Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[dozey3] 01/5/2023 12:23

If a poor demented ape in a cage is screaming and rattling the bars you can:
1. Set him free, when he may endanger you and others.
2. Ignore him, and eventually he might quieten.
3. Poke him with a sharp stick.
The second course seems preferable.
Just saying.

[lbo] 01/5/2023 10:59

Its some ‘swindle’ based on a placebo gel ‘form of fraud’ by the multi-ID rampers



Voltarol Emugel vehicle gel is made of the same ‘evaporative cooling’ ingredients as in Eroxon. Its off patent same as Dermasys is!

carbomer,
isopropyl alcohol,
propylene glycol,
water





Even ‘TPR100 (another Futura product but delivering Diclofenac) gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel’



The cooling effect of a topically applied product can be evaluated using a validated handheld thermal imaging system. When the gel matrix is destroyed after application to the skin, the bound water and alcohol evaporates and a measurable cooling-effect results. Consumer satisfaction with a topical product is based on subjective criteria such as how the product feels and how it is perceived on the skin. Therefore, appropriate questionnaires are of major importance for cosmetic products to assess the subjective perception not only of soothing and cooling effects but also of moisturizing properties and fragrance.



Skin hydration and cooling effect produced by the Voltaren® vehicle gel

[lbo] 01/5/2023 10:56

And lets also not forget Med3000 doesn’t have an enforceable patent!

I wonder why its made from alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer the same as the Voltaren vehicle gel! LOL

Even the market analysts know all Futura have done is paid for the research and paved the way to allow big companies like Reckitt also claim all its class 2 medical device lubricants/arousal gels are also placebo treatments for Psychogenic ED!



‘You are the active ingredient’




Reckitt Benckiser was the defined leader and the ultimate four Personal lubricant vendors with leading brands such as Durex Play and K-Y Jelly.

KEY GROWTH FACTORS

Increasing prevalence of erectile dysfunction

9 Market Growth Enablers
9.1 Increasing Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction




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


So arousal gels too can replicate all the associated Med3000 placebo benefits the rampers list. Especially in psychogenic ED sufferers who already reported responding to manual massag. Just like the inclusion criteria in the FM57 deficient test design selected for!


Now competitors like Reckitt can also sell lubricants/arousal gels as ‘clinically proven’ placebo treatments for ED. And report Med3000 to the ASA, FTC etc for being misleading if it doesnt inform consumers that Med3000 itself has no proven effect in ED beyond a placebo gel. As it has not proven efficacy beyond a placebo gel in a adequately controlled study or even against any standard cooling lubricant/arousal gel



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 Nurofens 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



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] 01/5/2023 10:44

And lets not forget what he has previously said about Mr Barder 'waffling' and he doesn't 'give any credence to virtually everything he says' LOLmikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 14:35:10 - 4072 of 11141Having had similar waffling, 'smoke-screen' answers from Mr Barder over the years which have turned out to end in exactly nothing I am loathe to give any credence to virtually everything he saysmikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:58:28 - 4091 of 11141Company is massively over valued if you go by 'concrete' results !mikethebike4 - 11 Apr 2018 - 15:14:56 - 4082 of 11141I only try and bring some sort of balance into the equation to help the gullible not get carried away with fanciful future projections.I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong about Mr Barder (our CEO since 2001) and to sale away into the sunset grasping 5 times as many £s in my fist as I paid for the sharesUnfortunately for people like J7J, Mr Barder has been through this advisors process before - with CSD500 - and look where we've got in 17 years - sales of the product did not even equal the money we paid him to be our CEO for 2017 !mikethebike4 - 06 Dec 2017 - 10:32:27 - 3468 of 10591"A couple of decent deals and will be back off to the races."Do you have any idea of how long shareholders have been using these wordsmikethebike4 - 23 Mar 2017 - 09:52:33 - 2560 of 10591As someone who has been invested for many years and who attended an AGM years ago and complained to Barder about the very slow progress, I am very frustrated.All the time the Board are drawing good salaries off the backs of shareholders money they have very little incentive to get off their backsides and get 'selling' - thats what running a company is all about at the end of the day!mikethebike4 - 24 Feb 2020 - 09:11:58 - 7290 of 9713why should it be any different this time when you've still got the same useless lot running the showmikethebike4 - 07 Jan 2019 - 11:22:52 - 4692 of 9641I repeat I very much hope you are right - no one would be happier than me if you are - however I stupidly (in hindsight) bought in when everything looked really rosy - we were told there were loads of 'distributors' all 'champing at the bit to get selling a wonderful industry disruptive product (which it still is incidentally) once the 2 year shelf-life problem was fixed. This was despite the fact that the Holland/Belgium distributor was quite happy and successful selling them with the original 18 months shelf-lifeAnd where are we now years later - one tiny distributor from which Futura receives a total sales income only just about covering Mr Barders employment remunerationI just hope this MED/TPR situation is not just a repeat of CSD. As to why I don't just sell up, well my shareholding is worth such a tiny proportion of what I paid for it I might just as well hang on in the hope that new shareholders getting in now are luckier than I was and I can get some of my money back - I think what we need is Mr Barders retirement - that should give the share price a

[lbo] 01/5/2023 10:37

And the irony of Mike saying ‘you are still repeating stuff over and over again - you must have a very sad life!’

Lets look at at how many times he has repeated that exact same post! ROFLMAO


mikethebike4 - 28 Apr 2023 - 13:42:11 - 18440 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 25 Apr 2023 - 16:02:36 - 18377 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 23 Apr 2023 - 10:59:15 - 18281 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 20 Apr 2023 - 09:47:30 - 18151 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 19 Apr 2023 - 16:54:24 - 18088 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 13 Apr 2023 - 12:44:36 - 17890 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 12 Apr 2023 - 12:54:52 - 17873 of 1850
mikethebike4 - 05 Apr 2023 - 15:04:21 - 17749 of 1850

[dozey3] 30/4/2023 22:36

Thank you BEANOL for new info - quite rare on thi board. From an investor’s pov I can see the potential as an aid to the afflicted. What is unknown is the potential as a recreational tool (for want of a better word) amongst the young ravers and swingers who experiment with the latest fad. Is this an overlooked market?

[beanol] 30/4/2023 20:24

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-12028865/CITY-WHISPERS-Erectile-dysfunction-firm-hoping-boost-mojo.html

[onedayrodders] 30/4/2023 19:40

Oh dear... what a way to spend your bank holiday weekend

[lbo] 30/4/2023 18:26

Nobody is ˜making contradictory claims to the results found in two clinical tests and a home use trials' Quite the contrary!Those results from the deficient tests do not prove the gel is having any effect beyond what a placebo gel would in the same deficient testsAnd no 'vast majority of users confirmed that Eroxon works' any better then a placebo gel or even an arousal gel in any direct non deficient adequately controlled and blinded studies!And I don't nor does any consumer need to 'show a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise'The onus is on the advertiser or ramper making the implied claim that it works beyond a placebo gel or an arousal gel to have the evidence to substantiate that claim before it implies 'it works' and is 'clinically proven' beyond a placebo or even an arousal gel under the same deficient test circumstances.So the burden of proof to supply the evidence from an adequately placebo controlled study to substantiate 'it works' beyond what any placebo gel or even arousal gel would work in those same deficient trsts is on the advertiser/ramper making the claim that the product 'it works'The onus is also on that same advertiser/ramper to also disclose the limitations of the evidence if they were relying on deficient studies to make a claim 'it works'https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/05/administrative-law-judge-upholds-ftcs-complaint-pom-deceptively-advertised-its-products-treatingAdministrative 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.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] 30/4/2023 17:44

So none of the Eroxon studies were adequately placebo controlled? Yet Eroxon is claiming its ˜Clinically Proven'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