Frelii, Inc. (FRLI)

[bocxman]

TBILLS what's your point? Try to find stuff by the same doc which relates to p65, not any and all papers he's written. Go to pubmed. It's all old stuff, there isn't much of it, and the data itself is very unimpressive. Look for yourself.

Here's a question for you...go the XPNG's website, and look under the "Studies" section. The company has 1 retarded canine study up there, and nothing else. Even though the U of T data on p65 is unimpressive from what I've seen, it's pretty SHOCKING that XPNG wouldn't include any of it on their website.

It's all starting to make sense to me now... Why did U of T, a top 3 cancer center, license this technology to a little shell company called XPNG, who probably didn't pay a dime for it considering they have no money?? The answer is obvious: no real players in the industry wanted to touch this stuff in the 10+ years since it's been around.

Quest/Roche/Abbott/Ortho/Fujirebio/etc would have been ALL OVER this stuff if it had the slightest bit of promise as a universal cancer marker. BOCX's technology didn't slip by the industry leaders even though the company is a bona fide pink sheets POS. I doubt U of T's technology would have slipped by if it had any promise whatsoever.

I will eat my words if somebody can provide a link to some impressive data. And 60% specificity by no means counts as impressive, especially with such a tiny sample size. Here are some of BOCX's test results over the past year or so, to give you an idea of what the competition is publishing:

----------------
Prostate Cancer: 99% sensitivity, 95% specificity

Stomach Cancer: 90% sensitivity, 95% specificity

Breast Cancer: 93% sensitivity, 95% specificity

Colon Cancer: 75% sensitivity, 95% specificity

Lung Cancer: 90% sensitivity, 95% specificity
----------------

You've got to admit that is pretty mindblowing. What's more is that Abbott Labs did a blind sample verification process with BOCX before signing a licensing agreement. What that means is that Abbott submitted blind encoded samples and BOCX returned the samples labeled as positive or negative.

In other words, Abbott did not take BOCX's word for it that their technology works. They tested it themselves, THEN signed a deal.

Let's stick to facts and keep the "he's a basher" talk to a minimum. I'm not a "basher," I just have an investment in a competing company (BOCX) so was compelled to look critically at this company. Originally I was excited by the thought of U of T being involved, but when you peel back the onion there is nothing here.

Take care,
BOCXMAN