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.
Colorado becomes first state to approve bill giving terminally ill access to experimental medication
FoxNews.com
Published May 18, 2014
Colorado became the first state to allow terminally ill patients to have access to experimental medicine not yet approved by the FDA Saturday.
Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the so-called 'right to try' bill into law in Fort Collins. The bill's co-sponsor, Democratic State Rep. Joann Ginall, was absent from the signing ceremony in order to tend to her older brother Tom, who is suffering from a rare blood cancer.
"Thank you to everyone for passing this bill, which may bring hope to people like Tom when all else failed," Ginal said in a statement read by State Rep. Randy Fischer at the ceremony. "The types of treatments envisioned in this bill gave my brother more time and hopefully will do the same for others."
The bill allows patients and doctors to work together to secure experimental treatments with the permission of a pharmaceutical company. Insurance companies are not required to pay for the treatment, and drug manufacturers can choose whether to charge for the medication or to provide it to the patient free of charge.
Lawmakers in Missouri and Louisiana have passed similar bills unanimously in recent days, while voters in Arizona will weigh that state's version of the law at the polling place this November.
Supporters of the bills say that they would help patients who are desperate for treatment avoid the lengthy process of getting the FDA to approve access to experimental drugs. Opponents say that the legislation circumvents federal law and undermines the drug development process.
Interesting News...
http://www.internationalhifu.com/
Video
Gold that was part of a loan modification in 2010 not the contract between Biocurex and Pacific Biosciences.
Where is the agreement between Pacific and Biocurex?
Gold, When you are standing in front of the judge and jury...All they want to see are the legal contracts.
You are always posting supposed legal issues with regard to Biocurex...What does the contract state between Pacific Biosciences and Biocurex with regard to rebates? Who do they belong to? Its as simple as paper or plastic?
All of these people are losing their houses...They signed a contract stating they would pay x dollars for the use of the banks money. When they couldn't pay up they lost the house.
Bad Banker? or Bad Borrower? What did the contract state?
Hungry,
Business is ruled by legal contracts. If Biocurex agreed to pay Pacific an amount of money, then they agreed to pay them a specific amount of money.
If Pacific Bioscience gets a free lunch after that agreement was made, then the free lunch belongs to Pacific Bioscience.
What does the agreement between Biocurex and Pacific state?
Until that is known and until someone can prove that a rebate is even being given, all this BS from GS is smoke and mirrors.
Gold, In response to your question, Did you or Do you give your tax refund back to the company who provided it to you?
Hmm, What's up with the volume today? 2,132,000 shares...
PSA Test Adds 3 Weeks to Man's Life: Study
Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:58 AM
The possible benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening have been hotly debated in recent years, but for the first time a new study tries to put a number on the balance of pluses and minuses for the average man.
Using data from past cancer studies and a mathematical model, researchers from the Netherlands calculated that on average, annual screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing would add three healthy weeks to a man's life.
That doesn't mean everyone should run out and get a PSA test, however.
Whether screening has a net benefit or harm for a particular man depends on how he feels about the possibility of suffering screening- and treatment-related side effects — and how much erectile dysfunction or incontinence, for example, would influence his quality of life, researchers said.
"We're even more sure than ever that it's important for doctors and their patients to talk about the prostate cancer screening decision and its potential downstream consequences," said Dr. Harold Sox, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute in Hanover, New Hampshire, who wrote a commentary published with the new study.
"Now we have some real scientific evidence that a person's choice probably should reflect what the net benefit is for them."
For the new study, Dr. Harry de Koning of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam and his colleagues built a model based on data from a European trial in which over 160,000 men were randomly assigned to undergo regular PSA testing or forgo screening.
They considered the benefits of catching some cancers early — including a lower chance of dying from prostate cancer — as well as the harms of so-called overdiagnosis. Cancers caught during screening are considered overdiagnosis if they never would have produced symptoms or threatened a man's lifespan. In those cases, treatment can cause side effects but won't do men any good.
The researchers determined that for every 1,000 men getting annual screening in their late fifties and sixties, there would be nine fewer prostate cancer deaths, 247 extra negative biopsies performed and 41 additional men getting prostate surgery or radiation. Forty-five cancers would be overdiagnosed due to screening.
Based on the effects of screening and treatment on each man's quality and length of life, those 1,000 men would ultimately gain 73 extra years of life, or 56 "quality" healthy years.
But the change in quality years due to screening could range anywhere from a loss of 21 healthy years over the 1,000 men to a gain of 97 years, de Koning's team reported Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Some people — we don't know how many — would actually come out negative, they would lose (quality years)," Sox said. "And other people would gain. Therefore it's hard to make one rule that would apply to everybody."
QUESTIONS, CONFLICTING DATA REMAIN
De Koning said that at the very least, his study argues against the notion that PSA screening is typically a bad idea for healthy men.
He and some of his colleagues have received consulting fees from pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including a company that designs PSA tests.
In May, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel, recommended against PSA screening for prostate cancer in men without symptoms.
"This statement that has been around for the last couple of years now saying the benefits don't outweigh the harms - that I think is not true, it's too easy," de Koning told Reuters Health.
Still, he said, "at the individual level, you do not know whether you as the individual will get the benefits or the harms."
While the European study showed a 29 percent reduction in the chance of dying from prostate cancer in men who were screened, another large trial from the U.S. failed to show any survival benefit.
Sox said it's possible some of the figures used in the new model don't accurately reflect men's feelings about having a radical prostatectomy and ending up with erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, or getting radiation and developing chronic diarrhea, for example. Still, he said the study is a step in the right direction, toward appropriately weighing the long-term harms and benefits of screening.
"It's the first research article about screening that tried to incorporate the feelings of patients toward what they might experience if they underwent screening," Sox said.
"The problem (in other studies) is that the benefits are measured in one way and harms are measured another way. You end up making that judgment about whether the benefits exceed the harms, or vice versa, purely subjectively," he added.
One question that still remains is whether screening all men of a certain age is cost-effective for society, de Koning pointed out.
According to the American Cancer Society, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point in their lives and one in 36 men will die of the disease.
The researchers agreed that individual men should think about how they weigh both the possible benefits and harms of getting screened for prostate cancer and discuss the decision with their doctor.
"One man might say, ‘I won't take my chances,'" de Koning said — while another will accept the risk of overdiagnosis and related side effects and still choose to get screened.
© 2012 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
So gold, You are Assuming that Pacific Biosciences is or has been receiving this credit but have zero proof...That is pretty thin information to be calling someone a thief and a liar...
Gold, Do you have proof of this accusation? I would like to see it posted here.
Gold stated," He steals up to $1.5 million from BioCurex"
Rocketman I understand the test sells for $65 per test. I have not followed very closely as of late but it would be nice to see some good sales numbers.
So let me get this straight: All of the following are from our smartest people in the entire world.
There are approximately 7,500,000 worldwide cancer deaths per year.
Early Detection is Good as long as you don't do anything to diagnose or eradicate the cancer because those may cause harm?
Chemo causes Cancer....
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/Chemotherapy_Cancer_Study/2012/08/06/466914.html?s=al&promo_code=FAB4-1
Mammograms are Bad....
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/komen-cancer-group-criticized-for-ads-backing-mammograms.html
PSA tests are Bad....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57438590-10391704/u.s-panel-recommends-against-psa-tests-for-screening-prostate-cancer-in-men-of-all-ages/
Watchful waiting is Good....
7,500,000 worldwide will continue to die each year of cancer.
Early Detection is Good
diagnoses and eradication is Bad
Chemo causes Cancer....So we give it to existing cancer patients.
Mammograms are Bad....
PSA tests are Bad....
Watchful waiting is Good....As it allows the cancer to progress
7,500,000 worldwide will continue to die each year of cancer.
I get it now. These guys are so so intelligent.
The bottom line is: Quit all Cancer care and save your money to bury the 7,500,000 people each year Cause that is apparently as good as it gets.
Oh but it gets better. Lemon juice, asparagus and Vitimin C cure cancer except for the fact that they are all packaged in cancer causing wrappers.
Blood test could lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer
By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Cancer Weekly -- Scientists have discovered that a simple blood test could lead to better diagnosis and treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients, according to an Article published Online First in The Lancet Oncology.
The study, led by Professor Anthony Lucci from the Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas, USA, builds on earlier work which identified tumour cells circulating in the blood of patients suffering from spreading (metastatic) breast cancer. Tumours are generally thought of as spreading through the lymphatic system rather than the bloodstream, so this earlier research represented a significant departure from the usual means of cancer diagnosis and characterisation.
Professor Lucci and colleagues investigated whether circulating tumour cells (CTCs) could be found in the blood of patients at an earlier stage of disease, where the cancer has not spread beyond its original location (non-metastatic). They also looked at how the presence of CTCs affected survival rates and progression of the disease.
Looking at 302 patients with operable breast cancer, the researchers identified CTCs in the blood of 24% of the study group. They found that the presence of CTCs accurately predicted both progression-free survival and overall survival, with 15% of the patients who tested positive for CTCs relapsing, and 10% dying during the study period (February 2005 to December 2010), as compared to just 3% and 2%, respectively, of patients who did not test positive for CTCs. For patients with a higher concentration of CTCs (three or more per 7.5ml of blood), the correlation with survival and progression rates was even more dramatic, with 31% of these patients dying or relapsing during the study period.
The findings raise hope that in future, blood tests could be used to provide improved diagnosis and treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients. Currently, diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer often relies on lymph-node removal, which can have unpleasant side-effects. CTC analysis does not appear in current guidelines for the assessment of cancer patients.
"These studies identified that both progression-free and overall survival were worse in patients with one or more circulating tumour cells... the growing body of published work, including our study, suggests that assessment of circulating tumour cells might provide important prognostic information in these patients", according to Professor Lucci.
"If the presence of circulating tumour cells were to contribute independently to the currently available prognostic factors, this information might be useful in disease staging and in identifying patients who might benefit from additional adjuvant therapies."
The research remains at an early stage and further work will be needed before CTCs can be used to guide clinical decision making. In particular, the study included only patients who did not receive preoperative chemotherapy. Since the effects of chemotherapy on CTC concentration are poorly understood, further research into this will be an important factor in developing CTC analysis into a useful diagnostic tool for early-stage breast cancer.
In a linked Comment, Professor Justin Stebbing of the Department of Surgery and Cancer at Imperial College, London, UK, welcomes the findings, although he reiterates the authors' point that more research will be needed before CTCs can be used in a clinical setting: "Larger clinical studies are needed to further clarify the role of CTCs...at present we are in a difficult situation where we have a reliable prognostic biomarker but restricted guidance on how this information should be used, and therefore, until the completion of further studies, we do not envisage patients being treated differently on the basis of these data".
Keywords for this news article include: Cancer, Lancet, Oncology.
Toothsaver, I agree with you.
"It may be pressure from Paulson to keep the costs of operation to a minimum until reasonable revenu sets in. Paulson may have asked Moro to ask for the 3 resignations. I don't know but it may be an explanation"
Gold, Who is Barry Dowell and who did he work for and where is he today? Why does he have a #1 following his name?
Who is Stephen Frost and what is the #1 following the name?
What company is listed in red below in two places with a #1 before the company name?
Please define the following, BioCurex and Abbott Jointly Present RECAF Results At International Cancer Congress
September 20, 2007
Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/16zly)
CHEMILUMINESCENT ASSAY (CIA) FOR THE RECEPTOR OF ALPHA FETOPROTEIN (RECAF) TO SEPARATE CANCER FROM NORMAL SERA
Barry Dowell1, Stephen Frost1, Janneta Tcherkassova2, Angela Gerber2, Rafael Moro2 and Ricardo Moro2
1Abbott Laboratories, 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, IL 60064-6013, United States 2 BioCurex, 215-7080 River Road, Richmond, BC V6X 1X5, Canada
Aims: A radioimmunoassay for the receptor to alpha fetoprotein (RECAF) from BioCurex separates normal specimens from wide variety of cancers. Our aim was to develop a non-radioactive immunoassay for receptor to alpha fetoprotein (RECAF) for the early detection and screening of cancer.
Methods: The RECAF CIA assay is a competitive assay that utilizes a IgM monoclonal antibody (1.4G11) on the solid phase and acridinylated Human Milk Protein RECAF conjugate. We perform the RECAF CIA assay by mixing diluted human sera with acridinylated RECAF, and adding the mixture to a 1.4G11 coated microtiter plate. Following incubation, the washed plates are read in a chemiluminometer. BioCurex performed initial experiments and confirmation testing. Then, BioCurex shipped the RECAF CIA assay to Abbott Laboratories for testing.
Results: At BioCurex, studies using breast, gastric and other types of cancers (n= 68) and normal samples (n=52) had an area under the curve (AUC) for the ROC curve of 0.954 with a cancer/normal ratio of 1.7. Initial experiments at Abbott Laboratories with prostate cancer (n=8) and non cancer samples (n=16) had AUC for ROC curve of 0.95 with a C/N ratio of 1.3.
Conclusions: We developed a non-radioactive RECAF CIA assay that separates multiple types of cancer from normal sera with a C/N ratio ranging from 1.3 to 1.7. Our future studies will focus on increasing the cancer/normal ratio to create a manufacturable RECAF CIA assay.
EVALUATION OF PLASMA AND SERUM COLLECTION TUBES IN THE RECEPTOR FOR ALPHA FETOPROTEIN (RECAF) RADIOIMMUNOASSAY (RIA)
Barry Dowell1, Petra Stieber2 , Stephen Frost1, Janneta Tcherkassova3, Angela Gerber3, Irene Ng3 , and Ricardo Moro3
1Abbott Laboratories, 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, IL 60064-6013, United States
2 Institut für Klinische Chemie, Klinikum Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, D-81366 München, Germany 3 BioCurex, 215-7080 River Road, Richmond, BC V6X 1X5, Canada
Aims: BioCurex developed the RECAF RIA assay to separate normal specimens from a wide variety of cancers. Our aim in this study was to understand the impact of different serum and plasma specimen tube types on RECAF RIA assay performance.
Methods: In Munich, blood samples from 20 patients were collected into 11 different serum and plasma tube types and blinded. BioCurex obtained and tested the blinded samples using two competitive RECAF RIA assay formats. The RECAF RIA formats utilized I125 RECAF conjugate from breast cancer cell line with either microtiter plates coated with monoclonal antibody or rabbit polyclonal antibodies. Next, Abbott Laboratories received the RECAF RIA results and analysed the decoded data with Analyze-It software version 1.73, 2006. We determined tube types to be statistical equivalent when Wilcoxon and ANOVA analysis had p<0.05.
Results: The RECAF values from both RECAF RIA assay formats were statistically equivalent for SarstedtTM serum tube and Becton Dickinson(BD)TM, serum clot tubes (plastic and glass), and serum separator tubes (plastic and glass). SarstedtTM and Becton DickinsonTM Heparin plasma interfered with the RECAF RIA assays and caused > 3-fold increase in RECAF values compared to serum tubes. SarstedtTM EDTA plasma was statistically lower RECAF values than SarstedtTM serum tube . SarstedtTM EDTA, BDTM EDTA and citrate plasma results varied from equivalent to statistically lower values depending on RECAF RIA assay format.
Conclusions: The RECAF RIA assay is compatible with different serum collection tube types. Plasma collection tubes, especially heparin should be avoided in the RECAF RIA assay.
Gold,
While I would love to debate your issues they are getting off topic so I will not. Getting back to the original issue...
Did Abbott jointly present Recaf results with Biocurex at the ISOBM?
Gosh Gold,You seem to be fixated on mr. Frost......May be his departure had absolutely nothing to do with Recaf. The amount of people in small businesses way outnumber the amount of persons employed by megacorporations. That is basic knowledge. It may be that Mr. Frost didn't like working in a big brother environment.
Hungry, you posted a comment of pathetic when Gold mentioned "so many lies going on that he can't keep his story straight. "
How about a straight answer to clear this one up?
Just ask Hungryleon....who made the following statements that conflicted with eachother. When I asked him to clarify which was true he never could respond.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68519068&txt2find= style='background-color:yellow;'>scientist
Hungry,
For clarification, your posts seem to conflict with one another...Which is it?
I'm a scientist and business student
Or
I'm a science and business student
I just want to gather information to decide whether to invest in this stock.
Or
My involvement in this forum was the result of a school assignment to research the effect of PRs and investors' forum in the value of penny stocks.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67645175&txt2find= style='background-color:yellow;'>scientist
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68517566
I believe Gold pointed out that people such as those are told to leave because they would never leave on their own accord.
I.e Stephen Frost
Ok. We can play that game.
Who stated the technology works?
Who wrote each of the published papers?
Who paid money for the technology?
Who bought shares of the company?
Who just loaned Biocurex additional $ ?
Who presented jointly at the ISOBM?
Who is currently promoting doggy Recaf?
Who approved the published papers?
Gold, So you result to attacking the journal?
I showed you some time back where the so called high impact journals were chalked full of ghost written papers. Many of those papers were false.
Your logic again does not hold water it only serves as a diversion so that you do not have to agree that many people have shown that Recaf is valuable.
Please define Assume?
Gold, Neither you nor I know why Mr.Frost left Abbott. I would assume many people come and go to and from Abbott.
Do you have any documentation showing what happened? You keep bringing this up as fact?
I really don't care what happened to Mr. Frost. All I did was show you In print:
Preliminary studies indicate that RECAF may provide good clinical sensitivity and specificity as a tumor marker," said William Brown, Ph.D., vice president, Diagnostic Assays and Systems Development, Abbott. "Abbott's goal is to further develop this technology, incorporating it into future tests on our ARCHITECT® system, for use in cancer diagnosis and monitoring."
BioCurex and Abbott Jointly Present RECAF Results at International Cancer Congress
Gold,again I have not attacked any poster. Please refrain from accusations such as that.
I do not know Dr. Walsh or Dr. Gold.
What facts are you referring to? And on what do you base your assumptions that anyone abandoned Dr. Moro?
I continue to post factual information that you want to apparently ignore and you continue to post opinions as if they were factual???
"Chester (Chet) Paulson, Founder and Chairman of Paulson Investment, stated, "We believe in the Company's technology and we are pleased to be able to continue to support BioCurex. Paulson will continue to support innovative companies like BioCurex."
Preliminary studies indicate that RECAF may provide good clinical sensitivity and specificity as a tumor marker," said William Brown, Ph.D., vice president, Diagnostic Assays and Systems Development, Abbott. "Abbott's goal is to further develop this technology, incorporating it into future tests on our ARCHITECT® system, for use in cancer diagnosis and monitoring."
BioCurex and Abbott Jointly Present RECAF Results at International Cancer Congress
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131516/
RICHMOND, British Columbia, Oct. 4, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioCurex Inc. (OTCBB:BOCX) today announced that its article entitled: "Increased AFP-Receptor (RECAF™) Values in the Serum of Patients With Early Stages of Breast Cancer" has been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed medical journal.
That is an awful lot of assumptions on your part. Using that logic, may be Dr. Moro just got done cleaning house and Booted Dr. Gold. Eh?
So Abbott scientists stood on the Scientific stage and jointly presented Recaf. hmmmm. Did they have a gun to their head? Or we're they presenting findings that were positive results for cancer diagnostics using Recaf?
That is very funny. I am still waiting on your response.
Just ask Hungryleon....who made the following statements that conflicted with eachother. When I asked him to clarify which was true he never could respond.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68519068&txt2find= style='background-color:yellow;'>scientist
Hungry,
For clarification, your posts seem to conflict with one another...Which is it?
I'm a scientist and business student
Or
I'm a science and business student
I just want to gather information to decide whether to invest in this stock.
Or
My involvement in this forum was the result of a school assignment to research the effect of PRs and investors' forum in the value of penny stocks.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67645175&txt2find= style='background-color:yellow;'>scientist
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68517566
So Abbott jointly presented a non solid science?
Preliminary studies indicate that RECAF may provide good clinical sensitivity and specificity as a tumor marker," said William Brown, Ph.D., vice president, Diagnostic Assays and Systems Development, Abbott. "Abbott's goal is to further develop this technology, incorporating it into future tests on our ARCHITECT® system, for use in cancer diagnosis and monitoring."
BioCurex and Abbott Jointly Present RECAF Results at International Cancer Congress
It was a simple request to a scientist on this board regarding Recaf and other universal markers currently on the market. How do you turn that into an attack?
As far as your request regarding Dr. Gold and Dr.Walsh....You would need to ask them.
So Hungryleon, you state you are a Scientist ......Please do give us your professional scientific opinion regarding the science of Recaf as compared to the other universal markers that are currently on the market.
Cancer Incidence May Surge 75% By 2030, Lancet Says
By Makiko Kitamura - May 31, 2012 6:30 PM ET
The global incidence of cancer may rise more than 75 percent by 2030, led by developing countries, according to research published today in the Lancet journal.
The number of people with cancer in 2030 may rise to 22.2 million, or 0.3 percent of the global population, from 12.7 million in 2008, according to research led by Freddie Bray of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. The projection is based on the United Nations’s population forecast, the IARC’s database tracking cancer incidence in 184 countries and expected increases in the rates of colorectal, female breast, prostate and, in high-income countries, lung cancer in women.
While improving living standards in lower-income countries may lead to a decrease in infection-related cancers such as cervical and stomach cancer, that may be offset by a surge in the types of cancer associated with smoking, obesity and diet which currently affect mainly richer countries. Poor countries, as measured by the UN’s Human Development Index, may see a doubling in the incidence of cancer to 490,000 in 2030 from 2008, according to the study.
“This study underscores the diversity of cancer as a worldwide occurrence and the extent to which the disease patterns differ from country to country,” the authors said in the article. Targeted interventions are needed to “effectively control the prevalence of lifestyle factors including tobacco avoidance and cessation of smoking, a reduction in alcohol consumption and obesity, and the promotion of increased levels of physical activity.”
The richest countries currently bear much of the cancer burden, with almost 40 percent of the global incidence occurring in these countries, while having only 15 percent of the world’s population. The most commonly diagnosed cancers in these areas are colorectal, lung, female breast, prostate and stomach.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in London at mkitamura1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kristen Hallam at khallam@bloomberg.net
More News:
Science · Asia · Health Care
I guess this says it all. We believe in you and will put up the money.
"Chester (Chet) Paulson, Founder and Chairman of Paulson Investment, stated, "We believe in the Company's technology and we are pleased to be able to continue to support BioCurex. Paulson will continue to support innovative companies like BioCurex."
Sorry to keep you waiting for more than a few hours.
Gold, I am not Privileged to the internal workings of Abbott or Alere.
I do know that Abbott & Alere would like to get many devices and or Pharma products approved for sale on the market but that does not mean that the FDA is acceptable to their wishes.
You or I could assume many reasons pro or con but the answer is that only Abbott & Alere know the true answer.
Maybe they wanted to steal the technology for one or more of their products? They did pay a million dollars and $500,000 dollars for something...
Don't know Gold,
Just in a wait and see.
I still think he has one hell of a good cancer diagnostic tool. I however do not make the idiotic rules that the medical field is forced to follow.
To sell at sub penny is stupid.....I will just watch and wait. Just like the prostate patients are supposed to do now according to the FDA.
No Gold, they make you prepay for operations now.
So according to the FDA rules and regs, the computer screen actually reports the slow growing cancer to the insurance company. Therefore we should discontinue the use of computers in cancer diagnostics. Without the computer to relay this information, then the payment to the doctor would never arrive and consequently the operation can never be scheduled resulting in zero chance of diapers for the prostate patient.
Problem solved!
I believe the questions need to be asked of the Pathologists.
They are the ones creating the diaper issues. They have the final say on cancer or no cancer, the type, location and progression etc.
Maybe Dr. Moro should be the one asking the questions as to the reliability of the Biopsy....
The Path dude is strange at best...Would you base anything on his words after viewing his website?
I-invest,
It is interesting that those with a vote want to "shoot the messenger" so to speak.
We have the PSA, Mammogram, PAP and others being demonized when they are nothing but messengers. The test that needs improvement is the Biopsy that follows the diagnostic.
In most cases, doctors need to do a biopsy to make a diagnosis of cancer. For a biopsy, the doctor removes a sample of tissue and sends it to a lab. A pathologist looks at the tissue under a microscope.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer/page6
So gold how does the PSA test get blamed for diaper use? Should we instead be hammering on the Biopsy?
It's called common sense.
Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."[1] Thus, "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".[2]