aid1961 Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Has anybody been following this blood-based universal cancer marker called RECAF, discovered by "BioCurex" in collaboration with Dr. Phil Gold (the guy who discovered PSA test). The results they presented at the 2004 National Cancer Institute Workshop are...should I say...too good to be true. They're showing 90 - 100% sensitivty with 95%+ specificty and the amazing thing is it works on all types of cancers tested so far! If these results hold true, it could mean mass cancer screening via routine blood tests. Has anybody looked at the data published on their website? Hoax or something to get excited about??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krul Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 If it is as you explain it Aid1961, it is definitely a hoast. A lot of tumors do not cause any abnormalities in the blood so you can certainly not find them there. Further tumor markers are ENORMOUSLY expensive, a test for 1 person can go up from $50 to $5000. Also imagine how they wish to examine all that blood as well? There are far too little instruments and trained personnel for that. I wouldn't get excited over anything Aid1961...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebeh Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 sounds almost as incredulous as zombies... if this marker does exist, then its discoverers will most definitely win a noble peace prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 That sounds a little too good to be true, nothing in biology (especially in cancer) is 100%. And if it's so great, why now? Shouldn't it have been discovered years ago? I still think telomerase is the closest to a universal marker, it is in 85-90% of all cancers and not in somatic cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 sounds almost as incredulous as zombies. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12462&highlight=zombie+dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 [url']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12462&highlight=zombie+dogs[/url] Well those dogs aren't technically "zombies" -- they're not dead and then rose. Their tissue was 3 hrs "dead". It's really media hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 It sounds interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 It does, re-stimulating tissue to become active has a myriad of oppertunities in medicine such as tissue reconstruction after accidents/fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Dear Helix, Is there any way for us to know whta the target of RECAF? any information about its protein or DNA sequence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Well yes, the target of RECAF is definitely known because it is tailored to target cancer markers and find traces of cancer in the blood. What it targets is the main part of how it works. As far as protein structure of DNA sequence, I'm not sure what type of enzyme or protein it is (if it is one), this is the first I've head of the therapy. But I would assume that is also known because to know the targets you have to know generally how the molecule in question works, what it "looks like" at a molecular level. So yes, it is probably floating around on the internet or journal article somewhere . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Thanks, Helix. I found that the RECAF is actually the alpha fetoprotein receptor. unbelievable, it is still not cloned. I can not guess what is the reasons. very intersting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Cloning it tough, and there are plenty of other proteins and biomarkers to keep scientists occupied, but you're right; it should be cloned, it's promising (though not to the extent which it is billed as being) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aid1961 Posted June 10, 2006 Author Share Posted June 10, 2006 as great as it is billed to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now