Replies to post #2212 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[erthang]

Boxman - I value your opinion, however,I disagree with your synopsis. Everything depends of whether RECAF works. If that is the case, (we are home free)it will be a win, win situation for everyone involved. For those who lack patience, and are foolish enough to sell, they will be the losers. I think this board can rest assured that a pharma giant like Abbott will select the best marketing strategy and venue for the end product, resulting in the maximum exposure and profits.

[Kag]

Bocxman,
Thanks for your post. I have studied it carefully. I have always learned by sharing thoughts with others. I would appreciate it, if you would give your thoughts on the following, some of which is taken from the July 8, 2005 Research Notes :

Only a few well-established cancer markers are routinely used by physicians, including AFP (liver cancer), CEA (colorectal cancer), PSA (prostate cancer) and Ca125 (ovarian cancer). Other markers are not specific enough or are not elevated early enough in the disease process. Consequently, a large number of tests (like blood counts, biopsy, spinal taps, lymphangiograms, ultrasounds, bone scans, x-rays, CAT scans, MRI's and surgery) are currently used for cancer diagnosis. For instance, a Total PSA of 4 triggers a prostate biopsy. A number less than 4 doesn't. The goal being to screen for and diagnose cancer early when it is most treatable. If I am reading things correctly, BOCX is stating that the overall sensitivity of Serum-RECAF is over 90% with 95% specificity using a drop of blood, and this potentially translates to earlier cancer detection. If RECAF is sensitive enough to detect cancer early, (although not the specific kind of cancer or location), and some of the various tests mentioned above, like CAT scans, currently have to be done regardless, why not have a stand alone RECAF test done routinely, just for the possible early detection of cancer somewhere in the body? Those other tests, like CAT scans, then are used to locate the cancer. Thanks, kag

[Headache]

Bocxman, re. your statement: "In my opinion the biggest risk to this investment is not failure of RECAF, but instead, the clinical indication that Abbott chooses to pursue."

How much leeway does Abbott have in terms of choosing an indication? I must admit, I'm getting a bit confused about this. Can Abbott really select any indication they want?

[Kag]

Bocxman,
Do you happen to have any written company sources, that you can refer me to, that states only a 510k will be required for FDA approval on a serum RECAF cancer detection test? In your post #2212 you said "The company has said time and again that only a 510k will be required as opposed to a PMA, and this implies that general screening is the preferred route." I agree with you that any serum RECAF cancer detection test will only indicate that cancer is present somewhere, and does not give the location. Thanks, kag