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.
Post of the Day
Ref #8127:
Sweetlou is not attacking you or HopScotch2. He is just setting the record straight by correcting false information.
Ref #8126:
Concerning Barry Hall's office. Maybe size does mattter, but maybe not. A 120 sq meter office (1100 sq ft) is a monster office! Even a 120 sq ft office wold be a good size (about 11 ft x 11 ft) where most standard cubicles are 36 sq ft (6 ft x 6 ft).
Bottom line: If one insists on posting about cubicle size its 120 sq meters.
Ref post #8115:
I am not Roth. The phrase ‘good standing’ is not any official designation, but if you call the FDA and ask you will discover that Roth is in good standing with the FDA. No violation, no issues.
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)
New "Post of the Day"
Allow me to correct a few incorrect statements:
Ref posts #8088 and #8097:
You state "ROTH is misleading investors by saying it is in "Good Standing" with the FDA". Roth never made this statement, but I did. I am just a stockholder and have no other association with Roth. As I am a good citizen with no police record I am in 'good standing' in my community, but alas I have no certificate stating so. Similarly, Roth is in 'good standing' with the FDA as they have never received a warning letter from the FDA nor has any legal action ever been taken against Roth or any of its executives to my knowledge. I doubt that the FDA even issues certificates for 'good standing'. Seriously, 'good standing' is a default status for having a clean record.
Ref. posts #8089 and #8099:
You state "ROTH like several other SHELLS use his law firm address". Your statement implies that Roth is also a shell company, but this is not true. A shell company is a company in name only that does no actual business, but Roth is doing business in selling Sucanon. Roth is not a shell company.
As for responses to this post, you will all have to wait till tomorrow for my 'post of the day'.
Stockmaster15, you hit it right on the head! However, if the intended recepient didn't read it once then he won't read it 3 times.
Post of the Day:
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)
Post of the Day:
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)
Post of the Day:
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)
Down more han 75% since the last split. This turkey isn't going anywhere. Sell and play the slots at the Sands.
Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but as I said before if you have such a low opinion of Roth then you should not invest.
I also wonder why, if the company and product are so bad as you claim, that articles need to be modified (4477) and sales data needs to be misrepresented (7870)? If this company was so awful one would think these methods would be unnecessary to make the case.
So, now time for my opinion. The clinical trial results will be very good and we will be off to the races.
So far nobody has made any real money from this stock, except for perhaps a few savyy traders. The real investors and the company executives will make their money when the good news breaks, namely the results from the Mexico clinical trials, and significan sales start and the share price goes up accordingly.
If the clinical trial results are anything close to what previous testing showed, then India will approve and sales will start with Canagen as the distributor.
THIS is the reason people are invested in Roth - not for the $147 in the bank. Surely, this is a high-risk / high-reward stock and its not for everyone.
Everyone should do their own DD and invest accordingly.
All I can say is if you believe its all a scam then you should not invest. The real investers are quite optimistic about the outcome of the clinical trials.
Patience, patience young man!.....all in good time.
Any day now the results of the Clinical Trials recently completed in Mexico will be made public. This is what the real investors are focussed on.
You say "Try reading the facts", but the reality is you ignore the facts. If you burry your head in the sand your a** is exposed.
The FDA did not catch anyone doing anything wrong. You continue to say that the FDA 'challenged' Roth to go to Compliance, but this is just not true. The FDA 'invited' Roth to apply for approval as a drug. Applying for drug approval is optional (ie not a requirement).
These are the facts and they are undeniable. The proof?...just read the FDA letter.
Exactly!....not allowed in the USA because it is a drug. The FDA says so and you agree, and as you have said before, the FDA is the 'gold standard' so it is what it is.....a drug!
Whenever you say banned or denied you are reinforcing the fact that Sucanon is a drug.
Good job!
Whenever you say 'banned' or 'denied' you are saying it is a drug.
The FDA cannot ban or deny a product that is not a drug.
I am not promoting at all. I am just trying to see that untruthful information is corrected. So, when I corrected a few words in your post it appears that you are the real promoter!
I have never recommended that anyone buy or sell Roth. In fact I have said that this is a high-risk / high-reward stock and this is not for everyone. I you can't handle risk or volatility then do not become a shareholder.
You are living in an alternate universe. Below is your post with corrections in red.
This fantastic stock opportunity driven by Mike Irving through multiple lines in press releases is a classic example or a proprietary product to build unsexpected wealth is right on the mark. The $147 in the bank IS meaningless, but fundamentally the FDA DENIAL because it is a drug makes this a very attractive speculation.
Nope, Nope, Nope!.....denied, but not period. Denied BECAUSE IT IS A DRUG.
Inserting periods where they do not belong can be misleading, such as in the infamous #4477 post.
Denying that Sucanon is a drug is like denying the world is round.
You state "The scammers made claims in their BS press release--the FDA caught them--challenged them to go to COMPLIANCE which they have NOT done --".
This is a most twisted and contorted interpretation of the FDA letter, so here is the truth:
1) The press releases have nothing to do with the FDA letter.
2) The FDA did not 'catch' anyone.
3) There was no 'challenge' by the FDA to go to Compliance.
Additionally,
4) The FDA denied the appication for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug.
5) The FDA invited, suggest, recommended (or whatever similar word one wishes to use) for Roth to submit an application to FDA Compliance Department for approval AS A DRUG.
6) Submitting an application to Compliance is optional, not required. Roth opted not to submit an application for drug approval as this is very exensive so Roth decided to market in other countries where FDA approval is not required.
7) Roth is in 100% good standing with the FDA.
This is the complete truth. This may not fit with your worldview, but it is the truth.
If I, myself, could not realize that the FDA says its a drug then I would have zero credibility, but being well versed in the English language I can clearly read the "King's English" and it says that Sucanon is a drug. End of story.
Not banned at all, just a denied application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug. The FDA letter says so and this cannot be denied. Anyone skilled in the English language will read the FDA letter and agree that the FDA says its a drug.
Darling,.....Denied BECAUSE it is a drug.
Please say the whole truth.....Denied BECAUSE it is a drug.
Not stating the reason for the denied application is the same as lying. Personally, I would be embarrassed to post half-truths, lies, false information, misinformation and misleading information. I, myself, would expect to be shamed if I continued to repeat false claims after I was proven wrong.
You say "FDA DENIED this scam--".....not quite. The FDA denied the application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug. This is undeniable, yet you continue to post just half the story.
And No, the FDA never called Roth or Sucanon a 'scam'. I challenge you to find where the FDA used the word scam.
The FDA says its a drug. Canada approved. Mexico approved. Soon clinical trial results will be out and India will approve.
Best part will be that neigh-sayers will go away with their tails between their legs.
A silly analogy. A better one is like Babe Ruth being denied a spot on a T-ball team because is good enought to be on the NY Yankees.
Sucanon is a drug so get over it.
Excellent point Stockmaster!
If it banned it must be a drug.
I have never modified a published article (4477) with the intent to falsely incriminate a company or person, nor have I ever cherry picked data to paint an incorrect picture to mislead (7870).
I stand for truth as many board readers rely on my posts for reliable information. I am a moral person.
Yes Jayyy, it is true!....FDA says its a drug. Yes, the application for over-the-counter sales was not approved (denied if you prefer that word), but only because the FDA determined Sucanon is a drug.
So, why do you continue to tell just half the story? Telling half the story misleads board readers. I myself am interested in posting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please do the same.
You have posted these 4 links before. Exactly what are your questions concerning these 4 news releasers? I believe I recommended that you contact the company with your specific questions.
Perhaps you can ever post for everyone to see the responses you obtain. Have you called or emailed the company yet?
If this is true, then why would you need to post false and misleading information to make your case?
Why would you need to modify a Consumer Reports article (#4477) to mislead?
Why would you cherry pick old financial data (#7870) to mislead people to think Mexico sales are worse than they really are?
Perhaps you cannot make your case with facts alone? Could that be the reason?
The IR guy appears to be the focus of your posts, but the focus is supposed to be the company Roth and the product Sucanon.
As for myself, I would always post honets, correct and verifyable information in the interest of truth for the benefit of all board readers. If I have opinons, then I have always made clear what is opinion vs what is fact. I would never ever use any board posts as a vendetta to get back at a person who I feel has wronged me, whether true or not, as this forum is not an appropriate venue.
Note that I am talking about myself only and no one else.
Although $200 in the bank may be true, saying "The FDA DENIED all interstate commerce for this fraud" is a distortion of the facts and misleading.
First, of course there can be no interstate commerce as Sucanon cannot be sold or distributed in the US. Remember that Sucanon has never been sold or distributed in the US. Why? Because the application for over-the-counter sales was not approved because it is a drug!
Second, The FDA never said Sucanon was a fraud. There are your words and there is no basis for calling Roth or Sucanon a fraud. If Sucanon was a fraud, then why would the FDA encourage Roth to apply for approval as a drug?
I am not attacking you, but I am attacking most of the information you post. Roth and Sucanon should be the focus and it is. When false or misleading information is posted I feel obligated to correct the misinformation. This is not a personal attack.
When the misleading and incorrect information is posted repeatedly after the errors are pointed out, I can only draw certain conclusions. Two of the most blatent examples are #4477 where a Consumer Reports article is modified to mislead, and #7870 where sales information is "cherry picked" to paint a false picture of sales in Mexico.
Amazing! Even after the 90% sales decline figure is shown to be inflated (83.5% actual) and for June 2014 to June 2015, the false and misleading 90% coontinues to be posted.
As for myself, I would be embarrassed to post information that I knew was false or misleading. I myself would not promote falsehoods.
Here is the real sales info from OTC Markets:
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
As you can see, from June 2014 to June 2015 sales declined from 529k to 87k (83.5% decline).
You could also have stated that Mexico sales increased 200% from June 2015 to June 2016, or to say it another way "Mexico sales trippled in the last fiscal year".
You say "Mexico sales are have declined by 90%". I question how you computed the 90%.
Here are the yearly Total Revenue figures from OTC Markets. As all sales are in Mexico, Total Revenue and Mexico Sales are the same.
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
As you can see, from June 2014 to June 2015 sales declined from 529k to 87k (83.5% decline). I suppose this is the 90% you are referring to, but you just rounded up.
You could also have stated that Mexico sales increased 200% from June 2015 to June 2016, or to say it another way "Mexico sales trippled in the last fiscal year. Not too shabby!
But seriously, anyone who has never ever had a single good thing to say about Roth or Sucanon should certainly no own any stock. This would be illogical. This begs the question as to why would anyone spend so much time here on ths board? But I am not asking this question, but rather just wondering.
So, why am I here? As I have said many times before, I'm just a stockholder and nothing more. I am here to share information and opinions with sharegolders and potential shareholders. I am also here to refute incorrect and misleading statements and claims for the benefit of all.
The bottom line purpose is truth.
I never post misdirection. For misdirection everyone should see post #4477 and #7870. Both of these posts were written clearly with the intent of giving provably false negative impressions of Roth and Sucanon. This is undeniable,
You say "That is an outrageous misleading statement for this fraudulent scheme". Allow me to correct your false claims:
1) There is nothing outrageous, misleading or fraudulent. The fact is that the clinical trials are complete and undergoing final review at the hospital. This is fact and not just mere speculation.
2) The FDA did not ban Sucanon as you continue to falsely claim. The FDA denied the application for over-the-counter sales because it is a drug. The FDA invited Roth to apply for aproval as a drug. This is well documented in the FDA letter.
3) You say "...$147 in the bank is proof of all the myriad of false press releases...". The size of the bank account is meaningless and proves nothing.
Release of clnical trial results has been a long time in coming, but it is coming. The patient investors will be rewarded.