PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[sweetlou]

Many of your statements have definitively been proven false by the information below in a previous post, which I include for information below. I note that the post I am now replying to simply sates the same verifiably false information. More evidence of the stated goal in post 4550 to "scare people away" from this company

Here is a small sample of false statements in your post
1. Press releases and their circumstances have been covered in detail and will be reposted for information
2. Website www.pharmaroth.com is operating
3. "Irving said results will be right after the trial". The announcement has no wording in it about timing of release of results. Further, multiple shareholders have contradicted your claim that "Irving lied to all shareholders about this." Very simple, provide proof of your conversation or correspondence with Irving.
4. "Owes a million dollars". Actually the previous incorrect figure you defended was $1.25 million and I showed how that was false below: Aditionally your own admitted definition of insolvent is different than the published and the company is paying its bills.
5."Not a drug according to the FDA" is verifiably false. Below is proof:
6. A Las Vegas business license is not required as operations occur in Mexico City. I called them. Their website will be corrected in time.
7. The "sales down almost 90%" statement has been disproven on many occasions. Giving you the extreme benefit of the doubt, one quarter of sales is picked out of the last 4 years and sloppy accounting is used on top of that to paint a misleading picture.

Regarding #5, for the complete FDA letter here is the link so readers can evaluate for themselves as opposed to incomplete and misleading excerpts:

https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-S-0023-0011

In the middle of page 2 the FDA letter states:
"Moreover, the product to which you refer in your submission appears to be a drug under the Act and thus subject to the regulatory requirements of drugs."

So the FDA says Sucanon is a drug. They further state in the letter that Sucanon has been subject to "significant clinical investigations" and reference the Sucanon study in Latino prediabetics presented at the EASD 2013 annual meeting and included in their journal. Even more evidence is listed and source attributed in my previous posts on this issue.

Regarding #4 and 14 You previously stated "Sorry--you are wrong--the CEO's $374K needs to be added to the liabilities"

$371,593 is listed as a related party payable in the liabilities in the latest quarterly statement. Further, if you read under "Employment contracts" later in the statement, the CEO deferred salary of $371,593 matches up exactly and is therefore with definitive proof already included in the liabilities.

So the following have been definitively proven:
1. You didn't check the financial statement itself before making yet more inaccurate statements.
2. $374K is not even the number in question, as noted above it is $371,593
3. The liabilities already include the $371,593
4. Even giving the extreme benefit of the doubt and including your serious mistake, liabilities would still not equal the stated figure of 1.25 million.
5. You impugned me as "wrong" without checking the accuracy of your own information.

You again falsely and repeatedly state "COMPANY IS INSOLVENT" yet admit that "your own definition" of insolvent is different than Websters published definition.

This conforms to an ongoing pattern of falsely claiming a "verbatim excerpt" from a Consumer Reports article when the article in question was verifiably modified to remove the subject sentence and conceal the change with modifying the punctuation to falsely implicate ROTH and Sucanon in an FDA warning that in fact had nothing to do with the company or product. It is verifiable in post 4477 and many subsequent posts.

I will state further that if you can really prove anything at all that I have posted is factually incorrect then have at it. Aside from one factual mistake that was identified and immediately corrected, there are no errors of fact in my posts, because my information is verifiable from publicly available sources and cited in their entirety without modification