Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 29/1/2023 11:37

And now yet again just another example of Petroc posting yet more false and misleading claims within a few hours. Posting the exact same false post. Amazing how the other multi-ID ramper doesn’t ask Petroc how desperate is he to be reposting the exact same post within hours? Or maybe he is ‘loathe to give credence’ to what rampers do but accuses others of being desperate yet who ‘ only try and bring some sort of balance into the equation to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections’

Petroc states: ‘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%’

He conveniently forgets and omits the other linked research that was given every time

‘the effect of a sham device is almost three times that of an oral placebo’

So the first linked research ‘for up to 50%’ was based only on oral PDE5I studies. And all those oral studies were NOT deficient tests like the Med3000 tests. The Oral PDE5I research NEVER anywhere said all placebos ‘can only account for up to 50% of effect’. That research was ONLY referring To adequately controlled and blinded oral studies.

While all the Med3000 medical device tests were all inadequately controlled and unblinded sham medical device tests. Therefore those medical device tests especially based on a sham gel that is rubbed in. And its known from other placebo research on medical device gels they are open to a lot more bias and much higher placebo effects then just swallowing an oral placebo. Even up to three times higher which means the placebo effect of Med3000 is actually below what can happen with some sham placebo medical devices!

So yet gain its Petroc who is proven to ‘twist and manipulate’ And again proven to be deliberately omitting information in an attempt to mislead on ADVFN




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

Recent research has shown that the placebo effect is not only similar for medical devices to medical trials; it is considerably larger, the effect of a sham device is almost three times that of an oral placebo

.

Placebo Treatment: Don't Eat It, Rub it! indications to suggest that a topical placebo induces stronger effects than an oral one.

[lbo] 29/1/2023 11:31

Mike look also how desperate you are! You posted you were ‘loathe to give any credence to virtually everything’ Mr barder says! Akin to accusing him of being a liar.

Yet here you are now telling everyone on
ADVFN to believe everything the company says and its not all ‘smoke-screen’ or ‘waffling̵7;.

ROFLMAO

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 14:35:10 - 4072 of 11141

Having had similar waffling, 'smoke-screen' answers from Mr Barder over the years which have turned out to end in exactly nothing I am loathe to give any credence to virtually everything he says

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:58:28 - 4091 of 11141

Company is massively over valued if you go by 'concrete' results !

mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:14:56 - 4082 of 11141

I only try and bring some sort of balance into the equation to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections.
I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong about Mr Barder (our CEO since 2001) and to sale away into the sunset grasping 5 times as many £s in my fist as I paid for the shares
Unfortunately for people like J7J, Mr Barder has been through this advisors process before - with CSD500 - and look where we've got in 17 years - sales of the product did not even equal the money we paid him to be our CEO for 2017 !

mikethebike4 - 06 Dec 2017 - 10:32:27 - 3468 of 10591

"A couple of decent deals and will be back off to the races."
Do you have any idea of how long shareholders have been using these words

mikethebike4 - 23 Mar 2017 - 09:52:33 - 2560 of 10591

As someone who has been invested for many years and who attended an AGM years ago and complained to Barder about the very slow progress, I am very frustrated.
All the time the Board are drawing good salaries off the backs of shareholders money they have very little incentive to get off their backsides and get 'selling' - thats what running a company is all about at the end of the day!

mikethebike4 - 24 Feb 2020 - 09:11:58 - 7290 of 9713

why should it be any different this time when you've still got the same useless lot running the show

mikethebike4 - 07 Jan 2019 - 11:22:52 - 4692 of 9641

I repeat I very much hope you are right - no one would be happier than me if you are - however I stupidly (in hindsight) bought in when everything looked really rosy - we were told there were loads of 'distributors' all 'champing at the bit to get selling a wonderful industry disruptive product (which it still is incidentally) once the 2 year shelf-life problem was fixed. This was despite the fact that the Holland/Belgium distributor was quite happy and successful selling them with the original 18 months shelf-life
And where are we now years later - one tiny distributor from which Futura receives a total sales income only just about covering Mr Barders employment remuneration
I just hope this MED/TPR situation is not just a repeat of CSD. As to why I don't just sell up, well my shareholding is worth such a tiny proportion of what I paid for it I might just as well hang on in the hope that new shareholders getting in now are luckier than I was and I can get some of my money back - I think what we need is Mr Barders retirement - that should give the share price a kick

[lbo] 29/1/2023 11:27

Mike just shows how desperate you are posting the exact same post one after the other! LOL

And you conveniently forget to take into account is the proven effect in adequately controlled and fully blinded studies of Viagra and its other associated benefits! No such benefits with just using Med3000 gel which cannot even substantiate its having an effect beyond a placebo gel or even an arousal gel!





Medications to treat erectile dysfunction that contain phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE-5i) have wider health benefits in men with type 2 diabetes and/ or known heart conditions. PDE-5i drugs include sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil.

New research now shows that PDE-5i treatment for erectile dysfunction is linked to a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and death in healthy men.



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] 29/1/2023 00:11

And yet again another example of Petroc being proven to be making false and misleading claims. Petroc states:

‘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%’

The linked research ‘for up to 50% was based only on oral PDE5I studies. And all those oral studies were NOT deficient tests like the Med3000 tests. The Oral PDE5I research NEVER anywhere said all placebos ‘can only account for up to 50% of effect’. That research was ONLY referring To adequately controlled and blinded oral studies. While all the Med3000 medical device tests were inadequately controlled and unblinded medical device tests. Therefore those medical device tests especially based on a gel that is rubbed in. Are known from other placebo research on medical device gels to be open to a lot more bias and much higher placebo effects then just swallowing an oral placebo.

So yet gain its you who is proven to ‘twist and manipulate’! And again proven to be deliberately omitting information in an attempt to mislead others.



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



Recent research has shown that the placebo effect is not only similar for medical devices to medical trials; it is considerably larger, the effect of a sham device is almost three times that of an oral placebo.



Placebo Treatment: Don't Eat It, Rub it!

indications to suggest that a topical placebo induces stronger effects than an oral one.

[petroc] 28/1/2023 19:54

'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 19:53

'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!

[lbo] 28/1/2023 18:49

Trinity Research who are paid by Futura even openly admitted the hypothesised effects ‘believed’ to be happening by Futura are disputed. Trinity admitted no mechanism of action has to be even shown to just get a medical device registered. But it does need to be shown and proven to substantiate its marketing claims of having any effect beyond a placebo or fall foul of the FTC, ASA and the Courts.

But the ramper is saying on the record the FTC is just trying to bash the shares and is not trying to protect consumers from harm at all! Thats some libellous accusation against the FTC, ASA and the Courts

Trinity research:

ËœPresumably the effect is comparable to the cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) that occurs with extremities such as toes and fingers. Despite being a well-known effect, the mechanisms of CIVD are still disputed, but the pathways involved could well be similar. Interestingly, the precise mechanism of action does not need to be elucidated for the regulators to be comfortable for a product to be approved as a medical device



˜There is no evidence for the evaporative mode of action from the clinical trials. To show that the evaporation is what makes MED3000 work, you'd need to compare it to a non-evaporative gel’



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

the placebo effect will always result in an increase over the baseline (as it did in this trial), and the results of this study are actually just showing that neither the non-medicated gel nor the treatment being investigated resulted in any improvements beyond the expected placebo effect. In order to truly determine the efficacy of this non-medicated gel in treating ED, researchers would need to design a new study with a different control

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

[lbo] 28/1/2023 18:47

Proof is what separates an effect new to science from a swindle . . . . If a condition responds to treatment, then selling a placebo as if it had therapeutic effect directly injures the consumer. FTC v. QT, Inc., 512 F.3d 858, 862-63 (7th Cir.



Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC's Complaint that POM Deceptively Advertised Its Products erectile dysfunction claims were false and unsubstantiated because the study on which the company relied did not show that POM Juice was any more effective than a placebo.

[lbo] 28/1/2023 18:45

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





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.



Selling brass as gold harms consumers independent of any effect

Since the placebo effect can be obtained from sugar pills, charging $200 for a device that is repre- sented as a miracle cure but works no better than a dummy pill is a form of fraud. Thats not all. A placebo is necessary when scientists are searching for the marginal effect of a new drug or device, but once the study is over a reputable professional will recommend whatever works best. Medicine aims to do better than the placebo effect, which any medieval physician could achieve by draining off a little of the patients blood. If no one knows how to cure or ameliorate a given condition, then a placebo is the best thing going. Far better a placebo that causes no harm (the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet is inert) than the sort of nostrums peddled from the back of a wagon 100 years ago and based on alcohol, opium, and wormwood. But if a condition responds to treatment, then selling a placebo as if it had therapeutic effect directly injures the con- sumer. See Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 1992) (a statement violates the FTC Act Ëœif it is likely to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, in a material

[petroc] 28/1/2023 18:44

'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 18:43

'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?