<<<On March 25, 2001, Biocurex acquired the following assets from Pacific Biosciences Research Centre, formerly named Curex Technologies Inc., in consideration for the assumption by Biocurex of promissory notes in the amount of $2,326,869, which were payable by Pacific Biosciences to various third parties:
Patents
Proprietary technology
Cash in the amount of $129,032
A 51% interest in Biolargo. >>>
The shares in biolargo were deemed worthless soon thereafter. Curex got the patents and technology it sold to Biocurex from Lagostar in exchange for the promissory notes of $2,326,869. The various third parties not disclosed above just happen to be Moro and some of his relatives that own Lagostar.
So, who really has control of the BOCX patents and technology. Not BOCX as they are encumbered to Lagostar. (Moro and his relatives) BOCX rents a room at the headquarters of Pacific Biosciences for $4300 a month for their offices. BOCX has no assets. If Abbott does not follow through, Moro will pull the plug on BOCX and walk with the only assets they have, the patents and technology. Investors will have an empty bag. Moro would no doubt attempt to start another corporation and milk new investors for several more years. If Abbott doesn't come through this time, maybe the investors in the next company will have better luck.
Bocxman, Moro is not the financial idiot you think him to be. He has placed himself in a position of safety and the only risk takers here are the investors in BOCX. Moro is doing fine operating Pacific Biosciences at the expense of BOCX shareholders.
I have also examined the data published in the latest releases. Abbott obviously wants to be able to discriminate between cancerous and "other prostate conditions".
You take the PSA test. It gives you a positive. Probably 30 to 50% of those are false positives. If you test positive the Dr. gives you the finger. Presently, if he detects any "prostate condition" he will recommend a biopsy. Enter RECAF. Set at a level of 4600, it detects 90% of the cancers in that group of positives. 10% of those with cancer are not detected. Is a Dr. going to recommend that those not triggering the 4600 level not get a biopsy when one out of ten in that group actually has cancer? Stand by to be sued when that 10th guy comes down with clinical cancer. This test would have to be held at a low enough triggering level to catch all cancers and the false positive rate will jump to over 30%, probably not much better than the best PSA tests.
Normally any company would not be in much communication with a company they licensed a product from. Now we are told that Abbott and Moro speak almost daily. That is unusual and tells me that Abbott is in search of information they need to get the test to accomplish what they want. My guess is that all of this information of varying RECAF levels and the need for personalizing has come from working with Abbott.
Personalization would probably solve most of the false positives problem but I don't think it is a realistic solution.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
