Steel City, I will pass along something else that I have some knowledge about. It is the importance of good management with a fledgling biotech. Some biotech CEO's have visions of grandeur that they will someday run a small pharmaceutical company. They try to take their company's products out to FDA approval at a huge dilution expense to their shareholders thinking that they will get higher royalties or more up-front money. Any up-front money received is usually devoured to bring another product along. They are in constant financial trouble. From what I am reading, the management of BOCX is using a much more common sense, conservative approach. The approach seems to be to get something partnered quickly. Accept the reasonable royalties, and less up-front money that go along with early-stage products. The important thing is to get the product in the hands of those who have the financial strength and resources to bring it to market. I realized a long time ago that 100% of nothing is exactly nothing. Fledgling biotech's must have partners. Those partners need to have those products long enough ahead of marketing time that they become built into the future planning strategy of those partners. Partners must be chosen who can effectively market the product. For instance, Abbott markets the current PSA test. If RECAF technology is added to that test, current company information indicates that the sensitivity of the test could change from the current 67% to 95%. Abbott could call the improved PSA test "PSA II". There would be instant name recognition by doctors, and they should be quite willing to switch to the new, improved test. I am aware that I am looking at what I have just written from the best possible view. So far, what we have seen from BOCX management seems to corroborate it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
