Replies to post #1616 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[Headache]

There is no evidence whatsoever to think that BOCX exaggerated the data "a little bit" to please the SEC, nor is there evidence that Abbott believes the data was exaggerated. The news release from Abbott was guarded simply because at the time they had not conducted their own investigation.

The idea that BOCX would respond to an investigation into an possibly exaggerated claim (that is, about the "approval" of a technology) with additional exaggerated claims about their internal data is stupid.

GP, you are wasting space on the server with these silly posts!

[bocxman]

good-pal: rather than playing the game of trying to guess sensitivity/specificity and trying to gauge abbott's expectations from one general sentence in the p.r, look at it like this. there are two big pieces of evidence that abbott views RECAF as a VERY REAL COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY:

1) in my estimation they have spent around $1 mil already on RECAF between due diligence (G*D knows there was a lot considering BOCX's messy past), legal, blind sample testing (expensive!), ARCHITECT integration, and the $250k upfront. they are investing time, money and resources!

2) if you look through Abbott's p.r archive they do not sign a lot of these licensing deals. that alone says a hell of a lot to the crowd that thinks abbott goes around signing ldm deals with all these dozens of cancer marker companies touting their goods (ie and bocx is just lost in the crowd)

[good-pal]

correction....

the wrong sentence:

"....IN MY OPINION BOCX exaggerated there DATA a LITTLE BIT because "the SEC questioning bocx accuracy claims"


the right sentence:

"....IN MY OPINION BOCX exaggerated there DATA a LITTLE BIT.

because OF THAT EXAGGERATION "the SEC questioning bocx accuracy claims"

-----------------------------------------------------------

the correct post:

".... the data was drastically inflated"

i never ever said that .... i said many times before that IN MY OPINION BOCX exaggerated there DATA a LITTLE BIT.
because OF THAT EXAGGERATION "the SEC questioning bocx accuracy claims"


im long on bocx because i belive that recaf has a GOOD( BUT NOT the best ever or the 90+ ) clinical sensitivity and specificity,

even abbott agrees with me that recaf has a GOOD clinical sensitivity and specificity as it was mentioned in abbott press realese http://abbott.com/news/press_release.cfm?id=906

good-pal opinion + abbott opinion + SEC = you answer :)