Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[bloomberg2] 31/8/2022 07:26

Should see a nice rise this morning

[haveapunt1] 31/8/2022 07:18

Only OTC product potentially in US. Huge market. Just need to start selling the thing now, including that in EU. Still struggling to understand the delay in EU launch if I’m honest. Q1 global launch seems the preferred option by the board. £106mil mcap. Broker ratings of 94p look fairly realistic now. Will be interesting to see if any II start the loading phase again. It’s fairly clear they knew the results before the wider market. Just have to sit on your hands now for a few months. Interesting to listen to the webcast at 10am

[keifer derrin] 31/8/2022 07:17

a great results and loved the part where they said, the longer you used Eroxon the better the results. Plus lower side effects than viagra

[k8 rhm] 31/8/2022 07:14

Another step forward or more likely, one giant leap for US ED sufferers....

[haveapunt1] 31/8/2022 07:08

How you feeling LBO?

[haveapunt1] 30/8/2022 18:16

But we aren’t talking about them lol. We are talking about your investment strategy

[lbo] 30/8/2022 18:03

Not according to the muti-ID rampers! Just a simple alcohol and water gel that causes cooling on the skin as it evaporates is the blockbuster answer to treating ED. And is according to the rampers also going to capture a percentage of the global ED drugs market. Maybe they can even pump it up yet again after the FM71 study and the De Novo medical device registration shows ‘it works’! LOL

But please explain how can anyone enforce a patent on something that was already well described in the literature and can be challenged on non obviousness and prior art?



In Q2 2022 national applications will need to be made and the Company, in consultation with its commercial partners, will decide those countries in which to file applications and considered necessary to protect the commercial interests of MED3000. If national applications are successful



Most third party challenges to patentability occur in front of national or regional patent offices. WIPO recently released a summary of data regarding the extent to which third parties are challenging patentability at the international level. Any member of the public can file Third Party Observations against a PCT application during the international phase.





‘The Company has conducted initial literature and in vitro based research that has shown the cooling from the evaporation of these specific combinations of solvents’



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 products




A smooth gel intended for alcohol soluble actives. Provides cooling effect upon application while leaving minimal residue




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.

[haveapunt1] 30/8/2022 17:58

So why haven’t you sold LBO? Your holding a dead duck? Not the best investment strategy

[lbo] 30/8/2022 17:47

Yes as I previously said and showed. I have been a long standing shareholder and been posting about FUM on ADVFN for over 14 years. Now why don’t you answer where is there evidence from any adequately placebo controlled blind study to substantiate Med3000 claims with no disclaimer of a ‘Clinically Proven’ effect beyond a placebo? As required by the ASA, the FTC and the Courts. Also why don’t you answer the clear questions about the more relevant patent issues that have been asked?

[haveapunt1] 30/8/2022 17:43

LBO. Seeing as you “hold” and clearly think the company is a scam, spend all day slating it, preach the product FUM have is placebo. Why not sell? It’s risen a good 20% the last month, so now is a good time to sell if your so dead against the company. Any sane investor would not spend all day here moaning . A sane investor that no longer believes in the company, sells his stock and retains his capital to invest elsewhere. My only guess is your reluctant to sell as your sitting on a heavy loss, and remain so bitter about it, you have little better to do than post here all day long wining and moaning, copy and pasting from google.

[haveapunt1] 30/8/2022 17:39

LBO, it was not a “personal question”. Get a grip

[lbo] 30/8/2022 17:13

The last time I checked this was the ‘In Futura a winner for 2015 BB’? (Quite ironic since its 2022). Perhaps you are on the wrong BB on ADVFN if you want to ask personal questions about any poster’s shareholdings? Especially when its obvious from my posts over many years that I have been a long standing shareholder from the start.



But more Interesting is that I too gather that I am still waiting. On the more relevant answers to any of the relevant questions about Futura on the Futura BB. That I have asked? What does that say about your ‘very sad’ ‘agenda’?. To quote the football phrase. Play the ball not the man!



(by extension, idiomatic, colloquial) To object to someone's argument by attacking the argument itself instead of them or a facet of their personality




The following are a few of the common issues companies must resolve when determining whether the appropriate substantiation exists for their claims.

One important caveat to keep in mind is that, if 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.

the “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.





Any future prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, however, must be supported by competent and reliable evidence, defined as randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human clinical trials to support the claims.

[haveapunt1] 30/8/2022 16:56

I gather LBO still hasn’t actually answered my question still from last week. Given he can’t, I think we have all seen his agenda. Very sad. Let him have his time, and I will just keep asking the same question. He will ignore it, and reinforce his agenda here for all to see. For the life of me I don’t see why people here even give him typo time. Just ignore and filter

[petroc] 30/8/2022 14:40

As I said before, LiarBO, if you can keep getting away with posting your stock bashing anti-FUM propaganda, they're not likely to stop me calling you what I like, especially as it's all true, you lying, deceitful, stock bashing manipulator.

[lbo] 30/8/2022 07:53

I see you have breached the ADVFN T&Cs yet again still feeling the need to resort to obscene language. Still no sign of you showing where there is any adequate placebo controlled blind study to substantiate any claim that Med3000 is having any effect beyond a placebo?

Med3000 is just a class 2 medical device gel. Same as flexiseq gel. Med3000 was the placebo in the FM57 study. Therefore Futura had initially believed Med3000 had no therapeutic effect. The FM57 study did not set out to measure the efficacy of Med3000. The ASA will therefore consider that its reported effectiveness by Futura was a post-hoc finding. FM71 is also not an adequately controlled study to substantiate any claims it is having any effect beyond a placebo.






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. We understood that the Aerosure Medic was classified as Class I medical device. Class I medical devices were generally CE-marked on a self-declaration basis. 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 of the device.