Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 20/12/2022 18:01

It would appear that LiarBO thinks that men suffering ED can never get it up. He omits to mention in his inclusion criteria that it was MEN WITH ED involved in the tests, over 60% of whom found that MED3000 actually worked for them.

[petroc] 20/12/2022 13:15

LiarBO seems to base his opposition to MED3000 entirely on a potential placebo effect. Although over 60% of men who have actually used it in clinical trials and a real world test all confirm that it works, LiarBO, who has never seen or used MED3000, claims it doesn't work, and that the results all point to a fantasy placebo response. He then links reams of rubbish about PE in an attempt to 'prove' his assertion.
Unfortunately for LiarBO there is an increasing swell of opinion in medicine to disprove the myth of placebo.

'... A good first step would be to see the placebo response for what it is—a conceptual myth that sustains a broken medical system and covers up what we are really seeking—our inherit healing capacity now freed by understanding how deeply meaning infuses us all.'

If anyone cares to read about it, try this:

At this point, LiarBO will be sticking his fingers in his ears shouting, 'No, no, no! They're all proven liars!' which he says about everyone who doesn't agree with him.


And another thing - just because something has the potential to cause a placebo response, doesn't mean it does. A bit like just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!

'The placebo response is a myth. It does not exist in reality, and continuing to name it is hindering the optimal application of science to healing in medicine. On the surface, it is obvious that, when defined as a biological response to an inert pill (like a sugar pill), the idea of a “response” to a placebo is impossible. Inert treatments by definition do not produce responses. So why do we continue to ponder why people get better from taking inert substances and base our acceptance of legitimate treatments on demonstrating that they go beyond that response?'

Answer - vested interest. Read the article, all is explained.

[lbo] 20/12/2022 11:26

Yes just like any placebo gel has the same 'potential' including an arousal gel if the man just believes its a treatment for ED!https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2005290112000313The placebo effect is that observed in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, and is produced by the placebo psychobiological phenomenon in addition to other factors, such as spontaneous remission, regression to the mean, biases, and judgment errors.https://www.futuramedical.com/media/2204/interim-results-presentation-six-months-to-30-june-2019.pdfPLO = Placebo (identical gel to MED2005 but without the active pharmaceutical ingredient glyceryl trinitrate)https://www.labiotech.eu/medical/futura-medical-placebo-erectile-dysfunction/After Phase III Failure, UK Firm Pushes Placebo to Treat Erectile Dysfunctionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-011-2233-4Expectations 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.˜You are the active ingredient’https://neo.life/2021/10/the-promise-of-pills-that-do-nothing/

[lbo] 20/12/2022 00:20

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 gold standard for clinical trials is the randomized, double-blind clinical trial; patients are randomly assigned to get treatment or a placebo, and neither the patient nor the person evaluating them knows which patients received the treatment being studied. An uncontrolled study, which is scientifically inferior for demonstrating safety or effectiveness, is when the patients are evaluated, but there is no comparison to patients getting a different treatment or a placebo.



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



Advertising and labeling claims are a primary way companies try to grab consumer attention and distinguish one product from another. As the market becomes crowded, competition has increased and claims have become increasingly aggressive and, sometimes, overreaching. Companies must balance the desire to sell products against the fundamental principle that material claims must be substantiated with the appropriate level of support. If not, companies are at risk of action from regulatory agencies such as FTC and FDA, offices of state attorneys general, local district attorneys, competitors and, of course, plaintiffs lawyers.

The primary regulator of advertising claims is FTC.

FTC identifies principles that are generally accepted to yield reliable test results. A well-designed and carefully controlled study with the blinding of both subjects and researchers is generally viewed as more likely to yield reliable results.

Advertisers must carefully consider each claim and ensure that proper support exists. Otherwise, in this era of ˜claims litigation’ , a company may find itself on the receiving end of unwanted action from a variety of sources.




According to the FTC, Massachusetts-based NeuroMetrix, Inc. and its CEO, Shai Gozani, sold Quell transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device to consumers, touting it as clinically proven and FDA cleared for widespread chronic pain relief. The FTC says that the defendants lack scientific evidence to support widespread chronic pain-relief claims, and their claims about clinical proof and the scope of FDA clearance for this use are false.

[petroc] 19/12/2022 22:02

Over 60% of men WHO HAVE ACTUALLY TRIED MED3000 have confirmed that it works. LiarBO, who exists purely to bash this stock and has never tried MED3000, says it doesn't work.

[lbo] 19/12/2022 21:56

Med3000 was also just the placebo in the FM57 study Therefore Futura had initially believed Med3000 had no therapeutic effect. The FM57 study did not set out to measure the efficacy of Med3000. The ASA will therefore consider that its reported effectiveness by Futura was a ‘post-hoc finding’

The CAP Code required that objective claims, including medical claims for a CE-marked medical device, be backed by evidence

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

had been used as the placebo treatment in that study, and therefore the researcher had initially believed it had no therapeutic effect. The trial did not set out to measure the efficacy

its reported effectiveness by the advertiser was a post-hoc finding due to the risk of that being a false positive finding

We were also concerned that there was not an adequate placebo control in the trial. We, therefore, considered that the study did not provide adequate evidence for the claim ËÅ“clinically proven’



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

[petroc] 19/12/2022 19:36

LiarBO says MED3000 doesn't work. He's never tried it, never seen it and yet he knows better than over 60% of men who have actually tested it in two clinical trials and a real world test. That should tell you everything you need to know about LiarBO and his attitude towards FUM, after he lost all his money on the condoms.

[petroc] 19/12/2022 18:13

'They post over and over...' Anyone else noticed that LiarBO's posts have appeared here hundreds of times before? Pot, kettle, black or what!