The quest has always been for a universal cancer marker. That is what I have invested in, and that is what insurance companies would rather spend their money on. Why wouldn't the insurance company whose one goal is to reduce their costs not allow a Recaf test to allow for minimal expense vs. surgery, radiation, and chemo if they may now only need to pay for possibility of one of the above. Let's just say for example you have a lesion that you are concerned of (a lump or a skin lesion or some unexplained symptoms...blurred vision, stomach ache, head ache, difficulty passing urine, ect.). What is the first thing you say to yourself? Most would say, "Please God, don't let it be cancer!"
I would love to have a simple drop of my blood rule this out immediately and then move on to other diagnostics. Do you think Senator Ted Kennedy would rather go thru brain surgery and find out his last days on earth are about to end miserably, because the cancer is ravaging his brain? I do not see this as a debate. For me it is instinctive for any human to want to survive and if you could avoid most of the torture involved with irradicating cancer you would want to treat it as soon as possible.
Half, you and I are on the same page.
