Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 13/1/2023 16:35

So here is the Med3000 patent ingredients which are all used in other lubricants/arousal gels already. I wonder why there has been NO update on the patent!? LOL



The composition of the invention contained: ethanol: 33%; water: 35%; glycerol: 24%; propylene glycol: 6%; Carbopol® Ultrez 10: 1%. pH was adjusted to 5.25 with potassium hydroxide solution. The ethanol used in the manufacture of the composition was absolute ethanol (i.e. 100% ethanol free from water) such that the final composition contained 33% of pure ethanol. If a lower grade of ethanol was used which contained impurity amounts of water (e.g. 96% ethanol), then the amount used would have to be adjusted to ensure the final composition contained the correct amount of the components, i.e. 33% pure ethanol and 35% water.




A placebo is anything that seems to be a "real" medical treatment -- but isn't. It could be a pill, a shot, or some other type of "fake" treatment. What all placebos have in common is that they do not contain an active substance meant to affect health

[petroc] 13/1/2023 16:30

I guess you'd know all about CSD500 failure wouldn't you, LiarBO? Over five years ago you were singing its praises, and you clearly bet the farm on it, because around that same time you stopped posting about all the other stock you'd been interested in. You obviously sold all your other holdings and sunk more than you could afford to lose in FUM. As you keep pointing out, the condoms failed to sell (although they did work), and the share price nose-dived. Then, either because you were such a naive investor, or because you'd borrowed to invest, (equally naively) you sold at the bottom of the market. If you'd stayed holding, you'd have got your money back when EU approval was granted, but instead you became FUM's biggest loser, and devoted the next five years (and counting) on bashing the stock in your childish act of revenge for being such a naive moron. If anyone thinks I'm making this up, then put aside several hours of your time and go back through LiarBO's old posts, and all the evidence is there to see, much to LiarBO's embarrassment. I have to warn you - his posts for the last five years have been EXACTLY the same as they are now, and there are tens of thousands of them!

[lbo] 13/1/2023 16:29

So if J777J is correct that sales are about to go live then so will the consumer claims lawsuits be close behind if any consumer feels they have been misled into buying the product ie 4 small tubes of Med3000 that just contains alcohol, water, glycol and carbopol. The same ingredients in similar arousal gels at a fraction of the price! Oh dear!!!



Kama Sutra Intensify Plus Female Arousal Gel Cooling 15 ml

Ingredients: Water, Propylene Glycol, Denatured Alcohol



Carbopol Ultrez Polymer

Carbopol ultrez is responsible for the consistency and texture of the gel. It is a water-soluble polymer that brings all the other ingredients together aesthetically. Thus, it contributes to the flow properties of this formulation, making it less sticky and easier to handle.



Placebo-nomics: how bad was what Nurofen did? (Or how bad will the courts see what MED3000 do if they claim to be having any effect beyond a placebo or even any cooling lubricant/arousal gels already on the market yet cannot substantiate that claim)

Australian courts have ordered the makers of the brand to stop repackaging identical painkillers for different pains where does marketing end and deception begin?

Lies come in a wide range of ethical shapes and sizes. There are white ones, diplomatic ones, and there are mean, self-serving ones. Apparently there are even nice, Christmassy ones.

The Australian federal court yesterday ordered the drug giant Reckitt Benckiser to stop selling identical products marketed as specific Nurofen varieties for back pain, period pain, migraine pain and tension headaches. The company admitted the drugs sold in different coloured packets all contained the same active ingredient: 342mg of ibuprofen lysine. It also sold them at almost twice the price of Nurofen standard ibuprofen products.

Whether this constitutes deception or just marketing is probably one for the lawyers to argue over. Whatever its called, such practices might appear to fall pretty unequivocally towards the self-serving whopper end of the scale

[j777j] 13/1/2023 15:46

Sales in EU about to go live







100p plus coming

[lbo] 13/1/2023 15:31

Petroc has yet again proven himself thats its all a placebo swindle as the Med3000 tests were set up to only include men ‘whose ED was partly 'in the mind'’. So treatment with a placebo would have an effect if they were led to believe it would!

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

‘spontaneous recovery of erectile function without further treatment’



In age-specific analysis, spontaneous recovery of EF was the most common reason for respondents aged 30 -39 years (58.8%

The proportion of discontinuation due to spontaneous recovery of EF was greater in the non-comorbid group (47.7%)

independent factors influencing discontinuation of the drug were cause of ED (psychogenic’ ˜The proportion of the patients with psychogenic ED in the discontinuation group (47.4%) was significantly greater



randomised clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups? A protocol for a meta- epidemiological study of PDE-5 inhibitors A particular treatment effect may exert both nonspecific and specific effects. A non-specific treatment effect is an outcome that does not arise according to an intended mechanism of action. This can be a response to a placebo but can also reflect a spontaneous symptom improvement

[petroc] 13/1/2023 12:46

...but keep ploughing on with your stock bashing, LiarBO. I want this share price down below 50p so I can get back in quickly before it booms on FDA approval to market MED3000! (Yes, I said 'approval'! Stick that where the sun don't shine!)

[petroc] 13/1/2023 12:43

Of course, what LiarBO fails to point out when quoting that the link I posted about spontaneous recovery, is that it was from a study based purely on PATIENTS WHO WERE TAKING VIAGRA AND WHO STOPPED. Clearly it doesn't refer to the average ED sufferer who may or may not be taking Viagra. Furthermore, it probably included a large number of men whose ED was partly 'in the mind', whose confidence would have been boosted by the success of Viagra and would have found they could perform without it. For LiarBO to twist and change those factors into me having 'proven' that MED3000 tests were 'bunk', 'deficient', and 'prone to bias' is yet another laughable example of LiarBO distorting things to suit his negative narrative. He also failed to point out that I posted that link as proof of his big fat lie when he stated that 'most men who give up Viagra do so because of inefficacy'. What a massive liar and stock basher he repeatedly proves himself to be!

[lbo] 12/1/2023 12:19

Unlike Futura who give all the necessary disclaimers around their carefully worded claims. The rampers do not have the evidence to substantiate any of their claims which are continually posted with zero disclaimers. The rampers are the ones making the highly questionable claims all over the internet trying to pump Futura yet cannot provide any non deficient evidence to substantiate them.



It is the advertisers responsibility to hold evidence for the claims they make, and it is stipulated in the Advertising Codes that evidence must be held by the advertiser prior to making the claim. Advertisers must submit documentary evidence to the ASA to support any claims they make; the ASA will not seek out the evidence to establish the veracity of the claim for you. When submitting evidence for new or breakthrough claims, sound data, relevant to the advertised claim(s), should be collated to form a body of evidence. The totality of this evidence is important; marketers should not ignore sound data that does not support the new claim, especially where current opinion is divided. Where evidence is limited to very few studies, the studies should have robust results to ensure the basis for the claim is sound



Unfair commercial practices

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU from a website, a local shop or a seller outside your home countrys EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices. When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly.

Misleading and aggressive practices

You are protected against 2 main categories of unfair commercial practices: misleading practices, either through action (giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices that aim to bully you into buying Certain commercial practices are prohibited in all circumstances. Some of the most common are listed below:

Whenever a product is advertised as therapeutic, curing allergies, reversing hair loss, helping you lose weight, etc. you have the right to know if such claims have been scientifically confirmed. In many cases, claims like these are not medically backed up and are simply too good to be true

[lbo] 12/1/2023 12:01

Hahaha! Just look at those rulings. Why are the ASA, FTC and Courts ‘So defensive’ against rampers scams and swindles Yes, of course non deficient scientific substantiation of an effect beyond a placebo is just ‘propaganda’ according to the snake oil scammers like Petroc and his multi-IDs ramping all over the internet!



THE PLACEBO PROBLEM: HOW SCAMMERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT

The placebo effect is real. But so are the hucksters shilling it in bad faith.



A Non-Medicated Gel to Treat Erectile Dysfunction: Snake Oil or the Real Deal?

this gel will likely remain just as it initially seems: too good to be true.




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




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