Replies to post #3889 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[erthang]

Well, there could be 2 schools of thought on this quote.

"We do not know yet if the normal RECAF concentration is constant enough to make this personalization possible."

I was focusing on "do not know yet", possibly meaning it has to be proven either way, through extensive samples and testing, in order to posssibly be included in with a future FDA submission, which could take time.

If you had put my quote that you pasted into context, you'd see that I didn't deny that there would be variations, only I believe that in the end, for most, the variations will probably be insignificant for the purposes of early cancer detection.

Erthang

[bocxman]

kag: thanks for posting the same exact comment five times without commenting on the paper i posted (which took me a good 20+ minutes to find and IMO is an essential piece of BOCX due diligence which the company inanely keeps buried on their website...your welcome!). the paper contradicts your line of thought by illustrating that there is in fact baseline levels of RECAF, and RECAF levels above that baseline have shown a remarkable ability to detect cancer for at least half a dozen different cancers.

take a look towards the end of the paper where he shows the raw data of RECAF levels in the healthy patients versus cancerous patients. without even looking at the graphs, running a t-test, or employing any other statistical technique, even a toddler can see just by eyeballing that there is a threshold of RECAF levels which clearly separates the healthy and cancerous patients...that threshold is around 5k RECAF units.

that is the traditional set-up for all the big serum assays -- a universal baseline. Moro now wants to take it a step further and investigate whether sequential tests on individual reveal constant levels of RECAF, which would open the door to other applications...but you still haven't explained why Moro's desire to do so negates the already established universal baseline for general screening.

It's okay to be wrong, Kag. Man up and address these issues rather than post the same comment over and over again like a child. New information has been added to the discussion -- information that I am 99% sure you weren't aware of -- and you refuse to address it?


PS: if Moro is not available try Angela or one of the other folks in the research center...they are good about discussing the science.