Replies to post #25229 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[opportunityknocking]

I guess gold thought he could answer subjectively. If the answer was favorable toward recaf he would embellish his answers to skew the outcome. I should have known better from reading some of his 5500 other posts. (Not a misprint).

[punch out]

I'm not sure why it should be so difficult to understand, but I guess bias clouds thinking...

"Some slow growing cancers do not even need to be found. If they are detected, unnecessary treatment almost always ensues."

At present, we can't choose to detect only aggressive cancers. The very logical manner in which we currently deal with cancer is to FIRST detect if ANY cancer is present and THEN, if cancer was in fact detected, determine if it needs treating based on more testing (often more invasive). It should be clear why RECAF can be useful. As well, "unnecessary treatment almost always ensues" is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Keep in mind that articles outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals should not carry much weight as they are often driven by a hidden motive and lack true scientific evidence.

"...with RECAF, you do not diagnose ANY TYPE of cancer. Other tests have to be used for diagnosis."

Funny. Anyone else see the irony?

Let's take a look from the other perspective. There have been claims that since some cancers are better left untreated, RECAF is unnecessary. I'm already confused. Could someone please explain that to me? Some cancers do not need treating, so let's not attempt to detect any cancers at all?

To reiterate, there is NOTHING WRONG with DETECTING cancers. If overtreatment is an issue, then it can ONLY be attributed to problems with the tests designed to determine malignity of the cancer, NOT the detection system. RECAF does not promise to point out cancers AND diagnose them. It is simply a more efficient solution to the question "is there cancer present?" There are a multitude of possible applications. Not only can RECAF be used for initial detection, it can serve as a tool for monitoring cancer growth/spread in addition to post-treatment assessment.

It is really very simple, very clear, and very logical. Assuming we are all unbiased and not here to mindlessly bash the company while desperately trying to discourage investors *cough*, I expect to see no more posts asserting that an efficient and effective method for detecting cancers is unhelpful and unwanted.