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.
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.
Yes, yes, yes......of course!.....lmao
You keep posting this over and over, but here is the reason investers own Roth:
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
Stockmaster, you are right on the money! This is why investors own Roth - not for current sales, but for the huge potential.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
Not disastrous financials at all. Sales are running more or less as then have been for years.
Surprised that you were not the first to post about the financials, as you were beaten to the punch by sweetlou. Seems that Barry Hall is still employed by Roth in spite of your recent posts that he was no longer with the company.
The Stop on OTC should come down soon too as the financials are now reported.
Read the warning very carefully. I am not buying or selling nor do I possess any nonpublic material information, but my comment should be considered as opinion in this case.
Think about it. Study has been over for about 8 months and no report. There surely is some time to review, modify, append, etc before the report is issued which might account for a month or so, but after 8 months one can only assume that there was some sticking point(s) which I also assume have been or are being resolved.
Yes, I mean that study. It was started in June and ran for 12 weeks ending in September 2016.
The fact is the study is very real. The results were analyzed and scrutinized extensively for several reasons, both planned and unplanned, but all hurdles have been overcome. Published results are due very soon.
This is a very important major study comparing Sucanon head-to-head with Metformin by a highly respected hospital. If the results are anywhere close to what is indicated by the following information, Sucanon will be a blockbuster drug.
================================================================================================================
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
Stockmaster, you are 100% correct. We know that the clinical trials exist as per the press release. This is public knowledge.
For Jayyy to say the ABC hospital wants nothing to do with Roth/sucanon is just silly.
If you are questioning the validity of the Sucanon numbers, consider that the Mexican hospital and Roth both invested substantial money and time to run the clinical trials.
Surely the hospital would not bother to go to this time and expense if they did not believe it was good. Think about it.
Stockmaster, a little quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
No Jayyy, not banned by the FDA. Roth has decided not to pursue FDA approval, so the 3 years means nothing, as the company has decided to market in other countries where they are presently approved (Mexico and Canada) and hopefully soon in India.
Again, your post does not represent reality. I post the real information over and and over, but yet you continue to post the inaccurate and incomplete information. The real investers know this.
Simply not true. The product has never been banned. Please read my recent post where I provide the detail reference the 3 years and the reason for no other FDA application.
You put the word 'not' in the wrong place.
Corrected sentence is:
OTC is an exchange. ROTH is not a fraudulent scheme
The announcement of the FDA letter was 100% truthful. There is no fraud. If you can, please specify exactly what words in the press release are misleading.
We still all await to see the SEC and FINRA letters you supposedly wrote identifying scam or fraudulent activity.
No Jayyy, not banned by the FDA. Roth has decided not to pursue FDA approval, so the 3 years means nothing, as the company has decided to market in other countries where they are presently approved (Mexico and Canada) and hopefully soon in India.
Again, your post does not represent reality. I post the real information over and and over, but yet you continue to post the inaccurate and incomplete information. The real investers know this.
Nobody is hiding from Compliance. Getting approval as a drug is 100% optional. The word 'compliance' should not be confused with a court order or anything like that. The word here refers to getting a drug approved, to be in compliance as an approved drug for sale in the USA.
Again, the FDA never used the word 'denied'. And as has been discussed many times before, contacting the Compliance group at the FDA is at the option of Roth if they wished to pursue approval as a drug and not a requirement. Roth will surely do this when there is money in the bank, but for now they are focusing on selling in countries where they are already approved.
How about the letters sent to SEC and FINRA? Can you post them here so everyone can read them?
Only one source says its not a drug, the same source generating all the verifyably false claims, misinformation, incomplete information, misleading information, and modified Consumer Reports articles that falsely inplicate Roth.
I find it interesting that 99% of the attacks are from from 1% this single source. This tells me who I should believe.
The FDA did not ban Sucanon nor did they call it a scam - these are your words with no supporting evidence.
The FDA did however invite Roth to apply for approval as a drug. This does not sound like 'ban' or 'scam' to me.
We went all through this before. The Stop and the other warnings are a singular event that happened simultaneously, but you make it seem like separate events.
As soon as the finalcial report is file the Stop will be removed.
Correction: The FDA called Sucanon a drug, not a fraud.
Stockmaster, you nailed it perfectly! Sucanon is expected to perform very well against Metformin. Sucanon could very well be a blockbuster drug.
No Jayyy, they are late, but not because of the reasons you claim.
If in fact you did report to SEC and FINRA, we all would like you to post here the body of your letter(s).
If you didn't provide any backup to your claims the letters will go straight into the circular files. Also, if the letters are anonymous or with a false name without return address, etc they will not be taken seriously either.
sweetlou, looks like 5 months was rounded up to 1-1/2 years.
Remember too there was a post saying that Mexico sales declined 90% which was rounded up too, but the data was cherry picked when another year the sales were up over 200%
The Consumer Reports article was modified to falsely implicate Roth.
And who can forget the false claims that Sucanon contains no active ingredients and does not work?
And recently there was the claim that Barry Hall is no longer with the company. Yes, Hall is still with Roth.
These are just a few that come to mind.
Sorry, but I don't do witch hunts.
Posting things like "maybe he 'informed' to protect himself" this is just conjecture - the stuff of conspiracy theories.
Posting "but I (it?) was pointing out that he has a history of being an officer of shady companies", so who pointed this out? What is the source? Mike Irvings's work history is a simple matter or record, who he worked for and when, so now when you use the word "shady" what exactly are you talking about?
Everything posted just smells of conspiracy theories.
Sorry, but there is nothing of substance here.
In the past I have worked directly for indivduals who have done criminal things, but does that make me a criminal? It does not. What you are doing here is declaring people guilty just because they may have worked for or had a business relationship with someone who may have been a criminal.
This is classic "Guilt By Association" and it is unfair to convict people in this manner. This is the job of the courts and legal system. If Mike Irving is such a bad guy, then why isn't he in jail? Why was Mike never in jail or fined for any reason? Why were charges never brough up against him either? The answer is because there is no justification, just conspiracy theories.
You must also know that making false claims against an individual here can come back to haunt you and be used against you. Please be advised. Posts here are a matter of record.
When someone posts about stuff 15 years old and provides no links it smells of conspiracy theories.
A grain of truth - the rest of your post is 100% incorrect.
The FDA didn't ban anything. You have to read the letter again.
Finally!....thank you for acknowledging that "The STOP and WARNING are tied neatly together" and not separate events.
Hope springs eternal.
Repeated attempts to make the Stop and Warning appear as two separate events is disengenuous at best.
You posted about a Stop, then weeks later bring up the Warning as though it is a new event (it is not). The effect of this maneuver is to sow additional doubt.
Please be transparent.
Thanks in advance!
EVERY Stop has the same Insider Trading Warning.
Every Stop also has the same Warning.
You didn't point out the Warning when you first pointed out the Stop some weeks ago, but then today you post about the Warning as though it is something new.
Surely all the readers are aware of this. I challenge you to find a Stop on OTC Markets that does not include the Warning.
Still more misdirection. You make it seem as though the Warning is new (it is not). Every OTC Markets stock with a Stop also has the standard boilerplate Warning.
Nice try, no dice, but keep trying.
But you said there was a stop on trading. If you didn't really mean this, then it was misleading.
I noticed shares traded yesterday and today, so trading has not been stopped in spite of your false claims.
As soon as some shares are traded you will be proven wrong.
Again, you present things in a unclear manner.
STOP from OTC Markets means that investors should consider the fact that financial information has not been filed. This does not mean trading has been stopped. Trading has not been stopped.
Please be clear for the benefit of all readers.
Thanks in advance!
Fair enough! When the STOP is removed will you retract your false claims as I outlined in post #9039, namely that Sucanon does not work, Sucanon does not have any active ingredients, that Barry Hall is not longer with the company".
Deal??