kag: thanks for posting the same exact comment five times without commenting on the paper i posted (which took me a good 20+ minutes to find and IMO is an essential piece of BOCX due diligence which the company inanely keeps buried on their website...your welcome!). the paper contradicts your line of thought by illustrating that there is in fact baseline levels of RECAF, and RECAF levels above that baseline have shown a remarkable ability to detect cancer for at least half a dozen different cancers.
take a look towards the end of the paper where he shows the raw data of RECAF levels in the healthy patients versus cancerous patients. without even looking at the graphs, running a t-test, or employing any other statistical technique, even a toddler can see just by eyeballing that there is a threshold of RECAF levels which clearly separates the healthy and cancerous patients...that threshold is around 5k RECAF units.
that is the traditional set-up for all the big serum assays -- a universal baseline. Moro now wants to take it a step further and investigate whether sequential tests on individual reveal constant levels of RECAF, which would open the door to other applications...but you still haven't explained why Moro's desire to do so negates the already established universal baseline for general screening.
It's okay to be wrong, Kag. Man up and address these issues rather than post the same comment over and over again like a child. New information has been added to the discussion -- information that I am 99% sure you weren't aware of -- and you refuse to address it?
PS: if Moro is not available try Angela or one of the other folks in the research center...they are good about discussing the science.
DISCLAIMER: NEVER ASSUME INFO ON MESSAGE BOARDS TO BE ACCURATE. ALWAYS DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. DON'T BUY STOCK BASED ON THIS POST OR ANY OTHER POST. I OWN A LONG POSITION IN THIS STOCK AND THEREFORE I AM BIASED.
AI
