Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There are only LONGS!!! on this board so ignore this P OF SH!! LOW LIFE!!
Regurgitate the same bullshit; call it new. What's changed?
Old news douchebag. 2019!!!!!!!!!!
News is spreading...https://seekingalpha.com/article/4300303-united-health-products-press-releases-cannot-be-taken-face-value
United Health Products' Press Releases Cannot Be Taken At Face Value
Oct. 30, 2019 10:00 AM ETUnited Health Products, Inc. (UEEC)9 Comments
White Diamond Research profile picture
White Diamond Research
2.52K Followers
Summary
United Health Products releases many positive PRs with claims that never happen and doesn’t report negative news.
We found many of UEEC's reported distribution deals didn't materialize, and one distribution company doesn't even appear to exist.
We failed to find any UEEC FDA Class II or Class III approvals, despite the company's investor relations saying otherwise.
UEEC’s October 18th announcement of positive clinical results omitted critical safety outcomes, suggesting its PMA marketing application will be denied.
On December 31, 2019, the CEO will be granted 15% of the outstanding shares for no performance reason.
United Health Products (OTCPK:UEEC) is a $200M market cap company trading on the pink sheets, with only one product, its HemoStyp gauze. HemoStyp is an ordinary wound gauze, manufactured in China, and a commercial flop. Sales are miniscule, with $46K in revenues for 2018 and $25K in revenues through the first half of 2019. We published an article on 8/27/19 telling about the history of the company and HemoStyp, and how absurd the company’s valuation is.
In this follow-up report, we took a look at past press releases ("PRs") from the company claiming they have business dealings and contracts with various distributors and medical device vendors. Many of these business dealings appear to have never come to fruition, and even at least one of the companies doesn’t appear to exist. Looking at the past seven years of the company’s PR history, we have not seen a single negative or even neutral statement updating shareholders on its endeavors. This is despite clearly having so many distribution partnership and FDA setbacks. We show our research on UEEC’s PRs in this report.
We also have some outside validation that we are on the right track with our findings on UEEC. Someone who used to work with the company, who requested anonymity, contacted us on LinkedIn after we published our previous article and stated (emphasis ours):
Source: LinkedIn Message
A statement that strongly motivated us to do a deeper dive into UEEC.
A Deep Dive Into United Health Products Shows Many Questionable Press Releases
A look into UEEC's PRs shows that many are distribution deals that didn't materialize and FDA submissions with no follow-up news.
The source that we quoted earlier had some really negative, and shocking, things to say about UEEC and its CEO, Douglas Beplate. Here’s what he told us over the phone:
This is my industry. United Health Products was a mistake to work with, but it’s part of what made me successful, I learn from my mistakes.
This is a BS company. There’s no truth to it, the product’s shady. Doug Beplate is a master fibber. He puts out PRs to pump his stock up. Nothing is going to happen, they aren’t doing anything. This is all a shell game. The $25K in quarterly revenues could be a money shuffle. I’ve showed it to doctors myself, nobody uses it
It’s easy for me to sit in a basement in a bunker in Utah, see what other companies who are successful put out in PRs, and just do the same thing for my company. That takes zero capital. And that’s what he does, he puts in whatever sounds good in the press. There’s a lot of hoopla with PRs, but as far as real revenue on the books, there’s nothing there. Other companies have medical journals, links to the data, etc., but there’s nothing for United Health Products.
They are never going to get Class III approval. That is complete BS. Because you have to spend the money to do the research to get the Class III approval. Class III is placing it into the body cavity. And everyone I’ve talked to said “there’s no way”. You can put it into a body cavity, like a deep wound, and sew it up. But you can’t do that with this product. It’s not indicated for that, it doesn’t have an indication for anything, it’s a wound gauze, that’s it, it’s a gel infused mesh. I’ll be honest with you, the docs at San Antonio told me, that based on the advertised blood stopping ability of HemoStyp, you can get the same results from taking a T-shirt and putting it on the wound and holding pressure to it. There’s nothing special about this product.
Of course, the above statement is just one person’s point of view about UEEC and its CEO who had a bad experience working with the company. But our research has shown us that, for the most part, what this anonymous source has told us is true. Here are some questions that arose from our research that we would like to ask United Health Products:
On 1/21/16 and 5/16/16, UEEC issued PRs stating that it made a distribution agreement with a company named Optimal Government Resources/Services to sell HemoStyp to the US government. Our research shows that “Optimal Government Resources/Services” does not appear to exist (evidence shown in the next section). Can UEEC show any evidence that this company exists or ever did? Also, we did a simple Google search and found that the DAPA contract number UEEC says is theirs actually belongs to another medical product company, TrillaMed (evidence shown in the next section). How does UEEC explain this?
2. UEEC reported on 10/10/17 that its “Expanded Indication Submission Class II application continues to progress” for HemoStyp. In this same PR, UEEC reported,
the company is pleased to announce that it has applied to the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program premarket approval "PMA" (Class III internal usage) for HemoStyp.
This PR was over two years ago, and there hasn’t been any follow-up on the results of the applications. How did the FDA respond to either application? Were they rejected? We submitted a request to the FDA and will update when we hear back.
3. UEEC reported on 12/12/17 that it’s:
applying to have HemoStyp designated as a Class III medical device with Australia’s Therapeutics Goods Administration ("TGA", counterpart to the US FDA).
The PR further stated:
The company’s Australian TGA consultants believe that UHP has the requisite test data and documentation to obtain rapid approval in Australia, and that HemoStyp could obtain approval for use in the Australian market within 30 days.
This Australia TGA application was also mentioned in the 2017 10-K. There has been no follow-up to this PR. It has been almost two years, despite the PR saying approval could happen within 30 days. Did the TGA respond to or reject this application? Why did the consultants believe UEEC had enough data for approval? There is no mention of any revenues in Australia in UEEC’s quarterly or annual reports.
4. What happened to the 5-year contract with Total Resources International ("TRI"), where UEEC stated in a PR on 3/17/15 that sales generated will be a minimum of $3M in year one and expected to gross over $20M in during the life of the contract?
UEEC reported sales were $53.3K in 2015, $242K in 2016, $646K in 2017, $46K in 2018 and so far $25K in the first half of 2019. Nowhere near the “expected $20M” over five years.
5. What happened to HemoStyp sales on henryschein.com and the Australian Henry Schein catalogue? UEEC claimed to have signed an agreement with Henry Schein on 8/24/15 here, and Henry Schein Halas on 5/2/16 here to sell HemoStyp. HemoStyp isn’t listed on either online catalogue. We called up Henry Schein, and they said they have never had a contract with UEEC to sell HemoStyp.
6. On 7/9/18, UEEC issued a PR stating:
UEEC today announced that it has been accepted as a Walmart.com and Jet.com supplier, and will offer three HemoStyp wound care products for online retail sale.
Doing a search on Walmart.com and Jet.com, we found that HemoStyp isn’t sold on either website. Why is this? Was the company’s supplier status revoked? We emailed Walmart.com (WMT), and the company replied that indeed they do not sell HemoStyp.
7. On 10/25/18, UEEC announced it hired Societe Generale (OTCPK:SCGLF) to advise the company on strategic alternatives. It states:
In connection with the FDA PMA Class III approval process for HemoStyp, UHP has been contacted by several medical technology companies that are active in the surgical equipment and hemostatic products sectors, and who have expressed an interest in the Company's products and business strategy.
This PR was over one year ago now. UEEC is not a complicated company with only one simple gauze product, so it shouldn’t take this long. UEEC still mentions the possibility of an acquisition or strategic partnership in PRs.
In a recent PR on 10/17/19, it states:
in anticipation of a successful FDA Class III PMA application approval, the potential acquisition of the Company or a strategic partnership.
In a PR released the next day, on 10/18/19, it again states:
UHP is continuing its discussions with well positioned candidates interested in acquisition of the Company or partnerships
We would like UEEC to show evidence that this is a true statement. Which medical technology companies have shown interest? Why has it taken over a year of discussions and still there have been no updates on a collaboration or merger? What exactly is the company still “discussing” with suitors after over a year of discussions?
Why would UEEC be acquired at this current valuation given that present HemoStyp sales are miniscule and the probability of FDA approval is low? We think any acquisition talks the company is in aren't serious and there won't be any merger or acquisition.
8. On 4/7/15, UEEC issued a PR stating:
United Health Products, Inc. (OTCPK:UEEC) has received the final laboratory test results and pathology reports for recent porcine testing.
Douglas Beplate, CEO said, "The results are remarkable in that they not only show that HemoStyp® is effective at rapid hemostasis in a wound site, but prove it is totally absorbable into the body." He added, "In my opinion HemoStyp® promotes vascular genesis and healing.”
The tests reports were furnished to the U.S. Military will be posted for viewing on the United Health Products Inc. website.”
But the study was never posted on UEEC’s website. If this swine study was favorable and submitted to the US Military, it should have been published. There would be no reason to hide favorable results from the study which UEEC supposedly had done. Why didn’t UEEC publish the results like the PR said it would?
These 8 questions are just some that we have. Further digging would certainly lead to more.
More Details On The Press Release Questions
In this section, we go into more detail on two of our questions, questions #1 and #2. If needed, look back at the previous section for a summary of each question.
Question #1
For question #1, we did more digging on what we believe to be a fictional company, Optimal Government Services/Resources. In UEEC’s PR on 5/16/16, it states:
Optimal Government Resources has signed their distribution agreement and placed an opening stocking order. In conjunction with this agreement, UHP HemoStyp® products are now listed under the DAPA contract #SP0200-09-H-0037.
Doing a simple Google search for this DAPA (Distribution and Pricing Agreement) contract number, we found it belongs to a contract by another medical product company, TrillaMed. This page shows a newsletter from TrillaMed, and at the bottom, it shows:
Source: TrillaMed Newsletter
We underlined the exact same DAPA contract number in UEEC’s PR, but it belongs to TrillaMed.
Our research showed us that each DAPA number is unique to each company specifically. It’s not unique to a larger contract that multiple companies can pile on, because every company has their specific number. Therefore, either TrillaMed has the number wrong, or UEEC has it wrong. There is no news anywhere, from UEEC or TrillaMed, that these companies have ever worked together or that TrillaMed was distributing HemoStyp for UEEC. We have contacted TrillaMed and will update when we hear back.
Doing a Google search for both Optimal Government Services and Optimal Government Resources, we found no evidence anywhere that there exists a company by either name. This webpage shows a company with a similar name that does government contracts for medical products. We called up the company and they said the name of their company isn't "Optimal Government Services/Resources", but just "Optimal" or "Golden Max". And of course, the company has a website, which UEEC didn't include in their PR.
To do business with the Federal Government, a company must have an active registration with the System for Award Management (SAM). We searched for Optimal Government Services and Optimal Government Resources on sam.gov, and neither one has a registration there. Screenshot shown below:
Source: sam.gov
Question #2
In regards to question #2 about the 10/10/17 PR on the FDA marketing applications, UEEC had some follow-up PRs.
On 12/4/17, UEEC issued a PR stating:
it is proceeding with its application for HemoStyp under the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program. The FDA selected UHP’s HemoStyp as only one of nine participants for the program.
Concurrent with its CtQ Pilot Program participation, UHP reaffirms that its current Class II application – Expanded Indication submission with the US FDA-- continues to progress, and is in an advanced stage of review
On 2/5/18, UEEC issued a PR stating:
United Health Products, Inc. (UHP) (OTC:OTCPK:UEEC) today announced that, following its January 17 face-to- face meeting with FDA experts and officials, it has completed and submitted all materials relevant for the premarket approval (PMA) for HemoStyp. UHP has submitted additional inspection and registration forms to the CtQ Pilot program for final approval and confirmation. The PMA submission is for the approval of Class III indication and internal surgical use of Hemostyp.
The latter PR was over a year and a half ago, and UEEC has still not announced PMA approval for HemoStyp. Why have there not been any updates to this FDA meeting?
United Health Products Investor Relations Rep Gave Us More False Info
To figure out what’s going on with UEEC and these questionable PRs, we called up the company’s investor relations rep. Unfortunately, he didn’t appear to play it straight with us and gave more false info.
First, we tried calling the company, and it goes to a voicemail that doesn’t even mention the company's name. We left a message anyways to try and speak with Doug Beplate to try and find the answers. Then, we called the investor relations firm, Pan Consultants, and spoke with Phillipe Niemitz.
We believe multiple comments by Niemitz, specifically two comments regarding FDA approval for HemoStyp, are not true. We checked the 510K database on the FDA website here. We did a search for “HemoStyp”, “United Health”, and “UHP”, and we didn’t find any device approval on those names. Looking at its press release history, UEEC has never released a PR claiming that they have received FDA approval for any indication.
See the full IR interview transcript here.
HemoStyp Is A Commercial Flop
As everyone who has read UEEC’s financial statements knows, its HemoStyp gauze is a commercial flop. The company has only generated $46K in revenue in 2018. In the first two quarters of 2019, it has only generated $25K in revenue so far. Despite poor commercial performance, the CEO is on track to receive a stock bonus that will be worth in the $10s of million if the Company manages to keep the stock price up till the end of the year. This CEO bonus is stated in the company's latest 10-K.
United Health Product’s PRs Describing Its HemoStyp PMA Application Process Are Bizarre, Suggesting A Denial Is Likely
UEEC’s announcement of the PMA submission was released on 10/4/19 stating:
UEEC today announced that it has submitted a Premarket Approval (PMA) application for Class III approval to the FDA for HemoStyp.
This was seemingly very significant news about an important milestone concluding clinical study data analysis and submission. The text of the announcement was, however, very generic and reserved. It further states:
The PMA program confirms the safety and efficacy of a product. If approved, UHP expects that HemoStyp will be authorized for use in surgical procedures in abdominal, cardiovascular, thoracic and vascular surgeries per UHP's PMA filed Instructions For Use.
This October 4th PR mentions nothing about the results of the clinical studies, simply noting that the FDA submission has occurred.
A pre-market application (PMA) application is a very detailed and stringent process. As described in drugwatch.com, the PMA includes:
Source: drugwatch.com
Therefore, the October 4th PMA submission should have included clinical data, including a statistical analysis of its results.
Then, on 10/18/19, a relevant, yet bizarre, PR was announced, claiming positive results of the HemoStyp clinical study. We are puzzled because this announcement comes two weeks after the PMA submission on 10/4/19.
The PR says the final analysis report has been received, and it is from an independent reviewer (does “independent” mean that UEEC didn't pay for this analysis?). It further states:
In summary the independent statistical reviewer (website here) stated:
“For the primary analysis comparing HemoStyp versus Surgicel for hemostasis in 10 minutes, both non-inferiority and superiority were satisfied in both ITT population and PP population. For the secondary analysis, HemoStyp was significantly better than Surgicel with respect to the percentage achieving hemostasis at 2 minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes.”
It further states:
UEEC... today announced that it has received the final report from an independent review of the results of its human clinical trial.
The way the above sentence is worded, it seems as though UEEC had just received the statistical results on October 18 or a day before. It doesn't say that this report was received and sent to the FDA 2 weeks earlier on October 4th. But if it was in fact sent to the FDA in tandem with the October 4th submission, then it is strangely communicated.
Why would they do the analysis after they already sent the application? There is such a thing as a PMA Amendment if the applicant is revising existing information or providing additional information. But UEEC didn’t say that they were doing a PMA Amendment. It is sometimes required to continue statistical analysis after the PMA submission if the clinical study is continuing and the longer patient follow-up is recorded. But according to the UEEC protocol, the follow-up was 30 days and that was finished long ago.
Because this “independent” statistical reviewer apparently gave its analysis after UEEC already submitted its application to the FDA, we would take it with a grain of salt. If it were a relevant review, it should have been included in the PMA application on October 4th. If this analysis was not included, we also wonder then what analysis was included and why the results of that analysis were not mentioned in the PR from October 4th.
But what is the most alarming to us in the 10/18/19 announcement is that the PR went silent on the very important product safety outcomes. From the UEEC clinical protocol, described on its clinicaltrials.gov page we learned about four secondary study outcomes:
Source: clinicaltrials.gov
While the Primary outcome and the Secondary outcome #1 in the UEEC study protocol are efficacy related, the Secondary #2, #3, and #4 outcomes are all safety outcomes and are of critical importance for FDA approval. The October 18th PR only addresses success of the Primary outcome and Secondary outcome #1. The PR didn't say if the study has shown a non-inferiority or superiority of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in the secondary outcomes #2-4. The history of UEEC only disclosing positive news makes us believe that the omission of results relevant to outcomes #2-4 could have been on purpose, because the clinical study likely showed the inferior performance of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in these outcome measures.
The statistician was very specific to claim non-inferiority and superiority of HemoStyp only in the initial hemostasis after application of HemoStyp to the wound. It is silent on what has happened after the initial hemostasis was achieved.
HemoStyp, according to UEEC, quickly dissolves in an aqueous environment due to its unique degradation properties. We can find this on the company’s website.
From UEEC’s product testing page:
The data obtained during analysis of sample UHP Box of 2” x 2” Pouches indicates the material begins to dissolve in water within one minute. The sample is completely dissolved within 24 hours. Not enough material remains for analysis at the 24 hour time point.
If HemoStyp dissolves too soon, the surgical wound would start bleeding again, and this would be a very serious safety issue.
Imagine a major disaster when bleeding re-occurs after the surgeon has already closed the outmost patient skin layer! The outcomes 2-4 directly address this key safety concern, describing in quantitative terms how well the initially achieved hemostasis is maintained during the surgery. Outcome 4 is about the failure of initial hemostasis, as measured in reoperations, during the one month after surgery. It seems to us that a hemostatic agent that is quick to achieve initial hemostasis, but rapidly dissolves and may frequently fail later resulting in recurrence of bleeding, is a major health hazard. Why would the FDA approve HemoStyp, if it indeed fails to maintain hemostasis, knowing that Surgicel is already a reasonably effective and safe FDA approved product?
From all these observations, we conclude that the clinical study of HemoStyp versus Surgicel was likely a failure. However, if and when its PMA application gets rejected, we doubt that shareholders will hear about it. We expect it will be just like when UEEC applied for PMA approval for Class III in late 2017, there will just not be any updates, like it never happened.
On New Year's Eve, The CEO Will Be Granted 15% Of The Outstanding Shares For No Performance Reason
In the latest 10-Q, it states:
The Company, by board resolution, approved an executive compensation stock bonus package for Mr. Beplate such that upon the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or other change in control or merger transaction in which the Company is involved, or in the event that no such transaction occurs by December 31, 2019, Mr. Beplate shall receive an amount equal to 15% post issuance of the then outstanding shares of the Company's common stock on a fully diluted basis.
In a nutshell, what the above passage says is if the company gets acquired, or it doesn’t get acquired, UEEC’s CEO, Douglas Beplate, will be awarded an amount of shares equal to 15% of the outstanding shares of UEEC.
So, whether Beplate performs well and gets the company acquired, or performs poorly, he still gets gifted all those shares. Which if the company has a $200M market cap, the shares are worth about $30M. We don’t believe he did anything to deserve this kind of a bonus. And to make matters worse for shareholders, there isn’t any kind of lockup period mentioned. Therefore, Beplate can immediately sell as many shares as he wants in the open market. This will be an egregious New Year's Eve gift to the CEO at shareholders' expense.
We believe shareholders should be very worried about this transaction. The company hasn’t accomplished anything to this date. It’s generating revenues of about $50K per year. Yet, Beplate is receiving a bonus this year that a CEO of a blue chip company would be envious of.
Conclusion
In this report, we began by quoting a disturbing interview with a source who used to work for United Health Products. He claimed the CEO Beplate is a “master fibber”, and that there is nothing going on with UEEC, it’s just a “shell game”. We included many PRs the company put out over the past few years stating that they had distribution agreements and marketing applications that didn’t appear to go anywhere, including PMA submissions for HemoStyp Class III approval. But the company never issued a PR claiming a distribution agreement fell through or a marketing application was denied. It was like they never happened, and the company just put out additional PRs that again turned out to be nothing. What does the company have to show today for all these PRs? A miniscule $50K of revenues per year. To add insult to injury to shareholders, the board agreed to reward Beplate for all these failures with a bonus of 15% of the outstanding shares.
Right now, shareholders are putting all their hopes on PMA approval happening for a Class III indication. We believe the PMA application likely be denied by the FDA, and since the company’s current sales are almost zero, that would make the company worth close to zero.
We included our observations in this report on why we believe the PMA application will get denied. There was a bizarre PR of an independent analysis of the study that was released weeks after the PMA application was submitted to the FDA, when an analysis should’ve been included in the application. Neither the complete study results nor a complete analysis have been posted anywhere. Furthermore, three of the four secondary outcomes, related to product safety, were omitted in the quote. From the nature of HemoStyp, we speculate that it may dissolve before the internal wound has healed, which could result in a renewed bleeding. If this is true about the HemoStyp product, we think the FDA will deny PMA approval.
Shoondale SOOOOOOOOOOOO desperate.
SHOO ALONG SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONDALE.
News is spreading.....
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/united-health-products-submits-full-fda-pma-application/?keywords=hemostyp+gauze+news
More eyes, more ears, more interest! More money$$$$
$5-$10++
Everything is on the (fraudulent) up and up here. LMAO
"FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section IO(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
(UHP and Beplate)
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section I0(b) and Rules IOb-S(a) and (c) Thereunder
(Schiliro)
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section lO(b) and Rule 10b-5(b)
(Schiliro)
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(All Defendants)
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 Thereunder
(UHP)
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)2)B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
(Beplate and Schiliro)
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1
(Beplate and Schiliro)
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rule 13a-14 Thereunder
(Beplate)
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act
(Beplate and Schiliro)
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304(a)
(Beplate)
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-3 Thereunder
(Beplate)
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25413.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25413.pdf[tag]
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25413.pdf[/tag]
The potential for market success of the hemostyp product line may lie in the gel and/or foam applications. FDA has a streamlined approval process for mutiple product devices! Trust The Man stated $10+ for a buyout at one time and he may be correct. Chime in if you can offer information but a buyout of UECC only begins at $5 pps.
$5-$10++
LOLOLOLOL Look at this low lifes, Desperation setting in wasting all his time and energy writing such a large post LO.L.
What A digrace To the human race
More bait and switch deals, contracts, and partners? It's not like United Con Artists doesn't have a long, long history of those. Must be because you won't have to pull out the more testing bullshit and phony FDA requests for a few weeks to kick the can down the road covering up the fact this failed FDA scrutiny.
More news coming folks! Buckle up!
$5-$10++
Naa. shoon gets paid either way. I just figure I’ve learned immensely from him. I just do the opposite of him. Lol
Look at his desperation. SHOOOOOONDALE has to cover.
This is his worst nightmare come true.
BUY / BUY SHOOOOOONDALE.
"Good week board! PMA eSTAR submission is finalized and good volume!"
"Behind the scenes lets speculate that some of the buying was from the likes of White Lion or a similar private placement among many newbies buying in!"
"Brian Thom I believe has much he would like to share so the pps will creep up in the meantime until then."
"I see the FDA decision should be rendered in 45 days best guess."
"Stay the course and watch for more volume and big buys!"
"Congrats!"
Secret "Company" Employee, posing as shareholder, angry about having to dip into his own pocket to keep the artificial share price up with this Ponzi Scheme. Did the Ponzi Scheme have a good week? Since this bullshit sham product has zero chance of ever getting FDA approval, or ever being used medically, it is time to start regurgitating the bullshit PR's about providing the FDA with more info, and pretending it is about to get FDA approval, to attempt to pump up the price. LMAO
I got a kick out of the 100 share ($20) buy at the closing to pump the price to the ask rather than the bid. Carry on with the every trick in the book attempt to groom new suckers in the boiler room and recruit them into the Ponzi Scheme.
pigimon Followers 0 Posts 1 Alias Born 03/22/2024 more phony shareholders out of desperation
Don’t even bother with that POS!
Utter bullshit. The PMA was filed in 2017. Just substitute estar for ctQ, change a few words, and you have the absolute bullshit that came out yesterday. The reality is this is a long ago failed product that will never have any market interest whatsoever. This fraudulent non-enterprise "company" is nothing more than a worthless Ponzi Scheme, using an internet boiler room, to trap a few suckers. This so-called product has already failed Class II, failed Class III, and, as outlined by the SEC in their charges against these fraudulent Ponzi Scheme operators, the product was even a miserable failure over the counter. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25413.pdf. These con artists are just out to steal more of everyone's money, https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12414685&guid=4td-kaJ6H_M4B3h#UEEC_EX991_HTM
"FDA Selects HemoStyp ® for CtQ Pilot Program
Henderson, Nevada – December 4, 2017 –United Health Products, Inc. (UHP) (OTC: UEEC), manufacturer and marketer of HemoStyp®, a patented hemostatic gauze for the healthcare and wound care sectors, today announced that it is proceeding with its application for HemoStyp under the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program. The FDA selected UHP’s HemoStyp as only one of nine participants for the program. UHP management has scheduled its first face-to-face meeting with FDA experts for January 17, 2018 to provide the agency with whatever information it needs to advance the application for premarket approval (PMA).
The FDA has stated that it intends to work collaboratively with pilot program participants during the review of their PMA submission to define characteristics of the device that are critical to product quality, and how these characteristics are controlled in design and manufacturing prior to the postmarket inspection. For pilot program participants, the FDA would forego conducting the standard PMA preapproval inspection, and a postmarket inspection focusing on the PMA applicant’s implementation of the critical to quality characteristics would be conducted instead.
The CtQ Pilot Program was created to identify products that have a chemical makeup of demonstrated safe interaction with the body –as evidenced by years of prior product usage and studies-- to be approved for Class III internal surgical use. The program’s intent is to allow products that have demonstrated repeated safe interaction to enter the market in a more efficient manner. This application will run simultaneously with the company’s prior Class II application for expanded indication. The market for 2017 internal surgical market for hemostatic products is estimated at in excess of seven billion dollars, and is expected to grow at 7.1% over the next few years, to reach more than $8.3 billion by 2022. (http://industryarc.com/Report/15189/hemostats-market.html)
Concurrent with its CtQ Pilot Program participation, UHP reaffirms that its current Class II application – Expanded Indication submission with the US FDA-- continues to progress, and is in an advanced stage of review
About Premarket Approval Application Critical to Quality (PMA CtQ) Pilot Program
Top-quality medical devices help the FDA better protect and promote public health. And one of the top priorities for FDA’s medical devices center is a focus on quality.
More specifically, the FDA is working with stakeholders—industry, health care providers, patients, payers, and investors—to build a strong Case for Quality.
This program allows the FDA to identify device manufacturers that consistently produce high-quality devices. By doing so, we can better focus our resources helping other manufacturers raise their level of quality. This program also helps the FDA identify and promote practices that support consistent quality manufacturing, and align our regulatory, enforcement, compliance approaches with those practices.
The FDA launched the Case for Quality in 2011 following an in-depth review of device quality data and feedback from both FDA and industry stakeholders. The FDA’s analysis flagged certain widespread or common manufacturing risks that impact product quality. The review also showed manufacturers that focus on and manage those risks often become more productive, receiving fewer complaints, needing to open fewer CAPAs and investigations, and having lower quality-related product costs than their competitors.
In simple terms, the review identified that an investment in quality has long-term payoffs."
Good week board! PMA eSTAR submission is finalized and good volume! Behind the scenes lets speculate that some of the buying was from the likes of White Lion or a similar private placement among many newbies buying in! Brian Thom I believe has much he would like to share so the pps will creep up in the meantime until then. I see the FDA decision should be rendered in 45 days best guess. Stay the course and watch for more volume and big buys!
Congrats!
$5-$10++
Last trades: TRADE DATA
DATE TIMESTAMP PRICE $ CHANGE VOLUME
03/22/2024 13:23:46 0.19 0.00 1,000
03/22/2024 13:07:18 0.1899 0.00 5,000
03/22/2024 12:44:32 0.185 -0.00 14,990
Now look at the bid/ask:
UEEC
United Health Products, Inc.
Common Stock
0.19
-0.0026
-1.35%
0.2095 / 0.2097 (1 x 1)
Real-Time Best Bid & Ask: 02:06pm 03/22/2024
Delayed (15 Min) Trade Data: 01:23pm 03/22/2024
TRADE DATA
DATE TIMESTAMP PRICE $ CHANGE VOLUME
03/22/2024 14:08:00 0.2095 0.00 4,000
UEEC
United Health Products, Inc.
Common Stock
0.2095
0.0169
8.77%
0.2095 / 0.2097 (1 x 1)
Real-Time Best Bid & Ask: 02:06pm 03/22/2024
Delayed (15 Min) Trade Data: 02:08pm 03/22/2024
TRADE DATA
DATE TIMESTAMP PRICE $ CHANGE VOLUME
03/22/2024 14:08:00 0.2095 0.00 4,000
03/22/2024 14:06:34 0.2094 0.02 4,990
03/22/2024 13:23:46 0.19 0.00 1,000
03/22/2024 13:07:18 0.1899 0.00 5,000
Explain how cooperating with Ponzi Scheme operators within_internet_boiler_rooms works out in the end? Are the phony "company" employees, posing as fellow shareholders, your friends?
CHARLIESAN
Re: rodman post# 12756
Tuesday, December 19, 2023 12:11:04 PM
Post# 12757 of 13250
Yes, I am a loser; about 800K in this position; and I own a significant amount of shares; in the 7 digits. You must be braindead to think that this CEO and management team do not deserve criticism in their inability to get a PMA filed. They need prodded; pushed; criticized; by any means necessary to accomplish their duties. So you will stand by another year and watch paint dry? Their communication and actions are a travesty and reek of incompetence. Calling it like it is. If you cannot see this you might look in the mirror before denigrating others.
CHARLIESAN
Re: None
Friday, March 22, 2024 11:51:32 AM
Post# 13249 of 13250
Wise board poster awhile back recommended ignoring aholes like shoondickhead; I did and they go away; all I see is your blow back to him. Ignore him and he has no forum. Nuff said.
CHARLIESAN
Re: None
Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:10:33 AM
Post# 13220 of 13251
Added 35 k shares at .19, the negative warnings from the FDA link are standard boiler plate for federal applications; I put no credence in them. Is the selling just "sell the news"? I will be buying more.
Thesaurus English Dictionary Sentences Conjugation Grammar
Synonyms of 'fool' in American English
fool
Explore 'fool' in the dictionary
1 (noun) in the sense of idiot
Synonyms
idiot
blockhead
dork (slang)
dunce
halfwit
ignoramus
imbecile (informal)
numbskull
numskull
schmuck (slang)
simpleton (old-fashioned)
twit (informal, mainly British)
2 (noun) in the sense of dupe
Synonyms
dupe
fall guy (informal)
laughing stock
mug (British, slang)
stooge (slang)
sucker (slang)
3 (noun) in the sense of clown
Synonyms
clown
buffoon
harlequin
jester
(verb) in the sense of deceive
Synonyms
deceive
beguile
con (informal)
delude
dupe
hoodwink
mislead
take in
trick
You’re a despicable piece of garbage!
Wise board poster awhile back recommended ignoring aholes like shoondickhead;
I did and they go away; all I see is your blow back to him. Ignore him and he has no
forum. Nuff said.
Here is the PR...https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12414685&guid=4td-kaJ6H_M4B3h#UEEC_EX991_HTM
Just substitute estar for ctQ and you have the bullshit that came out yesterday. The reality is this is a long ago failed product that will never have any market interest whatsoever. This fraudulent non-enterprise "company" is nothing more than a worthless Ponzi Scheme using an internet boiler room to trap a few suckers. Again this so-called product has already failed Class II, failed Class III, and, as outlined by the SEC in their charges against these fraudulent Ponzi Scheme operators, the product was even a miserable failure over the counter.
"FDA Selects HemoStyp ® for CtQ Pilot Program
Henderson, Nevada – December 4, 2017 –United Health Products, Inc. (UHP) (OTC: UEEC), manufacturer and marketer of HemoStyp®, a patented hemostatic gauze for the healthcare and wound care sectors, today announced that it is proceeding with its application for HemoStyp under the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program. The FDA selected UHP’s HemoStyp as only one of nine participants for the program. UHP management has scheduled its first face-to-face meeting with FDA experts for January 17, 2018 to provide the agency with whatever information it needs to advance the application for premarket approval (PMA).
The FDA has stated that it intends to work collaboratively with pilot program participants during the review of their PMA submission to define characteristics of the device that are critical to product quality, and how these characteristics are controlled in design and manufacturing prior to the postmarket inspection. For pilot program participants, the FDA would forego conducting the standard PMA preapproval inspection, and a postmarket inspection focusing on the PMA applicant’s implementation of the critical to quality characteristics would be conducted instead.
The CtQ Pilot Program was created to identify products that have a chemical makeup of demonstrated safe interaction with the body –as evidenced by years of prior product usage and studies-- to be approved for Class III internal surgical use. The program’s intent is to allow products that have demonstrated repeated safe interaction to enter the market in a more efficient manner. This application will run simultaneously with the company’s prior Class II application for expanded indication. The market for 2017 internal surgical market for hemostatic products is estimated at in excess of seven billion dollars, and is expected to grow at 7.1% over the next few years, to reach more than $8.3 billion by 2022. (http://industryarc.com/Report/15189/hemostats-market.html)
Concurrent with its CtQ Pilot Program participation, UHP reaffirms that its current Class II application – Expanded Indication submission with the US FDA-- continues to progress, and is in an advanced stage of review
About Premarket Approval Application Critical to Quality (PMA CtQ) Pilot Program
Top-quality medical devices help the FDA better protect and promote public health. And one of the top priorities for FDA’s medical devices center is a focus on quality.
More specifically, the FDA is working with stakeholders—industry, health care providers, patients, payers, and investors—to build a strong Case for Quality.
This program allows the FDA to identify device manufacturers that consistently produce high-quality devices. By doing so, we can better focus our resources helping other manufacturers raise their level of quality. This program also helps the FDA identify and promote practices that support consistent quality manufacturing, and align our regulatory, enforcement, compliance approaches with those practices.
The FDA launched the Case for Quality in 2011 following an in-depth review of device quality data and feedback from both FDA and industry stakeholders. The FDA’s analysis flagged certain widespread or common manufacturing risks that impact product quality. The review also showed manufacturers that focus on and manage those risks often become more productive, receiving fewer complaints, needing to open fewer CAPAs and investigations, and having lower quality-related product costs than their competitors.
In simple terms, the review identified that an investment in quality has long-term payoffs."
Old news…..douche bag! Nice try, back to your basement.
"FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section IO(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
(UHP and Beplate)
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section I0(b) and Rules IOb-S(a) and (c) Thereunder
(Schiliro)
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section lO(b) and Rule 10b-5(b)
(Schiliro)
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(All Defendants)
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 Thereunder
(UHP)
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)2)B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
(Beplate and Schiliro)
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1
(Beplate and Schiliro)
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rule 13a-14 Thereunder
(Beplate)
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act
(Beplate and Schiliro)
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304(a)
(Beplate)
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-3 Thereunder
(Beplate)"
"I see you’re still pissing in the wind. I’ve wondered how much you’re making as a “paid hack” for the market makers. It shows your character is an abomination!"
SPORTYNORTY
Re: Scumbag Fraudsters post# 10908
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 9:36:42 PM
Post# 10909 of 12746
Pre-Market Approval NOW CONFIRMED. Thank you.
Looking for UEEC to either be bought out, or announce a deep pocketed partner to finance manufacturing and production. Only going to cost companies more money as time goes. The longer they wait, the more us shareholders make.
"NO!!! one should be reading about any conversations with these people on this board!! Please just set to ignore. Thanks"
NO!!! one should be reading about any conversations with these people on this board!! Please just set to ignore. Thanks
Looking for UEEC to either be bought out, or announce a deep pocketed partner to finance manufacturing and production. Only going to cost companies more money as time goes. The longer they wait, the more us shareholders make.
Suck it Shoondick. You’re all finished. Best go to another board to troll.
Well, the wind is blowing his way so, either way he needs a change of clothing…lol. You can always tell when they’re paid hacks.
I don’t think he’s pissing in the wind. I think he’s pissing on himself. Could only do this for shillings of someone else. Not smart enough to be self initiated. Love how he digs up things from years and years ago. Usually after his 90 year old mother yells down the stairs to tell him soup is ready.
What's not said in the PR is as telling as what was said. No mention of ramping up production in anticipation of approval, to me, indicates they are working a deal to sell rather than focus on production-based growth. eStar should cut 45 days right off the front-end of the FDA approval process (traditionally up to 180 days). With any luck we see an FDA approval before end of June. From there, I would anticipate lots of interest in an acquisition.
I see you’re still pissing in the wind. I’ve wondered how much you’re making as a “paid hack” for the market makers. It shows your character is an abomination!
Boy you are an unemployed headcase! Get a grip boy! Pray and seek help!
$5-$10++
Rodman, Chrism0000, and Sporty have it made!!!!!!!
Patents by Inventor Douglas K. Beplate
https://patents.justia.com/patent/5221277
Diaper construction and method
Mar 4, 1992
A diaper configured with an inner panty enclosed within an outer panty, the inner panty having an absorbent pad inserted in an opening in the inner panty. The inner panty holds the absorbent pad snugly between the legs of the wearer but in spaced relationship to the outer panty. The outer panty is secured around its periphery to the inner panty and encloses both the absorbent pad and inner panty in spaced relationship. The spaced relationship forms an overflow reservoir beneath the absorbent pad.
Diaper construction and method
Jun 18, 1993
A diaper configured with an inner panty enclosed within an outer panty, the inner panty having an absorbent pad inserted in an opening in the inner panty. The inner panty holds the absorbent pad snugly between the legs of the wearer but in spaced relationship to the outer panty. The outer panty is secured around its periphery to the inner panty and encloses both the absorbent pad and inner panty in spaced relationship. The spaced relationship forms an overflow reservoir beneath the absorbent pad.
Diaper with integral overflow reservoir
Apr 29, 1993
A diaper having an inner panty enclosed in spaced relationship by an outer panty. An absorbent pad is inserted in an opening in the inner panty. The inner panty holds the absorbent pad snugly against the perineal region between the legs of the wearer. An outer panty is secured around its periphery to the inner panty. The spaced relationship between the outer panty and the inner panty forms an overflow reservoir for the absorbent pad.
DR5...try not spamming the internet with regurgitated bullshit from 2017
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12414685&guid=4td-kaJ6H_M4B3h#UEEC_EX991_HTM
Change a few words, and you have the same PMA bullshit over and over.
"You’re done here, asshole!"
"The Bull Shit Detection Rules
No1: Wherever possible there must be INDEPENDENT unbiased confirmation of the “facts.”
That means any research trial published that shows an effect or not needs to be reproduced by another independent party BEFORE we can claim there is or isn’t an effect.
No2: Encourage open honest and substantive debate on the evidence by proponents from ALL sides. This means open, honest, transparent, public debate and discourse is needed by all interested parties regardless of their position or standing, and not only limited to just those with affiliations or connections in closed and private meetings.
No3: Arguments from an authority carry little weight.
Authorities have made mistakes in the past, and they will do so again in the future. There are NO authorities; at most, there are experts, but this still does not make them immune from questioning or challenging.
No4: If there’s something to be explained, think of ALL the different ways in which it could be explained. Think of tests you could do that might systematically DISPROVE the alternatives. What survives among the “multiple hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than the first idea that caught your fancy.
No5: Do not to get overly ATTACHED to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with ALL the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for REJECTING it. If you don’t, others will.
No6: Quantify it.
If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to MANY explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in qualitative issues, but finding them is more challenging.
No7: Every link in the chain must work (including the premise)
If there is a chain of event or procedures that have to occur to arrive at a result they must all be reproducible, not just most of them. Even if one part of a chain can not be repeated then the result can not be trusted.
No8: Occam’s Razor always applies.
When faced with two hypotheses that explain the data/outcome equally well the SIMPLER one is usually always more correct.
No9: Is the hypothesis FALSIFIABLE?
Ideas and theories that are untestable are not worth much. Others must be given the chance to try and duplicate your experiments to see if they get the same result."
Make a deal United Health! UEEC still maintains a right to sell shares at any time per the White Lion agreement among many private placement investors! NOW who is buying today! HMMMMMMM? MANY!!
LOAD THE BOAT FOLKS!
$5-$10++
Wasn't there some commentary that UEEC's PMA application would receive expedited processing thru the Estar program?
If so that would be a blessing versus the 180 day window. And we need an acceptable application.
Manipulative con men buying above the ask LMAO
UEEC
United Health Products, Inc.
Common Stock
0.2099
0.0089
4.43%
0.191 / 0.1952 (1 x 1)
Real-Time Best Bid & Ask: 11:45am 03/21/2024
Delayed (15 Min) Trade Data: 11:39am 03/21/2024
OPEN
0.1921
DAILY RANGE
0.18 - 0.224
VOLUME
646,314
DIVIDEND
N/A
PREV CLOSE
0.201
52WK RANGE
0.1156 - 0.45
AVERAGE VOL (30D)
126,674
NET DIVIDEND YIELD
N/A
TRADE DATA
DATE TIMESTAMP PRICE $ CHANGE VOLUME
03/21/2024 11:39:57 0.2099 -0.01 447
03/21/2024 11:36:30 0.2198 0.03 400
03/21/2024 11:35:40 0.19 0.00 7,008
03/21/2024 11:33:40 0.19 -0.01 4,992
03/21/2024 11:30:04 0.20 0.01 7,500
03/21/2024 11:23:57 0.19 0.00 10,008
03/21/2024 11:23:52 0.19 0.00 1,950
03/21/2024 11:18:55 0.19 0.00 5,000
03/21/2024 10:46:36 0.19 0.00 30,000
03/21/2024 10:46:36 0.19 0.00 200
BUY BUY SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONDALE
Funny stuff; made my final purchases for the day; and 3 1 share pick ups were made at the teens.
Someone trying to manipulate. Paying a commission to sell 1 share?
Replace CtQ with eSTAR and get the recent bullshit.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12414685&guid=4td-kaJ6H_M4B3h#UEEC_EX991_HTM
ROTFLMAO at the fools believing this bullshit from the United Ponzi Scheme,..and the suckers buying into the Gravy Train.
LETS!!!! HOPE!! for no F!!! UPS!!!
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |