Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 26/11/2022 16:41

Semi-literate: 1. barely able to read and write; 2. capable of reading but not writing.

Typo: a small mistake in a text made when it was typed or printed.

Just thought I'd mention the definitions seeing as LiarBO doesn't seem to understand the difference. I've taken a leaf out of the stock basher's book and edited it now anyway.

[lbo] 26/11/2022 14:59

Consumer Class Action & Regulatory Litigation Risk for Your Products. Whether you are the maker or retailer or influencer/spoke person, you may have risk if the marketing claims are not true. In addition to the risk from federal regulators like the FTC, state Attorneys General and consumers can assert claims for unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices under applicable state laws. Here, the retailers and distributers who leveraged the deceptive defendant supplied product marketing materials were not also named as targets. But in consumer civil litigation, they might have been. So too perhaps could have been influencers or spokespersons, whose reputations were used to establish consumer trust and drive product sales. While these additional targets may have a variety of defenses to assert, litigation claims are disruptive and expensive and can dilute brand and diminish reputation. Product claims should be carefully vetted. Claims regarding specific efficacy and/or physical improvement ought to be well documented through scientific proof. When challenges arise, the nature and credibility of that proof will drive the outcome.

[lbo] 26/11/2022 14:50

‘coy/pasteR17;? Who is ‘semi-literate’ now? LOL


petroc - 21 Sep 2022 - 18:11:37 - 13439 of 14207
Wouldn't mummy edit your last post for you

[lbo] 25/11/2022 22:29

Futura has admitted in an RNS back in 2021 it was using the ‘least burdensome’ route of de novo medical device registration for Med3000. This only requires a ‘flimsy’ threshold of effect over baseline for ‘reasonable assurance’ of for lower class medical device registration. This has allowed Futura exploit ‘the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act’ which requires the FDA to use the least burdensome route’. So the FM71 study was deficient as it was an uncontrolled and an unblinded study and ‘prone to bias’. FM71 still has not met the standards of the FTC to substantiate any claims of an effect beyond a placebo and the FTC has jurisdiction over the marketing claims of these lower class medical devices. Are the rampers now going to openly claim on the record on ADVFN that these substantiation thresholds that have been applied to other low class medical devices of an effect beyond placebo by FTC wont be applicable to MED3000?



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 didnt 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.



In terms of advertising and promotion, for most over-the-counter medical devices, the FDA and FTC exercise joint regulatory authority over product labelling and advertising. The FDA has primary jurisdiction over labelling for all medical devices and advertising for restricted devices (typically Class III), while FTC has primary jurisdiction over advertising of unrestricted medical devices (Class I and most Class II devices). The FDCA prohibits the distribution or receipt in interstate commerce of a misbranded medical device, which includes a device bearing false or misleading labelling. Claims in device labelling, including product websites, that are outside the scope of the device cleared uses can misbrand, and even adulterate the device, another prohibited act under the FDCA



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

[lbo] 25/11/2022 18:54

So the FTC, ASA, Courts and SMSNA are making up the facts in all the medical device cases of what constitutes the threshold of substantiating an effect beyond a placebo? And that lower class medical devices which exploit the ‘least burdensome’ route under the medical device user act brought in by corporate lobbying. So only meet the low threshold of reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy of medical devices are allowed make misleading claims if they can’t substantiate them? I am sure the FTC. ASA and the Courts would also find your accusations against their rulings and the consistent facts in the case law as highly objectionable. If not libellous that their rulings on medical devices are not based on all the objective evidence and reflect the views of the wider scientific and academic community. Not just the subjective and clearly biased view of a ramper with a vested interest of trying to get some if his money back at the expense of ramping to others and who has even accused Futura Medical of telling lies!

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 - 15:14:56 - 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] 25/11/2022 10:38

The problem is if Futura admits the effect in FM57 and FM71 is placebo effect and not actually an effect from MED3000. Then they are admitting they are basically misleading consumers and selling any cooling lubricant/arousal gel already on the market which also works by mechanical stimulation, cooling sensation and placebo if the user believes its a treatment for ED.

‘You are the active ingredient’





But then the problem they have is how do they not admit this but not make misleading claims and be fined by the ASA and sued by consumers or competitors like Reckitt. Especially as there is one very serious life threatening risk from selling a OTC placebo gel to men with ED.



Without medical diagnosis of the cause of the erectile dysfunction and of any potentially underlying serious medical conditions (such as CVD and diabetes), the risks associated with self-treatment of erectile dysfunction outweigh the benefits




Figures released by the British Association of Urological Surgeons show that 90 per cent of men with impotence have at least one underlying physical cause for their problem, with 40 per cent living with cardiovascular disease and 33 per cent with diabetes.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally, claiming an estimated 17.9 million lives each year according to the World Health Organisation.




European Court of Justice to Clarify Liability for Medical Device

[lbo] 25/11/2022 10:31

Unfortunately a few ‘positive reviews’ for a ‘scam’ by ‘gangsters’ (Petrocs description not mine) online doesn’t make a placebo gel a good investment! Quite the contrary. I am sure a certain cryptocurrency exchange based also had plenty of ‘positive reviews’ online until recently too! LOL

petroc 22 Nov '22 - 19:15 - 14137 of 14145

Flexiseq being a Russian scam, this makes interesting reading:


How much much marketing money do you think a placebo gel requires to try convince consumers its worth paying more £5 for a small tube of your placebo then just using any similar but large tube of arousal gel with the same alcohol, water and glycol ingredients thats already on the market? Not to mention the money spent on paying off consumers and ASA etc for any possible misleading claim cases.



Flexiseq was a certified Class IIb medical device. We understood that the device certification was granted by a body within the European Member States that had been designated to carry out conformity assessments under the Medical Device Directive.



One specialist commentator felt that the clinical effectiveness has not been demonstrated. The absence of an adequate placebo (an inactive topical gel) for highlighted as a limitation by 3 commentators. One commentator said that without it, the clinical effectiveness could be attributed to the placebo effect of rubbing a gel



As Study Placebo, Non-Drug Gel Not Qualified As Real Arthritis Remedy In UK

Study comparing Flexiseq to a placebo gel might have helped substantiate claim ‘drug free, sustainable approach to joint pain and stiffness, clinically proven to treat osteoarthritis as effectively as a prescription painkiller,’ but marketer didn't provide those results when Advertising Standards Authority reviewed online ad claims challenged by a physician.

[c140] 25/11/2022 08:55

looking forward to Eroxon having similar positive reviews as lbo's mentioned Flexiseq gel. High % of 5 and 4 star customer review ratings on one well known distributor's website.

[lbo] 24/11/2022 18:41

Oh dear yet again the ramper is proven to lie and continues to fail to substantiate any of his claims. But again he has admitted he is posting under mult-IDs all over the internet. Also according to the ADVN T&Cs ‘ You agree to not post (or transmit) (i) any information which in ADVFN's sole opinion is objectionable including, without limit, information which is defamatory, obscene, threatening, untrue or in breach of any applicable laws, rules, regulations or market conventions’. You have even posted highly questionable and i am sure objectionable claims against ADVFN.


petroc - 30 Sep 2022 - 11:28:17 - 13543 of 14190

‘this cess pit of a BB, where LiarBO and the admin staff who follow each other, work hand in hand’

You also posted:

‘I only post my opinions and share what I read on websites’

But then you post:

‘I post actual facts about MED3000’

But all the websites, brokers and proactive website that you keep referencing (without links most of the time) do give disclaimers and their original source of information is usually from Futura who also give the necessary disclaimers..But you gave no disclaimers to that effect when you claim ‘facts’! The FTC, ASA and court cases and the consistent case law is clear on what constitutes substantiation. Reflecting the wider scientific and academic community requiring adequately controlled studies. And it is very relevant to all lower medical devices including MED3000 . The scientific principles behind all the rulings is clear. Deficient uncontrolled and unblinded studies may meet the threshold for ‘reasonable assurance’ for lower class medical devices exploiting the ‘least burdensome’ route to registration according to the medical device user act. But it does not meet the threshold according to the FTC, ASA and Courts to substantiate any claims of an effect beyond a placebo. And the FTC has jurisdiction in USA and the ASA in the UK. And yes Flexiseq is in the exact same ‘bracket’. Its a class 2b medical device gel that was originally the placebo carrier for an API in a failed phase 3 study. The placebo gel was then later given a CE mark by a notified body. Exactly the same medical device route as Med3000. To suggest Flexiseq not just another drug free gel that was a placebo rubbed in for another indication welll known to respond to placebo effect. Is yet another deceptive claim by you on ADVFN. The identity of the FTC, ASA and SMSNA are all known as is there jurisdictions and the fully published rulings on lower class medical devices. They are the real and only reliable sources not a ramper who has now been repeatedly proven to post lies on bulletin boards.


˜All information used in the preparation of this communication has been compiled from publicly available sources that we believe to be reliable, however, we cannot, and do not, guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this communication’

Opinions of and commentary by the authors reflect their current views, but not necessarily of the Company

The Company recommends that investors independently assess with an appropriately qualified professional adviser, the specific financial risks as well as legal, regulatory, credit, tax and accounting consequences.

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Performance forecasts are not a reliable indicator of future performance. The investor may not get back the amount invested or may be required to pay more.

Although the information and data in this communication are obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no representation is made that such information is accurate or complete. The Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries do not accept liability for loss arising from the use of this communication.


So what the proven ramper keeps posting are not ‘facts’ They are just Directors ‘˜beliefs’ and ˜opinion’ and are given with all the necessary disclaimers.


‘These forward-looking statements may use words such as "aim", "anticipate", "believe", "could", "may", "intend", "estimate", "expect" and words of similar meaning. By their nature, all forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to future events and circumstances which are beyond the control of the Company’