Great day of trading everyone! Looks like we'll see some green today just for fun. People want to get on board here after the new financing went so well.
Quickly, I should remind everyone that while I was a BioChemistry major at Notre Dame, and am currently a second year medical student at Columbia in NYC, I am not a world expert on cancer treatment. That said, I do believe that my understanding of the medical culture and of biochemistry is enough to understand the clear utility of this product. My experience as a clinician is just now budding with the training in physical diagnosis and history taking that we have begun to integrate this year. If a true radiation oncologist took a good hard look at RECAF, his opinion would be one to which I would defer. That being said, the idea that one said it was a waste of time on his blog brings me to highly doubt either his credibility or the quality of his investigation. I certainly disagree with that statement in principle, and am nearly shocked to hear it. However, the perspective of a radiation oncologist is bound to be different than an internist's, given that his interest is to perform radiation imaging to see cancer, and this product may lessen its necessity.
As far as "personalization" of the product, I believe that to be fully within the realm of what can be done here. There wouldn't be much need to test with this product more than once a year in my opnion, so antibody half-life will not be an issue (if the product 'sticks' to the chemical complexes it identifies, then the next round would miss what has already been tagged, and this could skew the subsequent test). So sure, I think this could be something that could be a part of an annual physical for adults over 30.
Gold did, however, make a good point in suggesting (however unintentionally) that patients and doctors would need to make sure that they do not overreact to news of a significant RECAF result. While it certainly detects cancer at an early stage, it does not differentiate between cancer that is an imminent threat and cancer that is more suited for monitoring over the long term. Therefore, a positive RECAF would not mean "you have cancer," only that a more full work-up, including perhaps genetic testing, a prostate exam, perhaps a colonoscopy or MRI if one is at risk, would be performed to rule out life-threatening or highly likely cancers. The test would be a good first indication and a good marker to identify at-risk patients who would then be more closely monitored. It would be an informative part of a suite of tests which, when used together, can give the clinician a clearer picture of what is going on. Most regular lab values serve a very similar purpose, although unlike RECAF they are not usually cancer-specific.
The problems in getting this product into labs and into hospitals seems to me to be one of business and marketing, and not one of utility. Citing circumstantial hypotheses as legitimate indication of a lack of interest by another company such as Inverness or Abbott, is irrelevant and helps us to conclude nothing. The fact is that this kind of product has immense value to the medical community. I hope the new capital from the public offering helps BioCurex to advance its product in a more effective way.
Cheers,
BK
