I agree that raising capital is a necessary evil in R&D, however, in the case of Biocurex, I am not convinced it is worthwhile.

If even half of what Dr Moro claims is true about the technology, the stock price should be much, much higher. I am hoping that the new directors will address the communication shortfall that currently exists with the investment community.

By providing some credible evidence of the technology's value, the stock should respond significantly, thereby reducing the number of shares needed in a primary issue. It doesn't matter what the market climate is. If a technology reducing cancer suffering is identified, the market jumps in with both feet.

Why is nothing ever said by Abbott et al? Even if there is a confidentiality agreement, a big score candidate is always leaked by insiders thereby resulting in lots of accumulation by outsiders who are tipped off.

If the OTC status is holding it back from respectability, then management should identify a clear evolution plan toward a senior exchange.

Most importantly, while I don't think Dr Moro has to respond to every question posed in this forum, there is no excuse for not providing a regular (quarterly?), thorough corporate update.

Communication is everything!

I am not saying the technology does not have promise. Maybe it does, but the investment community is clearly not convinced...and the fact that Biocurex management does not appear to have picked up on this -- yet -- is a major red flag.

I am hoping change is afoot, or perhaps some significant announcements will be made before any share offerings are floated. But if Biocurex wants me to agree to enormous dilution at .07 per share, they are missing the big picture.