I agree that the universal cancer markers available aren't as good as we would like. But trying to develop a "universal" cancer marker is equally as difficult as understanding what cancer actually IS in the first place. The only characteristics that are similar among the different cancers is their ability to replicate and grow without contact inhibition, ability to carry on replication without fears of telomere shortening issues, ability to vascularize (form capillaries/ blood vessels to neighboring blood supplies in order to grow), and anchor to parts of the body then break up and spread. The last two parts-vascularization and anchoring-are aided by FDP. So, Fibrinogen Degradation Products are the common link among the different cancers.
I agree that Onko-Sure could be better, but I maintain that, at its price point of $49, it can provide some very useful information when complemented with the other limited but also problematic cancer tests that we unfortunately are stuck with at this point of our scientific development. If the NEW test is as effective as the say, then you can definitely use this to determine the LACK of cancer accurately. The price of false positives (unnecessary imaging or biopsy) in those relatively few cases will be drastically outweighed by the money saved among those who were found to be cancer free. Obviously, this will work better for some cancers than others according to the OLD FDA submission data. Maybe the number of cancers increases with the NEW test, maybe not. The main thing Onko-Sure has going for it is its price.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
