Combining markers makes recaf a serious contender. As a matter of fact, Dr Moro I had a genious idea this morning. Another application for recaf could be an autopsy. You identify the cause of death as cancer and combine recaf with existing markers to identify its location. Thank me later. Recaf is a useful tool and there no markers I heard of that are 100% accurate in both specificity and sensitivity. Cancer is extremely deadly, because you don't necessarily develop symtoms until it progresses, sometimes until it's already too late.
It's ironic that the most prolific poster on a cancer diagnotic company's board owns no stock in the company, and is someone without a medical degree. What's their motivation?
Another misstep I would like to share. Goldseeker wrote, "I did contact one of the Vets participating in the study. So far, not enough customers want to participate to draw any conclusions. A collection fee is charged by the vet which I thought was rather pricy. I did not ask but the fact they are charging for collection tells you that BioCurex is not paying for anything but the processing of the test."
First, how do YOU know how many samples were collected or how many vets participated? So how do YOU come to the conclusion that not enough participated to draw any conclusions? You were the one earlier tht said there was no study, right? Now you admit to the study, yet it is meaningless because there was not enough participation. Mr Goldseeker, where are the facts to come to your conclusion? So how do YOU draw THAT conclusion? Second, It was pricey, but you did not ask how much? Wow. I am not debating, just pointing out misinformation. IT DOES NOT ADD UP SIR.
