Opportunity, you unbelievably attempted to use a company press release as an independent source of comments about RECAF. The rules I laid out said you could not do that.
Now, go search for ANYONE independent of BioCurex or any organization that states RECAF is a near ideal marker or any comments that RECAF is needed as a tool in the fight against cancer.
Look at the results for the prostate cancer studies that Moro published in November of 2004. Great results and ZERO false positives. For no false positives, Abbott obviously decided to give it a try but when some additonal results on prostate cancer were published in May of 2006, it definitely indicated that RECAF had problems with the acccuracy of detecting prostate cancer and that was undoubtedly the reason Abbott management decided that RECAF was not feasible. Moro denies this but that was the time frame he told an investor that Abbott had disbanded their RECAF team. That comment had independent support information in a Bio of an Abbott scientist in 2007 that stated he had previously worked on the RECAF project.
Moro has continued to attract funding from the naive investor. Just a time magazine thought the universal marker HAAH was a top medical breakthrough in 2007, investors here think RECAF to be great also. The reality is that investors here are not medical doctors nor is the editor of time magazine.
For example, what exactly does a RECAF test tell you?
1. You may have a false positive for cancer.
2. You may have a false negative for cancer.
3. You may have cancer but does not even tell you where to look.
As the doctor stated. "Interesing science but clinically a waste of time."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
