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.
And so everyone is supposed to believe you when you cry fraud?
We read things such as Sucanon does not work, or sucanon does not have any active ingredients, or that Barry Hall is not longer with the company (all 100% verifyably false) just to name a few.
How is any reader supposed to believe your false claims especially without supporting evidence??
A the real fraudster claims that Barry Hall is no longer with Roth (untrue), that Sucanon has no active ingredients (untrue), that Sucanon does not work (untrue) and modifies a Consumer Reports article to falsely implicate Roth.
It makes perfect sense. You assumed (incorrectly) the reason for the late filing.
You state "Not true and IF co-conspirator Hall is there why is there a YIELD?"
You draw a false conclusion. The false conclusion is if Hall did not file the financial report thereby generationg a yield sign, then he must not be with the company.
There are many reasons why the report could be late. Here are some possibilities:
1) He is waiting on some information from Mexico
2) He was out of the country without access to needed documents
3) He was sick
4) The exchange is waiting for payment before posting
5) His computer was lost or stolen
6) There was a death in his family
Any of these could have occurred and Hall would still be the CFO.
Your conclusion, although possible, is only one of many possible scenarios.
Of course everyone realizes there is a yield sign. This is old news.
Still to be addressed are explanations for factually incorrect posts for things such as:
1) Barry Hall is no longer CEO of Roth...FALSE
2) Sucanion has no active ingredients....FALSE
3) Sucanon does not work.....................FALSE
This is just for starters.
There is no insults....its just basic math.
2 wrong and 1 right - 67% - a "D".
Working harder can inprove your grade.
1 and 3 are correct.
2 is incorrect.
67% grade is a "D"
Saying "LOL--the FDA DENIED this scam with $147 in the bank" is a lot like a soundbite from a political TV advertisement.
If you get into the details (ie peel back the onion) you will find there is a lot more to the story than in your 11 word innacurate post.
A few comments:
1) There is another message board for RENU. This one is for ROTH.
2) You say "Hardly a cure for Diabetes!". There is no cure for Type 2 diabetes. Sucanon and the other drugs on the market only control diabetes by reducing blood sugar levels. Every doctor worth his salt will recommend controlling diet and weight as well as exercise.
3) If you are going to own stock in a diabetes medication, I would strongly suggest you educate yourself about diabetes basics. This will facilitate posts that may not be so embarassing.
Nobody has been "stung" as you claim, and what exactly do you mean by "stung"?
In your letters to FINRA and the SEC, sure hope you didn't claim that Sucanon has no active ingredients and does not work. Maybe your complaint is that the stock price is lower than where you purchased, if in fact you do own shares. Good luck with that one.
I did not attack you. I'm just asking you to share what you sent to the SEC and FINRA with everyone.
Everyone should read my post #8939 and see for themselves that I have not attacked anyone.
Hall is late. That does not make him "non existent in his responsibilities".
In a previous post you said you sent letters to FINRA and the SEC. Can you tell everyone here what you sent them? This would be VERY interesting.
You stated that Barry Hall left the company. This is untrue and certainly not precise. This is just the latest in a long line of provably false claims.
You say "Marks. Stay away and avoid getting fleeced" yet you claim to be a stockholder. This would be called "self-fleecing".
Yes by golly! The office size was corrected.
Excellent series of posts, sweetlou! As usual, your posts are extremely well documented, detailed and thorough.
You state "false information is rarely corrected" but in the interest of complete accuracy, I would change the word "rarely" to "never".
Although you post some facts, you also post a lot of false information. most recent example is you said Barry Hall quit as CFO. This is not true.
If I said something false, unintentionally of course, then I would acknowledge my mistake.
You have posted many false claims over and over, yet even after they are exposed as false, you again post them over and over. This is undeniable.
Furthermore, all the items in your list have been thoroughly addressed previously. They are mostly in the same category of false or misleading at best.
You say "pretty funny". I don't see anything funny about posting knowingly false information.
You say "pretty funny?".
You have falsely claimed that Sucanon does not work and does not have active ingredient. No, posting false information is not funny.
You have falsely claimed that Barry Hall quit Roth. Again, posting false information is not funny.
100% False: Claims that Sucanon does not work and does not have active ingredient.
100% True: Sucanon works and has active ingredients. Hall is CFO.
Fact: Barry Hall is the CFO of Roth.
Post #8846 states that Hall quit Roth. This is 100% false. This is what is referred to as "Fake News".
From now on, I'll jsut refer to you as Pinocchio Jayyy.
I see, so I am supposed to believe "real facts" from a source that modifies a Consumer Reports article to distort its intent, a source that false claims Sucanon does not work and has no active ingredients, and from a source that falsely claims that CFO Barry Hall has quit the company??
Thanks, but no thanks!
100% False: Claims that Sucanon does not work and does not have active ingredient.
100% True: Sucanon works and has active ingredients. Hall is CFO.
Fact: Barry Hall is the CFO of Roth.
Post #8846 states that Hall quit Roth. This is 100% false. This is what is referred to as "Fake News".
I made an honest mistake. Sorry.
Lopez is CEO, Hall is CFO.
A few comments:
First, CFO of Roth is Luis Lopez, CEO is Barry Hall. Mike Irving is the IR guy and certainly not the leader of anything.
Second, the quote concerns RENU and there is a message board for that stock, but I see you have not provided a link or author of the statement, so it can be taken with a grain of salt at best.
Link Please!
The truth is that Barry Hall is the CFO for Roth.
How can Hall be negligent if he no longer works for Roth as you claim? People are allowed to quit their jobs, right?
You stated in post #8846 that Hall quit Roth. This is 100% false. This is what is referred to as "Fake News".
There is nothing to support this false claim.
Fact: Barry Hall is the CFO of Roth.
You said he quit. This is a false statement...ie untrue, a lie.
Anybody that posts Barry Hall has left the company without any evidence cannot be taken seriously. Barry Hall is still Roth CFO.
A false conclusion! A late filing does not mean Hall quit.
So if you show up late for work, everyone should assume you quit?
You stated the Hall left the company but yet offer no evidence or where you got this info. Where did you get this from?
You state "CFO hall has left this scam hence no filings". You say this as though it is factual, so it is only fair to ask for the source of your information. Can you tell everyone?
The fact is Barry Hall has not left Roth and has no intentions to do so. I put your post in the category of "fake news".
Your claim that Barry Hall has left is patently 100% false. Barry Hall is still CFO and has no intentions to leave.
Assuming that the CFO left because the filings are late is a false assumption. One should always check the facts before posting something that is just not true.
Yes, the truth always prevails. Anyone that has nothing good to say about Roth and Sucanon, yet claims to be a stockholder makes absolutely no sense at all, but when finding the perfect stock will refuse to buy it....lmao
The person loaning the money is not entitled to see the results, just as a bank who gives a person a car loan is not entitled to drive your car.
If it was a loan, which it may not have been, then Roth's only needs to repay the loan per the conditions of the loan.
You post is quite confusing. Exactly what am I admitting is not true??
Roth paid for the study and so its Roth's property. Surely the contractor (hospital) would not release results to anyone but Roth that paid for it.
Now, as from where they got the money and how they paid for it, just call and ask if you insist, but normal methods are cash, check, bank loan.
The results are coming and coming soon. As far as paying for the study, the fact is it was paid for and the study is completed.
As for the time delay, it has been a long time but patient investors will see the results very soon.
What a silly question to ask. Its Roth's study and Roth paid for the study and so the results will be released only to Roth, and then Roth will release the results.
If I called your doctor and asked to see you medical information, do you think they would tell me anything? Of course not!
I know that the trials were completed in September and that the hospital is reviewing it very closely through several doctors at the hospital who have done similar trials. My understanding is that the results could come any day, but should be within a couple more weeks.
The holdup is the hospital as aparently the reviewing doctors have many priorities and this is the only reason. Yes, its like watching paint dry and a long time in coming, but it will come.
You are misconstruing my post and the OTC. The OTC wording is a standard statment of possible reasons for the yield sign. This does not mean the entire statment applies to each company with a yield sign.
A little peeling back of the onion (ie Due Diligence) will reveal that the standard "boiler plate" OTC statement does not apply in this case.