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.
wow was this ever posted?
i've never seen this before...it's a year old but still interesting. if anyone bought the report please share.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:e4LwTn3a8zsJ:thepharmyard.networkpharma.com/shop/product.php%3Fx....
smiles: welcome and great post...do you have any comments on RECAF's mechanism of action?
if only people would actually use post #3564 some of these ridiculous questions would go away.
Gold Seeker:
"The above press release would surely lead you to believe that a stand alone test is indeed close to reality and you are now telling me that you knew all along that it would never be a stand alone test? Comments please."
-- read mysscat's last post, as she is exactly right. what i'm missing here is, why would anyone invest in this stock for any reason other than the fact that RECAF is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL CANCER MARKER. now, if RECAF is a universal cancer marker, logically it wouldn't be able to discern between cancers. it simply gives a pos or neg (ie cancerous or not cancerous), and then it is up to the various localization techniques to determine the type -- ie; existing markers, imaging, symptoms, etc.
"I don't know how many tests Abbott has inlicensed and marketed or dropped. If you have that information, it would be prudent of you to share that information with us. Stop saying "go find it yourself". This board is supposed to share information, not just be a site to hype and cheerlead the stock."
-- in the weeks/months after the ABT press release (while we were still on RB), I went through every single press release of the last few years from the news archive of ABT diagnostics. I posted a lot of information regarding their licensing history. I do not have that info at hand, and I don't need to because my findings were pretty simple and powerful: ABT does not do a lot of cancer marker licensing. I wanted to know if ABT took a shotgun approach to their marker licensing...and I determined that to the contrary, they are EXTREMELY selective. Either trust me or go dig through the archives like I did. I suggest the latter (see my disclaimer at the bottom).
" If it is going to be used as stated by an addition to the PSA tests, why just go to the expense of adding to your PSA test when you can just sublicense the addition to Abbotts more current FREE PSA test. With the addition to an existing test, it may not require a PMA. Any comments?"
-- first off prostate cancer is just one of many applications. second of all none of the PSA variations (CPSA, FPSA, etc) are very good...in the marketing material they talk about sensitivity, which can get up to decent levels...what the marketing material doesn't talk about is the abominably low specificity level used to achieve the high sensitivity. that is truly the achilles heel of all current markers. for the PSA family, there are so many other conditions that can cause elevated levels of the antigen -- too much sex, benign prostate conditions, general inflammation, STD's, and many many more. so, billions are wasted every year on expensive biopsies and imaging procedures pursued because of high PSA when the patient was in fact healthy -- not to mention the emotional costs (in my life i have had multiple PSA false alarms that forced me to have a biopsy...many other old men i know are in the same boat). third of all, whether or not it is used in conjunction with existing test doesn't matter re 510k or PMA. the company keeps telling all of us, and me in private and many others in private, that they believe strongly in 510k. i have my doubts, but i am hopeful.
"Stop saying "go find it yourself". This board is supposed to share information, not just be a site to hype and cheerlead the stock."
-- In other words, you want to do no due diligence since you can just come here and be spoon-fed. I don't mind answering your questions, but only after you have done some of the heavy lifting as far as due diligence. Let me say this...for your own benefit, please don't post here anymore...in fact don't even respond to this post...until you have done the following basic due diligence:
1) read every single P.R in the news archive at www.biocurex.com
2) read every single P.R from the last few years in the news archive at ABT diagnostics web site.
3) read the complete RECAF patent at the US patent office online.
4) read the 10-k reports for the last few years on edgar's. do not skim these -- read them very, very carefully.
5) follow EVERY SINGLE LINK in post #3564...there is a wealth of due diligence there.
GoldSeeker, a few things:
One point you made is 100% valid: nobody will know for sure whether RECAF will be a success until independant blind studies are conducted. At this point, your investment in RECAF should be based on ABT's decision to license it AFTER conducting extensive blind sample verification. So, the confidence should be in ABT, not BOCX and certainly not BOCX's internal studies.
Now...a few points you made are on the silly side:
1) the horse trader comment is beyond ignorant. BOCX was taken public via a reverse merger rather than IPO, and the shell they acquired happened to be from a horse trading company. the horse trading has nothing to do with BOCX. go look up reverse merger on investopedia.
2) if you didn't realize that RECAF is not a standalone test you have a lot of catching up to do. RECAF will never, ever be a standalone test -- period, end of story. RECAF will be used in conjunction with the existing markers, body scans, and biopsy procedures as another tool in the cancer diagnostics toolbag. if you were expecting a standalone test go put on a duntz cap and sell your shares on monday.
3) be careful what you wish for regarding very early detection of cancer...it is a regulatory nightmare. go do some research on the PMA histories of those who've tried that route. we would most definitely be required to file a PMA and follow patients for years to determine whether or not they actually developed the cancer, how fast it developed, etc. look at the other PMA's for supposed "early detection" markers. wholesale/database serum sampling ala quicky 510k app would be impossible. there would be issues regarding the control group like how do you know they're truly healthy if there is no current SOC for determining early stage cancer. for the variable group, how would you pre-determine the diagnosis if there is no SOC?
4) don't forget about ABT's blind sample verification process. go search through the ABT Diagnostics archives and tell me how many cancer markers ABT has licensed in the last 3 years and of those, how many has ABT dropped. if you haven't done that yet, stop posting here and go do some due diligence.
steel: would you mind sharing how much you sold on Friday...just trying to read the trading action.
gold-seeker: you're making some astonishing assumptions that have already been addressed...i suggest you do some more due diligence if you have your significant other's money in this, and that doesn't mean just reading the P.R's.
wow dakota you should quit your job as penny stock trader extraordinaire and become a comedian.
5% a day keeps the doctor away guys
I just ordered a few new duntz caps for the naysayers and "nitpickers" as mysscat says...they will be needing them very soon.
Jesus I don't believe this company has ever traded sideways for this long after a breakout unless it does another leg up. It always collapses immediately, or consolidates for a while and then goes up again.
Can't wait for an Abbott related announcement...it is coming and will be huge for us.
yeah...the trading action today is refreshing. the heavy volume is at the offer. maybe we're not totally back to sleep.
sorry keller, i misread your post. i see that onconase is the therapeutic platform not the diagnostic platform...so disregard my last post. personally i don't like cancer therapy plays, but i like that they are in p3 with nscl which is a nice market. could be a big hit for you, but definitely a crap shoot...good luck.
keller what's your point? there are dozens of companies out there developing cancer markers... ??? mesothelioma is not a particularly big market though so that stock doesn't really attract me. meso is on the NCI list of "rare" cancers -- not for me man.
Hmmmmmm.......................
dkeller: in a textbook breakout flag/pennant, volume drops off significantly during the consolidation ("mast"). But this is pretty extreme. The volume lately has been INSANELY light even for BOCX. While I'm impressed we're still holding the april breakout as opposed to the typical sharp sell-off after our PR's, my confidence in the breakout is waning. I could see us retracing back to $.80 before another leg up.
But then again what do I know...a week before the ABT announcement I predicted that a licensing deal with a major pharma was imminent and that we would see $10 upon such an announcement. I guess I got it half right...and the other half, well...let me just say I was sporting my duntz cap for quite a while.
mysscat: my standard licensing rate if you want to use my disclaimer is $100 per post but for you I will offer $50.
steel: what's a matter man you don't like the disclaimer? i'm very proud of it :)
yawn...nothing new in the 10-q
well said
GoldSeeker: I'm not trying to be a dick -- although sometimes I can't help myself -- but I have a strict policy about not divulging certain specifics from my conversations with management. I appreciate ERTHANG's interview and others who are open with management about their intention to post info on the public board -- but that is not my style.
Like I said, I totally agree with you that the initial colorometry P.R was vague about where BOCX was at in the process...so, I immediately phoned my contacts at the company. I suggest you do the same. Again, I do not mean to be an a-hole and would probably be very pissed if someone gave me that line, but I have to stick to my guns.
I will say is that I have never been more confident about the company.
Gold Seeker: I am a big skeptic...just ask those who've been around a while and have even called me a "basher" at times for questioning things and pointing out the negativity. When the latest data sets came out, when everyone was rejoicing, I was complaining bitterly about how the internal studies are meaningless right now.
HOWEVER, if you believe that Moro would outright lie to an inquiring investor (rather than saying "no comment"), you should not be investing in BOCX. Come on man that is as basic as it gets.
Also, re-read headache's post. He did not ask Moro about the colorimetric versus RIA assay. He asked about the personalization, and the key sentence in Headache's post was "reiterating the natural interpretation of the PR that he was discussing a possible improvement of the test when we made the remarks about personalization".
Call the good Dr. yourself if you don't believe Headache.
I have no relationship with Moro but I speak regularly with many others at BOCX and would be too embarassed to ask about this topic since the P.R was as clear as day.
I will agree with you, though, that it was NOT clear whether or not the colorimetric assay had been completed in the P.R that first discussed it. I immediately called my contacts to discuss.
Unfortunately I never share that sort of info but you are free to call for yourself.
Good riddens Kag. It is embarassing that you would claim to know Moro's answers to your questions simply because he hasn't responded to you -- implying that he somehow knew your questions and was avoiding them. That is an uncanny display of self-righteousness, similar to your schoolteacher lectures to the board about message board protocol and etiquette.
Be gone and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Kag: i deleted the post for repetition and then restored it thinking that it wasn't a fair move on my part. if you want to be repetitive so be it -- screw the TOS. also, headache's post makes the entire discussion obsolete -- something i was trying to show you but you "obtusely" (good word Foam) refused to budge even in the face of hard data.
I guess that's all irrelevant now based on Headache's post. Now kindly remove the egg from your face and apologize for wasting 3 days of board discussion...LOL
I have my doubts, too...For example I doubt I'll be able to keep my underwear clean when this thing breaks out... Just one of the many drawbacks to being old. ;=)
hey look a trade! call the press.
wow big day for us...zero volume :)
mysscat: I agree, but keep in mind that every biotech out there uses what Kag calls "hedge" language when discussing the capabilities of their technology. It is standard practice.
Headache thanks. LOL he must give preferential treatment to fellow Canadians when taking calls.
Kag: If you have something new to bring I'd love to hear it, but stop repeating the same post despite the new facts presented. In the meantime I suggest you speak with Toni, Gerry, Angela, or someone else if Moro doesn't speak to you. Either that or sell your stock.
Kag: time to dig into the DATA so that you really understand it. Stop the nonsense about not being able to test for multiple cancers with one assay unless you have a personalized baseline established for each individual. At the end of this post there is some real data from ISOBM to show you the light. You probably haven't seen these either since they're pretty hidden on BOCX's site.
If you read the presentations you will start to wake up. For ALL FOUR of the cancers tested, the RECAF cutoff value ("baseline") used was 4752 +/- 1. I repeat, for ALL FOUR cancers tested, and a combined 600+ patients, the RECAF cutoff value was 4752 +/- 1!!!!! Avg specificity was over 97%, and total healthy patients was around 350.
Therefore, the ALREADY ESTABLISHED BASELINE LEVEL of around 4752 produced only around 11 false positives amongst 350 healthy patients.
You have IMAGINED the fact that RECAF tests are applicable for only one type of cancer at a time. I wish it were that way, but to the contrary, the SAME RECAF VALUES are tested for across all cancers (one test!). The downside, of course, is that the test cannot localize the cancer. If an individual's RECAF level is above 4752 it will show up as "positive" and then it's up to the experts to figure out what type of cancer the individual has.
So, you see, STOP THE NONSENSE about a problem arising from testing for multiple cancers with the same serum assay. You have to dig into the data and start understanding it, rather than just running your mouth like someone informed when you haven't even read the appropriate scientific documentation. Also..keep in mind that if you've followed Moro's P.R's, every so often he throws out another possible application of RECAF (a pie in the sky type deal). A few months ago he threw out the rapid-fire OTC test stuff, etc. His idea of personalization is simply one of those new ideas of his, which he caveated by saying that he wasn't sure it would fly b/c of natural fluctuations in RECAF levels in a healthy individaul (but under 4752). The fact that you've blown his comment so out of proportion is dizzying.
Regarding colorimetry, you were one of the main people pounding the table that the test format itself would not drastically change the diagnostic properties of the assay. So, if you suddenly believe that prior data is not applicable due to the test format change -- an inane stance if you ask anyone knowledgable on diagnostics -- I suggest you sell your shares and move on rather than whining on this board.
1) OVARIAN CANCER DATA
http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/powerpoint/Part%201-%20Ovarian%20Cancer_files/slide0005.htm
2) BREAST CANCER DATA http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/powerpoint/Part%202-%20Breast%20Cancer_files/slide0005.htm
3) LUNG CANCER DATA
http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/powerpoint/Part%203-%20Lung%20Cancer_files/slide0005.htm
4) STOMACH CANCER DATA
http://www.biocurex.com/curexhtml/powerpoint/Part%204-%20Stomach%20Cancer_files/slide0005.htm
mysscat; interesting point you made about "other biotechs". take a look at the chart below which plots BOCX against the Biotech index. We have performed quite well while the Biotech's as a group have suffered quite badly.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=BOCX.PK&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&p=&a=&c=%5Ebtk
Foam: I am also trying to figure out how he knows the answers to his questions for Moro simply because Moro has not called him back. That is as preposterous as it gets since it implies that Moro somehow knows Kag's questions and is avoiding them. Dr. Moro runs a public company and is the author of a patent which has been licensed by one of the top diagnostics firms in the world...forgive him for not taking the time to chat with Kag. In 99% of public comnpanies it is unheard of for the CEO to chat with retail investors -- try Dr. Wittenberg, Angela, Toni, or someone else.
Dakota: your statement is 100% correct IMO. BOCX is saying that it may not be possible to personalize the test. There is no indication whatsoever that the general screening test itself may not be possible.
We're back to the same place. While he has childishly repeated the point about 10 times, Kag refuses to explain why personalized baseline levels are required for a general screening test. While a persnoalized test is a nice application, it is not part and parcel with a general screening test. He also refuses to address the fact that every other general screening test on the market has been implemented without personalized baseline levels. Finally, he refuses to address the fact that BOCX has shown us RAW data which shows a universally applicable baseline level of RECAF.
Kag...sell your 150 shares and stop worrying about these ridiculous things. If you want to worry about something:
1) independant validation
2) ability to integrate on Architect
3) getting off the pink sheets
scout; my questions are always answered in my regular conversations with BOCX. i have none at this time but thanks for the offer. i've been begging kag to hear his other questions for Moro but apparently it is top secret information...
Man are you a genius, Kag. Brilliant post...truly brilliant. Your fellow high school teachers would be very proud.
Kag...I posted about 2 pages of fact including a 30 page white paper by BOCX which you obviously had never read which discussed the general baseline levels already established with Moro. You NEVER responded, except to suddenly change the subject and start talking about the RIA vs colorimetric test.
Did I miss something everybody? Was Kag not talking about the difference between personalized and baseline tests, saying that there was a "huge problem" that a personalized baseline might not be possible? Then, everybody pointed out that while that might be true, it does not take away from the fact that a universal baseline of around 5k units had already been established and that was the bread and butter app (at that point I posted the 30 page white paper).
THEN, Kag suddenly changed the topic to whine about the RIA/colorimetric issue.
Kag...if you want to talk about the RIA/Colorimetric issue (for the tenth time) that's fine, but don't think I didn't notice the abrupt change of focus the minute facts were presented that made your initial line of thinking on the personalized test look, as my granddaughter would say -- retarded.
kag: you finally got something right...it's showtime for BOCX. the internal studies are a bunch of hogwash.