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.
Modifying the CR article and posting it is "fake news".
Posting the complete articel with link to the original source would be 100% transparent.
These repeated posted mostly false claims have been addressed by sweetlou in great detail, but the only item ever corrected is the Las Vegas office size.
Seems that only you can draw this conclusion from the FDA letter.
I wonder why?
The FDA wording you present does not support your claim of scam and fraud, but it does say that Sucanon is a drug.
You are incorrect. How about providing a link and point to the actual FDA wording to support your false claim? I'm not holding my breath.
Sucanon is a drug. I'll walk the deniers through it.
1) Here is the link to the FDA letter.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2014-S-0023-0011
2) After "view attachment" click on the red pdf.
3) There are 4 pages to the pdf file.
4) Scroll to the third page of the pdf, third paragraph , second sentence and read the following:
Moreover, the product to which you refer in your submission appears to be a drug under the Act
and thus subject to the regulatory requirements of drugs.
Well there you go! FDA says its a drug. This is not "fake news".
The FDA denied the application because Sucanon is a drug.
The FDA denied the application because Sucanon is a drug.
The FDA denied the application because Sucanon is a drug.
All 3 statements are undeniable.
I could address each point same as Stockmaster's earlier post one by one, but this would be repititious as Stockmaster did an excelent job.
Anyone who hides from the facts to burry his head in the sand exposes his posterior and does so at his own risk.
Again I repeat, The FDA denied the application because Sucanon is a drug.
This is a matter of fact. There is nothing in the gray area here and nothing to debate.
3 years means nothing
$147 means nothing
I'll be more than happy to talk about China once you acknowledge that Sucanon is a drug per the FDA.
These 'so-called' facts are mosly not facts at all and have recently been adressed by sweetlou in great detail.
If you read my previous post you would see that you are incorrect.
As for myself, speaking for myself only, I would never post false or misleading information especially after it has been proven to be false or misleading, and I again, speaking for myself only would never be vindictive in any way at the expense of factual information.
The FDA denied the application because Sucanon is a drug.
Just as some men cannot bring themselves to tell a woman "I love you", other men cannot say "because Sucanon is a drug".
Absolutely fabulous post, sweetou! A very detailed and thorough response. I hope everyone reads it from start to finish as I just did.
you make false claims and then you fail to back them up.
Sucanon is a drug per the FDA letter and this is undeniable.
Not so! You say "FDA denied this scam's application", but you don't state the proper reason. The application was not denied because of a scam, but because Sucanon is a drug.
You cannot deny this truth.
Well, everyone read it in the previous post. Jayyy says the FDA letter where they say Sucanon is a drug is "fake news".
So if the FDa puts out "fake news" then the FDA must be fake too?
The FDA says Sucanon is a drug. Are you saying this is "fake news"?
Nope, nope, nope......no scam here, just an old fashioned witch hunt.
If you remove a sentence from a Consumer Reports article (post #4477) that changes it meaning and intent totally, then it is not verbatim.
As for your facts, these have been addressed before and each has been either debunked, clarified, corrected or otherwise addressed.
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.
Clinical trial results due any time.
Stockmaster, nice post. The witch hunt goes on and on but no witches are to be found. As for the real witches maybe the hunter should just look in the mirror and he will see the witch that modified post #4177 to falsely link Roth and Sucanon to a Consumer Reports article.
For the full article here is the link:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/diabetes-treatment-alternatives/index.htm
Anyone will be able to compare post #4177 with the article and the truth will be obvious.
I can't wait for the results from the SEC. Remember that you will need more evidence and backup links and facts to support your claims. Opinions alone will mean nothing.
Please remember to tell the SEC that the FDA is a fake too, because you say Sucanon is not a drug but the FDA says it is a drug. Please remind the SEC that you know more than the FDA and more than the generals.
This will be very interesting indeed! Please keep us all posteed on your progress.
I see said the blind man! So instead of spending all your time here why not report Roth to the SEC?
I see. So YOU are calling it a scam, but the FDA is not. Sounds like you know more than the FDA and probably the generals too.
Nope, nope, nope......wrong again, 100% wrong.
I believe everyone should always be totally objective and truthful and not have any other agenda.
To say "The FDA denied this scam" is not the truth. To say the FDA called Sucanon and/or Roth a scam or fraud is not the truth either.
Everyone who actually reads the FDA letter will realize this.
You say "hows this". Well, its nothing you haven't falsely claimed already.
The truth is the FDA denied the application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug. This is very clear for anyone who takes a few minutes to read the FDA letter objectively.
The FDA never said Roth or Sucanon was a fraud or a scam or a sham, but instead invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug. Certainly the FDA would not suggest this if it was a scam or a fraud.
Not quite....just saying the word FACT over and over is meaningless. As Clara Peller would say "Where's the Beef?"
Again, repeating falsehoods over and over will not convert them to facts.
The FDA never used the word "scam" in their letter, but you repeat over and over "FDA denied this scam's application". This is unfair to everyone, especially new readers who may be coming up to speed and are trying to sort out fact from fiction.
Please be courteous to any new board readers. A little lighter on the fiction please!
The FDA did not use the word "sham" or "scam". You conclude its a scam, so please, enlighten everyone as to how you arrived at this conclusion? Details please!
Repeating falsehoods over and over will not convert them to facts.
The FDA never used the word "scam" in their letter, but you repeat over and over "FDA denied this scam's application". This is unfair to everyone, especially new readers who may be coming up to speed and are trying to sort out fact from fiction.
Please be courteous to any new board readers. A little lighter on the fiction please!
Highlighting the word "fact" will not turn a false statement or opinion into a fact.
Please reread sweetou's previous post that addresses each of your claims in detail.
You claim "FDA DENIAL", but this soundbite does not even begin to tell the truth. I have presented the whole truth many times saying the FDA denial was because it is a drug along with a detailed explanation.
As for everything else in your claim, sweetlou addresses it all point by point in his post #8402.
It is inconceivable to me how you can claim Sucanon is not a drug. Surely anyone would easily come to this conclusion after reading the FDA letter.
A very thorough and detailed response has been posted by sweetou (post #8388). Anyone who actually reads it will have to agree with it because it is all based on verifyable fact.
Just saying words like "banned", "denied" and "scam" alone mean nothing. If there are any issues with sweetlou's post then please be very specific in your arguements.
Again, I think only one person on this board that does not accept that Sucanon is a drug per the FDA.
Well, the fact that the application was rejected BECAUSE it is a drug is certainly newsworthy!
Roth just reported the FDA determination. No BS and nothing phony.
After clinical trial results are released maybe Sucanon and Roth will finally accomplish some significant sales in Canada and India.
Anyways, wishing you and all Roth board readers and shareholders a Happy New Year!
It would be helpful to all if you provided a link as to where exactly the quote came from, but yes, I believe that was the plan until the FDA denied the application. Once the application was denied Roth of course could not sell Sucanon in the US and they never did sell in the US.
There is nothing fraudulent here....nothing.
Actually, it was a great event! Denied BECAUSE it is a drug.
There was nothng phony about the press release no matter how you try to spin it.
You claim "phony press release", but Roth only reported on the results of the FDA letter. If you compare the letter to the press release you will not see any conflicts - the letter and the press release agree, so how can you claim its phony?
Not at all. Roth did not know if the application for over-the-counter would be approved or not. If approved then they could have sold in the US immediately, but since the FDA determied it was a drug the application was denied BECAUSE it is a drug.
I hope this clears things up. Frankly, I think you are the only one that does not seem to understand the FDA letter.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the only application submitted was for over-the-counter sales and this was not approved (denied if you prefer that word) because Sucanon is a drug. The FDA says so in their letter.
The FDA invited (recommend, suggested, or other word if you prefer) for filing an application for approval as a drug.
Roth did not file this application because approval as a drug would require lots of testing and money, so Roth made a business decision to not go for FDA approval as a drug (ie for US sales).
Instead, Roth focuses on sales in Mexico and Canada where there is approval by these countries, and hopefull soon India.
So, in summary, you tell half the story - yes, the only application to the FDA was denied and there is no other application, but for the missing half of the story please reread the information above.
Please be thorough in your posts for the benefit of all readers.
Thanks in advance!