Replies to post #23037 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[HALF FULL GLASS]

Gold stated,"You can easily see the design of this study."

Just like your recent post where you stated,"<if you look at any of the charts Moro has published, you see there is not a clean definition of who has cancer. >

After you incorrectly read the graph, The Bocx answered your post," Looking at the graph you posted, it is very clear who has cancer. If you trace a line around 60, there are 13 points out of 16 that have cancer and are detected as such by RECAF. 13/16 = 81% sensitivity.

Now you want to say that Dr. Moro designed the test to rig a study and then present it to the ISOBM?

Come on Gold! Did you ever think that maybe you are the one who does not understand?

[HALF FULL GLASS]

Gold stated,"He seems to be full of undisclosed inside information."

I told you more news was coming didn't I? Do you call that undisclosed?

Here is a little hint...It Ain't DONE YET.
Gold all I see is the BIG PICTURE!

The rest is just common sense.

Unless one has a competing interest against Recaf,How can one hold back a discovery this exciting?

ZERO FALSE POSITIVES!!!! WOW!!!! WOW!!!!

MORE TO COME Gold! I can't imagine it would be as much fun on the sidelines....

But then, I am not on the sidelines!

[quandongboy]

GS: "It is just not possible that a marker like CEA or CA125 if used in general screening and will indicate positive for conditions other than Colon or ovarian cancer respectively, would somehow become a very selective marker for general screening by combining it with a marker that has no selectiviy at all and end up with a test that has ZERO false positives. That is just not possible."

This is incorrect. If CA-125 correctly reacts to ovarian cancer, but incorrectly reacts to a bunch of other conditions X not associated with ovarian cancer, and RECAF correctly reacts to ovarian cancer, but incorrectly reacts to a bunch of other conditions Y not associated with ovarian cancer then, if X and Y do not overlap, combining the tests can produce an accurate marker. Effectively, they make up for each others' weaknesses.

This is the basis for combining multiple proteomic and genomic markers, which you have advocated on many occasions.

IMO, the latest news is not at all trivial, or implied by previous news releases. Pending the actual details, it is a very nice step forward. It confirms that RECAF can complement other markers such as CA-125.

This has got to be potentially a great thing for people with ovarian cancer. Because there tend to be no early signs of ovarian cancer, it tends to be detected later and so survival rates are lower. Early detection would improve things greatly.

I would think the low cost of RECAF plus the high detection rate with no false positives (pending larger scale clinical confirmation) would make it a good candidiate for screening in at-risk groups.

QB