I will challenge anyone on either of these boards to present evidence that supports Moro assertion than RECAF is a near ideal cancer marker. The information must be current to the past 5 years because there were some in the 1980's who actually did say that universal cancer markers had value. That erroneous thinking is a thing of the past but Moro refuses to let go.
Not only will I challenge anyone to find current information about that, I will also challenge anyone to find a website where a scientist or physician not associated with Biocurex in any way supports RECAF as a test that would be a revolutionary improvement in cancer testing.
Not only will I challenge anyone to find the above, I will challenge anyone to find a national cancer organizaiton with a current position that speaks out in favor of RECAF.
If you can produce even one of the above, I will cease posting for a month. Want to keep me quite? Go for it. Since you think RECAF to be a vaulable product, surely someone else would feel the same way.
If no one can find any support at all, you will have to acknowledge that what Moro is telling you may in fact not be factual. The test may perform well doing what it does with test samples but will it have any value in the real world?
I will not accept Abbott or Inverness signing an agreement as proof because I have seen no further support and Abbott has effectively returned the product. Inverness doesn't even list RECAF in the pipeline for 2009 or 2010 and they are supposedly an agressive company. It has been over 17 months and Inverness should be at least mentioning it in their pipeline of products. After all, Moro has stated that he is able to pass them all the valuable information learned when developing the test for Abbott. With all that informational advantage, why has nothing been heard?
