Actually, in your post 6117, I was the one accused of receiving ROTH stock as compensation (for what purpose not stated). The claim is false as I do not provide services to the company and still hold every bit of stock I bought, which has been on the open market as well as private placement. Regardless, since this is about the company and the product Sucanon, the studies and scientific basis and related claims, here are the publicly available credentials for Dr. Rojas (who is involved in the recently announced Sucanon study at Centro Medico ABC hospital in Mexico City:
MERITOS
Coordinador De Enseñanza Del Centro Médico, Campus Santa Fe
Profesor De La Universidad La Salle
Coordinador Corporativo De Las Clínicas De Diabetes De La Beneficencia Del Centro Médico Abc
Director Médico Del Centro Especializado En Diabetes
ESTUDIOS
Universidad Autónoma De San Luis Potosí
Centro Médico Abc
In addition, his research on Sucanon in Latino prediabetics has been presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the European Assocaition for Study of Diabetes and published in their peer reviewed journal. My medical society allows presentation of related research as long as any consulting or other financial interest is disclosed. Having presented research myself I have direct and verifiable knowledge about the ethical issues and practices involved.
Now, let's approach this logically with the facts in a multiple choice format. Which poses the most significant ethical concern with regard to published information?
A. A medical doctor diabetes expert with the above credentials that discloses a consultant relationship with the company making Sucanon when he presents peer reviewed research on Sucanon in Latino prediabetics
B. A medical doctor posting publicly verifiable clinical research on Sucanon and clarifying terms and significance to a lay audience, self disclosing as a shareholder and posting the source documentation for any to verify
C. A source who has verifiably modified a Consumer Reports article in post 4477 to falsely implicate the product in question in an article about FDA warnings of other companies, and with the publicly stated intent that the modified excerpt (in post 4550) should "scare people away". Further when the false information is identified stands behind the false statement rather than correcting it (post 5014).
