Replies to post #2409 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[fluffy]

Bocxman. Further back in time I think you would have been right in asking for further data from credible sources baking up the fantastic data from BOCX.

But I believe that the company’s limited resources at the time (pre Abbott and of course post Abbott) were used to do large amounts of double blind testing with pharmaceuticals in the hope of striking license deals.
I understand as well from the company that the fact that their test is radio-isotope based test (RIA) give them additional problems in terms of transport and cost in doing external reviews. The other party for example needs to have a testing room cleared for use of radioactive material.

In this perspective you also have to realize that pharma’s in spite of independent testing would opt to check the technology themselves before making deals. IOW BOCX would probably have had to go through fairly large double blind testing procedures anyhow

Presently, I however think that it does not make sense to go out and spend around 100.000$ (according to your cost estimates to do a 500 patient study) to make an independent study as we are probably only a few months (or less) away from having Abbott completing its feasibility review.( Especially, if you only have a couple of hundred thousands in the bank (as per their latest 10Q).) And Abbott would engage in large studies immediately after successful integration of RECAF into their Architect system.
Furthermore, I reckon that Abbott in the integration phase would have to consistently measure their data against the data of Biocurex’es to make sure they get the same or better results using their screening platform, and what is really important at this point in time, as Kag has mentioned, is that they have not decided to pull out.

You wrote that “did Abbott license RECAF because it holds promise as some niche marker which will never be a blockbuster”
I have to say here that that I refuse to believe a company the size of Abbott would engage with BOCX and RECAF because they think it could “hold some promise as a niche marker.” A smaller niche player perhaps but not Abbott, who would only engage in something that could add in a decent way to their bottom-line.

You also mentioned: “It begs the question of whether there is some skeleton in the closet regarding the effectiveness of RECAF”.
If I was Dr. Moro and knew of “skeletons in the closet” regarding the tech, but nevertheless had managed to fool Abbott in the double blind testing procedure I would not have opted for a semi-exclusive back-end loaded license agreement (small up-front payment with higher royalty payments later). (we only received about 200.000 $ upfront)
I would instead have gone for exclusivity with as high as possible up front payment. (like Diagnocure in the deal with Geneprobe who I believe received about 8 million $ up front for their prostate test.)

All that being said I think it is good with critical comments and I think that management could have and perhaps should have done many things different in the last 5 public years. However as long as the technology holds I don’t care too much because the tech. in that case would be worth billions.

[Headache]

Bocxman, another theory I have to explain the non-traditional path Biocurex has followed is this:

Biocurex's SAB is second-to-none, and includes all of the major figures in the cancer marker field. It is possible that some sort of deal with Abbott was "conceived of" very early on, by people in both Abbott and Biocurex, perhaps years before the actual deal was announced. I'm not suggesting something shady or nerfarious occurred, just that there may have been connections of a very informal kind, but which are very common in academic and industry circles, between Abbott and Biocurex, that made the deal between the two companies a "natural" one. The "connections" I am thinking of are things like key individuals in both companies having shared interests in cancer markers, or a desire by Abbott to enter that market space, or common educational or professional backgrounds on the part of key individuals. Based on these sorts of connections, Abbott could very well have been aware of or informally "involved" with Biocurex very early on, perhaps advising them to follow the path Moro has followed. They may have said "just do the internal studies, and if the numbers continue to look good, we'll sign a deal and assume the burden of conducting the additional studies required to bring RECAF to the market as a product."

Why do I think this? Because the people at Biocurex are not "outsiders." They're insiders who are very connected to anyone involved with marker technology and research, and those connections could include key people at Abbott. Think of the ISOBM connections--Biocurex repeatedly presents at the ISOBM conference on markers, partly sponsored by Abbott, publishes in the ISOBM journal "Tumor Biology," whose editorial board includes individuals on the Biocurex SAB.

[erthang]

Bocxman -Nobody on this board has even hinted that those things didn't matter, but that it will happen in due time! You are, and a few others are just anxious for news so you can see a quick increase in price to make you feel better about your investment, and/or sell some shares. Unfortunately for you, no matter how much you complain and whine, the company is going to stick to it's game plan. They understand what's going on with the technology more than you. You are an uniformed outside critic. There is no way for you to know what is going on in the inside! Your opinion is valued, however, should be put into perspective. The company's vision spans near to longterm, therefore, your logic doesn't coincide with the full picture. Especially, given you don't know what's going on within the walls of the research lab, and/or the negotiation room!