Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[waterloo01] 26/4/2023 11:59

I had the same question but a quick look at an earlier RNS it seems in the 1000 person trial, 60% had an effect, 40% didn't, so as expected? Why 40% don't is an interesting question though

MED3000 is Futura's topical gel formulation that is a breakthrough treatment for erectile dysfunction ("ED") through a unique evaporative mode of action. Futura has previously conducted a Phase 3 study using MED3000 in ED, referred to as "FM57". This was a 1,000 patient, dose-ranging, multi-centre, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled, home use, parallel group study, delivering highly statistically significant results compared to pre-treatment baseline, using measures IIEF-EF, SEP2 and SEP3 (internationally accepted clinical trial endpoints in ED) with over 60% of patients experiencing a clinically meaningful improvement in their ED. A second confirmatory Phase 3 clinical study, "FM71" was also conducted to support Futura's regulatory submission to the FDA with 96 ED patients and endpoints at 24 weeks, demonstrating that MED3000 presents an effective clinically proven treatment for ED with a rapid speed of onset and a favourable benefit versus risk profile, ideally suited for OTC classification.

[onedayrodders] 26/4/2023 11:50

hi all

What is the explanation from the company for those whereby there is zero reaction at all ?




Read reviews

[j777j] 26/4/2023 11:24

Deaths and Viagra a clinical study.One death is too many htTPS://www.ehealthme.com/ds/viagra/death/

[broomrigg] 26/4/2023 10:38

Why should we move to a different website because of another poster? I am sure most users are intelligent enough to understand LBOs game and can filter him if they want. Ultimately none of what's posted on here affects the share price. Although it has an active board, LSE isn't a superior website to ADVFN....other way around.

[mikethebike4] 26/4/2023 10:01

Well LBO (and the one other negative person) I have got a pack of the 'amber nectar' - no seriously, a pack of 4 Eroxon from Boots to test this evening hopefully to prove you wrong

To get what you would call an unbiased reaction I have asked a friend to be the guinea pig

His current condition :-

He is married, 77 years old, quite fit but does not really exercise regularly, BMI 26.1, drinks beer/wine only slightly to excess, likes a good bonk with an enthusiastic female

He tells me that he can still raise an erection of sorts but is not able to sustain it sufficiently long enough to easily get and maintain entry. He uses Caverject (injects himself) as like me he gets side effects from Viagra, Cialis etc. making him feel ill. Caverject works quite well but is VERY off-putting needle-wise and sometimes painful as you can imagine

Will report back !

[waterloo01] 25/4/2023 18:52

No idea what the two are saying but get a room boys, but leave it be.

The sales via boots is very encouraging and will certainly help bring in other top retailers with a proven sales record. What might numbers look like? The £144m market cap does suggest a lot is already in the price, but that must depend on sales and growth.

[lbo] 25/4/2023 18:38

It it 'unfair business to consumer commercial practices' to claim a medical device is 'clinically proven' when the studies were not adequately placebo controlled? Doesn't seem so according to the relevant ASA rulings!Medical 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

[lbo] 25/4/2023 18:33

FTC And NAD Remind Industry Of Their Authority Over All Health Product Advertising



FTC shares jurisdiction with FDA over the marketing of dietary supplements, foods, drugs, medical devices, and other health-related products. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies, FDA has primary responsibility over claims that appear on labeling, while FTC has primary responsibility for claims made in advertising. Both agencies require health-related marketing to be truthful and substantiated. Unlike FDA, however, FTC does not distinguish between categories of health-related products or claims in evaluating advertising claims. Rather, according to FTC, "the FTC's approach to the advertising of health-related products is the same regardless of whether, under FDA law, the product is considered a food, a supplement[,] or a drug." Moreover, FTC has emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding does not "limit the FTC's jurisdiction or prohibit the agency from taking action against deceptive labeling claims or obtaining orders that address all forms of marketing, including claims that appear in labeling."

Ensure Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure Where disclosure of qualifying information is necessary, FTC requires such disclosure to be presented clearly and conspicuously, so "it is difficult to miss (i.e., noticeable) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers

Monitor the Quality of the Evidence. Additionally, FTC discusses that it will also examine the internal validity of each piece of evidence provided to support a health claim. FTC advises marketers to ensure the research on which they rely complies with the following basic principles:

The human clinical trial should have both a treatment group and a control group;
The study should be randomized;
The study should be double blinded;



FTC and NAD Remind Industry of Their Authority Over All Health Product Advertising



A new threat to advertisers making sketchy health claims







companies deceptively touted

‘clinically proven’

Class members with proof of purchase are eligible to recover up to $65. Those without proof may recover up to $20.

The companies also agreed to change all references from ‘clinically proven’ and ‘science proved’ on Neuriva labeling and ancillary marketing to ‘clinically tested’ ‘science tested’ or other similar language.

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval April 23.

Plaintiffs attorneys will seek up to $2.9 million for fees and expenses. They will also seek incentive awards up to $2,000 each for five class representatives.




Clinically proven? Says who?

When they say clinically proven your first question should be, oh yeah, says who?

It is possible the company selling the supplement, infomercial ab gadget, or balance device did a poorly controlled ˜study’ where they had people try the product and then tell the company about their results.

While this seems logical enough, it does not constitute legitimate research.

[lbo] 25/4/2023 14:11

Its serious case of wash, rinse & repeat! LOL


loobrush - 13 May 2014 - 14:01:03 - 9696 of 11722

EPIC spray out of stock at AMAZON-is it all sold out?


superg1 - 27 Jan 2014 - 07:23:44 - 9314 of 11722

Well it reads well re the launch in stores throughout the US and online. It will obvious who they have launched with once it's for sale, but I would imagine that will mean another rns when it launches anyway stating who it is.

Interesting that Ansell will be promoting it individually and as a package.

Green Web sold out in quick time so it will be interesting to see how well it goes on a full launch.

superg1 - 21 Jan 2014 - 19:22:44 - 9300 of 11722
A post on iii today.

Some will know what it is all about

After contacting Green web the Amazon the retailers of PET500 I have been told that they "bought every available unit offered by the suppliers". They are keen to get more stock. I made no pretence as to my identity although avoided mentioning I was a FUM investor in my enquiries and simply asked why it was no longer being offered and why the online reviews were allocated. I was asked " Do you work for Ansell? We are extremely interested in continuing to carry the EPIC spray product."

I believe the major U.S. retailers Amazon and others are competing to offer the product for the follow-on 'major' launch. I always try to manage my own expectations and therefore had assigned EPIC as a useful peripheral product in terms of driving revenues. I think there are signs that EPIC could turn out to be a more than 'useful' revenue generator for FUM.


Looks like punters are desperate for the product, one on ebay apparently sold for $419 (from iii)

[lbo] 25/4/2023 14:06

Yet again the multi-ID ramper proven to have no idea what he is talking about! ROFLMAO

LBO - 12 Sep 2022 - 10:41:12 - 13297 of 14873

Not short. But anyone who went short from March 2021 is still seriously in the money even if they hadn’t covered when it was down below 30p! LOL

Suspect shorters would be looking to again build short positions on the back of any further share price strength with the De Novo device registration submission announcement, possibly the ramping even around a test launch online somewhere in the EU/UK. Basically what happened with CSD500 until ultimately the realisation sets in there is no real prospect of any significant revenues especially as similar products are launched and ultimately the Med3000 product is deemed a failure. As Liberum said the risks have only moved from regulatory to execution risk. And their execution of bringing PET500, CSD500 and TPR100 to market have all been disasters! Yet Reckit has similar products to each of Futuras failed products still on the market (KY Duration) (Durex warming/Durex intense condoms) (Nurofen pain gel). They even admitted they cant compete with the likes of Reckitt. And that was with a product that had patent protections and some real clinically proven USPs against standard condoms. Which MED3000 does not have.against standard cooling lubricants/arousal gels already on the market.




‘Futura does not have the marketing or regulatory resources to support the day-to-day requirements in a growing compliance-driven medical device market’

˜the immediate potential for substantial royalties is low in the absence of a large global brand 'carrier' to take the product forward’

[petroc] 25/4/2023 12:57

That was interesting, LiarBO. Not. Whilst I understand that you are obsessed with Blue Diamond condoms, with good reason, having lost all your money by backing them, the rest of us are talking about Eroxon. Living in the past is for sad losers, not forward looking investors, and having some failures in the past is not an indicator of the future. Think of all the pharmas who have had failures but gone on to achieve great things. Think of all the money that we LTHs are going to make off the back of Eroxon (and all the money several of us lucky ones have already made). Then think about all the money you lost by backing the wrong horse, and consider how your life wouldn't have been such a sad existence for you for the last 6 years. You really need to learn how to move on. You and Glavey make a right pair of sad loser stock bashers - you with your 6 years of bitterness, and Glavey having to rely on Tadalafil to get it up and suffering the disappointment of Eroxon not working for him. (Not that I believe he has tried Eroxon, and even if he had, there's no way he'd admit that it worked.)