Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 14/12/2022 22:12

LiarBO says MED3000 doesn't work. He's never tried it. Over 60% of men using it in three separate trials said it worked. Who's lying?

[broomrigg] 14/12/2022 19:16

Yep...."gradually rising" 12 consecutive BLUE days :-)

[bored of your waffle] 14/12/2022 18:46

Nice to see the share price gradually rising. The effects of Eroxon possibly? Fnar, fnar.

[petroc] 14/12/2022 18:38

Stock bashing has become very common in the digital world and often occurs on online trading platforms. Sophisticated technology makes it easy for bashers to remain anonymous. As such, it can be difficult to track, identify, and stop bashers in their tracks.

As the internet makes participation in the stock market more accessible to more people, new investors emerging in the market are especially vulnerable to the tactics of stock bashers, and many investor boards exist to attempt to track perpetrators.

Though notoriously difficult to track, some bashers have been identified and prosecuted. From time to time, confessional essays about the tactics of bashers emerge online, although these essays are typically also either anonymous or pseudonymous. Many investors speculate this type of behavior tends to follow certain patterns, including a tendency for bashers to only bash stocks which are generally trending upwards and showing potential.

Having said that, financial regulators constantly monitor the markets for what they call bad actors or stock bashers. According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), investors may find it difficult to get information about these securities and any tidbits they may find can lead them to act even if it's misinformation. That's why FINRA warned investment firms and broker-dealers to put controls in place that would raise red flags on any suspicious activity

[lbo] 14/12/2022 17:58

Futura have openly admitted they are exploiting the ‘least burdensome’ for MED3000 registration just as a lower class medical device



Devices are subject to weaker standards than drugs because they are regulated under a different law.

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.

[k8 rhm] 14/12/2022 17:55

You mean 19 years

[lbo] 14/12/2022 17:54

Selling brass as gold harms consumers independent of any effect on pain. Since the placebo effect can be obtained from sugar pills, charging $200 for a device that is repre- sented as a miracle cure but works no better than a dummy pill is a form of fraud. Thats not all. A placebo is necessary when scientists are searching for the marginal effect of a new drug or device, but once the study is over a reputable professional will recommend whatever works best.

Medicine aims to do better than the placebo effect, which any medieval physician could achieve by draining off a little of the patients blood. If no one knows how to cure or ameliorate a given condition, then a placebo is the best thing going. Far better a placebo that causes no harm (the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet is inert) than the sort of nostrums peddled from the back of a wagon 100 years ago and based on alcohol, opium, and wormwood. But if a condition responds to treatment, then selling a placebo as if it had therapeutic effect directly injures the con- sumer. See Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 1992) (a statement violates the FTC Act ‘if it is likely to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the cir- cumstances, in a material respect




Bias and Fraud

There are numerous biases in medical research that render evidence from such research systematically misleading. Some of these biases are exacerbated by conflicts of interest, including fantastic financial incentives. The most important biases in medical research include confirmation bias, design bias, analysis bias, and publication bias. Arguably, some forms of bias, such as publication bias, should be considered as fraud. The pervasiveness of bias in medical research justifies one of the premises of the master argument for medical nihilism. Medical research is malleable due to the many biases, and such malleability allows for the production of evidence that suggests medical interventions are effective, whether or not they are in fact effective.

[lbo] 14/12/2022 17:52

Petroc has also proven the Med3000 tests were deficient as a posted a link to research that confirmed a lot of men with ED just spontaneously recover and need no further treatment. Especially men with Psychogenic ED and starting at a baseline for the study of 62% needing no treatment at all to start with!


petroc8 Dec '22 - 18:26 - 14487 of 14511

Most common reasons for the discontinuation

‘spontaneous recovery of erectile function without further treatment’





It is known that uncontrolled trials produce higher estimates of the mean effect than those obtained in a controlled trial, since by not having a control group acting as a reference, they can induce erroneous impressions about the results of the investigated drug. As they can generate a certain bias, the results of uncontrolled trials are considered less valid than those of controlled trials.



Uncontrolled Trials

This design incorporates no control arm. This design is usually utilized to determine pharmacokinetic properties of a new drug (Phase 1 trials). Uncontrolled trials are known to produce greater mean effect estimates than a controlled trial, thereby inflating the expectations from the intervention. There is a threat of inherent bias and results are considered less valid than RCT. Another issue is use of this design in spontaneously resolving maladies that might again overstate the effect

[petroc] 14/12/2022 17:49

Was that it, LiarBO? The best you can do? Manipulating my words when talking about something marketed by Russian gangsters, ie Flexiseq, and trying to make it look like I was talking about a totally different product, MED3000? You are a total moron if you think anyone would be silly enough to not see straight through your lies and manipulations.

It was clearly meant to avoid answering the question I asked you, which was 'How's the stock bashing going today?' LOL, ROFLMAO etc..

[losses] 14/12/2022 17:49

LBO been shafted for 12 days.. must hurt

[k8 rhm] 14/12/2022 17:38

The market clearly likes the latest RNS, the facts speak for themselves. The risk just keeps getting smaller and Eroxon just keeps getting bigger!

[lbo] 14/12/2022 17:34

Clinically proven? Says who?

Not the ASA or FTC! As MED3000 has demonstrated no effect beyond a placebo in any adequately controlled study! It has not even demonstrated an effect beyond what a cooling lubricant/arousal gel would in an ED if the men were led to believe it was a treatment for ED!

When they say ‘clinically proven’ your first question should be, oh yeah, says who?

It is possible the company selling the supplement, infomercial ab gadget, or balance device did a poorly controlled ‘study’where they had people try the product and then tell the company about their results.

While this seems logical enough, it does not constitute legitimate research.



Because the trial was not placebo-controlled, we considered AcceleDent had not provided adequate evidence to support the claim ‘AcceleDent’ is also clinically proven to reduce the pain and discomfort associated with braces and aligners by up to 71%. We concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On that point the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products.



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

[petroc] 14/12/2022 17:01

How's that stock bashing going today, LiarBO? Hahaha!

[petroc] 14/12/2022 17:00

'MED3000 works as a well and for as many that believes it will work for them! Same can be said about using an arousal gel made of similar ingredients! LOL' Squawked LiarBO, excitedly and semi-literately. (Copy/pasted before he can go back and edit it heh heh heh). Hybrasil said 'don't worry LiarBO, nothing works for everybody.' In LiarBO's case, it would appear that everything works for him. There's been so many gels, compounds, unguents and ointments that LiarBO has stated work just as well as MED3000 that it's quite obvious that he's tried them all. Except of course he hasn't tried MED3000, but feels able to comment authoritatively on the subject. LOL.