Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 05/2/2023 11:01

Sure why not! Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day!!! Surely the ‘jam tomorrow’ of 60p will be seen in some month of some year! LOL



Broomrigg - 14 Dec 2022 - 12:41:29 - 14800 of 16193
Today's Trader's Cafe with Zak Mir: Bulletin Board Heroes (on Vox markets)......

(Listen from 6m 5s)

He's looking for 60p by the end of the month (note: this is just on chart analysis and does not take into account potential news flow re. revenues next year which will leave 60p in the dust).

[broomrigg] 05/2/2023 10:01

60p this coming week?

[lbo] 05/2/2023 08:31

The irony! Its now 2023 but Joe has seemingly woke up in a nightmare where he has now bought into the ‘lifestyle company’ and now must be complicit in selling the ‘jam tomorrow’. Maybe thats why he can’t sleep at night anymore! ROFLMAO

JoeStalin - 30 Sep 2019 - 10:07:37 - 5937 of 10774
FUTURA a winner for 2015 - says it all!


JoeStalin - 18 Jul 2018 - 09:00:46 - 4354 of 10775
'jam tomorrow' is a very easy promise to make.


JoeStalin - 22 Jun 2018 - 14:12:24 - 4288 of 10775
What's another year after all?
At FUM, time is measured in decades.


JoeStalin - 25 Apr 2018 - 16:07:34 - 4147 of 10775
There seems to be an unlimited number of ways of saying "Jam tomorrow".


JoeStalin - 21 Mar 2018 - 13:50:44 - 3985 of 10775
A lifestyle company, but not for the shareholders.

[petroc] 04/2/2023 19:30

'The problem Petroc has is he is continually proven wrong by the consistent case law.'

No, LiarBO, I don't have any problems there at all. There has been absolutely no cases brought concerning Eroxon, and neither will there be. You have a problem there though, as you keep making libellous statements about Eroxon.

[joestalin] 04/2/2023 18:31

Has anyone tried posting something in the middle of the night, just to see how long it takes LBO to post something negative about it?

[lbo] 04/2/2023 12:06

According to the relevant and applicable ASA rulings on medical devices like Med3000. Petroc claims breach the CAP code and are deliberately misleadingMedical device claims claims that breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 Medicines, medical devices'Because the trial was not placebo-controlled''had not provided adequate evidence to support the claim' ˜clinically proven' ˜concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading'https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/actegy-ltd-g20-1053158-actegy-ltd.htmlAssessmentUpheldThe 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 efficacyhttps://pocketdentistry.com/asa-ruling-on-orthoaccel-technologies-inc-ta-acceledent/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.https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/actegy-ltd-g20-1053158-actegy-ltd.htmlAssessmentUpheldThe 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