Replies to post #23049 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[quandongboy]

I don't claim to know the details, and I look forward to Moro's group publishing a lot more work on RECAF so it can be subjected to critical review by scientists and all the rest of us.

However, there is the following possibility. CA-125 may be 'ineffective' (i.e., non-specific) at detecting ovarian cancer not because it fails to detect the cancer per se, but because it detects (i.e., gets confused by) other factors (e.g., spurious proteins) that are present in the tissue samples. If RECAF does not react to these spurious factors then it could effectively help eliminate them from the combined test, resulting in a more specific test for ovarian cancer.

I don't know if this is the actual scenario with CA-125, but it is within the realm of possibility. RECAF may be helping not by increasing true positives, but by reducing false positives.

QB

[quandongboy]

mcd2inga: "This latest news is nothing new. RECAF will detect cancer, but not tell you the type of cancer. We have known this for years, but no tests have been sold in any format. Why?"

The latest news is new and IMO exciting. It shows (quantitatively) that RECAF can be combined with other markers to give a more specific test for some early stage cancers. What's not to like? The announcement directly addresses the endless criticisms about false positives. It takes RECAF a step closer to being used for screening.

Why have no tests sold? Good question. I don't know. But I do know that the barrier to entry into clinical practice is extremely high for any new device / product. I think a lot of people under-estimate how costly and difficult this is, and why it is largely the domain of huge multinational companies.

The difficulty is in part a result of the necessarily slow and careful scientific process needed to prove that the new product works as advertised, also the high cost of clinical trials, and the reluctance of medical establishment to adopt anything new, for fear of litigation, unless all i's are dotted and t's crossed.

But, if the product holds up to clinical scrutiny, I think the dam will bust at some point and it will take off. That's my guess.

QB