Future doc, of the 96 well ELISA, some of the wells are dedicated for calibration that would take care of any differences in the antibody from batch to batch.
You have to take into consideration the situation the company is in. They need to pump the stock hard to keep the price up and it sounds much better to say it is both 95% specificity and sensitivity. You will also have to take into consideration that no FDA application is going to be made. RPC is going to get the data and release what they want to. No statement or information is going to be made public by those running the trials.
If you look at the specificities on the First Mark website for the current test being used for a cancer screening, no one is going to pre diagnose someone for all the problems listed, benign, GU, GI, Pancrease, and heart disease. Any of those is going to reduce the specificity below the listed 95%. I think that is a bunch of crock. To me, if you are looking for cancer, a normal person would be someone without cancer. End of story and not all these hedges eliminating any problems.
When I first became interested in universal cancer markers, there was a lot of information about the launch in 2001 in the UK. There was still a lot on the internet in 2006 but most of that is now gone. The huge complaint was false positives.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
