I think the fact that at a glance the list includes very few acquisitions and many sales is a negative. It's just a question of how big a negative. To determine this, we'd have to assess the plausibility of the claim that the sales are a reasonable form of management compensation that replaces a salary--compensation for actual "work" done for the company. Seems reasonable in the case of Wittenberg and Moro, but the others are just members of the SAB, not really "management," so I'm not sure how much "work" they do for bocx. An important question for me would be "are they being paid for real work or simply for their permission to have their names on the SAB list?"
This issue is one reason why the upcoming ISOBM conference is important. The fact that three members of the SAB are presenting talks on RECAF-related topics seems to show that they have real involvement with the technology and not just an arms-length relationship with Biocurex.
Of course, I am particularly happy to see Gold do a paper. But the topic of the paper "CEA -- 40 years after" seems like more of an historical overview than a report on actual work done on RECAF. They are saying it will "include a discussion on the future of cancer markers and RECAF." But it's an open question how deeply it treats RECAF, and how strong a commitment it makes to this technology. And beyond this paper, it still isn't clear to me what Gold has contributed, or whether he has really done any "work" for Biocurex comensurate with the amount he has taken out of the company.
AI
