Replies to post #25243 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[Gold Seeker]

Punchout, you obviously feel that RECAF is a needed test. Is PSA a needed test? It finds a lot of cancers. Doctors make a lot of money removing a ton of prostates. Per one study, only one out of forty prostates treated was actually lifesaving. It is not like the treatment is harmless. Ask Half full why someone who was 84 years old, testing positive for PSA was treated and is now wearing diapers for the rest of his life. Was that necessary?

There is so much lacking in a universal cancer marker. It does not tell you what kind of cancer. It does not tell you the location of the cancer. It does not tell you how aggressive it is or if it is a cancer that will never bother you.

If you look back to the 1980's and 90's, I found several articles supporting the thought that a universal cancer marker would be useful. For the past ten years, I find no support for a universal marker except what you read from Moro and his supporters.

There are no actual practicing doctors supporting RECAF. Please, find one practicing oncologist that would say RECAF is great and a needed test. It wont happen. RECAF appeals to the naive. Look at the editor of Time Magazine. He named the HaaH universal cancer marker as one of the top ten medical breakthroughs of 2007. What has happened to the HaaH marker? It performs similar to RECAF in sensitivity and specificity so why is the product not selling. Why do you see posts on medical forums where people have asked their doctors for the haah test and doctors wont even administer the test?

Don't you understand there is a problem with universal makers and their acceptance by the medical community? There has to be a reason for the failed acceptance.

Look at the history of AMDL and DR70. It failed marketing in 2001 because of all the complaints of false positives. The facts show that it does not have that many false positives, only about 15% so what happened? Well, if the doctor cannot find the source of positive results, logically he would just say it was a false positive so in actual use, false positives were close to 50%. The same will happen with RECAF. If it was out there today selling, it would get a bad reputation for false positives even it was totally undeserved.

Two years ago DR70 got FDA approval to monitor colon cancer. The stock rose to over $2.50, they changed the name of the company to Radient Pharmaceuticals and changed the name of the test to OnkoSure and off to market they went. Has it helped? Very few tests are selling. The stock has dropped to 30 cents. They have been given a notice of delisting and are short of funding.

The fact is that RECAF is not going to fair any differently. Go ahead and buy all the stock you want. It doesn't matter at all to me. I post because it is only fair that everyone is given the opportunity to read the facts about RECAF and universal markers. It is certainly NOT the ideal marker as claimed by Moro and there certainly will NOT be a "RECAF ERA" of cancer detection as claimed by Moro.

[opportunityknocking]

Punchout, I know the frustration you are feeling with a biased individual that is a self-proclaimed expert on everything from the detection of cancer to SEC filings to FDA regulations to the laws outside the United States.
Here is a simple way to help this individual understand in lay terms the importance of adding a new tool in the war on cancer, and it is a war in the sense that if you do not combat the disease you can lose your life.
Let's take one of the the simplest tests performed by your physician that can be quite revealing. Blood pressure. Most individuals are asymptomatic, yet they can have elevated blood pressure to the point where it becomes deadly. It can lead to a stroke, blindness, loss of function of major organs, and death. Now, when the doctor discovers the blood pressure has escalated to dangerous levels (which he may take several times and in each arm, then listen to your heart and perform a physical exam) an astute doctor will probably draw blood and do a CBC, and order an MRI of the kidneys after injection of dye.
What recaf simply does (for the 5500th time) is simply test the blood for cancer. Just like the like blood preesure test. If recaf identifies MALIGNANT cancers and eliminates false positives you would be negligent not to prescribe the test. I am certain your nonmedical biased opinion of recaf will never change because you have plenty of free time on your hands to find obscure articles that are not in peer reviewed journals. Trust me, everyone is expecting it.