Good points, but if you take millions of patients who may have cancer diagnoses (via recaf) every year, patients who are asymptomatic, unaffected in any measurable way (yes I know this will sound bizzare)and who are then given the kiss of death.... "I am sorry to report that you have some sort of malignancy, and this test you took makes us duty bound to evaluate every potential source of it, be damned the risks and expense... and, shall we first begin with a full laboratory series and then a whole body ct (feel good scan) to look for the errant host tumor....but, however, these diagnostic studies may show up a lot of cystic/benign growths too, but we must evaluate each and every one of these,for we know not which produced the microscopic serum based evidence via recaf... some of these lesions may be deep within the brain, but a painless biopsy using a long needle under fluoroscopic or ct guidance (or a quite expensive mri and P.E.T sequence) is the next order of business..then, of course, we must be vigilant for the iatrogenic mishaps that do, regrettably, occur with invasive procedures; and,of course, misreads are occasionally present in the best of hands, but then that is an acceptable risk, no?".......and on and on....and you get the picture of the system being overcome and the cost-benefit analysis clouded..Combining the recaf test with another accepted test is probably the way to go to lend validity to the biocurex solution (but of course wouldn't the kind- hearted insurance industry wish to have a blanket test to "deinsure" those who have a piece of presumed tumor cell floating around in their blood..interesting situation.....
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
