Why not start with an inexpensive Recaf test first.

The true meaning of diagnose.
diagnose

di·ag·nose

To ascertain the cause or nature of (a disorder, malfunction, problem, etc.) from the symptoms:

I personally don't like this definition because it requires a symptom as a predisesor of the diagnosis.

Regardless,
There are over 150 different types of infections
http://www.cycfoundation.org/concept...

There are over 100 different type of cancer.
http://cancer.about.com/od/causes/a/...

There are hundreds of different viruses


Doctors start small and work their way towards the diagnoses. That is why they call it the PRACTICING of medicine.

Some past assumption have been based on results being available up front as a measure based on cancer vs. non cancer alone. In reality, a person may enter the doctors office because he/she is losing weight, coughing up blood, blood in the urine/ stool, just coughing, some type of pain or lump or for just an anual physical or a thousand other reasons.

The doctor is then faced with the first task of narrowing down the symptoms first. It may or may not even be anything close to cancer. Could be one of the 150 types of infection..or maybe a drug addiction... maybe stress...maybe psychological...maybe a virus...or maybe cancer.

The medical symptoms book(s) are very thick ...Heavy.

Some previous posts allude to using a specific test to find a specific cancer. First of all this would require the discovery, testing and approval of 100 different biomarkers. One for each known type of cancer and each with a tremendous sensitivity and specificity for the specific type of cancer. Some would run on a mass analyzer....Some would not. Some might use blood some might depend on saliva, urine, tissue samples etc.

Even if it was possible, the cost alone to produce these 100
biomarkers would be herendous. The cost to then purchase them in a various forms of 100 would also be tremendous. The process of administering the 100 types of tests to each individual would again be unthinkable in terms of cost. Each of the 100 companies would want a royalty etc. You would then have to send the test samples to different labs to have them processed. You get the picture.

All we want to do is start small. Is the blood being produced because of infection, stress, abuse, viral or cancer or something else?

While a positive Recaf test would send the patient in one direction, A negative recaf test would wipe out an entire category to begin with. Infection can be counted out with a blood test and so on and so on.

I have to wonder how many needless dollars are being spent currently looking for cancer that was never there to begin with.

Chest xrays for worried smokers, liver biopsis for heavy drinkers, mammograms for women over 40?, Pap smears, I don't even want to get into the PSA stuff but as soon as a guy can't pee...It has to be prostate problems which leeds to a PSA test.

Why not start with Recaf first. A simple test that would rule out cancer for the majority of people on day #1.