Replies to post #21204 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[Kag]

The Bocx, you declared my post#21163 as BS. Let’s take each sentence of my post, verbatim, and see if it is factual or not.

First sentence: “Mata Hari, back in February through the early part 2006 it is true that I was positive on RECAF’s potential.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.

Second sentence: “However, by June 2006 I was posting concerns about RECAF.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.

Third sentence: “In particular, there was a BioCurex press release which indicated the need to personalize RECAF.” My comment: The press release stated: “But, if we did sequential blood tests on each person and assuming their RECAF value is rather constant over time; then a small change in the level of circulating RECAF would detect cancer at the earliest stages. We do not know yet if the normal RECAF concentration is constant enough to make this personalization possible. However, if it was consistent, this suggested approach might prove to be a winning strategy in the fight against cancer. We could then have an exquisitely sensitive tool to detect many types of cancer.” Again, my comment: Why was personalizing RECAF even mentioned in the May 16, 2006 press release if there was no need or importance in personalizing RECAF? That is factual and not BS.

Fourth sentence: “It stated that the amount of RECAF varied from person to person and even within the same person from time to time.” My comment: That is factual and not BS.

Fifth sentence: “As an investor, that immediately caused me to become cautious with this investment and I have been very consistent with a cautionary tone in my posts since then.” My comment: That is factual and not BS. So it is a fact that your BS remark was just BS. kag

[Kag]

The Bocx, you posted this paragraph: "So that you understand what this means, if a group of normal people have very different amounts of RECAF in blood, then you need a high cutoff value in order to eliminate all (or 95%) of the normals. However, if the value is very different from one individual to another but the value is pretty constant for that individual, then you do not use the average of all normal people, you use the average value for that person."

My comment: Do you realize that in the above quoted paragraph, you admit that normal people can have very different amounts of RECAf in their blood and also that the amount of RECAF in the blood of one individual can be "pretty constant." There is certainly a difference between "pretty constant" and constant. Also, if the average RECAF value for a person is used for that person, you have admitted the need to personalize RECAF in some persons. kag

[Gold Seeker]

The Bocx stated: "So that you understand what this means, if a group of normal people have very different amounts of RECAF in blood, then you need a high cutoff value in order to eliminate all (or 95%) of the normals. However, if the value is very different from one individual to another but the value is pretty constant for that individual, then you do not use the average of all normal people, you use the average value for that person."

So if you use the specificity of RECAF to be 95% and if the sensitivity is between 85% and 90% as you have mentioned those numbers in the past, then a RECAF test is utterly worthless for up to 20% of the general population. That could be as high as 1 out of 5 people getting a RECAF test could be getting bum information.