Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 15/5/2023 18:31

Here's a couple more snippets from LSE back in Dec 2021. Remember, LiarBO says that he never posted there as LaimBooth or anyone else:



1. The use of the term 'placebo' stems from the fact that MED3000 started life as the placebo in FM57 when MED2005 was being trialled. It's continued use has been promulgated by the likes of Liarbooth who used it a negative term in his stock bashing tactics. That's my understanding, anyway, but there again, I tend to blame everything on that tawt!

2. OMG, the breath-taking irony of Liarbooth coming out with "Futura need to distance themselves from these rampers before they create more serious reputational damage to Futura."
You just couldn't make that up, could you? Liarbooth, whose sole reason for being here is to trash Futura by using lies, distortions, false trails, and just plain rubbish to try and put off new investors across multiple platforms, is concerned that Futura might suffer reputational damage because I've skewered Liarbooth on his massive lie ABOUT VIAGRA !
Well, I'm sure Futura will take all appropriate measures to heed Liarbooth's warning and sack me immediately! Hahahaha! You sad sack, Liarbooth!

3. booth have you completely lost it? where do i suggest that,or any other poster on here posts on ADVFN? i can only speak for myself of course,but i am not a member of ADVFN and do not post there.you on the other hand,do post there in the same vein as LBO (i note you did not deny it).i think this answers the question as to which of us is the obsessive or for hire poster

[lbo] 15/5/2023 18:31

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] 15/5/2023 18:25

'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.

[haroldthegreat] 15/5/2023 09:18

The use of alcohol in the product might stop Moslems using it Although usually the use is allowed for medical reasons .

[haroldthegreat] 15/5/2023 09:11

There might be a simple explanation for the variability of the product I have contacted the company to see if they examined it ,as yet no reply !

[lbo] 14/5/2023 17:42

Yes I agree! Very sad indeed Joe! ROFLMAOJoeStalin - 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

[lbo] 14/5/2023 17:40

Yet just more proven false and misleading claims by Petroc!



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’

[petroc] 14/5/2023 16:46

So how's the Boots review trolling and the drug inhaling going, LiarBO?

[joestalin] 14/5/2023 16:27

All very sad....

[lbo] 14/5/2023 14:33

Just like UK HCP website that was advertised by Petroc on bulletin boards also says:'when assessed against internationally accepted criteria for clinical effectiveness (Rosen and Araujo) the efficacy of Eroxon exceeded the minimal clinically important difference'And the HCP Brochure on the same website references the specific study 'Minimal clinically Important Difference Rosen et al 2011'But its clear in that study that the MCID criteria were estimated based on only just on regular adequately controlled and blinded oral only ED studiesThe Rosen study also clearly states in its limitations the results have not been replicated in "non pharmacologic studies'And FM71 was cleary a non pharmacologic medical device gel study!So they are clearly NOT internationally accepted criteria for 'non pharmacologi studies' according to the original reference research paper. Like the medical device gel study FM71. Which was totally uncontrolled, unblinded and prone to bias' and therefore known to have much higher placebo effect then oral pharmacologic placebos in adequately controlled and blinded studies.So now it can be claimed that consumers are being 'Duped' by the multi-ID ramper advertising the HCP on bulletin boards when the inappropriate MCID comparison is being used to make a indirect cross comparison to non regular inadequately blinded medical device gel studies.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21855209/MCIDs were estimated using data from 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials of the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitorlimitationsCurrent analyses were based on 17 clinical trials of tadalafil. Results need to be replicated in studies using other PDE5-Is or in nonpharmacologic intervention studies.

[lbo] 14/5/2023 12:56

ROFLMAOpetroc - 21 Jan 2022 - 18:03:42 - 10541 of 10710What is not to love Eroxon /MED3000 - HERE ARE THE FACTS- Patent application in progress using patent lawyers - COMING SOONAnd where is the enforceable patent you said was 'FACTS' 'coming soon' over a year ago now!?I wonder why Futura didn't just use a more simple 'validated handheld thermal imaging' method to measure the evaporative cooling effect of the alcohol!https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lilly-s-cialis-patent-claims-extending-6978893/˜Lillys CIALIS patent claims extending to physiologically acceptable salt found invalid for overbreadth and insufficiency’https://indigo.bluematrix.com/indigo/Viewer.action?info=U7Z%2F%2BSxWYbPQB8QtqH%2Bh5KgushbvU5dK'TPR100 gave similar results to the gold standard, Voltarol 2% gel'https://www.dovepress.com/testing-topical-products-specifically-to-reduce-inflammatory-pain-from-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JPRVoltarol 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,waterhttps://www.perrigo.com/press-release/perrigo-announces-store-brand-equivalent-voltarenr-arthritis-pain-available-us-majorPerrigo 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. nationwidehttps://www.gskhealthpartner.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/health-professionals/en_IN/pdf/article-1.pdfThe 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.

[petroc] 14/5/2023 10:00

Thank you for yet again proving that you're completely off topic, posting nonsense about inhaling drugs, LiarBO, in some weird way of bashing the stock.

I see you haven't posted much this weekend, I guess you've been busy trolling the reviews on Boots, thumbing down all the good Eroxon reviews and thumbing up the negatives! You really are a sad loser!

[lbo] 14/5/2023 06:58

‘intended as an excipient or other component’



Food and Drug Administration Cosmetic Labeling Guide

Laws Regulating Cosmetic Labeling
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, as amended To protect consumers from unsafe or deceptively labeled or packaged products by prohibiting the movement in interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics.



Policy for Testing of Alcohol (Ethanol) and Isopropyl Alcohol for Methanol, Including During the Public Health Emergency (COVID-19)

This guidance is intended to remain in effect until November 7, 2023

This guidance is intended to alert pharmaceutical manufacturers2 and pharmacists in State- licensed pharmacies or Federal facilities who engage in drug compounding3 to the potential public health hazard of alcohol (ethyl alcohol or ethanol) or isopropyl alcohol contaminated with or substituted with methanol. FDA is aware of reports of fatal methanol poisoning of consumers who ingested alcohol-based hand sanitizers that were manufactured with methanol or methanol-contaminated ethanol.4 FDA has also received numerous reports of dermal toxicity associated with such products.

[petroc] 13/5/2023 10:07

'Bulk or repackaged ethanol or isopropyl alcohol intended as an excipient or other component of a drug product is a drug as defined by section 201(g)(1) the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).'

As I said, what is this nonsense you referred to about inhaling drugs? Please go ahead and inhale as much gel as you want, LiarBO, the more the better AFAIC.