Futura Medical Share Discussion Threads

[broomrigg] 29/5/2023 18:44

Also advertised on Channel 4 during Monaco F1 Grand Prix qualifying.

Recent TV advertising certainly boosting sales significantly.

:-)

[lbo] 29/5/2023 12:53

Or just use any similar arousal gel already on the market which contains the same ingredients as Eroxon for a fraction of the price!







water-based warming gel

Ingredients Stimulant Gel Aqua, Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Alcohol Denat, Carbomer



Kama Sutra Intensify Plus

Female Arousal Gel Cooling 15 ml

Ingredients: Water, Propylene Glycol, Denatured Alcohol

[kinwah] 29/5/2023 12:20

I thought as I hold the shares I should test the product. I didn't find it pleasant to use or effective for me but there was a sensation which in some people with ED might be very beneficial. I can't see there being much demand from the 'recreational' market but for clinically diagnosed ED I'd say it's worth a try as it could reach parts other treatments can't.

[penciles2] 29/5/2023 10:35

Just seen it on itv,

[lbo] 28/5/2023 20:27

So even a placebo male arousal gel made of just alcohol, water, glycol and carbomer even claiming its ‘clinically proven’ is not just selling itself like many of the rampers claimed it would! It also requires TV advertising! LOL

And don’t forget. Every dissatisfied consumer is another customer who could seek redress if they feel they were misled into buying Eroxon! And they wont be seeking redress from Boots or Cooper. Rather the ‘legal manufacturer responsible for the product packaging and labelling!?



‘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’

‘When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly’



Unfair commercial practices

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU from a website, a local shop or a seller outside your home countrys EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices. When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly.

Misleading and aggressive practices

You are protected against 2 main categories of unfair commercial practices: misleading practices, either through action (giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices that aim to bully you into buying Certain commercial practices are prohibited in all circumstances. Some of the most common are listed below:

Whenever a product is advertised as therapeutic, curing allergies, reversing hair loss, helping you lose weight, etc. you have the right to know if such claims have been scientifically confirmed.

In many cases, claims like these are not medically backed up and are simply TOO GOOD TO BE



A new threat to advertisers making sketchy health claims







˜companies deceptively touted ‘clinically proven’

Class members with proof of purchase are eligible to recover up to $65. Those without proof may recover up to $20.

The companies also agreed to change all references from ˜clinically proven’ and ‘science proved’ on Neuriva labeling and ancillary marketing to ‘clinically tested’ ‘science tested’ or other similar language.

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval April 23.

Plaintiffs attorneys will seek up to $2.9 million for fees and expenses. They will also seek incentive awards up to $2,000 each for five class representatives.

[stevenb3] 28/5/2023 19:38

Just seen first Eroxon advert on Sky Sports .

[glavey] 26/5/2023 09:32

"Because of Lombard owning way too much and selling down."

Gosh! Why are they not waiting until it's £1 or £2?

[lbo] 25/5/2023 19:41

Still no update on an enforceable patent? And no explanation how a company could enforce a patent on a placebo arousal effect in deficient tests with just an evaporative cooling sensation that Futura has publicly admitted was previously published in the literature!?




‘The Company has conducted initial literature and in vitro based research that has shown the cooling from the evaporation of these specific combinations of solvents’




I even wonder why Futura didn't just use the more straightforward ‘validated handheld thermal imaging’ method to measure the evaporative cooling effect in their patent application!?



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



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



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



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

[snelljm] 25/5/2023 15:59

Wot no posts today?

[lbo] 24/5/2023 19:25

Great! Are they claiming ‘clinically proven’ on UK tv!? Also wont be Cooper/Boots held ‘responsible’. It will be Futura!

‘Futura will remain Legal Manufacturer’

‘Legal manufacturer means the organisation responsible for the design, manufacture, packaging and labelling of a device before it is placed on the market under that organisation's own name’

petroc - 16 May 2023 - 17:54:33 - 18832 of 18912

‘the fact that it hasn't yet been tested against a placebo’


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

[keifer derrin] 24/5/2023 18:44

The latest Boots advert is advertising Eroxon. Been seen on ITV and the Food Network

[lbo] 24/5/2023 17:30

Would anyone be worried about owning too much of something that is supposedly meant to be going up in price in the future? Wouldn’t it be more logical to think if something is cheap you buy more not sell it down! LOL



‘As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Futura Medical. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Futura Medical's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story’

[babbler] 24/5/2023 10:57

Because of Lombard owning way too much and selling down.

[glavey] 24/5/2023 09:04

Pet, why isn't this £1.00 or even £2.00? Can you say?

[lbo] 22/5/2023 17:17

quelle surprise! LOL

If you feel you were misled you could seek redress!



‘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’

˜When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly’



Unfair commercial practices

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU from a website, a local shop or a seller outside your home countrys EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices. When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision. Find out more about contract information. If they fail to provide this information, their actions may be considered unfair. You have the right to seek redress if you are treated unfairly.

Misleading and aggressive practices

You are protected against 2 main categories of unfair commercial practices: misleading practices, either through action (giving false information) or omission (leaving out important information) aggressive practices that aim to bully you into buying Certain commercial practices are prohibited in all circumstances. Some of the most common are listed below:

Whenever a product is advertised as therapeutic, curing allergies, reversing hair loss, helping you lose weight, etc. you have the right to know if such claims have been scientifically confirmed.

In many cases, claims like these are not medically backed up and are simply TOO GOOD TO BE



A new threat to advertisers making sketchy health claims







‘companies deceptively touted’ ˜clinically proven’

Class members with proof of purchase are eligible to recover up to $65. Those without proof may recover up to $20.

The companies also agreed to change all references from ‘clinically proven’ and ‘science proved’ on Neuriva labeling and ancillary marketing to â˜clinically tested’ ˜science tested’ or other similar language.

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval April 23.

Plaintiffs attorneys will seek up to $2.9 million for fees and expenses. They will also seek incentive awards up to $2,000 each for five class representatives.

[waterloo01] 22/5/2023 17:05

Onedayradders, I did similar with the same result. Zilch. I concur with pretty much all your post. Similar thinking to my own on the company and why I sold the few I had. Feedback on Boots website is going the wrong way, for the same reasons. (The majority now give it 1*)

BTW, I have pages and pages of filtered to get to one actual post

[onedayrodders] 22/5/2023 16:46

Hi .. a few weeks ago I said I'd get round to trying this at some point and give you some honest feedback.

Well I ordered some last week and tried 2 at the weekend with absolutely zero effect, I threw the other 2 away. I may as well used washing up liquid. (sorry about the visions but you get the point)

I'm not a close follower of how this is being marketed or what the claims are, but if this is being sold as a direct competitor to Viagra etc. then that is completely wrong. Viagra and similar tablets provide certainty. If this works for some and not others, then that is not certainty. As for an alternative with no side effects, what is the benefit if it doesn't work ? there are no side effects, even the main one I bought it for ?

Anyway at £120m market cap, there is awful lot of expectation of success here and if I were holding I would try the product myself to see if it works. At least then you can make a better informed decision etc.

The share price may be supported for a short period through anticipation of a really being a "breakthrough product", and there will be demand from people like me, who are genuinely looking for an alternative, however if more and more are disappointed like me, that vibe and feedback will quickly spread.

Personally I think this is another case of when something look too good to be true, it probably is.

Although I think there is a small (risky) window of "excitement" to make money here,
I seriously think this could be back to sub £20m mkt cap within 12-18 months IF this flops (pardon the pun).

I have still got LBO on filter as he obviously has an agenda and I am not supporting that. You can give your opinion ONCE like I have and leave it there.

Don't shoot the messenger, like I said if you are invested what is £26 to see if it works or not.

Any way .. back to blue pills and headaches for me. :0(

Good Luck

ODR