Yes, you did, Gold, and thank you!! But even with that, I have enough in tax-loss carry-forwards to last about thirty years at $3000 a year. I bought BOCX for up to a dollar! I have thought for a long time that Moro misrepresented the successes of his trials, but too late. Buyer beware!

Hi Ted, Gold, Half, and everyone else,

No, Ted, I haven't posted in a long time, but I continue to follow the stock and both message boards. After loosing such a large part of my retirement, I'm just curious to see how things will play out. I know that some are still hopeful, but I think the current economy is making things difficult if not impossible for companies like BOCX - no matter if the science is good or not. There's just no funding...

Best of luck to all.

great-grandma

It might be selfish, but I like the idea of him taking a hit just like the rest of us.

He owns a LOT of stock. Will he now be able to dump it and drive the share price lower? Do you think that was his motivation - he figured the game was up, and he better get out what little he can before a bankruptcy?

BTW, I also thought he was a slimeball and not good for the company.

Can't he market it as a home brew test in Canada?

That's the name of the game right now. It's best to keep an eye on the balance sheet and make sure current assets far exceeds current liabilities.

I also received the pamphlet. This is the only thing that bothered me:

"There is one other change relating to our semi-exclusive licensees. Following the collapse of the Abbott Diagnostics sale to General Electric in July 2007, the former became very conservative with its budget. This culminated in the Aug. 1, 2008 announcement that they were making drastic cuts to their global diagnostic business -- eliminating 1000 jobs for an annual pre-tax savings of over $150 million.

This process translated into significant amendments to Biocurex's licensing agreement. Under these changes, Abbott was relieved of its future responsibilities in exchange for Biocurex receiving a higher royalty. Biocurex also obtained the right to terminate its license with Abbott if that company does not agree within 90 days to new due diligence obligations for the commercialization of RECAF-based products.

This amendment is NOT a termination of our licensing agreement. In fact, Abbott co-authored a presentation in an international cancer congress showing similiar results to those previously reported to Biocurex. The amendment shifts the research and development effort to Biocurex, which in actuality has already been the case for the past two years."

To me, it seems that management is blaming the collapse of the sale to GE in July, 2007 and the current financial situation as the reasons for the amendment. Yet they also say that they have been doing all the research for the past two years. For most of that time I was blissfully assuming that Abbott was actively involved in research. I know I would have made different investment choices had I known of Abbott's lack of involvement, but I guess management wanted to put off the panic as long as they could.

BTW, all my tests are back, and there is no cancer. That's a good thing.

I agree withyou,Kag. Until the economy is straightened out "Cash is King". I think many companies, no matter how good, may not survive simply because credit is tight. Any company or individual who is highly indebted will probably have a hard time.

Yes, you could say I got spooked, but I feel that my real mistake was putting all my eggs in one basket. One should never do that - especially with a small biotech. At my highest point, I think I had 95% of my portfolio in this stock. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong.

I just had some major surgery. Guard your health, people. There is nothing more important. If RECAF helps us to do that, I will be very, very pleased - no matter how many shares I own.

Kag, you are correct: I am on the fence, but now with vastly fewer shares. Mysscat was right when she said to not invest more than you can afford to loose. I'm sleeping a lot better now that I am fully diversified.

At one time we all hoped to meet in Rome, Orlando or elsewhere to celebrate our good fortune. Maybe that won't happen, at least in the near future, but it sure has been a heck of a ride. Perhaps an old-fashioned Pity Party will be in order instead! In any case, I wish everyone good luck with all their investments.

That's where you were smart, Dog. It's not my core position either - anymore. In fact, I have relatively few shares now, but I, like many others, had over-invested in this stock because the potential seemed so great. Lesson learned!

Amen. Good post, Doggone.

I first learned of them from Smallcap as well. They probably reached a lot of us, and they certainly did write a convincing story. I wonder when they sold the last of their stock; it would be interesting to know given the recent events.

Lucky you! I was going to retire this year, but I lost too much money in BOCX - that's what I get for not being better diversified.

GS, I can only speak from my personal experience. When I went to the doctor, I had a specific symptom. She said I needed to see a specialist. I had to wait three weeks. If the original doctor had been able to give me a RECAF test, it would have alleviated a lot of fear. You can't help but think the worst. If the RECAF test had been positive, though, I bet the specialist could have worked me in a lot sooner. I can see that something like RECAF could make the whole healthcare system work more efficiently. Those who test positively for RECAF could be pushed to the head of the line, so to speak.

Do you think Abbott just goofed bigtime when they were putting together their report, or is the number of samples so small that the results are statistically insignificant? Or am I just not understanding what you are talking about? Actually, either of the first two would be good for BOCX because it would eliminate some of the doubt many have felt recently.

Do you think Abbott would reconsider coupling RECAF with the PSA test if they realized a mistake had been made? Maybe I am just too hopeful.

I'm so glad you did that! I hope Dr. Moro can make RECAF work with this technology. It could mean so much to so many. BTW, this latest article was an update of the one that was talked about last April.

If anyone has Dr. Moro's ear, have him read the article Half just posted on the other board. RECAF could be used to deliver the gold to the cancer cell and then the machine could kill the cell without harming surrounding healthy cells. Here's the best part of the article:

"Curley is trying to use special molecules that are programmed to target cancer cells and attach nanoparticles to them.

He showed Stahl an animation of how he hopes the targeting will work in people one day, with a simple injection of gold nanoparticles into the bloodstream.

"What we’re seeing here is an example of a gold nanoparticle in this case with an antibody on it, so the antibody would be the targeting molecule," Curley explained. "You can see it is tiny compared to a normal red blood cell just imagine all of these billions of these gold nanoparticles circulating through the body and then once they get into the blood vessels going to the tumor, these nanoparticles would go through and bind on the surface of the cell."

"The cancer cell. It wouldn't bind on a normal cell," Stahl observed.

"That's right, they would bind only to the cancer cell. Now here’s the nanoparticles in the cell, here comes John's radio frequency treatment. The cells get hot and they’re destroyed," Curley said."

Thanks,Opportunity. I hope he answers soon. It will be nice to get some information from the head guy.

Thanks, GS. I am hoping he will be specific about where the money came from and give us some assurance that there won't be another "loan" with such terrible consequences.

I would like to know how long their present funds can last given the present burn rate, and also how they expect to obtain additional funds until an adequate revenue stream is a reality.

I read the info regarding the patent application, and it mentioned the patent cooperation treaty, which led me to google, and I found a site that let me do a search. I searched RECAF and found this:

(WO 2007/076439) METHODS AND MARKER COMBINATIONS FOR SCREENING FOR PREDISPOSITION TO LUNG CANCER 05.07.2007 G01N 33/48 PCT/US2006/062488 ABBOTT LABORATORIES
The present invention relates to certain immunoreactive polypeptides, methods for aiding in the diagnosis of lung cancer in a subject and kits for performing said methods.

Did Abbott develop something while having BOCX's information? Could they have legally used that information, or is this something totally different?

I also hope Gold (and others) continue to post. They are often a source of good information, often putting scientific and financial into in terms I can understand. As for buying and selling, everyone must decide for himself. I too came close, but did not sell. I am grateful for the opportunity to average down. BTW, three things kept me from selling:1. The technology is so good and has come so far. 2. I kept thinking about the secretaries who were given stock. 3 I have one of the danger signs for cancer. It's taking three weeks to see the specialist. I kept thinking how much better it would have been if my GP had been able to do a RECAF test right there in the office. I'd still have to see the specialist, but I would have a better idea what to expect.

I think Dr. Moro is aware that we have to get the show on the road. He needs to do whatever is necessary to assure a revenue stream.

I'm not, mysscat. I'm still holding and will continue to do so until I am absolutely certain there is no hope (probably via a filing). Hopefully that will never come to pass.

Well, I sure got separated, and I do wish I had sold long ago, but hindsight is always better than foresight. This stock was meant to make my retirement better. I'll still retire within a couple of years; I just won't travel the way I had wanted to do. But these days, with so many people hurting so badly, I feel lucky to have my job and my house. It could always be worse.

I envy you. My basis is four times that, and others here are in even worse shape.

It's really bad, and a lot of us are hurting, but I am glad we can trace the cause to manipulation. We all know it exists. The question then becomes whether to sell or hold, assuming one believes that the technology is sound. I will hold at least until the next filing, when I hope things will be made more clear, especially the financial situation. I don't think we will lose everything, though we do have to face the possibility of a buyout.

Whatever happed to the ideas of using RECAF to monitor existing patients and to keep track of as individual's RECAF levels as an individual diagnostic tool, much as doctors track cholesterol? Does anyone still think these are viable options to consider?

I think fear has a lot to do with it. Some of us have quite a few shares, and we are wondering whether we will ever be made whole again - much less make money. The general state of the economy and the markets doesn't help either. Chances are your whole portfolio is worth less, and so is your house!

Have any of the long-termers sold besides Zolax?

Just in case anyone missed it:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

I believe he did indicate it would become more apparent in the next filing.

Lately, whenever I start to worry about the money situation, I read Gold Seeker's post #14770.

It could be a good thing for us if someone at the FDA was asleep over DR70. As you stated before, we now have hope that no PMA will be required.

Even if there was no market as a stand-alone test, and I still think there could be, RECAF could be used for monitoring and verification purposes - especially if it was inexpensive.

"There will probably be no PMA required. The DR70 test will serve as a predicate for RECAF and a 510(k) will suffice. AMDL got approval using the CEA test as a predicate and IMO, that wasn't even close so the FDA is now trapped into giving RECAF an easy approval."

That is really good news. Let's hope the powers that be are still monitoring this board - just in case they missed it before.

In 2000, they were quoting $100 a test, but it's probably double that by now.

http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/9B4955504DC92FC4852568E0006DDEB6

Do you, or anyone, have any idea what their test costs?

It looks as if they may have the first to market advantage, but perhaps not by too much if IMA and Biosite get cracking. If our specificity and sensitivity is better, that is quite an advantage. Sales would be affected by channels of distribution and simple marketing. We may have an advantage there because of our association with Abbott and IMA. Do you agree?

Given the immensity of the market, perhaps there is room for both. Or maybe it will come down to which can be done more cheaply or with better user-frendliness - just speculating here.

I found this on google:

The overall specificity and sensitivity of the DR-70® in the latest clinical trials were 95% and 83.8%, respectively. Clinical trials in Canada, Taiwan, China, Chile and Turkey showed that the test detects cancers of the rectum, colon, breast, lungs, stomach, liver, ovaries, throat, cervix, womb, thyroid, pancreas and lymphatic system. The results, published in the respected medical publication, the Journal of Immunoasssay, showed that the test was more than 90% accurate for cancers of the stomach and lungs, and slightly less reliable for breast and rectum tumors.