Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 15/3/2023 13:04

Did you mean this link, Joe?

[joestalin] 15/3/2023 13:01

Watch loser boy bury this one:-

[lbo] 15/3/2023 12:33

LOL

Oh the Irony from Joes link!

‘However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Futura Medical’


Especially when its now 2023 and its openly being admitted its going to be ‘˜long term’ from now to try build a brand around just placebo medical device gel made with alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients with no enforceable patent


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.




Here's a startling fact: between 80% and 90% of new product launches fail, according to multiple studies including Harvard Business Review. Each year, more than 30,000 new products hit the market, from companies large and small, and year after year, history is littered with dead carcasses



Research at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute shows new product launches can be a risky undertaking for brand owners. Investigating 83,719 new product introductions over an eight-year period, the research finds around one in four new products failed to survive one year after launch. This failure rate increased to around 40% two years after launch.



Why Most Product Launches Fail

[joestalin] 15/3/2023 12:31

Watch loser boy bury this one:-

[petroc] 15/3/2023 12:13

LiarBO quoted 'Because when somebody is running something that is semi fraudulent. They are probably pretty good at it. And they are working full time at it'

How long have you been doing this now, LiarBO? How many posts a day, each and every day? heh heh heh!

[lbo] 15/3/2023 11:54

And that HCP UK website you yourself linked also confirms when the ASA rulings on substantiation are applied to Med3000 FM57. It shows the 'surprising results' are a 'post hoc' 'false positive' finding and again consumers are being 'duped'https://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] 15/3/2023 11:50

And anyone would think you yourself have proven consumers are being ‘duped’ regarding Eroxon? Here
you are. The UK HCP website that was provided by you 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 specific study ‘Minimal clinically Important Difference Rosen et al 2011’

But its clear in that study that the MCID criteria were estimated based on just regular adequately controlled and blinded oral only ED studies!

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

But FM71 was a non pharmacologic medical device gel study! So why are consumers being ‘duped’ with misleading claims?

They are clearly not internationally accepted criteria for ‘non pharmacologi studies’ Like the medical device gel study FM71. Whiich was totally uncontrolled, unblinded and ‘prone to bias’ and therefore known to have much higher placebo effect then oral pharmacologic placebos in adequately controlled and blinded studies.

So now its been poven that consumers are being ‘Duped’ when the inappropriate MCID comparison is being used in 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.

[lbo] 15/3/2023 11:07

Even Trinity Research who are paid by Futura has contradicted the rampers and had to openly admit the hypothesised effects 'believes' to be happening by Futura are 'disputed'https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-erection-of-a-placebo˜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'https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdfProof 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.Trinity also admitted no mechanism of action has to be even shown to just get a low class 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 even arousal gel with the same alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer ingredients or fall foul of the FTC, ASA and the Courts.Trinity research:Presumably 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 deviceââ‚

[petroc] 15/3/2023 10:10

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 an attempt to tar Eroxon.