We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Futura Medical Plc | LSE:FUM | London | Ordinary Share | GB0033278473 | ORD 0.2P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.70 | 4.38% | 40.50 | 39.70 | 40.50 | 40.00 | 39.00 | 39.60 | 359,491 | 16:35:16 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pharmaceutical Preparations | 0 | -5.85M | -0.0194 | -20.62 | 120.28M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
25/1/2023 19:21 | Petroc, I am seeing this kind of behaviour across a range of stocks, where posters with no disclosed position repetitively rubbish companies, clearly with the motive of short selling or otherwise trying to drive the price down. Some of these vermin may be in the pay of large hedge funds who will stoop to anything to make money. | wheeze | |
25/1/2023 19:07 | Arousal gel is also a ‘topically applied gel which utilises’ the same ingredients as Med3000. Arousal gels too have ‘the potential to be a highly differentiated product by addressing significant unmet needs in the ED market’ Ingredients Water, ethanol (35%), propylene glycol, glycerin, carbomer, potassium hydroxide. water-based warming gel Ingredients Stimulant Gel Aqua, Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Alcohol Denat, Carbomer | lbo | |
25/1/2023 17:37 | Still waiting for a scientific substantiation with non deficient evidence how 2 gels with the same ingredients can be giving different results? Ingredients Water, ethanol (35%), propylene glycol, glycerin, carbomer, potassium hydroxide. water-based warming gel Ingredients Stimulant Gel Aqua, Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Alcohol Denat, Carbomer | lbo | |
25/1/2023 17:15 | Wheeze, you're absolutely right about LiarBO, but you probably should filter me as well, as I'm only here to post the opposite of what the lying stock basher posts. | petroc | |
25/1/2023 17:13 | Poor old LiarBO! Sitting at his keyboard, hour after hour, desperately bashing a stock in which he has no financial interest. Well, no holding, anyway. His only financial interest is all the money he lost when he invested more than he could afford in CSD500 and lost the lot through naive investing. The silly beggar used to post on all sorts of threads here before he lost all his money, then suddenly CSD500 failed and LiarBO stopped all the other threads to concentrate on bashing FUM, presumably out of some twisted revenge strategy. 5 years he's been doing it! What a sad loser! | petroc | |
25/1/2023 17:12 | Hahaha! That's one of your funniest posts yet, and I'm. Not even talking about. Your childish use of full. Stops in the middle of sentences! What a loser you are, LiarBO! | petroc | |
25/1/2023 17:11 | LBO - spam poster. Filtered. | wheeze | |
25/1/2023 16:56 | The ramper is also now claiming if anyone including the EU has no financial interest/shareholdin ‘You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly’ Misleading and aggressive practices giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices Like the rampers posting all tests were passed with flying colours yet always omitting to post that the tests were also alll deficient as they were unblinded and uncontrolled 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 | lbo | |
25/1/2023 16:37 | Poor old LiarBO! Sitting at his keyboard, hour after hour, desperately bashing a stock in which he has no financial interest. Well, no holding, anyway. His only financial interest is all the money he lost when he invested more than he could afford in CSD500 and lost the lot through naive investing. The silly beggar used to post on all sorts of threads here before he lost all his money, then suddenly CSD500 failed and LiarBO stopped all the other threads to concentrate on bashing FUM, presumably out of some twisted revenge strategy. 5 years he's been doing it! What a sad loser! | petroc | |
25/1/2023 16:16 | Its all bias and fraud with the ramper unsubstantiated claims that there is any non deficient evidence to substantiate Med3000 is having an effect beyond what a similar placebo arousal gel made of the same ingredients would have in those tests. 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 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions