Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[martinelwick] 15/9/2022 18:56

Perhaps mikethebike will consider joining us. Believe me he will feel so much better for it.

[joestalin] 15/9/2022 18:42

I did that years ago.

[martinelwick] 15/9/2022 18:39

Can I make a suggestion, that like me LBO is put on ignore and that no one engages with him, because this BB has sunk into a dialogue between LBO and a couple of others who seemingly cannot help but engage with him.Can you not see his entire life is dependent upon eliciting a response. Please join me and deprive him of this oxygen, and watch him wither!!

[lbo] 15/9/2022 18:13

Really mike? Some might say the evidence actually suggests its you and some of your multi-IDs who have split personalities! LOL


mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 14:35:10 - 4072 of 11141
Having had similar waffling, 'smoke-screen' answers from Mr Barder over the years which have turned out to end in exactly nothing I am loathe to give any credence to virtually everything he says

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:58:28 - 4091 of 11141
Company is massively over valued if you go by 'concrete' results !

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:14:56 - 4082 of 11141
I only try and bring some sort of balance into the equation to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections.
I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong about Mr Barder (our CEO since 2001) and to sale away into the sunset grasping 5 times as many £s in my fist as I paid for the shares
Unfortunately for people like J7J, Mr Barder has been through this advisors process before - with CSD500 - and look where we've got in 17 years - sales of the product did not even equal the money we paid him to be our CEO for 2017 !

mikethebike4 - 06 Dec 2017 - 10:32:27 - 3468 of 10591
"A couple of decent deals and will be back off to the races."
Do you have any idea of how long shareholders have been using these words

mikethebike4 - 23 Mar 2017 - 09:52:33 - 2560 of 10591
As someone who has been invested for many years and who attended an AGM years ago and complained to Barder about the very slow progress, I am very frustrated.
All the time the Board are drawing good salaries off the backs of shareholders money they have very little incentive to get off their backsides and get 'selling' - thats what running a company is all about at the end of the day!

mikethebike4 - 24 Feb 2020 - 09:11:58 - 7290 of 9713
why should it be any different this time when you've still got the same useless lot running the show

mikethebike4 - 07 Jan 2019 - 11:22:52 - 4692 of 9641
I repeat I very much hope you are right - no one would be happier than me if you are - however I stupidly (in hindsight) bought in when everything looked really rosy - we were told there were loads of 'distributors' all 'champing at the bit to get selling a wonderful industry disruptive product (which it still is incidentally) once the 2 year shelf-life problem was fixed. This was despite the fact that the Holland/Belgium distributor was quite happy and successful selling them with the original 18 months shelf-life
And where are we now years later - one tiny distributor from which Futura receives a total sales income only just about covering Mr Barders employment remuneration
I just hope this MED/TPR situation is not just a repeat of CSD. As to why I don't just sell up, well my shareholding is worth such a tiny proportion of what I paid for it I might just as well hang on in the hope that new shareholders getting in now are luckier than I was and I can get some of my money back - I think what we need is Mr Barders retirement - that should give the share price a kick

[mikethebike4] 15/9/2022 16:44

Yes Broomrigg I am afraid he is mentally ill

He cannot help himself and has a lot of time on his hands to make mischief

As we all know he has a grudge against Futura going way back and he is doing his best to ruin as many people as he can manage

He sees himself as Knight rescuer - Sir Obsessive Repeatalot

[broomrigg] 15/9/2022 16:03

Is LBO mentally ill?

[lbo] 15/9/2022 11:09

Will Futura have the money to pay the consumer lawsuits? A medical device gel which cannot substantiate any effect beyond a placebo in any adequately controlled study ‘diverting patients’ from proper assessment and safer more appropriate interventions for the real understanding causes of the ED.




‘We really dont know what we are getting with many of these devices Ninety-nine percent of devices never have to provide clinical data, thanks in part to the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act, which requires the FDA to use the least burdensome route For the few devices subject to a scientific review, the quality standards are flimsy. Randomized controlled trials, the gold standard, are infrequent. Most studies are unblinded, and thus prone to bias. The FDA settles for loosely defined ‘ reasonable assurance’ that a device is safe and effective, versus its higher standard of substantial evidence for drugs, which require studies with comparison groups that didn’t t receive the same treatment. Thus, data that would never be sufficient to support the approval of a drug can result in the approval of a device used to treat the same condition, potentially diverting patients from effective drugs to less-effective devices.

[lbo] 15/9/2022 10:52

Medical device registration with the FDA is not based on the science but rather rather on ‘corporate lobbying’ and the fact ˜Ninety-nine percent of devices never have to provide clinical data, thanks in part to the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act, which requires the FDA to use the ‘least burdensome route’. The same ‘least burdensome’ route Futura admitted in the 22nd March 2021 that it was using



Devices are subject to weaker standards than drugs because they are regulated under a different law. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 was intended to encourage innovation while allowing for a range of review standards based on risk, according to legal expert Richard A. Merrill. An array of corporate lobbying has since prompted Congress to ease regulations and make it easier for devices to get the FDA OK

Journalists need to scrutinize the claims
Journalists have a responsibility to report this lack of evidence, but they often dont. Investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer, who wrote a book about the under-regulated medical device industry, says more dogged reporting is needed: We really dont know what we are getting with many of these devices

Ninety-nine percent of devices never have to provide clinical data, thanks in part to the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act, which requires the FDA to use the least burdensome route

For the few devices subject to a scientific review, the quality standards are flimsy. Randomized controlled trials, the gold standard, are infrequent. Most studies are unblinded, and thus prone to bias. The FDA settles for loosely defined ‘reasonable assurance’ that a device is safe and effective, versus its higher standard of substantial evidence for drugs, which require studies with comparison groups that didn’t t receive the same treatment. Thus, data that would never be sufficient to support the approval of a drug can result in the approval of a device used to treat the same condition, potentially diverting patients from effective drugs to less-effective devices.



De Novo-winning devices often lack effectiveness data, analysis shows

[lbo] 13/9/2022 16:01

Now shareholders understand why GSK handed MED back ‘for normal commercial reasons’ and then later Reckitt too walked away. Remove the GTN ‘penile enhancer’ drug and Med3000 is only left with a placebo action! The placebo action of massaging a lubricant in an ED study! LOL



GlaxoSmithKline unexpectedly handed back the development rights to Futura’s erectile dysfunction gel

“We are not going to progress on this particular compound for normal commercial reasons which we do not wish to go into,” GSK said

gel’s dual action as an penile enhancer and a lubricant



Futura Medical's management had their assets handed back to them by Reckitt Benckiser after the consumer products giant saw little use for erection-enhancing condoms and terminated the agreement to distribute Futura's CSD500 product, along with anti-impotence gel MED2002.

[lbo] 13/9/2022 15:59

It was even admitted to brokers that Dermasys vehicle gel just gives similar results to Voltaren vehicle gel! LOL



TPR100 ‘gave results which were similar to both gel and oral formulations of the gold standard, Voltaren’



The cooling effect of a topically applied product can be evaluated using a validated handheld thermal imaging system. When the gel matrix is destroyed after application to the skin, the bound water and alcohol evaporates and a measurable cooling-effect results.
Consumer satisfaction with a topical product is based on subjective criteria such as how the product feels and how it is perceived on the skin. Therefore, appropriate questionnaires are of major importance for cosmetic products to assess the subjective perception not only of soothing and cooling effects but also of moistur- izing properties and fragrance.



A key element of Futura Medicals strategy is to reduce development risk through using well characterised existing agents that are reformulated with its proprietary DermaSys technology to create new products. This means intellectual property protection is limited to use patents for the individual products and umbrella patents for the technology. There is a risk that some claims will either be challenged in future (eg on the grounds of non-obviousness or existence of prior art) and/or that another technology may be employed to achieve a similar effect

[lbo] 13/9/2022 15:25

Some shareholders also remember Futura already failed to get Med2002/2005 extended yet again back in 2017! Yet more Futura ‘potential’ that as usual failed to materialise!!!



This patent application has the potential to extend MED2002's patent life worldwide through to 2038, thereby significantly increasing the opportunity for licensing partners to generate higher revenues and profits from the commercialisation of MED2002.

MED2002's current patent protection runs until August 2028 in the USA and August 2025 in Europe.

[lbo] 13/9/2022 15:17

Really mike? Where is the ‘initial upfront payment’ from Cooper? LOL

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 14:35:10 - 4072 of 11141
Having had similar waffling, 'smoke-screen' answers from Mr Barder over the years which have turned out to end in exactly nothing I am loathe to give any credence to virtually everything he says

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:58:28 - 4091 of 11141
Company is massively over valued if you go by 'concrete' results !

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:14:56 - 4082 of 11141
I only try and bring some sort of balance into the equation to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections.
I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong about Mr Barder (our CEO since 2001) and to sale away into the sunset grasping 5 times as many £s in my fist as I paid for the shares
Unfortunately for people like J7J, Mr Barder has been through this advisors process before - with CSD500 - and look where we've got in 17 years - sales of the product did not even equal the money we paid him to be our CEO for 2017 !

mikethebike4 - 06 Dec 2017 - 10:32:27 - 3468 of 10591
"A couple of decent deals and will be back off to the races."
Do you have any idea of how long shareholders have been using these words

mikethebike4 - 23 Mar 2017 - 09:52:33 - 2560 of 10591
As someone who has been invested for many years and who attended an AGM years ago and complained to Barder about the very slow progress, I am very frustrated.
All the time the Board are drawing good salaries off the backs of shareholders money they have very little incentive to get off their backsides and get 'selling' - thats what running a company is all about at the end of the day!

mikethebike4 - 24 Feb 2020 - 09:11:58 - 7290 of 9713
why should it be any different this time when you've still got the same useless lot running the show

mikethebike4 - 07 Jan 2019 - 11:22:52 - 4692 of 9641
I repeat I very much hope you are right - no one would be happier than me if you are - however I stupidly (in hindsight) bought in when everything looked really rosy - we were told there were loads of 'distributors' all 'champing at the bit to get selling a wonderful industry disruptive product (which it still is incidentally) once the 2 year shelf-life problem was fixed. This was despite the fact that the Holland/Belgium distributor was quite happy and successful selling them with the original 18 months shelf-life
And where are we now years later - one tiny distributor from which Futura receives a total sales income only just about covering Mr Barders employment remuneration
I just hope this MED/TPR situation is not just a repeat of CSD. As to why I don't just sell up, well my shareholding is worth such a tiny proportion of what I paid for it I might just as well hang on in the hope that new shareholders getting in now are luckier than I was and I can get some of my money back - I think what we need is Mr Barders retirement - that should give the share price a kick

[mikethebike4] 13/9/2022 15:12

LBO

Just 'cause you repeat and misquote things does not make them factual

[lbo] 13/9/2022 15:09

And Dermasys on its own has no patent. The brokers have warned about this years ago. Yet here Futura are in 2022 and the clock has run down nearly another 10 years on Dermasys!



A key element of Futura Medicals strategy is to reduce development risk through using well characterised existing agents that are reformulated with its proprietary DermaSys technology to create new products. This means intellectual property protection is limited to use patents for the individual products and umbrella patents for the technology. There is a risk that some claims will either be challenged in future (eg on the grounds of non-obviousness or existence of prior art) and/or that another technology may be employed to achieve a similar effect. The protracted development times mean the clock has been ticking on the original issued patents, reducing the protected commercial product lives.


Futura still highlights intellectual property risk as one of the Key risks for Futira. Even today in the interims and the interview Futura admit they still have no real enforceable patent




The commercial success of the Group and its ability to compete effectively with other companies depend, amongst other things, on its ability to obtain and maintain patents sufficiently broad in scope to provide protection for the Groups intellectual property rights against third parties and to exploit its medical products. The absence of any such patents may have a material adverse effect on the Groups ability to develop its business.


Remember Dermasys when it has no drug eg GTN to deliver. Is not delivering anything! Med3000 is just Dermasys on its own and registered as a medical device which by definition cant claim to be delivering any drug!

Yes Dermasys and GTN had an umbrella patent for Dermasys delivering GTN. Just like Dermasys had with Diclofenac in TPR100.

But Dermasys vehicle gel on its own is off patent just like the Voltaren vehicle gel. The Dermasys technology is over 20 years old now. Thats how long Futura has been failing to get any commercially viable product using it! And remember both GSK and Reckitt walked away from MED and know everything about it already!



‘The DermaSys(R) technology was originally developed by Futura for use in the
Company's topical treatment for erectile dysfunction, MED2002’

The assumption that the Med2005 umbrella patent of Dermasys and GTN for ED would could somehow be extended and protect Dermasys on its own for ED. Is flawed. Dermasys on its own is over 20 years old so it has no patent anymore. So yes ‘IF’a new patent was granted it may offer some protection but very little if any ramper actually bothered to read the full patent application and actually see that the patent application is all about how the way they measured the cooling effect instead of using the handheld thermal device that GSK used! ROFLMAO

[lbo] 13/9/2022 14:51

Amazing how the rampers are all trying to deflect from the fact that buried in the interim results confirm Zero revenues from any of the deals which claimed ‘initial upfront payments’

Financial Statements - see below to view Futura Medical Financial Statements

[lbo] 13/9/2022 14:39

So why did you leave out the link which was about counterfeit viagra being dangerous. It
was clearly what was attached to the original post and the post was referring to?

But thanks again for highlighting that the name Eroxon goes all the way back to 2016 when the product was still Med2005 and still a pharmaceutical product. But then MED failed its Phase 3 drug trial and also since Oral PDE5I have been allowed make the switch to Pharmacy as they were seen as safe and effective and so become more widely available.

While MED3000 just left as a medical device like any other arousal gel/lubricant and has no active pharmaceutical ingredients. Yet more evidence of misleading and misrepresentation by the rampers! LOL



So the Eroxon trademark dates back to years ago when it was a pharmaceutical product still containing GTN. Yet now its only a medical device. More support for consumers to make misleading marketing claims against Med3000! LOL



After Phase III Failure, UK Firm Pushes Placebo to Treat Erectile Dysfunction