Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 15/12/2022 19:29

Just like the FTX values and Theranos valuation said it all! LOL

Theranos raised more than US$700 million from venture capitalists and private investors resulting in a $10 billion valuation at its peak in 2013 and 2014! Anyone know how much Futura has raised in discounted fundraisings to date since its IPO at 70p in 2003!?

Still no attempt to explain how a company can expect to enforce a patent on a placebo effect or even something that they openly admit was already well described in research literature.



‘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.

And the brokers too have admitted Dermasys vehicle gel just gave similar results to the Voltarol vehicle gel!



‘TPR100 gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel’

[boneshaker2] 15/12/2022 19:17

Think the share price says it all LBO

[lbo] 15/12/2022 17:54

Futura has openly admitted in an RNS back in 2021 it was using the ‘least burdensome’ route of just a De Novo medical device registration for Med3000.

This only requires a low threshold of effect over baseline for â ‘reasonable assurance’ of some effect including even just a placebo effect for lower class medical device registration.

This has allowed Futura like other medical device manufacturers exploit ‘the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act’ which requires the FDA to use the least burdensome route for that low class device.

So the FM71 study was deficient according to the relevant FTC rulings as it was an uncontrolled and an unblinded study and ‘prone to bias’. So even if if Med3000 is given medical device registration. FM71 still has not met the standards of the FTC, ASA or EU Courts 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. Similar applies to FM57. It was also not an adequately controlled study as it was designed to study Med2005 not the placebo MED3000 gel.



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.

[j777j] 15/12/2022 17:25

LBO is so angry its hysterical


He is the king canute of the stockmarket


He is digging up posts from 2019 to try and intimidate or shame people


Pathetic little man



Enjoy your descent into poverty

[lbo] 15/12/2022 17:22

Really mike!? LOL


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

[mikethebike4] 15/12/2022 17:14

No matter what you do LBO the share price is inexorably rising

- the more you go on and on and on and on like you do we are all, (except you short sellers), going to end up with shares worth £2

it'll be party time !!!!

[j777j] 15/12/2022 16:36

Enjoy your poverty lbo



Consumer In-Use Test

Cooper, as part of its due diligence process, conducted a consumer marketing Home Use Test ("HUT") in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands whereby individuals self-diagnosed with ED were provided with a four-pack sample of MED3000. The in-use results were in line with findings published in 2019 in Futura's clinical study FM57 which showed that over two thirds of patients experienced a clinically meaningful benefit from using MED3000 in a controlled clinical setting. MED3000 performed well in the real world, consumer HUT setting, with the majority of men with ED, other than men suffering from severe ED with significant co-morbidities, seeing an improvement in erectile performance and underlining the product's potential as a highly effective, safe, clinically proven, topical treatment for ED.

[lbo] 15/12/2022 16:27

All Futura have done with MED3000 is open the door for Reckitt to sell similar lubricants/arousal gels as medical device placebo treatments for ED. And report Med3000 to the ASA, FTC etc for being misleading if it doesn't inform consumers that MED3000 itself has no proven effect in ED beyond a placebo. As it has no proven efficacy in an adequate placebo controlled study or even against any standard cooling lubricant/arousal gels in an ED study.https://neo.life/2021/10/the-promise-of-pills-that-do-nothing/'You are the active ingredient'Even the analysis on market forecasts knows Reckitt who is the market leader in lubricants will be only one to gain from marketing lubricants as placebo treatments for Erectile Dysfunctionhttps://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/03/17/2405009/28124/en/Global-Personal-Lubricant-Market-Outlook-Forecast-Report-2022-2027-Featuring-Prominent-Vendors-LifeStyles-Church-Dwight-Karex-Berhad-Reckitt-Benckiser-Group-BioFilm.htmlReckitt Benckiser was the defined leader and the ultimate four Personal lubricant vendors with leading brands such as Durex Play and K-Y Jelly.KEY GROWTH FACTORSIncreasing prevalence of erectile dysfunction9 Market Growth Enablers9.1 Increasing Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction

[waterloo01] 15/12/2022 16:24

Funny really. I seem to have almost all on filter.

[lbo] 15/12/2022 16:05

J777J has said not to trust Lombard as they are ‘ruthless market manipulators’!

Seems they are back selling shares again! Oh dear!

I think there average is well below 20p after buying all the share’s they sold before the share price collapsed and.then buying them all back at 7p and 8p in the discounted fundraisings.


J777J - 31 Aug 2022 - 09:31:28 - 13032 of 14796

Punters burned as usual on this stock

Lombard probably offloading into this bear market

J777J - 23 Dec 2019 - 08:45:36 - 7043 of 9296

Clearly feels like a stitch up by Lombard who shorted after the RNS knowing they would buy back in the placing? After all it was they that underwrote it. No TR1 announcement came from them. That after something near 35% to 40% of the company's shares changed hands!!! The mysterious Butler on their payroll????? This individual appeared out of the smoke as a duo act. The obvious tactic was to spread scare stories across the various bb's.Get the price as low as possible. Lombard appear as the white knight,the great saviours,but are they in fact ruthless market manipulators?