BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[bocxman]

Half-Full I believe they did use the word "approval" in cases where they should have been saying "clearance." That is the only part of the SEC's reason for investigation that is true, IMHO. When I first took a position in this company I believed strongly that the SEC would drop the charges or do a little slap on the wrist if the only wrongdoing they found was the semantic example given above (approval vs clearance).

Now, the other part of the SEC's investigation...to look into the "accuracy of claims" -- that part of it has potentially catastrophic consequence for the stock if it was revealed that BOCX falsified data. THAT part of it is why BOCX nosedived from $4 to $0.20. Similar to what recently happened to CAFE, if BOCX did in fact make false claims about the data they would be seriously f**ked.

But, at this point in the game there is very very little chance that the SEC would ever find wrongdoing on the accuracy of claims issue. When investors dumped the stock to the $.20 level, they didn't have the benefit of knowing the following:

-- BOCX published their entire raw data set on the study for all to see in response to the SEC

-- Abbott Diagnostics completed blind sample verification and signed on.

-- BOCX has published corroborating data from Japan and Europe, I believe both of these were after the SEC investigation but don't take my word for it I'm not double checking right now.


To summarize, BOCX should have used the word "clearance" in place of "approval," but there is no evidence whatsoever that false claims were made.

Now...why did the SEC have reason to believe the company MIGHT HAVE made false claims??

I have a few guesses:

1) Because it was too good to be true. Some little pink sheets company trading for next to nothing goes up thousands of % on earth-shattering cancer diagnostics data....who the hell would believe that? It was an internal study, there was no verification from the outside...I don't blame the SEC for wanting to take a look under the hood.

2) Where there is smoke there is fire. The SEC might have wanted to look under the hood because BOCX had already broken the rules by calling it an "approval" rather than a "clearance." After that initial error and taking one look at their financials, the SEC must have immediately considered BOCX a suspicious company whose claims should be investigated. I personally don't think the semantics thing was a material error , but technically it was definitely an error (and we'll never know if their intentions were innocent or not). While BOCX was definitely "approved" to sell Histo-RECAF in the U.S by the FDA, they did not receive an "approval" -- they received a "clearance." So the SEC had good reason, based on that slip-up, to want to verify the WILD CLAIMS of 90%+ sensitivity/specificity.

3) There was a whole lot of "hypester" material floating around via snail mail, e-mail, and the web that severely distorted the facts of the company and the data. The stock became a hype bubble and it was unclear what was emanating from the company and what was emanating from the hypesters.