Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[peterm10] 06/3/2023 21:11

Yes good news and fingers crossed for some decent sales and results. Excited!

[lbo] 06/3/2023 17:47

https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.htmlAnd that HCP UK website Petroc advertised and introduced first into evidence on February 23rd on ADVFN clearly admitshttps://hcp.eroxon.co.uk/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsEroxon was the placebo used in FM57'So now public complaints can be made about Med3000/Eroxon to the ASA. Thanks to Petroc. And the application of the same principles of the ASA ruling on another similar drug free Class 2b medical device gel to Med3000/Eroxon. Can now mean the ASA can also find similarly that the results of FM57 are a 'post hoc finding' and 'false positive'https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/pro-bono-bio-entrepreneur-ltd-a17-400871.htmlMed3000 was just the placebo in the FM57 studyTherefore 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 'false positive' 'post-hoc finding'The CAP Code required that objective claims, including medical claims for a CE-marked medical device, be backed by evidencea 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 Directivehad 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 efficacyits reported effectiveness by the advertiser was a post-hoc finding due to the risk of that being a false positive finding

[lbo] 06/3/2023 17:43

The HCP website being advertised by Petroc says ‘when assessed against internationally accepted criteria for clinical effectiveness (Rosen and Araujo) the efficacy of Eroxon exceeded the minimal clinically important difference’ And the HCP Brochure on the same website references the study ‘Minimal clinically Important Difference Rosen et al 2011’

But its now clear from that study that the MCID criteria were estimated based on regular adequately controlled and blinded oral ED studies.

The Rosen study also clearly states in its limitations the results have not been replicated in ‘non pharmacologic studies’

So they are not internationally accepted criteria for ‘non pharmacologi studies’ or medical device gels which are known to have much higher placebo effect then oral pharmacologic placebos. In one study it was 3 times higher.

So now its been shown the MCID is inappropriately being used in HCP marketing to make a indirect cross comparison to non regular inadequately blinded medical device gel studies.



MCIDs were estimated using data from 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials of the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor


limitations

Current analyses were based on 17 clinical trials of tadalafil. Results need to be replicated in studies using other PDE5-Is or in nonpharmacologic intervention studies.

[petroc] 06/3/2023 16:51

Looks like Mike the bike was right all along, and LiarBO wrong again!

[suresure] 06/3/2023 16:29

I just received an email from Farmaline telling me this is in stock in Belgium.

[lbo] 06/3/2023 16:19

Wasn’t me who informed you there was no stock. It was one of your multi-IDs! ROFLMAO

But at least Reckitt or even a consumer can now wreck all the rampers false and misleading claims once and for all after they buy some product off Farmaline



In order to optimally protect consumers, the advertising of medicinal products and medical devices for human use is not only subject to general advertising regulations, but also to specific legislation aimed at rational use of medicinal products, in all objectivity, based on correct and complete information


‘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

‘When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly’



Unfair commercial practices

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU from a website, a local shop or a seller outside your home countrys EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices. When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly.

Misleading and aggressive practices

You are protected against 2 main categories of unfair commercial practices: misleading practices, either through action (giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices that aim to bully you into buying Certain commercial practices are prohibited in all circumstances. Some of the most common are listed below:

Whenever a product is advertised as therapeutic, curing allergies, reversing hair loss, helping you lose weight, etc. you have the right to know if such claims have been scientifically confirmed. In many cases, claims like these are not medically backed up and are simply too good to be true

[petroc] 06/3/2023 16:03

That can't be true, Keifer! LiarBO informed us 'the wholesaler is now saying they won't have stock to supply Farmaline!'

And that was only yesterday! Actually I notice that he's gone back and changed his original post when I pointed out he was lying, because the original message he read on LSE only said that the wholesaler 'didn't have the stock' and not 'won't have the stock'. Yet another example of LiarBO attempting to cover his dirty tracks. Good job I copy everything contentious that he posts!

[lbo] 06/3/2023 15:08

And so it begins! LOL

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

‘When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly’



Unfair commercial practices

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU from a website, a local shop or a seller outside your home countrys EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices. When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly.

Misleading and aggressive practices

You are protected against 2 main categories of unfair commercial practices: misleading practices, either through action (giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices that aim to bully you into buying Certain commercial practices are prohibited in all circumstances. Some of the most common are listed below:

Whenever a product is advertised as therapeutic, curing allergies, reversing hair loss, helping you lose weight, etc. you have the right to know if such claims have been scientifically confirmed. In many cases, claims like these are not medically backed up and are simply too good to be true

[keifer derrin] 06/3/2023 14:28

hxxps://www.farmaline.be/pharmacie/commander/eroxon/

it would appear Farmaline have Eroxon in stock.see link

[lbo] 06/3/2023 13:24

Yes that is the HCP UK website Petroc advertised and introduced first into evidence on February 23rd on ADVFN. The HCP website admits



‘Eroxon was the placebo used in FM57’

So yes I am advertising that public complaints can now be made about Med3000/Eroxon to the ASA. Thanks to Petroc. I never said his post should be deleted. Quite the contrary! I see it as yet more evidence of how one misleading claim can lead to multi-ID rampers making many many more false and misleading claims based on a flawed assumption based on a false positive post hoc analysis a study set up to study something completely different. And the application of the same principles of the ASA ruling on another similar drug free Class 2b medical device gel to Med3000/Eroxon. Can now mean the ASA can also find similarly that the results of FM57 are a ‘post hoc finding’ and ˜false positive’



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 ‘false positive’ ‘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

[joestalin] 06/3/2023 11:44

That took him 17 minutes to respond. Perhaps he was having a Thomas?

[lbo] 06/3/2023 11:32

Its just a placebo-nomics ‘form of fraud’ by rampers like Petroc



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.



Note how the rampers continually try to deflect from the issue that arousal gels already on the market list the same alcohol, water, glycol and cabomer ingredients as Med3000!



The Company has conducted initial literature and in vitro based research that has shown the cooling from the evaporation of these specific combinations of solvents


And by the very definition of being just a medical device. Med3000 has no active pharmaceutical ingredients. So the effects of Med3000/Eroxon are just mechanical and placebo. And both can be replicated with any similar cooling lubricant or arousal gel with the same alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients in any equivalent med3000 deficient medical device tests designed like F57 and FM71 if the man is just led to believe ‘it works’ for their psychogenic ED



I

ingredients Water, ethanol (35%), propylene glycol, glycerin, carbomer, potassium hydroxide.



A placebo is anything that seems to be a "real" medical treatment -- but isn't. It could be a pill, a shot, or some other type of "fake" treatment. What all placebos have in common is that they do not contain an active substance meant to affect health’







water-based warming gel Ingredients Stimulant Gel

Aqua, Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Alcohol Denat, Carbomer



A medical device has a non-pharmacological, immunological or metabolic mechanism of action while a medicinal product has a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic mode of action



‘Selling brass as gold harms consumers independent of any effect’

Since a similar placebo effect can be obtained from an arousal gel with the same alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients) overcharging for a medical device gel that is represented as a miracle cure but works no better than a arousal gel ‘is a form of fraud’



Placebo-nomics: how bad was what Nurofen did?

Australian courts have ordered the makers of the brand to stop repackaging identical painkillers for different pains where does marketing end and deception begin?

Lies come in a wide range of ethical shapes and sizes. There are white ones, diplomatic ones, and there are mean, self-serving ones. Apparently there are even nice, Christmassy ones.

The Australian federal court yesterday ordered the drug giant Reckitt Benckiser to stop selling identical products marketed as specific Nurofen varieties for back pain, period pain, migraine pain and tension headaches. The company admitted the drugs sold in different coloured packets all contained the same active ingredient: 342mg of ibuprofen lysine. It also sold them at almost twice the price of Nurofen standard ibuprofen products.

Whether this constitutes deception or just marketing is probably one for the lawyers to argue over. Whatever its called, such practices might appear to fall pretty unequivocally towards the self-serving whopper end of the scale