Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 07/3/2023 12:56

The multi-ID stock basher (aka LiamBooth, Leveraged, Citygirl, sbgae, LBO8 et al) is making contradictory claims to the results found in two clinical tests and a home use trial. The vast majority of users confirmed that Eroxon works. LiarBO can't show a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise, which is why he has to use spurious and unrelated links in attempt to tar Eroxon.

[lbo] 07/3/2023 12:32

‘charging for a device that is represented as a miracle cure but works no better than a dummy pill is a form of fraud’

Or charging for a medical device that is represented as a ‘clinically proven’ treatment for all forms of ED no matter the underlying cause but works no better then a placebo gel/arousal gel would also be a ‘form of fraud’!?



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.



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.



Underlying this aspect of the courts decision was the notion that in order for any product to show a placebo effect, the advertiser must misrepresent the effectiveness of the product. The customer must be duped ... if the defendants had honestly advertised that the Q-Ray bracelet relieved pain because of its placebo effect, the placebo effect would be nil.

[petroc] 07/3/2023 12:29

The multi-ID stock basher (aka LiamBooth, Leveraged, Citygirl, sbgae, LBO8 et al) is making contradictory claims to the results found in two clinical tests and a home use trial. The vast majority of users confirmed that Eroxon works. LiarBO can't show a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise, which is why he has to use spurious and unrelated links in attempt to tar Eroxon.

[lbo] 07/3/2023 12:22

The multi-ID ramper is making contradictory claims to the relevant and applicable ASA and FTC rulings on substantiation which say that the results of a study like FM57 are ‘post hoc’ and ‘false positive’ findings. While FM71 was also uncontrolled and unblinded and therefore also deficient in substantiating any claims beyond a placebo gel or even an arousal gel.

The HCP website that was advertised by Petroc on ADVFN 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’ which is what FM71 and FM57 were as they were on medical device gels!

So they are not internationally accepted criteria for ˜non pharmacologic 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.

[j777j] 07/3/2023 11:40

Officially on sale now





See you at 200p


Look at the margins!!!

[lbo] 07/3/2023 11:35

Truant will you also be submitting a complaint to the ASA before you open your short? LOL

You have Petroc to thank for providing all the evidence on a public forum needed for a complaint to the ASA.



The HCP UK website Petroc advertised and introduced first into evidence on February 23rd on ADVFN admits



˜Eroxon was the placebo used in FM57’

So public complaints can now 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 could 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

[j777j] 07/3/2023 11:26

Petroc you are right

[petroc] 07/3/2023 11:11

Good job it's only a fantasy short you're talking about, truant, because the FDA result is already in the bag, just needs announcing. Perhaps you should wait for the resulting spike for your pretend short, which no doubt you won't confirm either way until after the event!

[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!