Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 04/5/2023 10:17

Make a complaint

Quickly and easily submit your ad complaint with us online.

You can complain to us by:

completing our online complaints form (click continue below),




You can complain to us if:

you're a member of the public, you work for a competitor or you’re associated with a group with an obvious interest

[lbo] 03/5/2023 19:37

I wonder why Futura didn’t just use a more simple ‘validated handheld thermal imaging’ method to measure the evaporative cooling effect!? LOL



‘Lillys CIALIS patent claims extending to physiologically acceptable salt found invalid for overbreadth and insufficiency’



‘TPR100 gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel’



Voltarol Emugel vehicle gel is made of the same ˜evaporative cooling’ ingredients as in Eroxon. The voltarol vehicle is even off patent same as Dermasys is!

carbomer,
isopropyl alcohol,
propylene glycol,
water



Perrigo Company plc today announced that it has launched the store brand equivalent of over-the-counter ("OTC") Voltaren® Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) to its retail partners and the product is now available in the U.S. nationwide



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.



A key element of Futura Medicals strategy is to reduce development risk through using well characterised existing agents that are reformulated with its proprietary DermaSys technology to create new products. This means intellectual property protection is limited to use patents for the individual products and umbrella patents for the technology. There is a risk that some claims will either be challenged in future (eg on the grounds of non-obviousness or existence of prior art) and/or that another technology may be employed to achieve a similar effect

[lbo] 03/5/2023 18:14

Perhaps the placebo Eroxon gel is also leading the multi-ID rampers to have increased testosterone levels and therefore inflating the placebo bubble in the shares! LOL







The Bull of Wall Street: Experimental Analysis of Testosterone and Asset Trading

Growing evidence shows that biological factors affect individual financial decisions that could be reflected in financial markets. Testosterone, a chemical messenger especially influential in male physiology, has been shown to affect economic decision making and is taken as a performance enhancer among some financial professionals. This is the first experimental study to test how testosterone causally affects trading and prices. We exogenously elevated testosterone in male traders and tested testosterone’s effect both on their trading behavior in experimental asset markets and on the size and duration of asset price bubbles. Using both aggregated and individual trading data, we find that testosterone administration generated larger and longer-lasting bubbles by causing high bids and the slow incorporation of the asset’s fundamental value

[lbo] 03/5/2023 15:01

Yes look how ‘successful’ the flexiseq launch was! It couldn’t pay interest on a £15m loan. But here is Futura with a Market Cap of £150m and not even an enforceable patent on its placebo gel made of alcohol,water,glycol and carbomer! LOL




2013


Chemist shops sold out of new treatment three times since product came out in June

flying off pharmacy shelves at the rate of 15,000 tubes a week



Flexiseq, an innovative topical pain product that has sales of more than 3 million units since its U.K. launch last year.



In 2017, PBB was on the verge of bankruptcy, because it could not pay interest on the loan of 15 million pounds, taken in 2015 by the Canadian Knight Therapeutics.

[lbo] 03/5/2023 15:00

And Its funnier how Petroc the proven ramper and liar reacts when being caught out lying and scamming again. His defence is always med3000/Eroxon is somehow above the consistent case law and substantiation principles applied by the FTC, the ASA and the courts! Doesn't he realise how transparent and nonsensical that sounds! Again a proven ramper trying to pretend low class medical devices can make any claims they want. And why would the regulatory bodies like the ASA or FTC have anything to say yet about FUM or MED3000? Its not on sale yet in the UK and has not even been registered as a medical device yet in the USA. He's a total fool and a scammer trying to pump FUM shares, because he made such bad investment decision to buy into the 'placebo gel frenzy' and now needs to get other to buy in so he can sell out before the market realises it will never be able to sell enough place male arousal gel with no enforceable patent to justify the current Futura Market Cap!petroc - 23 Nov 2022 - 18:00:42 - 14168 of 14546'I won't care, of course, because I'll have moved on'So yes the multi-ID ramper claims are a breach of the CAP code and are deliberately misleading.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

[petroc] 03/5/2023 14:26

'So Petroc himself has now provided all the evidence for multiple complaints to the ASA about Eroxon'

Well, clever old me! In six years of continuous stock bashing, LiarBO still hasn't produced a single shred of evidence to support his assertion that Eroxon doesn't work!

Anyone wishing to complain about LiarBO's lies and manipulations should report him to the moderators.

[lbo] 03/5/2023 13:59

So Petroc himself has now provided all the evidence for multiple complaints to the ASA about EroxonMake a complaintQuickly and easily submit your ad complaint with us online.https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

[lbo] 03/5/2023 13:57

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’



Assessment
Upheld

The 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



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.



Assessment
Upheld

The 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] 03/5/2023 13:55

'Yes Joe you are indeed a poor old sod! And here you are in 2023 posting on the same BB! LOL' screeched LiarBO!

Of course Joe is still here, he's a Long Term Holder. You wouldn't know about that, LiarBO, because you tried to trade FUM off the back of CSD500, investing far more than you could afford to lose, in the hope of making a quick killing. Nothing wrong with that per se, but when the share price crashed due to the failure of the condoms, you had to sell up for pennies, unlike Joe and several others who had the good sense (and the wise investment practice to have not overstretched themselves) and stayed invested. They are mostly quids in now, whilst you've spent the last six years bashing this stock in your sad and miserable existence.

So of course Joe's still here, and of course his opinions of the company have changed over time, because he, like most normal people, has moved on. Which begs the question, why are you still here?

[lbo] 03/5/2023 13:50

And we can all read the Joe 'nonsense'JoeStalin - 22 Jan 2018 - 11:16:41 - 3640 of 17304Only a clown thinks selling a few packs at all makes for a business.JoeStalin - 30 Sep 2019 - 10:07:37 - 5937 of 10774FUTURA 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 10775What's another year after all?At FUM, time is measured in decades.JoeStalin - 25 Apr 2018 - 16:07:34 - 4147 of 10775There seems to be an unlimited number of ways of saying "Jam tomorrow".JoeStalin - 21 Mar 2018 - 13:50:44 - 3985 of 10775A lifestyle company, but not for the shareholders

[joestalin] 03/5/2023 13:46

You read his nonsense so that we do not have to.