Opportunity states: "We are now published in Tumour Biology. Remember the days when Recaf was thought to be scam? I would say with what has transpired Dr Moro is a rock star at the ISOBM."
All abstracts are published in Tumour Biology. There was one published last year that stated the liver tested full of RECAF which we know is not true. Was the group from Japan that published that poster "rock stars" also?
I thought that a requirement at the ISOBM was new and unpublished studies. The abstracts are the same study described with results given several months ago. Obviously, no one at the ISOBM noticed that fact.
Below is the requirement for abstracts.
<<I acknowledge that this work has not previously been published prior to submission of the abstract.>>
Opportunity Knocking, You just posted: "I would say with what has transpired Dr Moro is a rock star at the ISOBM."
My comment: The one available abstract indicates that the new RECAF ELISA test (a manually ran test) has 5% less sensitivity than the Chemiluminescence RECAF test (an automated instrument ran test). Do you not realize that the vast majority of medical lab tests in the United States are currently ran on automated instruments to reduce the cost of the tests? So what exactly is it that leads you to believe Dr. Moro has achieved rock star status at the ISOBM? kag
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
