Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 05/5/2023 11:47

LiarBO still peddling old news, I see. His first link above to finance.yahoo included this statement:

'Because Futura Medical isn't currently generating revenue, we consider it an early-stage business.'

Got news for you, LiarBO!

Not forgetting 'Current cash runway extends beyond initial Eroxon® launches expected over the next year and expected US regulatory approval in 2023.'

Just give up, LiarBO. Everyone sees straight through your lies and anti-FUM propaganda.

[lbo] 05/5/2023 10:57

Its now May 2023 and 5 months later! LOL



at December 2022, Futura Medical had cash of UK£4.0m

‘Therefore, from December 2022 it had roughly 7 months of cash runway. To be frank, this kind of short runway puts us on edge’




Product revenue represents net invoice less estimated volume discounts, which are considered to be variable consideration and include significant estimates. Other variable considerations such as milestone payments and royalties are not recognised in full until it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur. In management’s opinion, that will be when the Groups customer confirms that the milestone has been met or that a royalty is due



a agreed percentage of the net sales value (after transport costs, sales tax, credit notes for returns and defective products and any settlement, retrospective, volume and promotional discounts) charged by LRC or any sub-licensee in relation to the Product.

The royalty and the royalty advance may be reduced by such amount (if any) as is agreed or determined by an expert to be fair and reasonable if: (i) any patent application does not proceed to grant or any patent rights are determined to be unenforceable or are revoked or lapse; or (ii) an event occurs which in LRC reasonable opinion adversely affects the commercial viability of the licence agreement or the margins on sales of the Product; or (iii) a competing product is offered

[petroc] 05/5/2023 10:54

· Cash resources of £4.03 million including

· £1.02 million tax credit refund due mid 2023

· Current cash runway extends beyond initial Eroxon® launches expected over the next year and expected US regulatory approval in 2023.



James Barder, Chief Executive Officer, Futura Medical said: "2022 has been a year of significant progress as we have moved steadily towards the initial launch of Eroxon® which I am now delighted to say commenced in March 2023. This is a milestone achievement for the Company and a testimony to the dedication, tenacity and hard work of a small, loyal and highly professional team at Futura. We are proud and excited for Eroxon® to have now commenced launch for what we believe will become the world's first fast-acting clinically proven topical gel treatment for ED available without the need of a doctor's prescription.

[onedayrodders] 05/5/2023 10:30

LBO5 May '23 - 09:42 - 18705 of 18705 (Filtered)

What a breath of fresh air :0)

Suddenly got a vision of a man in an open field trying to start an argument with himself

LOLLLL

[lbo] 05/5/2023 09:42

Very quiet from the multi-ID rampers? I wonder why! Liberum mentioned ‘other potential sources of income’. So that sounds like a convertible loan type transaction? Perhaps based on the De Novo medical device registration and similar to the Co-High transaction in China? Although that deal didn’t turn out great as Atlantis dumped the cheap shares they got converting their loan and never made any progress on Med3000/Eroxon in China!



REGENCY VIEW:

The launch of Eroxon is a pivotal moment, but before investors get too excited its important to keep in mind Futuras flaccid financials:

Futura has been burning through cash for several years and has a relatively small ‘cash runway’ based on its current free cash flow.

Whilst cashflow should significantly improve as Eroxon is rolled out, investors are likely to be diluted when Futura inevitably recapitalise.

[lbo] 04/5/2023 20:05

After Phase III Failure, UK Firm Pushes Placebo to Treat Erectile Dysfunction



Eroxon was the placebo used in FM57




Just like Flexiseq. Med3000 was also just the placebo in the FM57 study.Therefore like with Flexiseq. Futura had initially believed Med3000 had no therapeutic effect. The FM57 study did not set out to measure the efficacy of Med3000. The ASA will therefore consider that its reported effectiveness by Futura was a ‘false positive’ ‘post-hoc finding’

The CAP Code required that objective claims, including medical claims for a CE-marked medical device, be backed by evidence

a certified Class IIb medical device. We understood that the device certification was granted by a body within the European Member States that had been designated to carry out conformity assessments under the Medical Device Directive

had been used as the placebo treatment in that study, and therefore the researcher had initially believed it had no therapeutic effect. The trial did not set out to measure the efficacy

its reported effectiveness by the advertiser was a post-hoc finding due to the risk of that being a false positive finding

We were also concerned that there was not an adequate placebo control in the trial. We, therefore, considered that the study did not provide adequate evidence for the claim ‘clinically proven’

[lbo] 04/5/2023 19:55

Joe needs a new hobby!

Oh. wait a minute!….

ROFLMAO

JoeStalin - 22 Jan 2018 - 11:16:41 - 3640 of 17304

Only a clown thinks selling a few packs at all makes for a business.

JoeStalin - 30 Sep 2019 - 10:07:37 - 5937 of 10774
FUTURA 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 10775
What's another year after all?
At FUM, time is measured in decades.


JoeStalin - 25 Apr 2018 - 16:07:34 - 4147 of 10775
There seems to be an unlimited number of ways of saying "Jam tomorrow".


JoeStalin - 21 Mar 2018 - 13:50:44 - 3985 of 10775
A lifestyle company, but not for the shareholders

[joestalin] 04/5/2023 19:44

He needs a hobby.

Oh, wait a minute....

[lbo] 04/5/2023 19:09

The results of FM57 regarding the placebo Med3000/Eroxon efficacy was a ‘post hoc’ ‘false positive’ finding. And then FM71 was ‘not placebo controlled’ and totally unblinded.


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] 04/5/2023 18:06

'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 16:57

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 companiesâ€482; 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 basher's behaviour to:

[e-mail]

[petroc] 04/5/2023 16:56

'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.

[lbo] 04/5/2023 16:40

Joe rub some placebo Eroxon gel on your hands! It may help your response time too!!! ROFLMA0

JoeStalin - 22 Jan 2018 - 11:16:41 - 3640 of 17304

Only a clown thinks selling a few packs at all makes for a business.

JoeStalin - 30 Sep 2019 - 10:07:37 - 5937 of 10774
FUTURA 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 10775
What's another year after all?
At FUM, time is measured in decades.


JoeStalin - 25 Apr 2018 - 16:07:34 - 4147 of 10775
There seems to be an unlimited number of ways of saying "Jam tomorrow".


JoeStalin - 21 Mar 2018 - 13:50:44 - 3985 of 10775
A lifestyle company, but not for the shareholders

[joestalin] 04/5/2023 16:34

That response took less than a minute.