Member Info for The.Italian

i received a polite reply to say that the moderation team will review and take the appropriate action where necessary.

booth the uncorroborated statement is that in the article which states that neither med 3000 nor med2005 showed any improvement over placebo.that is the authors unsubstantiated opinion.nothing more. he or she has no data on which to base it.imo its simply a poorly written superficial hatchet job,with a clickbait title .masquerading as a serious comment piece.

once again booth is just repeating the links to the articles which do not state that fum cannot claim clinically proven .if that question is ever in issue the authority or whatever body is tasked with determining the issue will decide it on the basis of the actual facts of the particular case.booth is clearly not a lawyer and is taking,for obvious reasons,a very simplistic attitude towards things.

the statement in the anonymous SMNSA article that meither med 3000 nor med 2005 showed any improvement over the placebo effect seems to be based on nothing more than the author's determination to cast a negative light on med 30000. there is no basis given to support the statement and no reference to any comparative data on which to base it .once gain read the concluding statement.data sufficient to lead to c/ mark and fda trial

desperation gone mad! i repeat each case will be assessed on its individual facts and merits. issues cannot and should not be pre -judged in advance. precedence can and should serve as a guide, but individual facts determine the actual outcome.

wrong.each case is decided on its individual merits and facts.precedents are relevant but can be distinguished in the legal sense if individual facts differ.there is no fact here ,merely opinion.

it most certainly is not a fact. each case would have to be considered and decided upon on its own facts and not in vacuo.neither article supports booth's statement in the slightest.

nothing revelatory here.hardly surprising that if companies make broad and unsubstantiated claims they will get their knuckles rapped.cant imagine anyone would think otherwise.nothing to suggest fum or its licensees will do this.

pleasw note the anonymous author of the superficial smsna article does not claim to have carried out any independent in depth assessment of the data, which it ends by conceding has been sufficient to lead to the grant of a c/e mark and to lead the fda to sanction its own trial. nothing to see here folks!

astonishingly asinine post.so the fda have agree to a trial to test something but they are not clear as to what it is! this one will run and run.lol

operative words being"least burdensome"ss.indicates positivity towards the trial success imo.

interesting and very positive posts this afternoon.for once i'm grateful to booth for highlighting the very positive nature of the fda trial contruct. i totally understand and accept the desirability of extending the inclusion criteria .this will (assuming a reasonably positive outcome), greatly strengthen the robustness to the trial data. i expect, in that event, fum will have no difficulty in maintaining a clinically proven statement despite the lack of a placebo comparator. furthermore, the fact that fum have been happy to accept what may be more rigorous trial criteria, strongly suggests significant confidence in the outcome,.bear in mind fum did not have to agree to an fda trial at all.they could have rested on their laurels and marketed in eu on basis of ce mark and gone for other areas without fda. clearly they are confident of the outcome and i am very encouraged by this. i think we should all be very grateful to booth for drawing this positive aspect to out attention.

this is outdated and produced before the outcome of med 2005 dated nov 2019. it does not reflect the current situation.

silver cloud.when they come out with the p/w they will presumably have to update on general progress.or maybe not?

interesting question ybhere,but personally i don't think there is anyone else involved in a licensing sense. the march rns refers to fum as having entered "into a licensing agreement with pride century",so they clearly regard it a a licensing agreement.i agree that the manufacturing question is not completely clear,but my assumption(that's all it is) based on the labatec rns ,is that fums contact manufacturing organisation will be dealing with the manufacturing side of things.could easily be wrong of course.

ybhere for a more balanced view i suggest you read the RNS of 4th march,which gives the detail.note that co.high are to be responsible for all regional development and regulatory costs.also a point which may have significance is that this agreements was reached before fum got the notice that ce mark was coming,so perhaps suggests value seen in china independent of other parts of the world

just to clarify,that's very much the message i took from his last reply some time ago.

sorry no bothwell. i think we just have to wait,but it is very frustrating.

second that bignose!

not sure i really qualify as a ramper,but you are entitled to your opinion.