Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 12/4/2023 10:30

I love it when LiarBO keeps repeating my line, ‘Bear in mind of course that I work for FUM’'

It reminds me of the time I originally posted it, when the pathetically gullible fool LiarBO accused me of working for FUM. That was on LSE, where LiarBO is still maintaining his obvious lie that he didn't use to post under the name of LiamBOoth. Hahahaha! When I can be bothered I'll dig out the whole post, but in the meantime, LiarBO, bear in mind that I work for FUM! Heh heh heh!

[lbo] 12/4/2023 10:23

Same FTC substantiation principles will apply to selling a drug free low class medical device gel being 'represented as a miracle cure but works no better than a dummy gel 'is a form of fraud'https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080103qtrayseventhcircuitappealruling.pdfSelling 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.https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdfA product that contemporary technology does not understand must establish that this magic, actually works. Proof 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

[lbo] 12/4/2023 08:14

https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/f6d9a0c6-3e9b-475b-aa831a597de615ff.pdfIt 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] 11/4/2023 20:52

The multi-iD ramper claims are a breach of the CAP code and are deliberately misleadingMedical device 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

[petroc] 11/4/2023 19:50

Yeah, as I said, he's lying. He can't possibly claim Eroxon is 'a sham placebo gel ‘form of fraud’' because as he keeps saying, it's never been tested against a placebo, so he has no evidence or proof to support his statement as usual.

[lbo] 11/4/2023 16:17

Whats entirely relevant is its all based on a sham placebo gel ‘form of fraud’ by a group of connected multi-ID rampers!

Even sham acupuncture can be more effective then the placebo sham medical device Eroxon gel to stimulate ‘confidence’! And even sham acupuncture works as as as well as acupuncture



The Efficacy of Acupuncture on Patients with Erectile Dysfunction: A Review All the studies showed that acupuncture had beneficial effects on ED, with effective rates from 54% to 69%



Researchers have repeatedly shown interventions such as ‘sham’ acccupuncture to be as effective as acupuncture. Sham acupuncture uses retractable needles that do not pierce the skin



Experience has shown that while oral analgesic trials elicit some placebo response among subjects, placebo response rates tend to increase with transdermal gel

Thus, the placebo effect has become increasingly frustrating as drug companies seek to take advantage of the popularity and established safety of transdermal delivery systems.



Placebo response to manual therapy: something out of nothing




‘the placebo effect in RCT of iPDE5 for ED occurs at a rate as high as 50%’



Recent research has shown that the placebo effect is not only similar for medical devices to medical trials; it is considerably larger, the effect of a sham device is almost three times that of an oral placebo.



Placebo effects are even larger with procedures than with drugs. Researchers at the Institute of Medical Psychology in Munich recently quantified that power for various types of placebo treatments in studies of migraine prophylaxis. They found that 58% of patients had a positive response to sham surgery and 38% had a positive response to sham acupuncture, while only 22% had a positive response to oral pharmacologic placebos.



Placebo Treatment: Don't Eat It, Rub it!

indications to suggest that a topical placebo induces stronger effects than an oral one.



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] 11/4/2023 16:15

Everything LiarBO says is entirely irrelevant and usually a lie.

[lbo] 10/4/2023 13:41

Same applies to selling a drug free low class medical device gel being ‘represented as a miracle cure but works no better than a dummy’ gel ‘is 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.



A product that contemporary technology does not understand must establish that this magic, actually works. Proof 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

[lbo] 10/4/2023 13:34

Quote ‘Their ED, if it is such’

So the Experts are saying its Psychogenic ED not organic ED

Quote ‘more a loss of confidence’

The issue is Psychological

Quote ‘to stimulate the younger person’s confidence’

So any placebo arousal gel if they believe ‘it works’ will work and give them confidence


This is some ‘swindle’; by the rampers! ROFLMAO


dactions
Posts: 1,451
Price: 42.35
No Opinion
22 Mar '23

‘Their ED, if it is such, can actually be more a loss of confidence that they will be able to perform with their partner. Each of the Profs. felt that Eroxon was a safe alternative to stimulate the younger person's confidence’