Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 19/12/2022 09:27

'Do you even know how old and outdated the Cello and IPSOS Futura research is and that its not even based on Med3000?' Said LiarBO. I'll change a couple of words around - 'Do you even know how old and outdated LiarBO's research is and that it's not even based on Med3000?'

There, that makes more sense, doesn't it?

[lbo] 18/12/2022 23:20

Trinity Research even openly admitted the hypothesised effects believed to be happening by Futura are disputed. Trinity admitted no mechanism of action has to be even shown to get a medical device registered. But it does need to be shown and proven to substantiate its marketing claims of having any effect beyond a placebo or fall foul of the FTC, ASA and the Courts.Trinity research:Presumably the effect is comparable to the cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) that occurs with extremities such as toes and fingers. Despite being a well-known effect, the mechanisms of CIVD are still disputed, but the pathways involved could well be similar. Interestingly, the precise mechanism of action does not need to be elucidated for the regulators to be comfortable for a product to be approved as a medical devicehttps://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-erection-of-a-placeboThere is no evidence for the evaporative mode of action from the clinical trials. To show that the evaporation is what makes MED3000 work, you'd need to compare it to a non-evaporative gel.https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdfA product that contemporary technology does not understand must establish that this magic, actually works. 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

[lbo] 18/12/2022 23:17

Do you even know how old and outdated the Cello and IPSOS Futura research is and that its not even based on Med3000?

It was based on Med2002 and on pricing before Viagra even came off patent!

And that it was based on just asking questions years ago about a very different MED2002 concept. A concept that even went on to fail at phase 3.



So it was not approved as a drug and it no longer meets efficacy claims in any adequately controlled study. Even in the unblinded and uncontrolled FM71 it was proven less effective then the lowest possible does of Tadalafil.

Even the Cello survey was based on questions on MED2002. Not on a medical device placebo of questionable efficacy. Yet still Cello showed 46 per cent of the doctors interviewed in France did not even consider MED2002 was an improvement over PDE5 inhibitors. And that was even before MED failed at Phase 3 becoming even less of an improvement.



‘The respondents were shown a concept about MED2002 as part of the market research though they did not use the product as it is currently in clinical development’

˜respondents believed that the product, once approved, is highly differentiated from existing products and that its claims’

Yet its not highly differentiated from any other xkass 2 medical device gel/arousal gel already on the market which can replicate all the same effects of Med3000

[petroc] 18/12/2022 18:37

Hahaha! The audacity of LiarBO accusing anyone else of slicing and dicing the data!

[lbo] 18/12/2022 18:20

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.



So how effective is MED3000 really?

The first thing to note is that MED3000 has never been shown to be more effective than any control treatment - because it was the control treatment.

When Futura describe the efficacy of MED3000, they are talking about improvement seen over the course of the treatment period (which was 1 month in the first trial, 3 months in the second), known as 'change vs. baseline'.

Large improvements vs. baseline are common in the placebo groups in clinical trials of a wide range of conditions.

The vanishing FAQ

Strangely, you won't find the above answers on the FAQ page currently. They seem to have been removed at some point in the past few days, but luckily I saved a copy from 19th March.

A placebo or not?

Something else has changed since the old version of Futura's FAQ. In the previous version,



PLO = Placebo (identical gel to MED2005 but without the active pharmaceutical ingredient glyceryl trinitrate)



After Phase III Failure, UK Firm Pushes Placebo to Treat Erectile Dysfunction



Expectations of having received the drug can be modulated if the subjective effects of a drug inform the individual that active medication has been administered and increase expectations of drug effects.

[petroc] 18/12/2022 17:59

Over 60% of men who used MED3000 in two clinical trials and one real world trial said that it worked. LiarBO, who has never used it, says it doesn't work. Hmmn, who to believe?

[petroc] 18/12/2022 17:05

Go and bash your bishop instead of the stock, LiarBO