Member Info for dgdg1

Congratulations to liambooth on having reached 300 negative posts on Futura in less than 2 months! (That's just on here, on advfn there are also plenty)

Ah so your agenda is to "tackle" all the "difficult" qustions. Interesting idea of tackling. I mean do you think you are helping the company solve any problems which you say may exist? Or do you really want to hear answers from other shareholders? (If I believe that.....) Or what are you trying to achieve? Bottom line, you either have some vested interest in pushing the price down, or you must have some psychologocal issue. Otherwise there is no reason for all the effort.

The differenec is that with those anonymous articles it could theoretically be someone's genuinely held opinion. Whereas with booth it's absolutely clear beyond "reasonable doubt" (which is generally the legal test I believe for criminal prosecution) that he is deliberately and repeatedly saying things that he knows are irrelevant or false in order to mislead. As well as from the sheer multitude of posts. I'm not a legal expert but with the Gamestop saga I think people were saying that if there were deliberate attempts to deceive then it's manipulation. It's certainly worth checking with the FCA

Booth is a totall disgusting liar and deramper. He deliberately misleads continually in the most blatant way possible. Not that any of this is news. The latest round is "None of these Urologists are saying it will be a blockbuster or take a percentage of the market of oral PDEi drugs. That was only being claimed by 4 year old market research on MED2002/MED2005 when people were shown a concept about using a gel that had a vasodilator in it. Med3000 has no vasodilator now."

What nonsense! Nobody cares whether it has an "active vasodilator" or whether it achieves vasodilation by the cooling and warming effect, the main thing is that it works well and without side-effects. And these urologists have all agreed that based on the latest study it does work (by the waythat also means they DO NOT accept that it is just a plafcebo effect).

So just stop your evil deception. (BTW not promising to answer any further nonsense that he writes, I don't have time to answer all day.)

Isn't it strange that booth is now claiming that GTN had an effect, because the company had claimed that for years. So he is now the only one saying that the trial should actually have been considered a success for MED2005 (GTN) rather than a failure even though he constantly likes to remind us that the trial failed! But of course the company would have been the first to present it as a success if it could, yet it couldn't because the MED3000 without the GTN produced exactly the same result. The facts are clear that the effect was the same with and without GTN leading to the only possible conclusion which is that MED3000 works by itself. The only argument you could make (which you constanty do) against MED3000 is that maybe everything was just a placebo effect. Fair enough, but against that you have the weight of opinion of all those prominent urologists as well as the FDA clearly tending strongly towards accepting that MED3000 is effective, as well as the CE mark providing proof that the EU experts were satisfied with the proof provided. You are of course free to disagree (or to pretend to) but I would rather go with independent experts, who presumably understand better than me or you how strong any placebo effect is likely to be.

And I can see you accept that your argument about "what were they doing for 9 minutes 45 seconds" is of course just a red herring - so you are just falling back on the same old suggestion thay maybe it's all just a placebo effect, to which the answer is as I mentioned above.

Yet more attempts to confuse from booth. MED3000 was tested in 1000 patients, 250 of whom had it by itself, the other 750 had various strenghts of GTN added. Ultimately they all performed equally well, showing that it was the MED3000 rather than the GTN which was having the effect. So it was shown in 1000 patients not 250.

Why mention counselling, there was no counselling?

What other stimulation was involved for the 9 mins 45 seconds? Another of your absurd arguments that you keep repeating. Obviously they were doing what they always do when they don't use the gel, but clearly it doesn't usually work for them, but when they used the gel then suddenly there was no ED - so three guesses what solved the ED problem?

And of course those urologists quoted by Futura don't seem to share your views.

And then more rambling about CSD500 and what you think happened there without any evidence.

And you say "When a Share does very well on AIM there is invariably something amiss . " What an absurd statement. And further "scientific proof" of MED3000 not working is, believe it or not, from the "pattern" of what people are saying on this board - "This chat classically follows this pattern". And you would have us believe that is why you sold your shares.

And you make sure to point out "I am not bitter" - hmm, based on your claimed story of having done well from buying and selling the shares several times, why would you have a reason to be bitter? A bit of a slip there, I think.

I have no idea if you really believe what you say though I suspect not as it doesn't make sense and you sound too intelligent to not realise that. But in any case - you are wrong. To get a CE mark there needs to be proof of "performance". See https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/medical-devices "The Agency is responsible for evaluating the quality, safety and efficacy of marketing authorisation applications assessed through the centralised procedure, including the safety and performance of the medical device in relation to its use with the medicinal product."

And the FDA certainly cares about performance and all they want is a small trial to confirm the performance doesn't reduce after 3 months. If they would really be worried that it doesn't work they would ask for a much larger test.

And of course you have all those quotes from eminent urologists who are impressed with the product.

As for "may not be fundamentally different to other products available" - what is that supposed to mean, are we back to booth's insane rambling about lubricants?

Or are we supposed to be in awe of the anonymous "key player" who "hasn't heard" of MED3000 - as if that is supposed to be convincing proof. It only proves that (if he exists) he is not keeping up with the news.

As for your reference to that article which has been referenced many times - well, whoever wrote it also doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand that MED3000 is not a placebo.

You may have adopted a friendly style of writing but I am convinced you are just another incarnation of booth.

I think you may be confusing two things. There are two ways of caclulatingf what the drug developer gets paid. 15% approx is the norm when the developer is paid a percentage of sales value, 40% or 50% is a percentage of profit.

Brushing aside all the nonsense (and there is a lot of it) the only fair objection one can raise is that CSD500 didn't succeed despite approval, so this also might not. But I think the counter-arguments are clear in that this is a much more attractive product so Futura can strike much better deals including ones that ensure the licensees really do market the product. Also that Futura will hopefully have learnt from their experience and will be careful to avoid the pitfalls. And also that part of the problem with CSD500 was the initial short shelf life.

All other arguments that booth will regurgitate about warming gels and patents not yet received are all absolute and total nonsense.

Liberum's target price is 80p. But note this assumes patent expiry in 2028 and doesn't allow for the likely extension until 2039. Also assumes peak sales of £390m whereas based on the company's previous market studies it was quite a bit higher. Also no allowance for Africa and Latin America sales. Also assumes deals where Futura only get 40% of the upside whereas the recent deal gave them 50%. So there is plenty of scope for calculating a much higher target price.

More stupid comments from booth. Is anyone taking him seriously? I assume not therefore no need for anyone to waste time rebutting his absurd statements. If anyone is feeling even mildly persuaded please say so, then I (or anyone else) can explain why what he is writing is absolute nonsense and designed to mislead.

And just another little reminder that however many times LB says it, it doesn't change the fact - MED3000 is NOT a placebo, it has a clear mode of action.

I have never seen anything as twisted as LB's rants. Presumably everyone can see that and he is just deluding himself if he thinks he is influencing anyone. LB, go and find an honest and fulfilling job, this job is not good for your mental health, you are in danger of twisting your head so much that you even start to believe your own nonsense, which would be very sad. 138 negative twisted posts! (Sorry, I forgot, you just innocently want to have a neutral discussion about Futura. Of course. We understand.)

Stop playing the fool. The research was about how popular the product would be if it fulfills its claims like quick mode of action with low side effects. From this point of view it's irrelevant how it works. And stop your nonsense about lubricants - if they would work we would know about it.

As if you don't know the answer. THe Phase 3 study showed that there was no difference in effectivenss whether the GTN was there or not, showing that the effect is caused by dermasys alone. On that basis consumer demand will also be the same without the GTN.

But you knew that, and so did most other people if not all.

Desperate dereamper saying more and more illogical things.

Does anyone really think customers will care whether it is classed as a drug or medical device?

And no it's not a placebo.

As you very well know.

More twisting - he's getting desperate. What they said with CSD500 (read it) is that they need someone else to market it for them because they don't have the resources for that, the same is true with MED3000 and they will need partners. They didn't "give up" on the medical device route, it has nothing to do with the medical device route versus drug route.

And of course he knows that.

How twisted can you get?

"A short, non-clinical, Human Factors Study, testing ease of patient understanding of an OTC label and product administration and use is also requested..." - so it's nothing to do with whether people are happy with the effectiveness of the product.

And you know that very well.

You are getting more and more dishonest.

LBO, congratulations on 100 negative posts in 3 weeks plus the ones on ADVFN, you must feel really good. We are all ignoring what you say but appreciate that you need to keep posting something to earn your pay, it doesn't matter what as long as it's negative, it can be irrelevant links, silly comparisons, quotes of standard wording from brokers, whatever. We do sympathise with you having to find more and more ridiculous things to post and wish you luck in finding a more satisfying job.