Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[lbo] 04/5/2023 16:27

This is the link Petroc the multi-ID ramper provided. It clearly states men with psychogenic ED had even higher rates of discontinuation



˜The patients with psychogenic ED and shorter duration of ED symptoms in this study showed significantly higher rates of discontinuationâ

The proportion of the patients with psychogenic ED in the discontinuation group (47.4%) was significantly greater than in the continuation group (32.8%) (P=0.004). The mean duration of ED symptoms in the discontinuation group (4.22 years) was significantly shorter than in the continuation group (5.13 years)

[joestalin] 04/5/2023 16:27

OXO have just marketed an LBO cube.

It is a laughing stock.

[petroc] 04/5/2023 16:25

Hahahaha! I knew the lying stock basher would edit his nonsense post! Compare what his post 18679 says now compared to the one I copy/pasted immediately after he posted it! One big difference so far, I wonder how many more changes he'll make? (yes, LiarBO, I have copied v2 as well!)

[lbo] 04/5/2023 16:22

Still waiting for you to substantiate yet another one your many false and misleading claims! Where did I quote you said with inverted commas as you misleadingly did! Oh dear! Petroc the proven liar caught again! LOL

petroc 4 May '23 - 15:57 - 18678 of 18681

He stated that I said, 'Most ED especially psychological ED just spontaneously recovers needing no further treatment!'



The research you linked clearly highlighted independent factors influencing discontinuation of the drug were cause of ED (psychogenic. The proportion of the patients with psychogenic ED in the discontinuation group (47.4%) was significantly greater

petroc8 Dec '22 - 18:26 - 14487 of 14511

Most common reasons for the discontinuation

spontaneous recovery of erectile function without further treatment

[lbo] 04/5/2023 16:08

Yet again Petroc proven to be posting false and misleading claims! Please show where I stated that you said that in inverted commas?

The research you linked clearly highlighted independent factors influencing discontinuation of the drug were cause of ED (psychogenic’. ˜The proportion of the patients with psychogenic ED in the discontinuation group (47.4%) was significantly greater’


petroc8 Dec '22 - 18:26 - 14487 of 14511

Most common reasons for the discontinuation

spontaneous recovery of erectile function without further treatment

[lbo] 04/5/2023 14:12

Does it work?

MED3000 was recently granted a CE mark as an approved medical device in the EU. Does this mean it works? No. Unlike drugs, medical devices don't need to be proven efficacious to be sold; they only need to show conformity with safety regulations, which the CE mark indicates.

There are many reasons why symptoms can improve over the course of a trial, of which the placebo effect is only one. To measure the actual effect of a placebo, we would need to compare the placebo to a control group who got no treatment at all. This hasn't been done for MED3000,

[lbo] 04/5/2023 14:05

FM71 was ‘not placebo controlled’


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

[lbo] 04/5/2023 14:00

Med3000 was the placebo gel in FM57. In FM71 it was not compared to a matched and adequate control ‘placebo gel’

A study comparing Med3000/Eroxon ‘to a placebo gel might have helped substantiate claim drug free sustainable approach’ ‘clinically proven to treat’





As Study Placebo, Non-Drug Gel Not Qualified As Real Arthritis Remedy In UK


Study comparing Flexiseq to a placebo gel might have helped substantiate claim drug free, sustainable approach to joint pain and stiffness, clinically proven to treat osteoarthritis as effectively as a prescription painkiller," but marketer didn't provide those results when Advertising Standards Authority reviewed online ad claims challenged by a physician.

[petroc] 04/5/2023 13:45

'What standards are applied to evidence?

The position taken by the ASA is a tried and tested one which has developed over the
course of many years. It reflects the opinion of the wider scientific and academic
community, RATHER THAN JUDGEMENTS MADE SOLELY BY THE ASA.
There are many aspects that are taken into consideration when evidence is reviewed
and each claim is judged on its merits alongside the evidence presented to support it.
Evidence submitted for health claims should normally include at least one adequately
controlled experimental human study (12.1 Objective claims must be backed by
evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.) but an adequately controlled observational
human study might be sufficient in some circumstances.'

Yes, that's the bit of wording that LiarBO the stock basher keeps missing out, and then proclaiming what the ASA says.

As you can see, there is no mention in the CAP code of having to pass a double blinded, placebo controlled trial for a medical device. A simple, adequately controlled human trial is sufficient, and Eroxon has been through two of those, and a Home Use Test, and passed with flying colours.

So everyone can see (again) that LiarBO is lying and manipulating the information in order to bash the stock.

[petroc] 04/5/2023 12:47

'What standards are applied to evidence?

The position taken by the ASA is a tried and tested one which has developed over the
course of many years. It reflects the opinion of the wider scientific and academic
community, RATHER THAN JUDGEMENTS MADE SOLELY BY THE ASA.
There are many aspects that are taken into consideration when evidence is reviewed
and each claim is judged on its merits alongside the evidence presented to support it.
Evidence submitted for health claims should normally include at least one adequately
controlled experimental human study (12.1 Objective claims must be backed by
evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.) but an adequately controlled observational
human study might be sufficient in some circumstances.'

Yes, that's the bit of wording that LiarBO the stock basher keeps missing out, and then proclaiming what the ASA says.

As you can see, there is no mention in the CAP code of having to pass a double blinded, placebo controlled trial for a medical device. A simple, adequately controlled human trial is sufficient, and Eroxon has been through two of those, and a Home Use Test, and passed with flying colours.

So everyone can see (again) that LiarBO is lying and manipulating the information in order to bash the stock.

[petroc] 04/5/2023 12:39

I'd love to say how helpful LiarBO was in supplying that link on how to complain to the ASA, because I would have recommended it as a course of action for anyone wanting to complain about LiarBO's incessant stock bashing behaviour. Unfortunately what people post on a BB like this is not in their remit, so I don't know why LiarBO keeps copy/pasting that false information, aside from force of habit.

'Areas of complaint inside our remit
The types of ads we deal with include:

Press ads
Radio and TV ads (including teleshopping presentations)
Ads on the internet, smartphones and tablets
Ad claims on companies’ own websites
Commercial e-mail and text messages
Posters/billboards
Leaflets and brochures
Ads at the cinema
Direct mail, whether addressed to you personally or not.'

However, you certainly can complain about the stock bashers behaviour to:

[e-mail]