ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for default Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.

FUM Futura Medical Plc

40.50
1.70 (4.38%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Futura Medical Plc LSE:FUM London Ordinary Share GB0033278473 ORD 0.2P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  1.70 4.38% 40.50 39.70 40.50 40.00 39.00 39.60 359,491 16:35:16
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Pharmaceutical Preparations 0 -5.85M -0.0194 -20.62 120.28M
Futura Medical Plc is listed in the Pharmaceutical Preparations sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker FUM. The last closing price for Futura Medical was 38.80p. Over the last year, Futura Medical shares have traded in a share price range of 24.10p to 67.00p.

Futura Medical currently has 300,712,293 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Futura Medical is £120.28 million. Futura Medical has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -20.62.

Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

Showing 13751 to 13767 of 21225 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  561  560  559  558  557  556  555  554  553  552  551  550  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
17/9/2022
19:51
Yet again the proven liar is proven wrong! A medical device gel that needs to be massaged in would have a higher placebo effect then the placebo effect of just taking a tablet.



‘Recent research has shown that the placebo effect is not only similar for medical devices to medical trials; it is considerably larger “ the effect of a sham device is almost three times that of an oral placebo’



These results were published in a paper entitled: “Placebo treatment for varicosity: don’t eat it, rub it!”



suggest that a topical placebo induces stronger effects than an oral one.

lbo
17/9/2022
17:37
Large improvements vs. baseline are common in the placebo groups in clinical trials of a wide range of conditions. This improvement is sometimes attributed to the 'placebo effect', implying that the placebo caused the improvement

There are many reasons why symptoms can improve over the course of a trial, of which the placebo effect is only one. To measure the actual effect of a placebo, we would need to compare the placebo to a control group who got no treatment at all. This hasn't been done for MED3000


ED is primarily a self-assessed condition.

Clinical assessment of the therapeutic intervention is not done with a measurable laboratory value or physical finding but is derived from patient reporting and indirectly from partner perception.

In the course of ED evaluation, therapy selection, and outcome assessment, the patient and physician enter into an intimate communicative relationship in which there is some element of bias. Physician bias arises from the desire to achieve an excellent response without side effects, and patient bias may occur in the additive unconscious need to please the physician. This may lead to treatment outcome inaccuracies, with an over-reporting of efficacy and an under-reporting of treatment side effects.




Percentage change from baseline has the lowest statistical power and was highly sensitive to changes in variance.

lbo
17/9/2022
16:58
Petroc is a proven liar who has admitted to using Multi-IDs and ramping all over the internet. He has posted false claims on ADVFN as ‘FACTS’. And never gave any disclaimers until challenged that they were not actually facts as he had tried to claim they were. And the evaporative cooling of Dermasys can be replicated with any similar Voltaren vehicle alcohol and water gel that also causes evaporative cooling.

petroc - 20 Feb 2020 - 10:14:36 - 7278 of 12535

PDT, as Dermasys has been Futura's core product for several years, and upon which they base their marketing strategy, I very much doubt that it's easy to replicate faithfully or legally


petroc - 09 Jan 2022 - 16:44:16 - 10345 of 10423

Of course it works

petroc22 Jan '22 - 19:08 - 10569 of 10768

What is not to love Eroxon /MED3000 - HERE ARE THE FACTS



The CAP Code required that objective claims, including medical claims for a CE-marked medical device, be backed by evidence,



What standards are applied to evidence? The position taken by the ASA is a tried and tested one which has developed over the course of many years. It reflects the opinion of the wider scientific and academic community, rather than judgements made solely by the ASA. There are many aspects that are taken into consideration when evidence is reviewed and each claim is judged on its merits alongside the evidence presented to support it. Evidence submitted for health claims should normally include at least one adequately controlled experimental human

lbo
17/9/2022
16:53
Yet more lies and unsubstantiated claims from Petroc the proven liar. MED3000 has never shown any effect beyond a placebo in any adequate controlled study



Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the product appeared to meet the requirements of the Medical Device Directive (MDD) but understood that the MDD did not harmonise EU law relating the advertising of medical devices, which was subject to Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair business to consumer commercial practices (including advertising) generally (Unfair commercial practices directive - UCPD). That meant that advertisers must still meet the requirements of the CAP Code, which reflected the provisions of UCPD. Under the CAP and BCAP Codes, medical claims could be made for CE-marked medical devices provided they complied with other requirements of the Codes, including those relating to substantiation.

CE certification in itself does not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers need to ensure that they hold evidence for such claims.

There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes for the treatment group (patients using the Aerosure device) and the control group (using an inactive sham device). The study was accordingly not adequate evidence of the efficacy

lbo
17/9/2022
14:28
LOL

‘TPR 100 is a Diclofenac gel that utilises Futura’s DermaSys® technology’

And after the TPR studies it was admitted Dermasys just showed the same results as Voltaren gel.

‘

‘TPR100 gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel’

Yet now the rampers are claiming Dermasys vehicle gel when its on its own. Doesn’t give the same evaporative cooling effect as the Voltaren vehicle gel does on its own! LOL



Voltaren vehicle gel is the carrier substance of the topical Voltaren products. This vehicle gel is especially formulated to be easily applied on the skin, while providing some sensory benefits. The present study aims to substantiate the widely perceived hydrating and cooling effect of Voltaren vehicle gel.

Voltaren vehicle gel application resulted in a rapid reduction of skin surface temperature

The cooling effect was experienced by 94% subjects



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
17/9/2022
07:39
Why haven’t Futura done a blind efficacy comparison study in ED between Dermasys vehicle gel and Voltaren vehicle gel? LOL



‘TPR100 gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel’



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
17/9/2022
02:04
"WOULD YOU RISK IT ?"

Millions do. They know it makes sense.

glavey
16/9/2022
16:28
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
16/9/2022
16:26
Remove the GTN drug ‘penile enhancer’ and Med3000 is only left with a placebo action! The placebo action of massaging a lubricant gel in an ED study! LOL



GlaxoSmithKline unexpectedly handed back the development rights to Futura 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

gels dual action as an penile enhancer and a lubricant

lbo
16/9/2022
15:59
But Oral PDE5I are not its ‘main competitor’. They are well researched drugs that have been proven safe and effective first line treatments. With a proven mode of pharmacological action. Even in FM71 an unblinded and uncontrolled study. Tadalafil was still more effective as MED300 is just a medical device that has no pharmacological action and still cannot substantiate any action beyond a placebo in any adequately controlled study.

So MED3000 main competitors are just other similar medical devices like arousal gels or cooling lubricants which can replicate every action of MED3000.



‘whether it be the placebo effect, evaporation, or just, well, mechanical stimulation’

Trinity Research even admit the hypothesised effects ‘believed’ to be happening by Futura are ‘disputed’ and Trinity admitted no mechanism of action has to be even shown to get a medical device approved. But unfortunately it does need to be proven to substantiate its marketing claims or fall foul of the FTC, ASA and the Courts.



A product that contemporary technology does not understand must establish that this ‘magic’ actually works. Proof is what separates an effect new to science from a swindle . . . . If a condition responds to treatment, then selling a placebo as if it had therapeutic effect directly injures the consumer. FTC v. QT, Inc., 512 F.3d 858, 862-63 (7th Cir.

Trinity research:

Presumably the effect is comparable to the cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) that occurs with extremities such as toes and fingers. Despite being a well-known effect, the mechanisms of CIVD are still disputed, but the pathways involved could well be similar. Interestingly, the precise mechanism of action does not need to be elucidated for the regulators to be comfortable for a product to be approved as medical device



There is no evidence for the evaporative mode of action from the clinical trials. To show that the evaporation is what makes MED3000 work, you'd need to compare it to a non-evaporative gel

lbo
16/9/2022
13:47
Really Mike!?

And you were the one who used to say your ‘swamping̵7; ‘negativity217; was just ‘to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections’? Perhaps that ‘waffling smoke-screen’ you mentioned in the past is highly contagious as you seem to have caught a dose yourself! ROFLMAO


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

lbo
16/9/2022
11:19
martinelwick15 Sep '22 - 18:39 - 13379 of 13388
0 1 0
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!!

I would like to do as you say but someone on ADVFN has got to post on this thread to counter LBOs assertions lest he succeeds in 'swamping' the positives with his negative, repetitive rantings.

mikethebike4
16/9/2022
10:17
Glavey the wind doesn’t seem to change for those who are being paid by Futura. More free shares today I see. Makes sense! Why would anyone buy shares and put their money where their mouth is when they can just get them for free!? Pity none of the Directors seem to be as sure as some of the rampers. So far as they have not been seen to be buying any significant amounts of Futura shares in the last fundraising or in the market!? Last time I looked total annual Salary, Directors fees and Share Awards were now over £1m pa in the annual report and the Directors held only about £2.5 in shares but over £4m options granted. Whatever about Eroxon. Futura is the dream business model for some since 2001. Unfortunately not shareholders who have seen some massive share dilutions (even down at 7p & 8p) and the share price has fallen from 70p at IPO. Along with multiple product failures after fanfare launches yet still no annual revenues to speak off.


Even Joe has admitted Futura is a ‘lifestyle company’!

JoeStalin - 21 Mar 2018 - 13:50:44 - 3985 of 10775

A lifestyle company, but not for the shareholders.

lbo
16/9/2022
06:25
How the wind changes.
glavey
15/9/2022
19:05
I note that LBO has uploaded 3 postings since my contribution. He can be assured that I have not opened one. This is my last post, lest I fall into the same sewer that LBO swims in.
martinelwick
15/9/2022
18:57
But whatever you do. Don’t ignore the rampers! Oh Martin the irony of your post 3 years ago before MED failed its phase 3 drug trial!!! LOL

I even dug out the old proactive video you referenced! Pure comedy now since the phase 3 study was in the end a failure! ROFLMAO



martinelwick 12 Sep '19 - 11:06 - 5810 of 11776

I have just watched the JB interview with Proactive Investor.There is a very interesting moment when JB is asked about the significance of the large number of people who want to remain in the phrase 3 study.He smiles and refers to the fact that he can’t say too much as it’s a blind trial.He knows far more than he is allowed to disclose,and is confident of a position outcome.
My one disappointment is that he was not more emphatic about the funding position.As I said yesterday nothing has changed since last years placing.
This should be massive and I sensed JB wants to shout it from the roof tops but is constrained by the need to maintain the integrity of the phase 3 trial.

lbo
15/9/2022
18:47
And also ignore the ASA and the EU courts too! ROFLMAO˜CE certification in itself does not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers need to ensure that they hold evidence for such claims'Where is the evidence from any adequately controlled study to substantiate any effect beyond a placebo?https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/actegy-ltd-g20-1053158-actegy-ltd.htmlAssessmentUpheldThe ASA noted that the product appeared to meet the requirements of the Medical Device Directive (MDD) but understood that the MDD did not harmonise EU law relating the advertising of medical devices, which was subject to Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair business to consumer commercial practices (including advertising) generally (Unfair commercial practices directive - UCPD). That meant that advertisers must still meet the requirements of the CAP Code, which reflected the provisions of UCPD. Under the CAP and BCAP Codes, medical claims could be made for CE-marked medical devices provided they complied with other requirements of the Codes, including those relating to substantiation.CE certification in itself does not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers need to ensure that they hold evidence for such claims.There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes for the treatment group (patients using the Aerosure device) and the control group (using an inactive sham device). The study was accordingly not adequate evidence of the efficacyhttps://buse.de/en/insights/ce-marking-is-no-excuse-for-uncorroborated-claims-of-efficacy/The court did not concur with the defendants arguments. It stated that the CE conformity assessment is neither an official approval procedure nor an administrative legal act. The so-called ‘notified bodies’ which carry out conformity checks and award the CE-certificates are private companies. The tests carried out by these companies therefore rather amount to plausibility checks, which, moreover, only concern individual aspects, for example, of a production process. A products (alleged) therapeutic effectiveness is not (necessarily) examined.In effect, the court enjoined the defendant from continuing the advertising of the product.
lbo
Chat Pages: Latest  561  560  559  558  557  556  555  554  553  552  551  550  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock