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.
Of course a late filing and yield sign are not good news, but I did explain the reason for the late filing that Barry Hall is out of the country on business. Roth has filed late before but always did file. Again, don't go off the deep end.
Just as sometimes people file their tax returns late does not mean they are criminials and destined for jail or bankruptcy. They are just late.
As for all the OTC Markets scary language, this is their standard "boiler plate" language and this does not apply to Roth.
Again, ignore Chicken Little as the sky is not falling.
No need to over-react to the yield sign. Roth has been late filing before and although this is not a good thing, it means nothing if the filing is a little late.
Barry Hall is out of the country on business and this is the reason for the late filing, so to say "financial reporting problems, in economic distress, or bankruptcy" and "unwilling to provide disclosure to Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines" has no basis.
This is all just wishful thinking for some.
If I had tons of negative feelings I would not own that stock.
This would be illogical.
Nobody would invest in what they do not believe in.
Unless....unless underneath it all they really do believe.
You are driving home the point never to risk money that you cannot afford to lose. Yes, the types of events you mention indeed are sad, but if every investor followed the rule "don't invest what you cannot afford to lose" there would be no problem.
Are you saying that ALL penny stock are scams? I think you are.
A very curious answer indeed! Owning stock is not a requirement to post on this board. You may 'stay involved' whether you own stock or not.
This begs the question as to why you bought stock in the first place? You must have had good reasons to buy, but now you have 50 reasons (in your mind) to sell, so why not just sell?
So why don't you just sell your shares?
Speaking for myself, if I had not a single positive thing to say about Roth or Sucanon, then surely I would not be a stockholder.
But of course I am a shareholder as I see lots of positive things in a company and product with enormous potential.
This would apply for any company. If I could not find anything good, then I would not be a shareholder.
The FDA letter was pretty clear. Sucanon is a drug. No other document is needed.
Now if there were another document then it would be a warning letter or a document that the FDA is taking action againt Roth, but as you say there is not other letter, so Roth is in good standing with the FDA.
You say so yourself that there is no other letter.
Posting jabber - really? Three posters all called the FDA and were told the same information, namely that Sucanon is a drug and Roth is in good standing with the FDA.
So, are you are implying that 3 posters never actually called the FDA?
A call to the FDA will confirm that you are wrong.
Yes, there is only one FDA document and it says that Sucanon is a drug.
Your arguement holds water about as well as a 60 mesh strainer. If the FDA had approved the FDA over-the-counter application, then Sucanon would not be classified as a drug. It can't be a drug and a non-drug at the same time!
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA and this does not depend on financials being audited vs unaudited.
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA and this does not depend on the size of the Barry Hall's office.
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA and this does not depend on the amount of money in the bank, $147 or $147 million.
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA and this does not depend on the amount of posts that claim otherwise.
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA and this does not depend on anything but the FDA determination.
So.....SUCANON IS A DRUG
Not sure why Stockmaster, but I do know that if you burry your head in the sand you behind is exposed.
Any person who chooses to believe Roth and Sucanon is a scam and fraud in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary does so at his own peril.
Why would any person spend so much time here and own stock in a company if they believe its a scam and a fraud and where that person has never said a single positive thing about it?
This would be like being married to a woman (or man) for 50 yers ever though that person despises every thing about her (or him). This makes no sense.
NOTE:
I am not speaking of any individual poster or group of posters, but just of a person in general.
Stockmaster, yes, you are correct! I should not waste my time as it is wasted on some posters.
I do not have official public information. I have results from a phone call. I cannot publish the name and number of that person per iHub rules just as you may publish the personanl information of anyone.
I use Mike Irving here as a point of contact to share the FDA contact information. You or anyone can get this freom Mike, but then you may not post it here. But go ahead if you insist and post it here.
I went above and beyond as 2 others board readers did the same and contacted the FDA and we all we told the same information. We do not need any official letter as we are all quite satisfied with what the FDA told us over the phone.
It is you who is not satisfied, so the burden is on you, not us, to get an official letter from the FDA that says otherwise.
If you have another way for me to provide the FDA contact information just let me knosw and i will provide it.
I did provide the name, phone number and extension of the FDA contact. I cannot post it here as it would violate iHub rules, but I did explain you could get it from Mike Irving.
If you do not want to call Mike Irving, then have a friend call and this would preserve your idenitty.
So please stop saying that I won't provide the contact information when In fact I have provided it.
Amazing!....let me review:
1) Three (3) people on this board actually called the FDA and got the same story, that Sucanon is a drug and Roth has never had any warning letters or actions taken against them.
2) Why would anyone refuse to call the FDA, but insists the 3 who did call are wrong?
3) The FDA letter continues to be misrepresented.
4) Why would anyone request a certified letter from the FDA from the 3 callers? I suppose if I called NASA and asked for a signed and certified letter stating that the world is round and not flat, do you think they would write one for me? I think they would be laughing too hard to write.
5) Facts don't seem to matter for everyone. I suppose "Alternative facts" are good enough.
I am trying to make it easy for you to contact the same FDA person that I talked to. I can't post it here as it violates iHub rules, so I gave it to Mike Irving with instructions to give it to anyone who calls him and asks for it.
Now, if you have a better way or me to get that information to you then tell me what it is. Perhaps you would prefer to post your email address here and I'll send it to you? Don't like that idea? Got another idea?
Now, again, you can just call the FDA yourself but it might take a bit longer to get the infrmation you want. I was just trying to help you.
I told you how to get the FDA person's name and why it can't be posted here. You can do your own DD.
I recommend the Nike System - Just Do It!
As I said, the name and phone are availale from Mike Irving.
I cannot post that information here per iHub rules.
Again, you try to falsely connect a general warning to Roth and Sucanon, but Sucanon was never sold or marketed in the US so these warning are not applicable. You cannot produce such an article that mentions specifically Roth or Sucanon.
I explained that the FDA person's name is with Mike Irving as I did not want to post it here, so all anyone needs to do is to call Mike and he will tell you the name and extension. I did this to comply with iHub rules.
That being said, it is not necessary to call Mike. Anyone can repeat what I did by calling the FDA at 1-888-463-6332 and asking for the Division of Drug Information.
I am very satisfied with what the FDA told me, so I do not need to get it in writing, but it seem that you are not satisfied with what I am telling you, so the burden is on you to call the FDA and get it straight from the horse's mouth, then you can post here what they tell you.
Stockmaster and I both got the same story from the FDA and if you called them you would also get the same story.
They will tell you that there is no scam, no fraud, that Sucanon is a drug, and that Roth is in good standing with the FDA. No warning noties have ever been written nor have any actions ever been taken by the FDA.
We both got it straight from the horse's mouth, the FDA, the Gold Standard.
We all await the results of your call to the FDA. Please call and do some DD for a change, and post what they tell you.
We have gotten the same story from the FDA. Hopefully this puts the false claim of scam and fraud to bed and also confirms that Sucanon is a drug.
Thanks for repeating what I did and now we have solid evidence that Roth and Sucanon are legit.
You say "There are no "warning letters" because the FDA DENIED this scam outright!!".
If your statement were true, then there would be a warning letter or some document that the FDA took action against Roth, but there is nothing on file at the FDA. Absolutely nothing.
The FDA letter that we have all been focusing on just denies the application for over-the-counter sales because Sucanon is a drug and this same letter invites Roth to apply for approval as a drug. Now, thinking logically, would the FDA invite an application for drug approval as a drug if it was a scam? Of course not!
Bottom line is the FDA says its a drug. The FDA never said it was a scam. There is nothing ever presented on this board to suggest Sucanon does not work or is a scam. Anything or anyone that says otherwise is "fake news" or propaganda.
Call the FDA yourself and report what they tell you. I can't wait to read it.
You continue to claim scam and that the FDA somehow caught them, and you continue to post a modified Consumer Reports article with a key sentence removed which identified the offending companies and products in an attempt to apply this article to Roth and Sucanon. This was originally done in post #4477.
On Monday I spoke with the FDA and the person I spoke with searched the data base on "warning letters" and nothing could be found. There has never been an FDA warning letter issued to Roth and there has never been an FDA action taken against Roth or Sucanon.
Anyone can repeat what I did by calling the FDA at 1-888-463-6332 and asking for the Division of Drug Information. I asked if there was anything negative about Roth or Sucanon and the individual I spoke with spent at least 10 minutes with me while searching. If anyone wants to talk with same person that I did, you may obtain this person’s name and extension from Mike Irving as I do want to publish it here. If you don’t want to call Mike Irving, this is fine too as all I did was to navigate the phone tree until I got to the right person. Calling Mike would be easier.
Anyone can also go to the FDA website at www.fda.gov and type "warning letters" into the search field at the upper right then review the listing for each year.
Bottom line is that the FDA has nothing negative on Roth or Sucanon.
Denied because it is a drug. There is no requirement to submit another application. The 3 years mean nothing. $147 means nothing.
Keep trying.
How about some details with links too?
You say "Whatever you think is ok (for you)", but for me, speaking only for myself, I would never post something that I knew or suspected was incorrect, false, misleading, or incomplete.
Now, I am not speaking of any posters, but just for myself.
Nice try, but no dice.
Roth/Sucanon wasn't mention in the Consumer Reports article because Roth/Sucanon was not an offending company/product.
If it was an offending product it would have been listed.
It's just that simple.
It is you who are not reading it correctly. The FDA warned 15 specific companies and products. Roth and Sucanon were not included in the list of 15.
Now if the list of 15 is removed then someone reading post #4477 might get the false impression that the article applies to Roth/Sucanon when clearly it does not. Certainly removal of the key sentence is misleading.
Transparency should always be of prime importance and to this end removing a sentence from the middle of the article is not transparent.
Concerning the Consumer Reports article, post #4477, modifies the article, generalizing it by removing the list of offending products (which does not include Sucanon).
It would be like taking an article about airbag recalls and removing the names of the car manufacturers and models being recalled, making it appear as though all cars with airbags are being recalled.
To leave out the list of offending companies is a complete misrepresentation of the article and distortion of the facts.
I am not attacking any person, just the post.
FACT: The Consumer Reorts article was modified to mislead.
Still looking for an explanation of the Consumer Reports article modification you posted originally in post #4477. Why would it be necessary to do this for a scam as there would be plenty of ammunition, but since its not a scam there was no ammunition other than spitballs.
Unaudited financials are not a crime or a scam and meet the requirements of OTC Markets pick category.
A low stock price or "in the tank" if you prefer is not a crime or a scam either.
As for all the so-called facts you list, most are false and everyone should read the recent post by sweetlou where he addresses each one of these. I would recommend taking sweetlou's comments and clarifications to each and address each one of his comments.
Also, all the press release linkss were addressed by sweetlou. Maybe read his comments and work from there?
If Roth/Sucanon was a real scam Consumer Reports articles would not have to be modified to make the case, but since there is no scam the only option left is to make "fake news".
Last I checked $147 in the bank is not a crime and many stocks have losses....again, not a crime. As for the supposed 'lies' everything posted is unsupported, and attempts to modify articles should be avoided by all.