PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[sweetlou]

The claims:
"Not factual. In 2014 this company announced it exceeded their sales goal, yet announced in filings they had no sales and little to cash in the bank. The "study" you all refer to was done by an insider for personal gain. Their Chinese distribution agreement was identified by other posters (sunspotter?) as deceiving us all about who the company really was instead of the misleading info in release. In the end, its over a decade of name changes, ticker symbol changes and the same IR and unidentified shareholders trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes again and again"

The reality:
OTC Markets Annual financial report shows $529k revenue for the period ending June 30, 2014. The stated goal was $480k.
There are 2 studies I refer to, in addition to the preclinical studies where Sucanon (then diab 2) outperformed biguanides and sulfonylureas in rat muscle with a therapeutic index of > 10,000. The first, done when the company was BIOHF, completely different owner, Bob Rieveley. That randomized double blinded placebo controlled study 6 months, showed Sucanon outperformed Glyburide in fasting blood glucose reduction and improved glucose tolerance testing results and decreased urinary glucose excretion. The second, which you frequently attack, is a study in 97 prediabetics 12 weeks in which 81% showed normalization of HbA1C levels. This was presented at 2013 EASD annual meeting and abstract published in their peer reviewed journal.
Dr Jimenez is a consultant for ROTH and such relationships are declared frequently when associated with published research in the medical community.
Company was BIOHF at inception and Sucanon (then diab2) was studied and approved in China, Mexico, and Peru. FROI bought the rights when owner Bob Rieveley died. The only name change to Roth occurred when the previous shell owners were ousted.
What has in fact been over a decade is the use of Sucanon with no adverse effects reported and weight loss and decrease in visceral body fat.
Oh and for the record, everything I stated is backed up by publicly verifiable information so the "not factual" is, of course, not applicable with regard to my post.