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 furthermore, Sucanon is not an "FDA DENIED product". It just isn't approved yet and there is a difference and real investors understand the difference.
You say "outrageous"?.....but this is exactly what the Mexico clinical trials did!!.....compared Sucanon vs Metformin.
Trials are completed. Stay tuned for published results.
Yes, yes....you will asked "where are the results?".....everyone is unhapy with the long delay in releasing by the hospital, but it will happen.
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.
Yes, results are way overdue from the Mexican hospital, but they will come.
You keep repeating incorrectly "The FDA denied this scam and this fraud", but you know this not true.
Whereas sweetlou detailed evidence that Sucanon works (his last 3 posts for example) you post verifyably incorrect soundbites. This reminds me of DJT who keeps saying he won the popular vote.
You seem to relish presenting everything in the worst possible light and then rounding up to make it seem even worse (ie the 83.5% sales decline you report incorretly as 90% and its not even for the latest year), but I presented the last 4 fiscal years to show the complete picture.
Where your 'cherry picked' data might mislead some to think that the company is going bankrupt, the complete sales data says nothing could be further from the truth.
You should always present the complete story for the benefit of everyone. Thanks in advance!!
You say "There are many who KNOW that the FDA denied this scam".
Many?..really?....who else besides you?
You say “So if sales goes down to $1 and up to to $3---you would say it went up 300%-even though the decline is 90%. Laughable but good try--and this scam has 147 bucks in the bank”.
Not quite. From sales of $1 to sales of $3, I would say that sales went up 200% (not 300%). This is the way percentage increases work. Everyone should know this.
To be totally transparent, I present the past 4 fiscal years of sales from OTC Markets. I have computed the percent sales increases (+) and decreases (-) for each fiscal year. The percentages are of course based on the change from the previous year.
Period Ending………… Total Revenue………………… % Sales Change
Jun 30, 2013…………………154k………………………………… N/A
Jun 30, 2014…………………529k…………………………… + 243%
Jun 30, 2015…………………87k……………………………… – 83%
Jun 30, 2016…………………263k…………………………… + 202%
You keep posting "Sales for Mexico are down almost 90%", but you know this is not true, even after I repeatedly clarify that this is supposedly for June 2014 to June 2015 when sales were down 83.5%, but in the last fiscal year June 2015 to June 2016 sales are up 200%.
This is easy. No complicated math. The info is on OTC Markets and anyone can verify this. So, after this continued reposting of incorrect information, why should any weight be given to the other false claims in the post??
Very interesting!
First, you question that the clinical trials in Mexico actually happened, then you ask where the money came from to finance the clinical trials, and now you quesion the ethics of the doctor running the trials.
If there is no clinical trial as you claim, then why would you ask where the money came from as none would be required?
If there where no clinical trials, then why would you say that the doctor conducting the trials will be taken to task for his participation?
Your latest posts seem to suggest that you accept the existence of the clinical trials - that they actually happened.
Hey, Merry Christmas!!
The doctor running the clinical trials is highly respected and there is nothing phony about the press release, and in fact, the trials are completed.
Results are overdue, but not months overdue.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and may 2017 be a rewarding year for all Roth investors.
You are incorrect. They applied for over-the-counter sales, but because the FDA determined Sucanon to be a drug, the application was denied.
The press release stated the facts and there is nothing phony about the press release. I can't make it any clearer.
The big news all the real investors are waiting for is the results of the clinical trials in Mexico. As I said before, the trails were completed in early September and the doctors conducting the study turned over their report to the hospital about the end of October, possible in the first few days of November, for final review. Since that time it has been with the hospital. This is where we are. It has been a long time in coming, but it will come.
Merry Christmas!
To answer your question, when Roth applied to the FDA for over-the-counter sales they thought the FDA would not classify Sucanon as a drug and would approve it for US sales, but the FDA said Sucanon was in fact a drug, and as a drug it would have to undergo testing for approval as a drug.
So, the FDA letter was a "good news / bad news" kind of thing. Bad news that the over-the-counter application was not approved, but good news that they consider it a drug.
Roth did intend to sell in the US as a non-drug - this is why they applied. Hopefully this is now clear to everyone who wasn't already clear.
Of course there is no aproval document from the FDA. Everyone knows that.
Roth is not trying to sell in the US as drug approval is very expensive and time consuming, so as everyone knows, they are focusing on Canada, Mexico and India.
And as everyone knows, Sucanon is approved in Mexico and Canada and hopefully soon in India.
Nope, Nope, Nope.......not "period".....you really need to add "because it is a drug" before the period.
A few comments:
1) To say "FDA DENIAL" with no additional info means nothing. Adding "of the over-the-counter application" would carry some real meaning. Further, adding "and the FDA invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug" would tell the complete story.
2) You say "and the disastrous financials". The word "disastrous" is relative. The stock price relects the current financial position. When sales increase the financials will be much better as will the stock price.
3) You claim "phony press releases". The 4 press releases you provide links to are very old, at the time they were accurate, and I would ask if you called the company to discuss all or any of them? To claim they are phony is just your opinion and there is no evidence.
Your post...a real knee-slapper for sure. I am laughing so hard tears are running into my keyboard.
Exactly Stockmaster15. It is especially hard to understand that every time the misinformation is proven to be wrong, it just gets repeated verbatim with no clarification or justifications.
You claim "Fact is FDA denied this scam" and this false information continues to be repeated over and over, even after it is pointed out.
There is nothing factual about your post. Absolutely nothing!
Facts:
1) FDA denied an application for over-the-counter sales because it is a drug. The FDA invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug.
2) The FDA never said it was a scam, not the product, not the company.
3) There is no requirement by the FDA for Roth to submit another application, which would be for approval as a drug. This would be a very expensive endeavor for Roth and as such Roth has decided to sell in other countries where it is approved such as Mexico and Canada, and soon to be announced for India.
You claim "Fact is FDA denied this scam".
There is nothing factual about your post. Absolutely nothing!
Facts:
1) FDA denied an application for over-the-counter sales because it is a drug. The FDA invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug.
2) The FDA never said it was a scam, not the product, not the company.
Agreed. The FDA says Sucanon is a drug and this is clear in the letter. Anyone that says otherwise is incorrect.
Adding the word 'fact' does not make anything clearer, but providing a link might add validity to your claims, but since there are no links then validity is highly suspect if not outright wrong or misleading.
Example:
You say "Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% --FACT".
This has been pointed out several times already, but the 90% decline is actually 83.5% decline from June 2014 to June 2015, but in the next fiscal year from june 2015 to june 2016 the sales rose 200%.
Here is the complete set of data from OTC Markets:
Fiscal year ending.......Total Revenue
Jun 30, 2013.........................154 k
Jun 30, 2014.........................529 k
Jun 30, 2015..........................87 k
Jun 30, 2016.........................263 k
If you had inquired to ask why the 87 k is out of line, then you would know that there was a cash flow problem and Roth was not able to fill orders. Now since the HSBC bank financing arrangement, this problem has gone away.
Posting the 90% sales decline is certainly misleading. This is undeniable.
When readers digest this and see how misleading your 90% sales decline statement is, then surely the credibility of the rest of your post comes into question.
I agree Stockmaster15. It is very easy to see who deals in fact and who deals in fiction.
You say "Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% --FACT".
This has been pointed out several times already, but the 90% decline is actually 83.5% decline from June 2014 to June 2015, but in the next fiscal year from june 2015 to june 2016 the sales rose 200%.
Here is the complete set of data from OTC Markets:
Fiscal year ending.......Total Revenue
Jun 30, 2013.........................154 k
Jun 30, 2014.........................529 k
Jun 30, 2015..........................87 k
Jun 30, 2016.........................263 k
If you had inquired to ask why the 87 k is out of line, then you would know that there was a cash flow problem and Roth was not able to fill orders. Now since the HSBC bank financing arrangement, this problem has gone away.
Posting the 90% sales decline is certainly misleading. This is undeniable.
When readers digest this and see how misleading your 90% sales decline statement is, then surely the credibility of the rest of your post comes into question.
I am not a doctor either, but I am a retired Mechanical Engineer, and we deal in facts and logic. Sometimes friction, but never fiction.
I am not a doctor either, but I am a retired Mechanical Engineer, and we deal in facts and logic.
Why is the 90% sales decline continually repeated even after it is exposed as being incorrect and misleading? Latest fiscal year sales are up 200% and this is undeniable.
I have addressed the claimed false facts with the truthful real facts:
The FDA DENIED this scam its application --TRUTH...application for over the counter sales denied because is is a drug
Roth has 147 bucks in the bank -- TRUTH....true, but this is irrelevant
Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% --TRUTH....sales are up 200% in last fiscal year
Losses are approaching $ 3 million --TRUTH....true, this is correct
There are NO sales in Canada --TRUTH....because there is no distributor in Canada set up yet
There are no LABS --TRUTH....the labs, pilling and packaging, are subcontracted out
There is no PHARMA --TRUTH....if a company makes and sells pharmaceutical as Roth does, then this is considered pharma
There is no one named ROTH --TRUTH....true, but irrelevant
This fraud operates out of 120 sq m temp off scam mill in Las Vegas --TRUTH....120 sq m is true, but irrelevant. Scam mill is not true.
Just to share some information about Type 2 diabetes drug sales, here is a very useful link:
http://www.specialtypharma.com/Main/Back-Issues/MARKET-BRIEF-The-Market-for-Type-2-Diabetes-Therap-641.aspx
MARKET BRIEF - The Market for Type 2 Diabetes Therapeutics - Key Findings From a Recent Analysis of Global Drug Development Efforts | Articles | drug development and delivery back issues | Drug Development & Delivery
In particular, see Figure 1 for US sales.
You state that "Comparing this FDA denied scam to an approved drug is ridiculous".
You scoff at comparing Sucanon to Metformin, but the reality is the Clinical Trials just completed in Mexico did exactly that. The performance of Sucanon is being compared to Metformin.
The status of the testing is as follows:
- 12 weeks clinical test started about 6/7/16
- Test completed about 9/7/16
- Test doctors submit report to the hospital for final review about 10/30/16
- Report to be released by hospital any time now. Actually it is overdue.
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.
Remember, Metformin sales in the US is in the ballpark of $6 billion per year.
You say "Your corrections are either opinions or misleading statements". I don't believe anything I said was an opinion or misleading, but if you point out exactly what you think is an opinion or misleading, I would be very happy to clarify.
Correction: In the very last line, I agreed with the 120 sq m temp office size, but did not mean to agree with the phrase "scam mill".
I have addressed the claimed false facts with the truthful real facts in red bold.
The FDA DENIED this scam its application --TRUTH...application for over the counter sales denied because is is a drug
Roth has 147 bucks in the bank -- TRUTH....true, but this is irrelevant
Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% --TRUTH....sales are up 200% in last fiscal year
Losses are approaching $ 3 million --TRUTH....true, this is correct
There are NO sales in Canada --TRUTH....because there is no distributor in Canada set up yet
There are no LABS --TRUTH....the labs, pilling and packaging, are subcontracted out
There is no PHARMA --TRUTH....if a company makes and sells pharmaceutical as Roth does, then this is considered pharma
There is no one named ROTH --TRUTH....true, but irrelevant
This fraud operates out of 120 sq m temp off scam mill in Las Vegas --TRUTH....true, but irrelevant
You state that "Comparing this FDA denied scam to an approved drug is ridiculous".
You scoff at comparing Sucanon to Metformin, but the reality is the Clinical Trials just completed in Mexico did exactly that. The performance of Sucanon is being compared to Metformin.
The status of the testing is as follows:
- 12 weeks clinical test started about 6/7/16
- Test completed about 9/7/16
- Test doctors submit report to the hospital for final review about 10/30/16
- Report to be released by hospital any time now. Actually it is overdue.
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.
You state in the 3rd line "Sales for Mexico are down almost 90%", but this is just not correct. As pointed out in a previous post, sales were down 83.5% (not 90%) from June 2014 to June 2015, but from June 2015 to June 2016 sales are up 200%. This is an example of "cherry picking" data to paint a misleading picture.
You state in the first line "The FDA DENIED this scam its application", but the truth is the FDA denied the application for over-the-counter sales......BECAUSE it is a drug.
Concerning making drugs from plants in a recent post, Metformin, a very popular diabetes drug with sales of about $6 billion in the US alone, is made with a chemical very similar to the French Lilac plant.
The article states "Metformin is a chemical kin to the French lilac plant, which was noted in the early 1900’s to lower the blood sugar. However, French lilac, like phenformin, turned out to be too toxic for use in humans".
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The point is just because it is based on a plant doesn't mean it can't be very potent.
Stockmaster15, you are 100% correct. Unlike the misinformation, misleading statements and half-truths being presented without backup, everything you state is factual and provable.
Excellent post, Stockmaster15. This is the truth.
The same misleading statements continue to be posted, such as "FDA DENIED" but never is the complete story presented. Denied BECAUSE it is ia drug.
Truths:
1) Sucanon Works
2) Approved in Canada
3) Approved in Mexico
4) FDA says its a Drug
5) Roth is in good standing with the FDA
False Claims:
1) Denied by FDA (Clarification: Application for over the counter was denied BECAUSE it is a drug)
2) Contains no active ingredients (Clarification: Sucanon does contain active ingredients)
3) Consumer Reports article applies to Sucanon per post #4477
(Clarification: Post was modified to delete a key sentence identifying offending companies and products. Roth and Sucanon are not listed)
4) Sales in Mexico are down 90% per post #7870
(Clarification: Sales were down 83.5% from June 2014 to June 2015, but are up 200% in past fiscal year)
5) Barry Hall's office is 120 sq ft.
(Clarification: Actual size is 120 sq meters (about 1,100 sq ft)
Even Jennifer Lopez can't save this turkey.
You state "again misdirection and attacking posters for calling out the scam's fraudulent lies".
The posters are not being attacked, but just the posts.
Ref #8162:
Sweetlou's excellent post calling out the "fake" posts and conspiracy theories.
Ref #8163:
The 'good standing' comment has been attributed to Roth, but it is I who first used it. I stand by my statement.
Soon another RS.....will it be 10:1 or 100:1?
Torman, excellent post! This is exactly the truth about Roth and Sucanon.
Ref post #8139:
Jayyy asks "Who is paying for "so called BS clinical trials that never happened". Well, one can't have it both way. If it never happened then there is no need to pay for it. The fact is the trials are completed, the report has been submitted to the hospital where it is getting a final review.