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.
Breast cancer followed by - from the looks of the money involved for the total program - 10 other cancers. If we don't figure in this project I'm selling out. This is tailor made for us, and may have been the real reason for the 30 million share spurt last Thursday. Interesting.
Thanks. It seems the peptide version (with the new "in office" and "hand held device" elements as well) is so much cheaper that it makes Abbott's previous uninterest in the way more complicated and expensive version irrelevent to today's situation, I'd imagine. Don't know what the nature and cost of the radience test is/was but perhaps it's the same deal. Thanks again. I'll research the Radience thing.
I know they haven't said whether it's been filed yet, but I thought I remembered reading or hearing that it was aimed specifically at collorectal cancer. Just wondering if you thought that was the case. I know I heard burger say or write that that was their first human "target" and I was wondering if that info was given in reference to the nature of the 510k thing. I kind of think it was. Thus there would probably be a data package on testing they may have done with collorectal cancer. Maybe not.
Okay, thanks. But is the 510k in fact specifically related to colorectal cancer monitoring? That's what I recall. I'm just thinking that they must have included some kind of human test data in the application to make it credible. I'm not sure under what auspices they did the tests if they happened, but, as in the latest PR referring to human testing with the PSA, they seem to be ABLE to do testing on some level. How convincing it is - who conducted it and where is important, I suppose. They seem to be trying to make it a definitive submission, and I'd imagine Burger is well aware of what they'll be up against and that they'd better make it good. I'm not used to seeing such sketchy communications on this stuff but I guess that's what makes a 2 cent stock a potentially thrilling experience!! You pay your penny and you may win a buck. That's all you're gonna get information- and data-wise for your puny penny,so take it or leave it, who cares?...and frankly they've got a point!
Glass, great series of informative posts for someone new to the cancer test field such as I. The cautions regarding the other tests sound applicable to ours. Haven't looked at the Abbott link yet, but if it doesn't answer my question to Gold as to linking me to authoritative documentation on the uselessness of the RECAF test due to human variability of RECAF expression ,,, perhaps you could supply such a link if there is one.
I'm thinking cost is what deterred Abbott, and now with the peptide version - if it pans out as described by Moro and seemingly confirmed by the coming on board of Burger - cost may be such that the test is once again viable. Cheap, hand held, in office etc. They recently stated that the dog version has been upgraded to peptide. I think what we're waiting for now is news that the Chinese operation has succeeded in developing a workable in office hand held dog and/or human version.
The recent PR was funny as it didn't specify peptide and if it wasn't peptide was a bit on the old news side....but might it have been cover for insiders to purchase massive amounts of shares because they knew of developments such as the two i just mentioned having born fruit. t certainly sank on negligible volume since last Thursday.
Peptides are the latest thing, but to find the one you want usuallt takes hundreds of thousands of tries. In october Moro is going to explain how he found his. I think a lot of sceptics are anxious to see how he did and IF he did it.
Just my feelings as to what may be up here. Finding the right peptide isn't easy, but if you do it's almost a Holy Grail. So we shall see.
Good. Would that data on colon cancer be included in the 501c (or whatever it's called) they are submitting?
And I get your facts regarding the dog test but I don't get it's relevancy to our discussion. Is that the peptide data?
Thanks for the explanation. I just typed out a long response and then proceeded to lose it. So briefly....human variability on RECAF expression is so great the test is meaningless. I'd like to see that articulated somewhere authoriative if you have it. Seems like the smart scientists gathered around Moro over the years would have known about that at the outset and given up the idea of it being useful as a test very quickly years ago. Maybe they have.
But the problem is overcome by testing Joe Blow or Spotty once a year thus giving each patient a baseline to compare what happens RECAF-wise each year.. The application they are starting with for the test: i.e. testing RECAF concentration to look for any recurrence of colorectal cancer after therapy has been performed would fit that second work-around approach.
A yearly RECAF test made monetarily possible using the cheap pepttide and a hand held device once a year could be the solution and a profitable one too. Seems like the new approach with those elements incorporated is the way they are proceeding on RECAF now. Do you agree? Thanks again, Very helpful.
If this peptide really works ... more accurate, can be fine-tuned to different species variations and tissue variations, much easier and cheaper to manufacture with absolute uniformity (no question on that one)...then that's a true quantum leap forward in terms of bringing this technology into the mainsteam. It would be a whole new ballgame really. I'd like your opinion on that, Goldy. I don't think I've heard you address the peptide transition. I suppose you think it's a bunch of lies. But you did notice Burger came on board after it was achieved. I think that was why he did. Your thoughts?
That's all i had on me. I'm just trying to help the stock. Don't rub it in.
Well, I think he's pretty well off now. Plus in two years his AVII holdings should have him sitting very pretty. And two years is when this thing seems scheduled to click as well, so...
I think he really sees this as do-able and potentially pretty big. I think it's possible he sees or knows there's a good chance either his Trinity or Walsh's company will eventually want to buy it. And that if he can bring it into a real product or group of products, it reeally would be a beautiful accomplishment.
Although he deserves a lot of credit for bringing AVI to the point it's at today was a real achievement, he gets nothing but scorn for it as far as I can see. And that probably rankles him a bit. That's another reason why I don't think he'd do this unless he thought it was going to succeed.
The pairing of Recaf with the other markers was mentioned by Burger in the call as something they would be pursuing, as I remember the call. Can anyone confirm that?
Since the results of BioCurex's combo tests were presented in September at an internatioonal oncology conference in Europe just prior to Burger's commitment (publicly) to proceed in a big way with this new effort, I've got to believe those results are for real - although unpublished.
I appreciate Goldie's skepticism as a learning tool for me (and other new investors). He also serves to elicit info from other long-time holders who disagree with him. Which is even more helpful!
Having now heard both sides, and knowing well Dr. Burger's successful many many year long sheparding of antisense genetic manipulation technology with AVI Biopharma (now finally showing what it can do in muscular dystrphy), I'm fairly confident he wouldn't be wasting his time at his age on some fly-by-night shot in the dark.He's got to be pretty confident this effort is going to pay off. He's just been around too long to bother with something like this unless he's amost gauranteed it's going to succeed.
Then again, he perhaps had a Freudian slip at the outset of his call where he said "experiment" instead of "enthusiasm" (and corrected himself)!!! So yes, he could see this as a two year experiment - that if it works will be fantastic, but if it doesn't at least they tried.
I can imagine him doing it if he saw it having at least a 75% chance of working out. Anything less than that I don't see him bothering with. I'll take those odds too.
"Trinity Biotech develops, acquires, manufactures and markets over 500 diagnostic products for the point-of-care and
clinical laboratory segments of the diagnostic market. The broad line of test kits are used to detect infectious diseases,
sexually transmitted diseases, blood coagulation disorders, and autoimmune diseases."
Goldie: "I don't see "cancer test" anywhere in this resume."
This leads me to suspect Burger and Walsh may be creating a company that will eventually be acquired by the Trinity Biotech!! Or, of course, Walsh's present company.
Sneaky!
Very helpful on the science. Thanks.
The royalty business is a mystery, as you say.
Thanks. That does seem like a real problem!
All I can think is that B&W may be hoping that if it's used on someone whose cancer has already been dealt with initially, that giving that person the test (or even having that person self administer) once a month or more (as opposed to the current 6 months elaborate check-up) ... if they at any point suddenly see an uptick in the reading, the chances are going to be pretty good it's the same form of cancer they have been dealing with. If they never see any upticks then they can postpone the $5,000 test they had been planning. And on and on, postponing that expensive traditional check-up until they see an uptick. at which point they take action or just do that normal expensive test and then take action. And so it would just be a fast and easy inexpensive way to keep on the look-out for any big jump in cancer growth activity. If growth iIS seen, then you take the next normal step.
so it only makes sense to use it for peole who already have had a specific cancer dealt with, and then only as an early warnin system. Hence the point of care, cheap and fast and frequent test would seem to be the most reasonable application. At least initially.
I guess I should have referenced their ELISA test. I was assuming that a RECAF test in that mode would be done with other blood tests included, but perhaps i'm wrong in thinking that. But there may be a sound financial reasoning in them not wanting to focus on that test and preferring what seems to be a simpler, cheaper and of course faster (3 minutes) in-office test. At least that would seem to be a faster way to introduce a new technology or test.
Also, is it possible that adding Recap to Invernesses existing testing thing is incompatable with the follow-up modality? In other words Inverness's Triage test (whatever it is! It being all Greek to me) is part of a generalized blood test given to anybody and not specifically to current cancer sufferers?
Thanks. I'm new to this field. What is the fatal flaw of universal cancer tests in your opinion?
Why do you think someone like Burger and Walsh don't see that fatal flaw - or don't see Biocurex's version as sharing it?
I saw your previous stab at an answer in a recent post; but do you think the fact Burger is focussing on follow-up testing answers your stated concern?
As a brand new investor I wondered about that larger picture too, Goldie. (And thanks for your valuable help in weighing the merits of this thing.)
All I have come up with as an answer to the question as to why Abbot and Inverness haven't moved on it is that
1) Inverness IS doing something and we just don't know about it, or
2) that our patent protection is not solid, or that it's slipping away in a few years, and Abbot stands to keep all that Big Money all to themselves by waiting for us to die off in two or three years. And then THEY can develop it, or something very very close to it, all by themselves and all FOR themselves.
And if that is actually the case, then this attempt by Walsh and Burger is a last ditch attempt to avoid that from happening. In other words they've got 2 - 3 years, and if all goes exactly right, they can get this stuff to click in the marketplace while it's still mostly in Biocurex's hands.
Nope. Just a guess in positive spin mode. And it makes sense they'd have to demonstrate capacity to fill large orders before they'd get any commitments to make, say, cell phone shell antennas. It's a big market that needs reliable supply. No use introducing a product that becomes immensely popular and then having to say "well, we don't have any more to sell just now...." Probably they needed money now - and couldn't wait for the name change, index change and sale of new stock that is probably planned after something is rolled out.
They needed the cash from warrants exercized to pay Jarco for more work/equipment/activity then they'd bargained for. I'll bet any customer wanted to see proof they could mass produce the stuff fast before commiting, and that took additional expenditures on Jarco's end, which ITKG needed more cash to cover.