the wording in the SEC Form 8-K/A, and Inverness will soon have to make an advanced royalty payment. kag
Mata Hari, you just posted: "bocxholders not selling-no matter how hard our shorting/manipulating entity tries-or by what methods."
My comment: There seems to be a sufficient supply of naive buyers to keep them happy. kag
Yesterday, this statement was posted on this board: "If Abbott was in any way proceeding with RECAF, they would have been required to paid the feasibility milestone and that has not been done."
My comment:Those who believe that Abbott is somehow still working on RECAF should give some thought to the above statement. Since there has been no public press release that a feasibility milestone has been reached, an investor should correctly assume that Abbott's development of RECAF has never reached that stage. kag
Opportunity Knocking, you posted: "When do you think we will get news from Dr Moro? Do you think that he will garner a new licensee, be bought out, launch oncopet with or without a partner, move toward 510k, sell the elisa first, or all of the above?"
My comment: Those are all questions that Dr. Moro could answer if he wanted to. The real question for BioCurex shareholders is why doesn't he answer some questions? kag
Half Full, you claim that BioCurex has made recent advancements. However, the current stock price indicates that investors don’t agree with you. kag
Instead of arguing whether RECAF has value or not, the answer is as simple as looking at today’s BioCurex stock price close of 0.072 cents. The current price indicates that investors believe that RECAF’s value is in doubt. kag
Mata Hari, you posted "you see our shorting/manipulating entity likes anonymity like posters on message boards and its trading schemes are meant to spread anxiety by use of MISINFORMATION."
My comment: Please post what specific misinformation is being spread by whomever it is that you keep talking about. kag
Mata Hari, sure you do. Now, explain how your indicators can determine that BioCurex employees or shareholders are not selling stock? kag
Mata Hari, where is your proof that shareholders, employees are not selling stock? How can you possibly know if any BioCurex shareholders did or did not sell stock this morning? What is your purpose in making such an outrageous statement? kag
Mata Hari, the trade this morning could have just as easily been a straight trade, with no manipulation, to make an 11.25% profit. Since BioCurex is a single digit stock, undoubtedly, someone will try to capitalize on those percentage movements. The foolish part of the cycle would be those on the buy end of the trade who end up underwater. kag
So you think management is confident. Well, all evidence seems to be to the contrary. If management was confident, wouldn't they be answering the questions submitted by their shareholders? If management was confident, wouldn't they tell their shareholders the current status of the Smithline loan? If management was confident, wouldn't they announce the date of the OncoPet marketing launch? Instead, there is silence. kag
“I have bought alot of shares because I believe what you are saying about the technology.” is a comment that was included among several questions addressed to Dr. Moro, the CEO of BioCurex.
My comment: Never, ever buy a lot of shares of any stock based on what a CEO is saying about the technology. That may just be the rosy part of the picture. Rather, read the SEC filings thoroughly. If the stock price has steadily declined over a long period of time, find out why. Find out if the company has a lien on all of its assets. Find out if the company is out of money. Follow the stock for awhile. Doing some simple due diligence is a lot more fun than losing your money. kag
The Bocx, this is not difficult. BioCurex is a seven cent stock because the fundamentals of BioCurex are lousy. What you fail to understand is that BioCurex's stock price has nothing to do with what is posted on this board. It has everything to do with the Smithline loan and their lien on all of BioCurex's assets and many other adverse factors that I can numerate for you if you insist. kag
Opportunity Knocking, I am not Gold Seeker. That is a fact. Now what else are you wrong about? You should give some serious thought as to the actual reasons why BioCurex is currently selling for seven cents. That should be your focus, not making wild accusations against someone for the shortcomings in the fundamentals of BioCurex. kag
Opportunity Knocking, why don’t you post some concerns about the current status of the Smithline debt with its lien on all of BioCurex’s assets, or Abbott, or BioCurex China, or saliva RECAF, or Histo RECAF, or the dilution of BioCurex shares, or having to use BioCurex shares to pay employees and bills. Instead, you post vile accusations toward another person on this board. Have you given any thought to the possibility that your public accusations are incorrect? If so, where does that put you? kag
It didn't take long. Those investors who purchased approximately 75,000 shares of stock yesterday at 7.5 and 8.0 cents are now underwater. kag
The Bocx, you posted: "The guys who made the money he lost. Stock market 101."
Do you not have any compassion for the investors who lose money or are underwater in this stock? It is an undisputable fact that the OncoPet press release added to the number of underwater BioCurex shares held by investors. The five cent total increase in the stock price on the OncoPet press release, gives some indication that investors are learning a powerful stock market lesson about struggling biotechs. The lesson is that most of the time it is never a good idea to buy stock on an announcement. Especially when there have been several press releases over a period of time and the stock price has continued its overall downward trend. kag
Sure, and who is paying the piper when the stock purchase soon results in an underwater position for the buyer? kag
The Bocx, I am happy to announce to you that any loss by an investor should be regarded as a big deal. kag
The Bocx, regardless of the percentage increase, when there was only a five cent upward movement in the stock price on a press release, it is not a strong indicator for the stock by any stretch of the imagination. kag
There is not much doubt that an angry shareholder has surfaced and is asking some tough questions. Given the fact that there was only a five cent increase in the stock price on the last press release, that is not surprising. kag
The Bocx, you posted: "Ah OK, so no big deal if it only dropped 3c, after the news, right?"
My comment: The June 17, 2009 press release should have been a big deal to investors because of the only five cent total stock price gain created by the press release and the fact that the stock price has already fallen back four cents of that. That may be an indication that investors are becoming much more cautious on BioCurex stock purchases. kag