I appreciate your take on this, but something still doesn't add up to me.

When an oncology R&D company has some credible success in the lab, the stock price responds...usually dramatically. I have watched this in different indications, different countries and in both bull and bear markets.

Just look at Dendreon recently. They aren't curing people; they don't have any drugs being marketed yet; they simply extended the life of some terminal patients by 4 months in a trial...and yet they are trading millions of shares per day. All this after a wild roller coaster ride with regulators after their last, failed submission.

I watched Biomira (now Oncothyreon) for years, and every time a clinical trial finished with their breast cancer drug (which wasn't saving lives, just possibly extending them) the price increased 10 or 20 fold in a day.

Or check out Oxigene's history.

I could go on with lots of anecdotal evidence, but the point is:

IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BIOMIRA IS ACCURATE, their recaf technology WILL SAVE MANY LIVES. So the one thing that is crystal clear to me regarding Biocurex is that the market does not believe or understand the results. If the public did:

• the stock price would be much much higher
• financing would be much easier, and waste less of management's time
• high risk cancer patients (followups, the genetically predisposed, canceraphobics,...) would be absolutely hounding regulators to expedite the availability of the tests
• the media exposure would be phenomenal

If I were in the company, I would be addressing the effectiveness/credibility of my communication. But the most intriguing question to me at this time is:

What exactly are the drug companies with "agreements" doing -- their own tests? Waiting for other third party results? Trying to keep a lid on it until they can negociate a better deal?

I would love some clarification.