Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 20/1/2023 13:41

So it worked then.

[petroc] 20/1/2023 13:17

And LiarBO has tried every one of them! Oh, except for MED3000, of course, although that's where he claims the most expertise! Hahahaha! Stock bashing fool!

[broomrigg] 19/1/2023 20:35

Spot-on amelio.....60p wouldn't be a surprise short term....and with good news we should bust through a pound without too much resistance :-)

[lbo] 19/1/2023 19:20

Yes Reckitt will wreck it. As they have done to all of Futura’s products in the past and many other small competitors!






Reckitt 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 FACTORS

Increasing prevalence of erectile dysfunction

9 Market Growth Enablers
9.1 Increasing Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction

[lbo] 19/1/2023 17:08

LOL. Yes Sam Bankman!

And the chart tells the fundamentalists when the bubble inflates more and then bursts it will all end in even more tears!

‘this era of ‘claims litigation’ a company may find itself on the receiving end of unwanted action from a variety of sources’

How long before Reckitt wrecks the rampers lies once and for all after they get their hands on some Med3000 which only contains alcohol, glycol, water and carbomer! LOL

One simple blind comparison study which Futura seem afraid to carry out. Even though they have access to all the comparator arousal gels/cooling lubricants already!

The rampers still can’t even substantiate that Med3000 is having any effect beyond what a similar arousal gel/cooling lubricant would if the men is just led to believe it’s a treatment for their Psychogenic ED!

If Futura do launch anywhere then Reckitt will be able prove its all false themselves!

‘When A Claimed Trade Secret Isn't In Fact A Secret’






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.

[amelio] 19/1/2023 17:07

The chart tells me the market capital is about to add 15% its number.

[petroc] 19/1/2023 16:41

'Note how the ramper tried to yet again slice and dice the data! Its all about bias and fraud'

Actually, no, LiarBO, I didn't notice any slicing and dicing of data, just quoting a passage from the link that you helpfully provided. The heading was 'results', so presumably it was the bit that you wanted everyone to see?

If anyone around here slices and dices data, it's you, LiarBO. You have perfected it into an artform, and you constantly do it by bringing up studies and trials that have absolutely nothing to do with MED3000 and you try and slice it up to show that MED3000 doesn't work. For example, only last week you were stating that because Ivermectin doesn't work in the treatment of covid, then MED3000 doesn't work in the treatment of ED. Strangely, over 60% of men with ED who have actually used MED3000 all confirmed that it worked, which is nearly twice as many as those who didn't achieve any benefit. You also showed us evidence that far fewer men taking a placebo got any benefit from it compared to men who were actually taking the ED treatment being tested.

You just forget what lies you've told and get them all mixed up, LiarBO. You really need to get your own house in order before accusing 'the rampers' of anything.

[amelio] 19/1/2023 16:19

Chart indicators on the daily looking positive for a turn here after that cooling off period. Looking for that close above 52.6 and the next move will take out the 60's.

[lbo] 19/1/2023 15:18

Millions and millions of men have used Viagra safely over many many years. So thats billions of doses taken yet its only linked to a few deaths. More men die from deaths associated with medical devices per year. And even placebo gels like MED3000 claiming to be a treatment for ED with no appropriate assessment will be associated with deaths and thousands of reports of side effects if it ever manages to be used by enough men over time.

The objective data over many years of use. After appropriate assessment and correct use has proven Viagra to be effective and safe. Viagra has a well-established efficacy and tolerability profile. From its introduction in 1998 to 2016, over 64m men worldwide were treated with sildenafil citrate. 'The safety profile of sildenafil citrate is based on over 9,570 patients in 74 double blind placebo-controlled clinical studies as well as postmarketing surveillance that has been gathered over 10 years.' And correlation is not causation. Meanwhile there is no medium and long term safety data on Med3000 use in the real world.




In the past 10 years, medical device quality issues have caused 83,000 patient deaths 409.5 million medical device units were recalled in 2016-2017, averaging 58.19 million units per quarter.



A Viagra study also showed using a placebo was also just as likely to harm you. It compared some 4,500 patients taking the drug to about 3,100 on placebo. So based on that study Med3000 even as a placebo is just as likely to harm you as viagra.

[lbo] 19/1/2023 15:15

‘ fall into this regulatory grey zone don’t need to prove their efficacy or safety in the same way pharmaceuticals do, which could be a concern for vulnerable patients’



findings suggest that products introduced earlier in their development cycle are also more likely to increase the risk of harms



Researchers call for stricter rules on drug-like medical devices

More oversight is needed over products in the grey area between medical device and medication

Powders, tablets and gels used like medications but registered as medical devices the same category plasters and pacemakers fall into need tighter controls, a team of clinical researchers has concluded after studying several such materials. Products that fall into this regulatory grey zone don’t need to prove their efficacy or safety in the same way pharmaceuticals do, which could be a concern for vulnerable patients

According to European regulations, medical devices are used for diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease, but unlike drugs their primary mode of action isn’t biological. The definition includes everything from medical software to wound dressings and surgical instruments

Manufacturers need to demonstrate medical devices safety and performance. An organisation called a notified body then assesses the products conformity and grants it a CE mark. But Van Winckel and her colleagues found only poor clinical evidence for the three devices they investigated. Studies were small or of low quality, often missing placebo controls. In some cases, there was no data at all, for example to show the effect

The researchers also highlighted the lack of safety information in the devices instruction leaflets. There was no or little mention of interactions with other compounds, maximum safe dose or adverse effects



Oral powders or gels, sold as medical devices in the European Union (EU), aren’t regulated to the same safety standards as those applied to medicines

As a result, these products, which look like medicines, can be marketed with very limited clinical data and accompanied by poor quality product information.

require only certification with a CE (quality) kitemark before the product can be marketed.

This process doesn’t require evidence of efficacy or safety from high quality clinical trials, as is the case for medicines.

It also means that these products can automatically be sold without a prescription across the EU, and actively marketed to patients and clinicians.

[lbo] 19/1/2023 15:14

The little blue pill really is magic! Men with erectile dysfunction who take Viagra are 25% less likely to suffer an early death than those who don't




Placebos can be harmful especially medical device placebos have undergone no long term safety studies. One of Med3000 safety studies on impedence and STI risks was on cadavers! A CE mark only requires ‘meets the General Safety requirements of medical devices’












researchers found that medical devices that were first approved in the European Union were associated with a greater rate of safety issues than devices first approved by FDA.

Researchers examined 309 devices, 206 of which were approved by the FDA and the EU. Sixty-three percent were approved first in the EU.

The researchers found that the devices approved first by the EU were three times more likely to require safety alerts and recalls.

[lbo] 19/1/2023 13:49

Its all bias and fraud with the ramper unsubstantiated claims!

‘Significantly improved’ and even ‘larger’ effect in the men with Psychogenic ED

And they included only placebo controlled studies unlike the Med3000 tests which were all uncontrolled so prone to more bias and even more placebo effects. And the Med3000 study had non standard inclusion criteria so were yet even more prone to bias to include spontaneous recovery which had nothing to do with Med3000 at all! Yes a confounding factors as you were so keen to highlight earlier! LOL



Erectile function was significantly improved among participants in the placebo arm,

Placebo effect size was larger among participants with ED associated with posttraumatic stress disorder



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.



What method-issues to consider when assessing Risk of Bias
Concealment of randomization
Those enrolling patients are aware of the group (or period in a cross-over trial) to which the next enrolled patient will be allocated (major problem in pseudo or quasi randomized trials with allocation by day of week, birth date, chart number etc.)

Blinding
Patient, caregivers, those recording outcomes, those adjudicating outcomes, or data analysts are aware of the arm to which patients are allocated (or the medication currently being received in a cross-over trial)

Loss to follow-up
Loss to follow-up and failure to adhere to the intention to treat principle in superiority trials; or, in non-inferiority trials, loss to follow-up and failure to conduct both analyses considering only those who adhered to treatment, and all patients for whom outcome data are available

Selective outcome reporting
Incomplete or absent reporting of some outcomes and not others on the basis of the results

Use of unvalidated outcome measures (e.g., patient-reported outcomes)

[lbo] 19/1/2023 13:42

The rampers continue to silce and dice the data!



Even looking at the change vs. baseline, the improvement in the placebo (MED3000) group was actually very modest in the first trial. In response to the question "Has the treatment you have been taking improved your erectile function?", only 26% of patients answered "yes" for the placebo (MED3000).



At the start of the trial, 62% of all participants were able to attain an erection that was firm enough for penetration



What happened next gets to the FTCs allegation that the respondents, in effect, deceptively sliced and diced the data in search of a positive marketing message. According to the complaint, the respondents subjected the data to post hoc analyses of different subgroups of test subjects. (The complaint describes a post hoc analysis as statistical analysis conducted after the data have been collected in hopes of discovering statistical relationships that suggest cause and effect.) The FTC concern is that unplanned, post hoc subgroup analyses pose a high risk of generating spurious findings.