TurtleBK stated: "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."
I agree with the above. IMO, a Radiologist would probably not want to mess with a test that did nothing but say you need to find the source. If it was a false positive, you could look forever. That is why he first stated, location, location, location. he would just using imaging from the git go and look for immediate results.
Anyway, he was the only independent doctor I have found making any comments about RECAF. Everyone on the board believes what Moro is saying who is highly biased. If RECAF was all that Moro stated, there is just no way Abbott would not have proceeded.
That is my biggest problem with this stock. Both Abbott and Inverness have changed their minds about using it on their mass analycers. Moro also cannot get any other labs interested in the manual ELISA tests. Moro will tell investors he is in discussions with multiple labs and then nothing happens. Right now, I just totally disregard anything Moro says.
Everyone touts the scientific board that Moro paid to get onboard back in 2002. None of those say anything or pay any attention. A years or so ago, one of the investors contacted Dr. Sell and asked about RECAF. He id not even know what Moro was doing.
Who do you believe. Moro was first stating in the S1 that Inverness would pay royalties this year. In the latest S1, that changed to say he did not know when nor how Inverness would pay any minimum royalties. That is a huge change so does Moro tell the truth?
