Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 05/10/2022 18:40

...still waiting...

[petroc] 05/10/2022 18:10

Where is your evidence it doesn't work, LiarBO?

[lbo] 05/10/2022 18:09

Again you make more false statements and post more lies after you have ‘seen’ the courts have ruled it is up to the advertisers to be able to substantiate their claims with non deficient evidence. The burden of proof is on the advertiser not anyone else. Without the evidence its false and misleading to claim ‘it works’. Without the evidence it is not false and misleading to claim there is no evidence that it is having any effect beyond a placebo!

[lbo] 05/10/2022 14:47

Again yet another false post by Petroc. You claimed ‘it works’ and ‘FACTS’. As per the FTC, ASA and court rulings. There is no evidence that is not ‘deficient’ to substantiate Med3000 is having any effect beyond a placebo. There is no burden of proof on me. It is on you to substantiate your claims.




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


And the reason the proof of any effect beyond a placebo doesn’t exist. Is because the study has not been carried out. Or if it has. The results have never been released. It could be because that study would also prove Med3000 has no effect beyond a placebo.

So you have again deliberately made another false statement with no disclaimers on ADVFN stating ‘in fact all the evidence suggests that it works in 60% of patients’. As you know all that so called evidence is from inadequately controlled studies and is ‘deficient’ as per the court rulings.

As per the ADVFN T&Cs

9. ACCURACY OF INFORMATION

‘You bear all risks from any uses or results of using any Information. You are responsible for validating the integrity of any Information received over the Internet’

[petroc] 05/10/2022 14:30

Actually you are claiming that MED3000 doesn't work with zero disclaimers so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. We all know that you can't do that because there is no proof that MED3000 doesn't work, in fact all the evidence suggests that it works in 60% of patients. So if you have any evidence, let's see it, otherwise stop lying and falsely claiming that it doesn't work, LiarBO.

[petroc] 05/10/2022 12:24

'It is up to the person making the claims to have the evidence to substantiate them' says LiarBO. So where is your evidence that MED3000 doesn't work, LiarBO? You keep claiming it doesn't but you haven't come up with a shred of evidence to support your stance.

[lbo] 05/10/2022 12:21

FOR EVERY BUYER THERE MUST BE A SELLERhttps://www.evidenceinvestor.com/for-every-buyer-there-must-be-a-seller/Jay: What I meant was, where did the shares you purchased come from? They didn't come out of thin air. Someone had to sell them to you. The market has two types of investors: individuals like you and me, and institutional investors such as pension funds, mutual funds and hedge funds. Do you believe the seller was more likely another individual investor like you? Or was the seller more likely one of those institutional investors?Haden: I would guess the seller was another individual investor.Jay: That's incorrect. Since today institutional investors do about 90 percent of all trading, there's about a 90 percent chance the seller was an institution. Since we now agree the underlying reason you bought the stock was that you believed it would outperform the market, we can also agree the underlying reason the institutional investor sold the stock was that it believed the stock would underperform the market. If that were not the case, it would have continued to hold the stock. Correct?Haden: I guess so.Jay: Okay. You believed it would outperform the market, and the institutional investor believed it would underperform. How many of you can be correct?Haden: Just one.Jay: If you're being perfectly honest with yourself, who do you believe had more knowledge about the company-you or the institutional investor?Haden: I'd have to say the institutional investor.

[broomrigg] 05/10/2022 12:16

Buys outweighing sells yesterday and so far today.

Looking good :-)

[lbo] 05/10/2022 12:09

Again you are just making more false and misleading claims on ADVFN. It is up to the person/company making the claims to have the evidence to substantiate them and to have the required evidence before they make the claims. It is not up to the FTC or ASA or anyone to prove it doesn’t work. It is up to you as you are making the false claims without any disclaimers based on deficient evidence on ADVFN.

And the real question the FTC and ASA will be asking is why hasn’t an adequately study been carried out? Is it because the fear is the evidence to substantiate ‘it works’ will actually just prove it doesn’t work any more then just a placebo!

What you are doing is misleading like all snake oil salesmen do! LOL

[petroc] 05/10/2022 10:39

Where is your adequately controlled study that proves MED3000 doesn't work, LiarBO? Yet more lies and deflections from the stock basher trying to hide the fact that he hasn't got a shred of evidence that suggests MED doesn't work.

[lbo] 05/10/2022 10:18

Yet more false and misleading claims by Petroc on ADVFN. The Med3000 studies were not adequately controlled so open to bias and an improvement over baseline in an inadequately controlled study. Does not prove Med3000 itself works.

And what you are now misrepresenting is oral placebo studies. While it was also shown medical devices especially gels that are rubbed in have higher placebo effects then just taking an oral placebo.




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.



Placebo Treatment: Don't Eat It, Rub it!

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


So Petrioc stop deflecting with just more and more misleading lies. Where is any adequately controlled study of MED3000 with a topical placebo. Or even with just a standard cooling lubricant/arousal gel?

[lbo] 05/10/2022 09:57

Petroc has ‘deceptively advertised’ MED3000 on ADVFN. His claims ‘it works’ were ‘false and unsubstantiated’ because the ‘plenty of evidence’ he has relied on does not show MED3000 works any more then just a placebo. So according to the court rulings Petroc has been falsely advertising MED3000 on ADVFN to other investors as if it had ‘therapeutic effect’.



Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC's Complaint that POM Deceptively Advertised Its Products

erectile dysfunction claims were false and unsubstantiated because the study on which the company relied did not show that POM Juice was any more effective than a placebo.



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.

[lbo] 05/10/2022 09:40

As the courts ruled its up to those making the false claims to be able to substantiate them. You have failed to substantiate that ‘it works’ beyond a placebo as all of your ‘plenty of evidence’ is ‘deficientR17; as it relies on uncontrolled and unblinded studies.

The courts also ruled that it is not required to prove that a product does not work in order to carry its burden that the sellers representations are false. As were your representations that ‘it works’ and claiming nobody can provide evidence to the contrary.

The courts also ruled to make claims like you have that ‘it works’. When the only evidence you can rely on just substantiates MED3000 is a acting as placebo. Then again you have made more false and misleading claims.

So where is the evidence from an adequately controlled study to substantiate ‘ it works’?

And your defence that its up to others to carry out the adequately controlled study to be able to prove MED3000 works or doesn’t work is ‘bunk’ according to courts. Its up to the advertisers to have done it before they can make claims like you did that ‘ it works’.

[petroc] 04/10/2022 19:40

Heh heh heh! I've never heard of Judge Denlow and therefore I'm not calling him a liar! But I am calling you a liar, because you have consistently failed to produce any evidence, not the slightest hint of anything that might call the efficacy of MED3000 into question, and yet you continue to beat the drum that it doesn't work. Stop prevaricating* and just show us your evidence that MED3000 doesn't work. *Btw, as you didn't understand the meaning of 'august' as an adjective, I'll explain prevaricating to you. It means to speak or act in an evasive way. Come to think of it, you probably do understand it because it actually defines you, unlike 'august' which is the opposite if you.

[petroc] 04/10/2022 14:43

The only 'deficient' evidence is the evidence you've got suggesting that MED3000 doesn't work. We're still waiting for you to produce it, because without it you are just a plain liar. As we already know.