Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 23/2/2023 21:55

There's loads of evidence that Eroxon works. There's absolutely none that suggests it doesn't.

[petroc] 23/2/2023 21:53

Why are there no placebo controlled studies?

Eroxon, was the “placebo”; used in FM57 and gave surprising results having efficacy approximately double that normally achieved in ED studies with regular placebos. Moreover, when assessed against internationally accepted criteria for clinical effectiveness (Rosen and Araujo) the efficacy of Eroxon exceeded the minimal clinically important differences.

hxxps://hcp.eroxon.co.uk/

[lbo] 23/2/2023 21:04

According to the ASA ruling on another class 2b medical device gel. FM57 was set up and designed to study Med2005 not the placebo Med3000 so the results that Med3000 had effects beyond a placebo are just a post-hoc finding!

Also the comparison being made on that UK website is to ‘regular placebos’ ie oral placebos not medical device placebo gels which have already shown to have higher placebo effects

But thanks for the link it can now be sent to the ASA complaints department who can decide if its not disclosing all the relevant information required for consumers to make a fully informed decision






Med3000 was also 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

We were also concerned that there was not an adequate placebo control in the trial. We, therefore, considered that the study did not provide adequate evidence for the claim ˜clinically proven’



One specialist commentator felt that the clinical effectiveness has not been demonstrated. The absence of an adequate placebo (an inactive topical gel) for highlighted as a limitation by 3 commentators. One commentator said that without it, the clinical effectiveness could be attributed to the placebo effect of rubbing a gel

[petroc] 23/2/2023 19:49

Why are there no placebo controlled studies?

Eroxon, was the “placebo”; used in FM57 and gave surprising results having efficacy approximately double that normally achieved in ED studies with regular placebos. Moreover, when assessed against internationally accepted criteria for clinical effectiveness (Rosen and Araujo) the efficacy of Eroxon exceeded the minimal clinically important differences.

hxxps://hcp.eroxon.co.uk/

[lbo] 23/2/2023 18:46

His pathetic feeble attempts at deflecting saying there is no evidence to suggest it doesn’t work because no adequately placebo controlled and blinded study has been carried out is not accepted defence by the FTC, ASA or the Courts for misleading and false claims that cannot be substantiated. The responsibility is on the advertiser/person making the product claim ‘it works’ to be able to substantiate ‘it works’ beyond a placebo gel.

So the burden of proof to supply the evidence from an adequately placebo controlled study to substantiate ‘it works’ beyond what any placebo gel or even arousal gel would work in those deficient same tests. Is on the advertiser/person making the claim not the consumer!



It is the advertisers responsibility to hold evidence for the claims they make, and it is stipulated in the Advertising Codes that evidence must be held by the advertiser prior to making the claim. Advertisers must submit documentary evidence to the ASA to support any claims they make; the ASA will not seek out the evidence to establish the veracity of the claim for you.

[lbo] 23/2/2023 18:31

There is zero non deficient evidence to substantiate Med3000 works beyond a placebo gel or even an arousal gel made of the same alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients in any adequately controlled and blinded study



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.

[petroc] 23/2/2023 18:06

And yet there's loads of evidence that Eroxon works. There's absolutely none that suggests it doesn't. If there were then LiarBO would surely have brought it up a million times or so.

[lbo] 23/2/2023 17:12

So with all the selected ‘prone to bias’ factors in the medical device gel tests of Med3000/Eroxon for an indication known to respond to even just oral placebos. The question is if not even disclosing clearly to consumers all these known limitations of the deficient med3000 medical tests a ‘form of fraud’?




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 represented 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 If it is likely to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, in a material




Super Placebos: A Feasibility Study Combining Contextual Factors to Promote Placebo Effects

Ample evidence demonstrates that placebo effects are modulated by contextual factors. Few interventions, however, attempt to combine a broad range of these factors.

Ted Kaptchuk (8) states that “with good showmanship, a well-designed, totally inert stage prop … can produce exaggerated placebo effects.



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.

[lbo] 23/2/2023 16:52

Yes inadequately controlled and unblinded medical device tests are ‘prone to bias’.




Devices are subject to weaker standards than drugs because they are regulated under a different law. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 was intended to encourage innovation while allowing for a range of review standards based on risk, according to legal expert Richard A. Merrill. An array of corporate lobbying has since prompted Congress to ease regulations and make it easier for devices to get the FDA OK

Journalists need to scrutinize the claims.

Journalists have a responsibility to report this lack of evidence, but they often dont. Investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer, who wrote a book about the under-regulated medical device industry, says more dogged reporting is needed: We really dont know what we are getting with many of these devices

Ninety-nine percent of devices never have to provide clinical data, thanks in part to the 2002 Medical Devices User Fee Act, which requires the FDA to use the least burdensome route

For the few devices subject to a scientific review, the quality standards are flimsy. Randomized controlled trials, the gold standard, are infrequent. Most studies are unblinded, and thus prone to bias. The FDA settles for loosely defined reasonable assurance that a device is safe and effective, versus its higher standard of substantial evidence for drugs, which require studies with comparison groups that didnt receive the same treatment. Thus, data that would never be sufficient to support the approval of a drug can result in the approval of a device used to treat the same condition, potentially diverting patients from effective drugs to less-effective devices.



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

[petroc] 23/2/2023 16:40

Hahahaha! LiarBO really is a buffoon! He posts stuff like this as though it were true, and he clearly thinks everyone is stupid enough to believe it! He doesn't seem to realise how stupid it makes him look!

'Contrary to yet more false claims by Petroc. Futura have never made any claims about any magic new chemical being formed from the Alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients. Futura never even mentioned the outrageous Petroc claims about some new chemical bond or new chemicals being formed from the ingredients in their patent application! He is now implying Futura are selling something akin to beer or even worse something corrosive like hydrogen peroxide from its listed ingredients. And Futura is not listing that new chemicals are being formed from the ingredients they list on the packaging. These are shocking revelations from the ramper! Next he will be claiming he can sell beer to children packaged as bread if he only just lists cereal, water and yeast as the ingredients and never mentione that alcohol is being formed. Or that he can legally poison people with hydrogen peroxide as he only just gave them the listed ingredients of water, hydrogen and oxygen!'

LiarBO really excelled himself with that nonsense!

What I actually wrote to prove that LiarBO is clearly wrong when he claims that everything made from the same ingredients is inevitably the same:

LiarBO states that Eroxon is the same as other gels on the market, because they share the same ingredients.

Therefore he claims that hydrogen peroxide and water are the same, because they are both made from oxygen and hydrogen.

Therefore he claims that bread and beer are the same, and cause the same reaction in the consumer, because they are both made from cereal, water and yeast.

'LiarBO is clearly wrong on every level, and constantly proving to everyone that he will say anything, however ridiculous, to bash this stock.'

[petroc] 23/2/2023 13:34

Hahahaha! LiarBO really is a buffoon! He posts stuff like this as though it were true, and he clearly thinks everyone is stupid enough to believe it! He doesn't seem to realise how stupid it makes him look!

'Contrary to yet more false claims by Petroc. Futura have never made any claims about any magic new chemical being formed from the Alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients. Futura never even mentioned the outrageous Petroc claims about some new chemical bond or new chemicals being formed from the ingredients in their patent application! He is now implying Futura are selling something akin to beer or even worse something corrosive like hydrogen peroxide from its listed ingredients. And Futura is not listing that new chemicals are being formed from the ingredients they list on the packaging. These are shocking revelations from the ramper! Next he will be claiming he can sell beer to children packaged as bread if he only just lists cereal, water and yeast as the ingredients and never mentione that alcohol is being formed. Or that he can legally poison people with hydrogen peroxide as he only just gave them the listed ingredients of water, hydrogen and oxygen!'

LiarBO really excelled himself with that nonsense!

What I actually wrote to prove that LiarBO is clearly wrong when he claims that everything made from the same ingredients is inevitably the same:

LiarBO states that Eroxon is the same as other gels on the market, because they share the same ingredients.

Therefore he claims that hydrogen peroxide and water are the same, because they are both made from oxygen and hydrogen.

Therefore he claims that bread and beer are the same, and cause the same reaction in the consumer, because they are both made from cereal, water and yeast.

'LiarBO is clearly wrong on every level, and constantly proving to everyone that he will say anything, however ridiculous, to bash this stock.'