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.
I am done. Arguing with the stubborn, misinformed layman about basic science is a waste of time.
I encourage you to define immunoassay and molecular test on your own and you will find that the two are compatible. The problem here is that you don't even know or understand what either entails and you're not bothering to learn. You are just trying to find websites that tell you the two are different without knowing what they actually are in the first place. I am fairly certain I can find a website that supports any false claim I wish to make. The internet is full of wrong information and we must be wary when we select our sources.
I've already posted these links twice and you still haven't read them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_testing
"Other genetic tests include biochemical tests for such gene products as enzymes and other proteins and for microscopic examination of stained or fluorescent chromosomes."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/moleculardiagnostics/page4
"Borrowing from two new disciplines, genomics (gee-no-micks) and proteomics (proh-tee-oh-mics), molecular diagnostics categorizes cancer using technology such as mass spectrometry and gene chips."
You took a non-scientific page about CAREERS in molecular diagnostics, not an article about molecular diagnostics.
Why don't you actually answer the questions instead of fetching irrelevant webpages?
What do you think a "molecular diagnostic test" is?
Do you honestly believe a molecular test deals with nucleic acids while an immunoassay deals with protein?
Do you know what central dogma is?
Ok. So...
Is centrifugation still "not an easy collection method"?
Is "the only advantage of an immunoassay...cost"?
Are immunoassays and molecular tests distinctly different things?
Admit you were wrong yet? Or continue to change the subject?
It doesn't surprise me that you went ahead and deleted your post on centrifuges. Care to share what you were investigating with protein molecular weights? What was the ultracentrifuge for? Gel electrophoresis already existed...
"The only advantage of an immunoassay is cost but Molecular tests are growing in popularity as the costs go down."
Clear enough for you?
And you still don't get it.
immunoassay = genetic test = molecular test
Half Full Glass' article IS relevant. It's not even debatable, this is basic high school biology. An immunoassay is an example of a molecular/genetic test. PERIOD. And you can stop quoting the one random article you found. Try wikipedia? Or maybe a dictionary? Ninth grade science textbook?
Gold Seeker, try to find me one other article that at least implies immunoassays aren't molecular tests. I doubt you can do it.
Your source is an extremely obscure 2006 article written by a "research analyst" with no training in physical sciences and no previous track record for credibility. You can't just pull any information from a quick google search and blindly assume it to be true. What did you search? "Immunoassays vs molecular test"?
Did you take a look at the links I gave you? I picked what I believe you will agree are credible sources: wikipedia and cancer.gov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_testing
"Other genetic tests include biochemical tests for such gene products as enzymes and other proteins and for microscopic examination of stained or fluorescent chromosomes."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/moleculardiagnostics/page4
"Borrowing from two new disciplines, genomics (gee-no-micks) and proteomics (proh-tee-oh-mics), molecular diagnostics categorizes cancer using technology such as mass spectrometry and gene chips."
I think your problem is that you don't read anything. You're not even thinking about what these terms actually mean. You took a random statement from a random article from a random Google search and assumed it to be valid just because it supports your incorrect argument. You're not trying to understand what an immunoassay is, or what genetic testing means.
I told you already. I am not here to argue with you about whether or not BioCurex is going to be successful or whether the RECAF test is effective. I only post here to point out your obvious factual errors and your blatantly false statements related to science.
Again, I am not claiming that the RECAF test is good or bad.
I am only telling you that you CANNOT say the RECAF test is bad BECAUSE it is an immunoassay. There is NOTHING wrong with immunoassays, we use them for all sorts of enzymes in your body on routine blood tests.
"RECAF is NOT a molecular test. RECAF is attempting to quantify the amount of a molecule present. Molecular or genetic tests check for presence, not quantity. That is why they are accurate. Everyone has AFP so a molecular test for AFP would be useless."
Can you please tell me what you think a molecular test is and how it works?
Let me repeat. An immunoassay IS a type of molecular test. You throw fluorescent antibodies at a sample. If they stick, your sample fluoresces and you have identified that the molecule of interest is PRESENT. If you want to take it a step further and quantify, then you can measure HOW MUCH the sample fluoresces.
The immunoassay for RECAF is the SAME as an immunoassay for ANY OTHER MOLECULE. Medical professionals use the SAME molecular tests for RECAF as they do for your liver enzyme levels.
WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???
Gold Seeker, I am not arguing with you about the future prospect of this company. I couldn't care less what your opinion is.
I am only here to point out that your statements regarding the science of the RECAF test are blatantly false and factually wrong. You clearly lack any knowledge in biology.
It's actually incredible how absurdly incorrect and nonsensical your posts are:
"To put it simply, there is no match for the specificity and sensitivity of molecular assays."
Seriously? What does this even mean? There are sooo many things wrong with this statement, and it's just ONE example.
1) A molecular assay doesn't refer to any one particular test. It is a generic term used for ANY scientific procedure carried out in a laboratory related to genes or proteins...NO ONE knows what you're trying to say when you mention "molecular assays"...
2) Molecular assays don't have specificity or sensitivity. They give you information about the composition of an unknown substance. When you use the results to screen for a disease, THEN you start to use specificity/sensitivity.
3) Specificity/sensitivity are not inherent characteristics of the type of test. An immunoassay for prostate cancer can have higher spec/sens than a biopsy, but that doesn't mean ALL immunoassays are more spec/sens than biopsies. A biopsy for breast cancer can just as easily be more spec/sens than a corresponding immunoassay.
PLEASE just stop.
Punchout, you are wrong again.
No. Nothing I wrote was opinion. Could you PLEASE just learn some basic science before making any statements about the science of RECAF?
To put it simply, there is no match for the specificity and sensitivity of molecular assays. Molecular assays have the capability to differentiate viral subtypes, detect genetic predispositions to a disease and monitor the course of a disease.
The only advantage of an immunoassay is cost but Molecular tests are growing in popularity as the costs go down.
Could you explain what you think a molecular test is and what an immunoassay is? They are not different things. An immunoassay IS a type of molecular test...You also meant accuracy here, not specificity or sensitivity. We use accuracy because we want to know how well the test detects the presence of the molecule. We only use specificity or sensitivity when we want to know how well the presence of the molecule predicts the presence of the disease.
The problem with RECAF is the lack of accuracy. There is just too large of an overlap with those with and without cancer. That was the complaint stated by Abbott with the C/N ratio. If RECAF was an accurate test, Abbott would probably have continued development and we would have all made a lot of money.
THIS is where you want to use specificity/sensitivity and NOT accuracy. You have even these simple terms confused.
I think any intelligent reader will be able to tell that you are dodging my questions and repeating the same nonsense. Let's make it simple:
1) What is a molecular test?
2) What is an immunoassay?
3) Are the two things different?
4) What are sensitivity and specificity?
I would also like to know how you decided that the RECAF assay is not an accurate one. Let me teach you what an immunoassay is because you obviously have no clue.
In a typical immunoassay, antibodies that bind specifically to the molecule of interest are added to an unknown solution. These antibodies contain fluorescent or radioactive labels that can be detected and quantified. If the solution contains the molecule of interest, it will bind the antibodies and fluoresce.
As long as you have the antibody, the test is perfectly accurate barring human error. In our case, a positive immunoassay means that RECAF was present in the tissue sample. This fact is not disputed unless you believe the technician who carried out the test made a procedural mistake.
I think what you tried to say is that the presence of RECAF doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of cancer. That is a whole other issue, and you'd be looking at sensitivity/specificity and not accuracy. If you'd like to go this route, the only data available to the public suggests that the RECAF test is, in your words, more "accurate" than any currently available test for cancer.
1) Molecular diagnostics is a broad term that encompasses BOTH genomics AND proteomics.
2) Genetic testing, as well, can include detection of nucleic acids OR proteins.
I can't tell how much science you really know because your posts are actually laughable. Try reading up on central dogma maybe? DNA is transcribed to RNA, which is translated to protein. In detecting the presence of a specific genetic mutation, one can examine any molecule in the sequence, from the code (DNA) to the product (protein).
Here are some links for the layman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_testing
"Other genetic tests include biochemical tests for such gene products as enzymes and other proteins and for microscopic examination of stained or fluorescent chromosomes."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/moleculardiagnostics/page4
"Borrowing from two new disciplines, genomics (gee-no-micks) and proteomics (proh-tee-oh-mics), molecular diagnostics categorizes cancer using technology such as mass spectrometry and gene chips."
I trust you will have no retort this time around. I am in medical school, don't joke around please.
Actually, I'll just go ahead and tell you that you're wrong - you didn't even know what a centrifuge was. Please stop posting nonsense. You clearly lack the scientific knowledge to evaluate BioCurex's projects.
Sorry. Care to explain what you think the difference is? I have a feeling you don't really know what either entails.
Immunoassays test for the presence of a known gene or protein in a solution. Sounds like genetic/molecular diagnostics to me...
ethical concerns was simply an example in a general case.
for instance, in a drug trial, you cannot pick subjects to treat on a random basis. in most medically-relevant situations, subjects must give consent and be informed of experimental procedures.
in the context of recaf, the constraint is not necessarily a problem of ethics.
the only practical way of running the study would be to retrieve samples from subjects that have agreed to participate and then subsequently analyze the data for sensitivity and specificity of the test. as far as i know, that is precisely what is being done.
what different protocol are you trying to suggest? i am curious to know what you think the "controls" are that need to be implemented.
i think you just have a basic, layman's view, somehow believing that a proper study must always be groundbreaking, perfectly controlled, and have plentiful subjects. unfortunately, science isn't always so easy. a study is simply any planned collection of data with appropriate statistical analysis. i don't see how you can possibly argue that biocurex isn't really conducting a study...explain to me how the data obtained here is non-scientific and unreliable. there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current study, and saying so just makes it clear that you lack any training or education in the sciences.
please don't be so stubborn and defensive. accept your mistake and do some learning. i know it's not really relevant, but i am a medical student with an undergrad degree in neuroscience and economics (dealt a ton with scientific studies and statistics, if i really need to demonstrate my credibility) and i find it laughable that you think something is wrong with the recaf study...
Gold Seeker:
I suggest you do some reading and learn how studies should be setup.
i guess i need to state the obvious here...
recaf is a protein.
it behaves just like any other protein.
we start learning about proteins in high school biology.
basic knowledge about proteins can be applied to recaf.
we don't need a specific course about recaf to understand it.
a benign tumor is still a tumor.
recaf detects tumors.
should a tumor be detected, one further test can determine its malignancy.
this subsequent test is more invasive and costly than the recaf test.
a recaf test is a cheap and efficient method to filter out those who do not need the follow-up test.
you have a brain, too. please use it.
also, i never stated that recaf was not found on benign tumors.
stop with the lies.
i see you have wisely abandoned the centrifuge argument. interesting new take...but equally absurd.
allow me to point out some problems from your recent posts.
detection of a benign neoplasm is not a false positive. the recaf system aims to identify the presence of a tumor and never promised to indicate malignancy. in the cases you mentioned, the test was successful in detecting the tumor. further testing, such as biopsy, are required to determine the state of the cancer. please commit this to memory. we have gone over this many many many times and you are just being obnoxious.
tests for acute infections are standard in diagnosis. as stated, cases in which elevated recaf levels result from acute infection are very easily eliminated.
no doctor makes a diagnosis based on one test and one result alone. organisms are extremely complex systems. i don't see where you perceive a problem. every diagnosis requires a thorough review of patient history, signs and symptoms, overall condition, as well as results from multiple tests. no medical test is conclusive. results must be taken in context.
again...you demonstrate ignorance and a clear lack of knowledge in the field.
please try again. maybe look for holes from a business perspective. there is nothing wrong with the science. i can ask some of the people sitting around me if you want. i am currently at the library of my medical school...
it is highly probable that you are fabricating lies again. i find it laughable that you must point out the centrifuge as an impracticality in your desperate attempts to find something wrong with the current product. clearly, you are just throwing blind darts. if you actually knew what a centrifuge was, there is absolutely no way you would have made that absurd argument. centrifuges are as ubiquitous as beakers in laboratories and other medical environments. even high school chemistry classes use centrifuges. you seem to think that centrifuges are expensive, fancy pieces of equipment operated by an esoteric few. quite on the contrary, a centrifuge serves a very basic function, and that is to separate components of an imperfect solution by centripetal force generated through rapid rotations. it's all just jargon. centrifuges are necessary in conducting both blood and urine tests, so it is unlikely that any sizable medical institution would lack them.
that said, i suggest you find a new angle to attack from. don't waste your time mulling over the protocol. anyone with even minimal experience working in a lab will confirm that there is nothing inefficient with the procedures. In fact, it is just as simple as your "drop of blood on filter paper" idea (another method you probably don't understand).
on another note, please find some evidence before you accuse someone of duplicitous behaviour.
you make me sad...
now that is funny. after biocurex announces commercialization of their product, gold seeker relentlessly spews out his slander and presents his fantastical theories as fact. no matter...we also have further evidence of an obvious lack of scientific knowledge. surely, you don't know what a centrifuge is? otherwise, you would not have made that silly comment about the difficulty of administering a test...
please stop casting aspersions. your false, unsubstantiated information aimed at defaming both Moro on a personal level as well as the company as a whole can be considered illegal...watch your step.
must you really put a negative spin on everything? how very sad...
that was not a disclaimer. it was a statement of cautious optimism. i'm just being realistic because nothing is certain. some outcomes, however, are more probable (in this case, i believe it is success).
Hmm...your thoughts are still muddled...
a) I never once said that the prostate removal study was unscientific, and I certainly did not mention anything about the number of subjects in that study. I just remarked that the study raises suspicions because you never provided a citation to demonstrate its existence and/or validity. Additionally, I pointed out the impossibility of retrospectively determining whether a treatment was necessary and whether a patient would have been better off without. You cannot know for sure if a particular treatment's benefit outweighed the cost after it has been performed unless you can miraculously peer into an alternate universe in which the same patient with the exact same condition was not subjected to the treatment.
b) I also did not tell you whether Moro's study with 38 patients was scientific or not. I only told you that it is possible for the results of that study to carry statistical significance. Of course, with a smaller sample size, standard error of the mean is vastly increased, but these are taken into account with any statistical testing method. If the subsequent data analysis reveals an effect with a p-value below 0.01, then the results are significant and conclusions feasible regardless of the initial sample size. Of course, had the results not been significant, the study can still be significant in a purely subjective sense. The study would have failed to reject the null hypothesis and it would simply provide evidence that no difference existed between the treatment groups. Since you brought it up, whether a study is adequately scientific will depend on its experimental design and proposed procedural methods. As I have read neither of the studies you quoted, I have not commented on the science.
Now, I will move onto your question regarding BioCurex's potential in China. Unfortunately, I do not have a definitive response for you. All I can say is that neither of us can have any certainty about RECAF's future in China. Sure, I do hope that RECAF will finally be developed, completed, and commercialized, but I am not going to say that its success is inevitable. While I do think that RECAF is a good, viable product in principle, there are always obstacles that can impede its progress. Likewise, you should not be spewing garbage about what you believe to be RECAF's doomed failure, especially when you clearly lack sufficient knowledge to make such claims.
PS Let me know if I am misinterpreting, but you insinuated that I am Dr. Moro? Hilarity ensues...
Mr. Gold Seeker, you are not understanding the scientific definition of significance.
"38 total patients. 16 cancer and 22 normals. Yes that is a really significant study."
Significance in statistics isn't determined by the number of subjects in a study. Results are significant if statistical tests on a set of data show that there is very likely a difference in means (p-value < 0.01 is usually the convention in the field of medical research). It is quite possible that a group of 38 subjects can yield significant results if the means of the different treatment groups are sufficiently different. Now I am not saying that the particular study you mentioned is significant (because I have not read about it), but it is not impossible or even improbable.
Another reason why I think you need to be better educated in the field before making extreme, definitive claims. Totally unscientific, totally subjective, totally biased...
Ah Mr. Gold Seeker, it appears you do not have any educational background in the fields of science and medicine. Am I correct?
I only say so because I think you should realize that the support and evidence you are finding for your claims are not adequate. I will present some examples with thorough explanation.
"Per one study, only one out of forty prostates treated was actually lifesaving."
Many studies are run every year. Many of these are designed very poorly. Many do not have sufficient data to support claims with statistical significance. It suffices to say that making definitive statements based on one uncited study does not exactly render credibility. On a more specific note, your statement begs the question, how is it possible to determine if prostate treatment was actually life-saving or not? I think it should be fairly obvious that making an objective judgment in retrospect is impossible. If you are truly open-minded about the subject, I suggest you dig up the corresponding scientific journal article (assuming it exists) and take a closer look at the methods in detail.
"There is so much lacking in a universal cancer marker. It does not tell you what kind of cancer. It does not tell you the location of the cancer. It does not tell you how aggressive it is or if it is a cancer that will never bother you."
Wouldn't you say it is pretty naive to expect a single product that can detect a cancer, pinpoint its location, and identify its type and pathophysiology? Of course, that is not the goal of RECAF, as many of us have mentioned on multiple occasions. RECAF is meant to perform one task only, and that is to detect the presence of cancer efficiently and accurately (while being minimally invasive). If ever a product is developed that can perform all of the functions that you mention above with no particular downside, then sure, RECAF will become obsolete and impractical. However, no such thing currently exists.
"If you look back to the 1980's and 90's, I found several articles supporting the thought that a universal cancer marker would be useful. For the past ten years, I find no support for a universal marker except what you read from Moro and his supporters."
I am not sure how honest you are being, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Your literary research seems to be focused around magazine articles aimed at the average layperson. You often quote Time Magazine or some other nonscientific source. Even if written by a doctor, the fact of the matter is that the articles you read are highly opinionated and insufficiently objective. They also contain no scientific data or appropriate evidence to support their claims. If you are having trouble finding support for universal cancer markers, you are either very selective in choosing the articles you read (hence the heavy bias), or you have not been looking very hard. A quick search on PubMed (a database of peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, and an invaluable resource for the medical student or professional) yielded over 500 articles related to cancer markers submitted or published this month alone. There is clearly interest in the area and it remains an intense field of research. It is also hardly believable that the only support for universal cancer markers you could find in the last decade came from Moro and his supporters...completely farfetched. Whatever happened to the other companies that are trying to develop similar products? Do they not support the very markers they are working on? The bias here is very blatant.
"There are no actual practicing doctors supporting RECAF. Please, find one practicing oncologist that would say RECAF is great and a needed test."
Another childish thing to say...In theory, you could only make this statement if you managed to ask every doctor in the world whether or not they support the idea of a universal marker for detecting cancers. I doubt you have heard the opinions of more than a handful of doctors. It is also a very rare occurrence in the medical community to have anything even remotely near a consensus. Also...the only reason I will not find that oncologist for you is because it would be impossible for me to convince you I had found one.
"Why do you see posts on medical forums where people have asked their doctors for the haah test and doctors wont even administer the test? "
Last time I checked, most doctors don't have the time nor the reason to post on these "medical forums" you speak of.
"Don't you understand there is a problem with universal makers and their acceptance by the medical community? "
I hope you would stop pretending that you understand the medical community, which I assume you are not a part of (again, based on your apparent inability to present valid arguments with objective evidence). Like I mentioned before, there is still a lot of research being conducted on universal markers. Why would a cancer detection system of high sensitivity and specificity not be accepted? There is absolutely no reason for such a test to be rejected, if properly developed. It would provide an additional piece of information in probing the patient's condition at very low cost.
"The fact is that RECAF is not going to fair any differently."
Finally, you have fallen into the trap of looking for nonexistent patterns. Just because other similar products have failed does not mean RECAF is doomed. It is surprising that a self-purported "savvy" investor would think this way. Note: you do not seem to grasp the definition of 'fact'.
I'm not sure why it should be so difficult to understand, but I guess bias clouds thinking...
"Some slow growing cancers do not even need to be found. If they are detected, unnecessary treatment almost always ensues."
At present, we can't choose to detect only aggressive cancers. The very logical manner in which we currently deal with cancer is to FIRST detect if ANY cancer is present and THEN, if cancer was in fact detected, determine if it needs treating based on more testing (often more invasive). It should be clear why RECAF can be useful. As well, "unnecessary treatment almost always ensues" is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Keep in mind that articles outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals should not carry much weight as they are often driven by a hidden motive and lack true scientific evidence.
"...with RECAF, you do not diagnose ANY TYPE of cancer. Other tests have to be used for diagnosis."
Funny. Anyone else see the irony?
Let's take a look from the other perspective. There have been claims that since some cancers are better left untreated, RECAF is unnecessary. I'm already confused. Could someone please explain that to me? Some cancers do not need treating, so let's not attempt to detect any cancers at all?
To reiterate, there is NOTHING WRONG with DETECTING cancers. If overtreatment is an issue, then it can ONLY be attributed to problems with the tests designed to determine malignity of the cancer, NOT the detection system. RECAF does not promise to point out cancers AND diagnose them. It is simply a more efficient solution to the question "is there cancer present?" There are a multitude of possible applications. Not only can RECAF be used for initial detection, it can serve as a tool for monitoring cancer growth/spread in addition to post-treatment assessment.
It is really very simple, very clear, and very logical. Assuming we are all unbiased and not here to mindlessly bash the company while desperately trying to discourage investors *cough*, I expect to see no more posts asserting that an efficient and effective method for detecting cancers is unhelpful and unwanted.
correction:
i realized after posting my last reply that the term 'nonperforming loans' technically means something else
i am referring to borrowed money that isn't generating revenue
Why you trying to scare people?
I'm sure you know full well that Biocurex is only required to state that in order to comply with SEC filing regulations. The reason? Currently nonperforming loans: nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing necessarily negative.
Am I correct in assuming you were attempting to discourage investors by falsely presenting that statement as a pessimistic outlook on the future from Biocurex?
Gold Seeker:
Additions to the amended S1, page 1 in bold type.
WE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN UNSOUND FINANCIAL CONDITION. YOU SHOULD PURCHASE OUR SECURITIES ONLY IF YOU CAN AFFORD A COMPLETE LOSS OF YOUR INVESTMENT.
my apologies to mata hari then
on another note, anyone know what happened at the meeting today?
oh so you represent the medical community now? mr gold seeker? or are you solely referring to that one single article you read against markers?
just to let you know, there is vast division in the medical community on any given topic
i can assure you for ANY article you find that argues against these markers, you can find another that supports them
and please realize that the one article you quoted is not even from a peer-reviewed scientific journal
ps i am a part of the medical community...for your information...