Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[petroc] 19/5/2023 16:31

Funnily enough it was your LiarBOoth alias that made the Viagra onset claim on LSE, and here you are trying to defend what you said. Strange that, considering your lying claim that LiarBOoth on LSE wasn't you!

ROFLMAO indeed! You lie so much you keep tripping yourself up! No wonder that nobody believes a word you say!

[petroc] 19/5/2023 13:30

BTW, well done for replying within one minute last time! Hahahaha!

[petroc] 19/5/2023 13:30

Funnily enough it was your LiarBOoth alias that made the Viagra onset claim on LSE, and here you are trying to defend what you said. Strange that, considering your lying claim that LiarBOoth on LSE wasn't you!

ROFLMAO indeed! You lie so much you keep tripping yourself up! No wonder that nobody believes a word you say!

[petroc] 19/5/2023 10:08

How about your Viagra onset time claim, LiarBOoth?

[petroc] 19/5/2023 09:20

Wow. I've got into a chat with LiarBO about manual stimulation and penetration. I feel disgusted and dirty.

'no mention of once' he said. And how many times has he mentioned it now? And how about his other lies about 'I haven't mentioned Ivermectin in over a month!' when it was actually 18 days. Little things, I know, but they all add up to prove that anything LiarBO says is not to be trusted. Especially when you take into consideration his massive lies, like not being LiamBOoth on LSE, when everyone knows he was. And that other one about the onset time of Viagra. Although the experts and the manufacturers state that it's 30-60 minutes, LiarBO stated that it would be reduced to 10 minutes if the patient performed manual stimulation after taking the pill! Blimey, what a whopper! Does he think that nobody ever tried that while they were waiting to get it up? Hahahaha! And all because he was obsessed with the fact that the onset time of Eroxon is 10 minutes!

[petroc] 18/5/2023 18:29

'FM57 only included men who could already respond to manual stimulation!'

Yeah, once in three months! May be enough for you though, LiarBO. What would be the point of including men who couldn't ever achieve an erection? Eroxon is a treatment for ED and is efficacious in over 65% of patients. It's not a miracle cure.

[petroc] 18/5/2023 17:49

That'll be the same website that also says this (good spot, LiarBO):

The efficacy of Eroxon has been demonstrated in two Phase 3 trials in 300 men with mild, moderate, and severe ED.

The first (FM 57) was a 12-week multi-centre double-blind trial in 250 men who all used Eroxon®. Before using the therapy, participants were monitored for four weeks to establish the extent of their ED. This was measured using three internationally authorised measures: IIEF-EF, SEP2 and SEP3.

Efficacy improved after the first dose and men achieved an erection within 10 minutes in 60% of applications. There were 3,792 intercourse attempts and two-thirds (63%) of men achieved or exceeded the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), which is the benchmark for a meaningful response.

The speed of onset was significantly faster than oral PDE5i medicines, which typically start to work within 30-60 minutes.

At 12 weeks, men using Eroxon showed significant improvement from baseline across all measures, with the response increasing in line with the severity of their ED. Four in five (80%) of those with the most severe ED met, and in some cases exceeded, MCID. In men with moderate ED, 59% met or, again in some cases, exceeded MCID and in those with mild ED it was 61%.

Reported side effects were minimal and significantly lower than those typically associated with PDE5i medicines.

[lbo] 18/5/2023 15:41

The UK HCP website that was advertised by Petroc on ADVFN also said:

‘when assessed against internationally accepted criteria for clinical effectiveness (Rosen and Araujo) the efficacy of Eroxon exceeded the minimal clinically important difference’

But the HCP Brochure on the same website references the specific study ‘Minimal clinically Important Difference Rosen et al 2011’

And its clear in that study that the MCID criteria were estimated based ONLY just on regular adequately controlled and blinded ORAL ED studies

The referenced Rosen study also clearly states in its limitations the results have not been replicated in ‘non pharmacologic studies’!!!!

And FM71 was clearly a non pharmacologic medical device gel study!!!!

So they are NOT internationally accepted criteria for ˜non pharmacologi studies’ according to the original reference research paper. Which is what the the medical device gel study FM71 was! A test that was totally uncontrolled, unblinded and ‘prone to bias’ and therefore known to show much higher placebo effect then just oral pharmacologic placebos in adequately controlled and fully blinded studies.

So now it can be claimed that consumers were 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.



MCIDs were estimated using data from 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials of the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor

limitations

Current 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.

[petroc] 18/5/2023 14:54

LiarBO cried defensively: 'Is that best you could do! Yes May is over April in terms of month! ROFLMAO'

What does that even mean? May is over? Just over halfway through, actually. In terms of month? I assume you're ROFLMAOing at your own stupidity in writing that nonsense.
Let's make it clear - you stated, 'Again I haven't mentioned Ivermectin in over a month.'

And yet it turns out you were banging on about Ivermectin just eighteen days previously. A harmless lie but it just proves yet again how lying is the pattern of all your posts, so much so you even try to defend it.