Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 27/6/2022 15:16

More lies from a proven ramper. Where is the adequately controlled study that the ASA, the FTC and the SMSNA all say is required by the wider scientific community to substantiate a claim that ‘MED works’ beyond a placebo effect.



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] 27/6/2022 12:51

How ironic!

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] 27/6/2022 12:46

So the ASA, SMSNA and FTC are all dubious? And Med3000 is not?



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] 26/6/2022 11:59

https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/claims/ftcs-view-claims-substantiationif an advertiser expressly states or implicitly suggests a certain level of scientific evidence exists, it must have at least that level of evidence. So, statements like 'clinically proven' or 'scientifically shown' require at least one or more clinical trials to support the claim. Additionally, an advertiser should not suggest a clinical trial has been conducted on the product if the study relied upon was conducted on a single ingredient or on another product. In such cases, the claim must be appropriately qualified to make the subject of the clinical trial clearthe 'gold standard' is a well-designed, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial appropriately conducted on the actual product. FTC has often required this standard in consent decrees, requiring two such studies for future claims made by companies governed by such decrees. Of course, these studies do not come cheaply, and most companies have not conducted such a studyhttps://www.bipc.com/operation-cbdeceit-ftc-cracks-down-on-false-and-misleading-cbd-advertisingIn each of the six cases filed, FTC alleged that the companies not only lacked scientific substantiation for their claims regarding the health benefits of their CBD/CBG products, but also falsely represented that their claims were either scientifically proven or had been confirmed by the U.S. government.Under the proposed orders settling FTC complaints in each of these cases, the companies and their owners are prohibited from making prevention, treatment, or safety claims similar to the ones the companies made about their products about any dietary supplements, foods, and drugs unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate such claims, and are required to have competent and reliable scientific evidence for any other health-related product claims. Specifically, the testing must be: (1) randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled; and (2) conducted by researchers qualified by training and experience to conduct such testing. All of the companies must also notify consumers of the Commission’s order, and all but one of the companies will also be required to pay monetary judgments

[lbo] 24/6/2022 14:15

Did they make you and your questions vanish from the AGMs just like the FAQ answers vanished!?



Strangely, you won't find the above answers on the FAQ page currently. They seem to have been removed at some point in the past few days, but luckily I saved a copy from 19th March.




shareholders will need to be confirmed as a shareholder or present a letter of representation before details of how to access this facility are released to them via email the morning of the meeting

Shareholders will not get an opportunity to vote or ask questions or any other participation during the call

[lbo] 24/6/2022 10:46

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 . . . . [I]f 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 even admit the hypothesised effects ˜believed’ to be happening by Futura are ˜disputed’ and no mechanism of action has to be even shown to get a medical device approved. But it does to need proven substantiate its marketing claims.

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