Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 28/1/2023 18:05

'the rampers cannot not show that the testimonialists of the 60% would not have enjoyed the same effects if they had used an arousal gel made of the same ingredients!'

Hahaha! Caught that semi-literate post before LiarBO had chance to edit it! WTF is he talking about? What a pathetic comment that was!

LiarBO also 'cannot not show' that any of the effects were down to placebo, and yet he has stated hundreds of times, no, thousands of times, that it's all placebo! What a muppet! Don't forget, LiarBO, as you showed us the evidence yesterday, placebo can only account for up to 50% of effect, and yet all the tests and trials have returned a value of over 60%. How are you going to twist and manipulate that statistic, I wonder?

[petroc] 28/1/2023 17:59

As LiarBO said, it's all there in black and white! Over 60% of men with ED who've trialled Eroxon confirmed that it works, which is twice as many as those who received no benefit; and also one lonely Dutchman without ED who also gave it 60%. Meanwhile LiarBO has proved to us that placebo can only account for up to 50% of positive outcomes. Black and white.

[petroc] 28/1/2023 16:36

'100% of the reviewers on the online pharmacy website that have actually tested the product and have been able to fully report all their own views.'


Hahahaha! Yes, 100% of the reviewers - that'll be one, then- LiarBO's favourite winking Dutchman! And he gave Eroxon 3 out of 5, which is the same as the 60%+ of men with ED who trialled Eroxon who also agreed that it worked! Not forgetting that LiarBO posted a link yesterday which stated that the placebo effect could affect up to only 50% of people, more evidence that Eroxon has a greater effect than placebo, whatever LiarBO bleats to the contrary!

LiarBO, feel free to post more evidence to support what I've been saying all along - that Eroxon works!

[petroc] 28/1/2023 16:35

As LiarBO said, it's all there in black and white! Over 60% of men with ED who've trialled Eroxon confirmed that it works, which is twice as many as those who received no benefit; and also one lonely Dutchman without ED who also gave it 60%. Meanwhile LiarBO has proved to us that placebo can only account for up to 50% of positive outcomes. Black and white.

[petroc] 28/1/2023 13:28

'100% of the reviewers on the online pharmacy website that have actually tested the product and have been able to fully report all their own views.'


Hahahaha! Yes, 100% of the reviewers - that'll be one, then- LiarBO's favourite winking Dutchman! And he gave Eroxon 3 out of 5, which is the same as the 60%+ of men with ED who trialled Eroxon who also agreed that it worked! Not forgetting that LiarBO posted a link yesterday which stated that the placebo effect could affect up to only 50% of people, more evidence that Eroxon has a greater effect than placebo, whatever LiarBO bleats to the contrary!

LiarBO, feel free to post more evidence to support what I've been saying all along - that Eroxon works!

[petroc] 28/1/2023 13:27

As LiarBO said, it's all there in black and white! Over 60% of men with ED who've trialled Eroxon confirmed that it works, which is twice as many as those who received no benefit; and also one lonely Dutchman without ED who also gave it 60%. Meanwhile LiarBO has proved to us that placebo can only account for up to 50% of positive outcomes. Black and white.

[lbo] 28/1/2023 13:27

And still no update on an enforceable patent! I wonder why?



The royalty and the royalty advance may be reduced by such amount (if any) as is agreed or determined by an expert to be fair and reasonable if: (i) any patent application does not proceed to grant or any patent rights are determined to be unenforceable or are revoked or lapse; or (ii) an event occurs which in LRC reasonable opinion adversely affects the commercial viability of the licence agreement or the margins on sales of the Product; or (iii) a competing product is offered




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.

[lbo] 28/1/2023 13:13

Did Futura also report that 60% of men the men also said it works just as well as any lubricant or arousal gels they have also tested? And no man in FM57 and FM71 has directly reported anything. Investors have only heard what Futura wanted reported. Were those 60% of men asked were they able to tell the difference between Med3000 and an arousal gel made of the same alcohol, gylcol, water and cabomer ingredients in a blind comparison study? We don’t know as not all the information and data has ever been fully published for peer review! Just like Futura never reported the shelf life issues on previous products or the the first CE Mark on a previous product was only for a one year shelf life. As usual its not what is said that is important. It is what is left out and not said that’s much more important!



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.



Med3000 was 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



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)

[petroc] 28/1/2023 11:25

As LiarBO said, it's all there in black and white! Over 60% of men with ED who've trialled Eroxon confirmed that it works, which is twice as many as those who received no benefit; and also one lonely Dutchman without ED who also gave it 60%. Meanwhile LiarBO has proved to us that placebo can only account for up to 50% of positive outcomes. Black and white.

[petroc] 28/1/2023 10:37

'100% of the reviewers on the online pharmacy website that have actually tested the product and have been able to fully report all their own views.'


Hahahaha! Yes, 100% of the reviewers - that'll be one, then- LiarBO's favourite winking Dutchman! And he gave Eroxon 3 out of 5, which is the same as the 60%+ of men with ED who trialled Eroxon who also agreed that it worked! Not forgetting that LiarBO posted a link yesterday which stated that the placebo effect could affect up to only 50% of people, more evidence that Eroxon has a greater effect than placebo, whatever LiarBO bleats to the contrary!

LiarBO, feel free to post more evidence to support what I've been saying all along - that Eroxon works!