Replies to post #25246 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[opportunityknocking]

Gold's latest statement, " For the past ten years, I find no support for a universal marker except what you read from Moro and his supporters."
Then 2 sentences later he writes, "Look at the editor of Time Magazine. He named the HaaH universal cancer marker as one of the top ten medical breakthroughs of 2007."
Let's see, according to the calendar it is currently 2010 and that article was published in 2007. 2010 minus 2007 equals 3 years. Gold's last statement was........drumroll please......"For the past TEN years, I find no support for a universal marker except what you read from Moro and his supporters."
Someone has a serious math problem.

More fun stuff. He writes as usual, ad nauseum, " What has happened to the HaaH marker? It performs similar to RECAF in sensitivity and specificity so why is the product not selling."
Show us where Haah which works the same as recaf when combined with current markers (according to Mata and I have tremendous respect and credibility for) and has never been proven to eliminate all false positives which I feel I must point out to Gold on almost a daily basis. I wonder why?

Gold why don't you do a little experiment and ask your doctor (the one that does the DRE on you for kicks twice a year) if he would prefer to have a PSA test come back with no false positives or leave the test as is with many false positives?

And more. Gold writes, "Look at the history of AMDL and DR70. It failed marketing in 2001 because of all the complaints of false positives." Did he just say false positives? What was presented at the ISOBM? You know, the presentation about recaf in combination with the most popular current markers eliminates those complaints of false posities you are referring to in the above statement. Hmmmmmm? Let's go to the grocery store and look at the fruit section. An apple, pear, orange, banana are all fruits, yet they are different, are they not? Now AMDL, HaaH, and recaf are all markers, yet they are different (as pointed out by Mata), are they not?

Now " la piece de la resistance", Gold writes, "Go ahead and buy all the stock you want. It doesn't matter at all to me." It doesn't matter? Why are you here then?

[punch out]

Ah Mr. Gold Seeker, it appears you do not have any educational background in the fields of science and medicine. Am I correct?

I only say so because I think you should realize that the support and evidence you are finding for your claims are not adequate. I will present some examples with thorough explanation.

"Per one study, only one out of forty prostates treated was actually lifesaving."
Many studies are run every year. Many of these are designed very poorly. Many do not have sufficient data to support claims with statistical significance. It suffices to say that making definitive statements based on one uncited study does not exactly render credibility. On a more specific note, your statement begs the question, how is it possible to determine if prostate treatment was actually life-saving or not? I think it should be fairly obvious that making an objective judgment in retrospect is impossible. If you are truly open-minded about the subject, I suggest you dig up the corresponding scientific journal article (assuming it exists) and take a closer look at the methods in detail.

"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."
Wouldn't you say it is pretty naive to expect a single product that can detect a cancer, pinpoint its location, and identify its type and pathophysiology? Of course, that is not the goal of RECAF, as many of us have mentioned on multiple occasions. RECAF is meant to perform one task only, and that is to detect the presence of cancer efficiently and accurately (while being minimally invasive). If ever a product is developed that can perform all of the functions that you mention above with no particular downside, then sure, RECAF will become obsolete and impractical. However, no such thing currently exists.

"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."
I am not sure how honest you are being, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Your literary research seems to be focused around magazine articles aimed at the average layperson. You often quote Time Magazine or some other nonscientific source. Even if written by a doctor, the fact of the matter is that the articles you read are highly opinionated and insufficiently objective. They also contain no scientific data or appropriate evidence to support their claims. If you are having trouble finding support for universal cancer markers, you are either very selective in choosing the articles you read (hence the heavy bias), or you have not been looking very hard. A quick search on PubMed (a database of peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, and an invaluable resource for the medical student or professional) yielded over 500 articles related to cancer markers submitted or published this month alone. There is clearly interest in the area and it remains an intense field of research. It is also hardly believable that the only support for universal cancer markers you could find in the last decade came from Moro and his supporters...completely farfetched. Whatever happened to the other companies that are trying to develop similar products? Do they not support the very markers they are working on? The bias here is very blatant.

"There are no actual practicing doctors supporting RECAF. Please, find one practicing oncologist that would say RECAF is great and a needed test."
Another childish thing to say...In theory, you could only make this statement if you managed to ask every doctor in the world whether or not they support the idea of a universal marker for detecting cancers. I doubt you have heard the opinions of more than a handful of doctors. It is also a very rare occurrence in the medical community to have anything even remotely near a consensus. Also...the only reason I will not find that oncologist for you is because it would be impossible for me to convince you I had found one.

"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? "
Last time I checked, most doctors don't have the time nor the reason to post on these "medical forums" you speak of.

"Don't you understand there is a problem with universal makers and their acceptance by the medical community? "
I hope you would stop pretending that you understand the medical community, which I assume you are not a part of (again, based on your apparent inability to present valid arguments with objective evidence). Like I mentioned before, there is still a lot of research being conducted on universal markers. Why would a cancer detection system of high sensitivity and specificity not be accepted? There is absolutely no reason for such a test to be rejected, if properly developed. It would provide an additional piece of information in probing the patient's condition at very low cost.

"The fact is that RECAF is not going to fair any differently."
Finally, you have fallen into the trap of looking for nonexistent patterns. Just because other similar products have failed does not mean RECAF is doomed. It is surprising that a self-purported "savvy" investor would think this way. Note: you do not seem to grasp the definition of 'fact'.

[THE LURKER]

Someone else is looking for a Universal Cancer Marker. This is from Technology Park.



Universal Cancer Detection Test
Case for a Universal Test
Current cancer markers are not used as the sole method to diagnose cancer due to the following limitations that prevent tests for these markers from functioning as wholly effective screens for many cancers:

(1) Currently available markers are not 100% specific to a particular type of cancer, indicating that other, non-cancerous conditions can also cause an increase in certain cancer markers which results in a false positive

(2) Many markers are restricted to only certain cancers

(3) The same marker is not always expressed on every patient’s cancer, even if it is related to the same organ, indicating that the marker does not have a high sensitivity for detecting a particular cancer

(4) The detection of “normal” levels of a cancer marker can occasionally be ambiguous

(5) At present, there is a perceived lack of effective cancer markers for many cancer types. For example, elevated levels of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a marker for prostate cancer, do not always signal a malignant condition. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) reports that only 25% to 30% of men who express higher-than-normal amounts of PSA in the blood actually have prostate cancer, as benign prostate conditions, such as inflammation, can also cause an increase in PSA levels.

Our client believes that the ideal cancer marker, yet to be commercialized, would be a molecule that is expressed on all cancer cells regardless of type, but not in healthy or benign tumor cells.

The Cancer Marker
This new cancer marker is found to be present on cancer cells, but not on most healthy or benign tumor cells. As a result, this marker is less likely to return a false positive test result. False positives cause patients to undergo unnecessary and potentially costly biopsy tests.


Types of Tests Available
Our client has two types of tissue tests which have been developed and serum tests which uses ELISA, chemiluminescence immunoassay or radioimmunoassay. The company is also developing a rapid, point-of-care cancer detection system for doctor's office and for developing countries such as India and China.

Market Opportunities
The global annual oncology market is currently estimated at around $52 billion dollars and growing at around 5% per year.

Global annual diagnostics market is estimated at around $26 billion annually. Within the diagnostics market, cancer testing is estimated to be at roughly over $2 billion per year. Cancer testing is dominated by serum-based cancer markers, which accounts for about half of the total cancer testing markets, with roughly 100 million serum screening tests being performed each year. Cancer testing is one of the fastest growing amongst the diagnostics testing market.

Next Steps
Our client is seeking licensing, strategic, and development partners around the world to get these tests approved and marketed in various parts of the world.