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.
Although the sales are lower than shareholders would like too see, the expectation is that after clinical trial results are released sales will start in India via distribution by Canagen to fulfill the $85 million 5-year agreement. This would be $17 million/year average. Now, $17 million/year is a whole lot more than $300k/year. More than 50X current sales. This is why people own Roth.
Now, getting back to old business:
Again, I say that I never modified a published article with the intent to falsely incriminate a company or person, nor have I ever cherry picked data to paint an incorrect picture to mislead.
I stand for truth, justice and the american way, as many board readers rely on my posts for reliable information. I am a moral person.
And I have said this many times before, I am just a lowly stock holder and have never been paid by Roth or anyone connected with Roth. I am here to share credible information and honest opinions with other shareholders and potential shareholders.
Again, I say that I never modified a published article with the intent to falsely incriminate a company or person, nor have I ever cherry picked data to paint an incorrect picture to mislead.
I stand for truth, justice and the american way, as many board readers rely on my posts for reliable information. I am a moral person.
And I have said this many times before, I am just a lowly stock holder and have never been paid by Roth or anyone connected with Roth. I am here to share credible information and honest opinions with other shareholders and potential shareholders.
Seriously?.....do you really believe a $615 difference is important?
See posts #4477 and #7870:
1) Modified Consumer Reports article to falsely implicate Roth.
2) "Cherry picked" sales data to mislead.
The serious investors who do DD are not fooled by these posts.
Jayyy claims "Mexico sales are have declined by 90%" in post #7870.
When you analyze the data you will see that he "cherry picked" 2014-15 data which gives a 83.5% decline, but the latest year 2015-16 gives a 200% increase.
The truth per OTC Markets:
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
Jayyy says "This fraud has sunk to new lows", but of course this claim is unfounded as usual.
Down 77% since the RS. My advice is to cash out whats left and play the slots at your local casino.
Option #2 would be to use what's left to buy the Thanksgiving Turkey, assuming there is enough after selling this turkey.
Post #7870 now join the infamous #4477.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
As I suspected in my post #7871. Jayyy has "cherry picked" the 12 month period from June 2014 to June 2015 to get the 90% figure and he chose to round 86% to 90%.
Just for the record, I computed 83.5% decline for this period, not 86%.
(529-87)/529 = 0.8355 which is 83.5% (not 86%)
Clearly, sales have not declined and to read "90% sales decline" might mislead investors to believe Mexico sales are tanking, but nothing could be further from the truth. The complete sales history is below for all to see. Draw your own conclusions.
================================================================
Here is a repeat of my post #7871 for quick reference:
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!
This is so simple. Just call the company and ask your questions. You put up 4 links and ask for a response from me, but yet you did not ask me a question.
Now, where did the 90% come from? Inquiring minds want to know.
Attention All Board Readers: New claims exposed as fraud.
Jayyy claims "Mexico sales are have declined by 90%"
The truth per OTC MArkets:
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
Poster Jayyy refuses to say where the 90% came from.
These are all old news release links, they are old, and there is nothing new in them. So what EXACTLY are your questions?
I would suggest that you put your specific questions to Roth management.
Please!.....I have not attacked you. I only ask where you got the 90% Mexico sales decline figure (which is totally incorrect)
You posted it, not me, so it is only a fair question to ask where it came from.
This is simple. You posted the 90% figure so where did you get it?
Explain the 90% first. Where did it come from?
You say 90% decline in Mexico sales and this just is not true.
It is fair to ask you where the 90% figure came from.
We all await a response.
Here are the real numbers from OTC Markets:
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
Again, we all await a response. Everyone wants to know.
Please don't disappoint board readers.
Speak and be heard. Explain the 90%.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
In your post #7870 you stated that Mexico sales declined by 90%, so I showed where this is just no true in my post #7871 as follows:
Period Ending.....Total Revenue
June 2013............$154k
June 2014............$529k
June 2015............$87k
June 2016............$263k
So I questioned how you arrived at the 90% decline, but have not received an answer to a very simple question. Yet this request is ignored and you move to a new topic.
So, I request again. How did you compute the 90% decline?
You say "Thats not what the fraudster Mike Irving put out in press releases". What are you referring to and in what press release?
Stop with the inuendo and display the facts. Link please!
I just showed the detailed sales for the last 4 fiscal years which clearly shows your claim of "Mexico sales are have declined by 90%" is not accurate. Its all there in my post 7871.
So, back to the incorrect claim of 90% sales decline. Please tell everyone where you got this bogus information.
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!
I just told you there is no other application and I explained why.
The Roth business plan is to sell in Mexico, Canada and India, not the USA.
You say "You can not prove that". The proof is in the FDA letter.
You just have to read it.
As for the late filing, why do you ask me? Call and ask the company.
You have to understand that Roth chose not to apply for approval as a drug at this time. Why? Because obtaining approval as a drug would cost millions of dollars and take years.
Instead, Roth is focusing on selling in Mexico and Canada where they are approved and India where clinical trials results are due any time now. Assuming the trial results are consistent with all other past testing, India will approve and Canagen will distribute in India.
All wrong as usual. The FDA application for over-the-counter was denied BECAUSE it is a drug. This is clearly spelled out in the FDA letter.
As for your claim of health fraud, the govenments of Mexico and Canada both approved Sucanon as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. Surely they would not approve a health fraud.
Unaudited reports are acceptable for OTC Markets pink category, so insinuating that there is something sinister about this is just misdirection.
Very, very soon clinical trial results wil be out. The savvy real investors see this as a game-changer.
I would imagine when the share price is too many zeros to be displayed.
I am told that the trials are completed and results are due soon.
That is all I know.
Stock is down to about 75% since the RS. Soon time for another RS.
If this company was going to make it, it would have happened by now.
Address the CR redaction as first priority. If you can establish credibility then we can move on to other issues.
It is really concerning how this key sentence got redacted. cound it be a 'fat finger' mistake?.....not likely. We all want to know why not tell the entire story?
If you post only what you "pick and choose" from an article then its not verbatim.
ok, so why not just post the entire article? It would look like this: (note: I highlighted the redacted sentence in post 4477)
Watch out for fake diabetes treatments
Published: July 31, 2013 08:00 AM
If you see products on store shelves that claim to treat, cure, or prevent diabetes and its complications, the Food and Drug Administration wants to you to beware: it warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream.
What can you do? Watch out for the following product types and their treatment claims:
“Natural” supplements. We’ve warned consumers in the past about the dangers of supplements. Some drugs labeled as “natural” were found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients that may actually harm rather than help.
Dietary supplements. These supplements claim to treat and even prevent diabetes. These products are not FDA approved and therefore cannot make such a claim.
Online pharmacy drugs. Online suppliers are selling prescription drugs to people without a prescription. Unapproved versions of diabetes drugs are found on these pharmacy websites.
Unapproved OTC medications. These drugs claim to relieve symptoms associated with diabetes, but are not approved by the FDA.
Besides potential harm from the various treatments, there is concern that using these products will prevent people from seeking medical treatment and FDA-approved drugs.
Here are three generic, low-cost options that our CR Best Buy Drug experts recommend you discuss with your doctor:
Metformin and Metformin Sustained Release (alone or with glipizide or glimepiride)
Glipizide and Glipizide Sustained release (alone or with metformin
Glimepiride (alone or with metformin)
In addition to taking medicine, it’s important to closely monitor your blood sugar. In our tests of blood glucose meters, the Accu-Chek Aviva and the FreeStyle Freedom Lite were two that came out on top. Results from blood glucose meters can help patients make adjustments to diet, exercise, and treatment plans. Close monitoring can help to lower the risk of diabetes-related issues, such as kidney disease and seizures.
Although there are no reported injuries yet, according to the FDA, the agency urged people who have experienced any side effects to report them through an online form.
— Ciara Rafferty
Here is the link so evevyone can see for themselves.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/diabetes-treatment-alternatives/index.htm
Nope!....just more misinformation.
FDA says its a drug.
Accept the FDA ruling.
You say "No--the company is a scam and the FDA recognized that by denying their application".
Incorrect. The fact is that the FDA denied the aplication for over-the-counter sales because Sucanon is a drug, not because of any scam.
This is clear in the FDA letter, unless of course you claim thae the FDA is a scam. You can't have it both ways.
No "gift" at all. I'll be posting more on the CR.
I will not address any issues until the Consumer Reports redaction is cleared up.
Anyone who reads the last 2 posts will see the truth.
If you post only what you "pick and choose" from an article then its not verbatim.
ok, so why not just post the entire article? It would look like this: (note: I highlighted the redacted sentence in post 4477)
Watch out for fake diabetes treatments
Published: July 31, 2013 08:00 AM
If you see products on store shelves that claim to treat, cure, or prevent diabetes and its complications, the Food and Drug Administration wants to you to beware: it warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream.
What can you do? Watch out for the following product types and their treatment claims:
“Natural” supplements. We’ve warned consumers in the past about the dangers of supplements. Some drugs labeled as “natural” were found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients that may actually harm rather than help.
Dietary supplements. These supplements claim to treat and even prevent diabetes. These products are not FDA approved and therefore cannot make such a claim.
Online pharmacy drugs. Online suppliers are selling prescription drugs to people without a prescription. Unapproved versions of diabetes drugs are found on these pharmacy websites.
Unapproved OTC medications. These drugs claim to relieve symptoms associated with diabetes, but are not approved by the FDA.
Besides potential harm from the various treatments, there is concern that using these products will prevent people from seeking medical treatment and FDA-approved drugs.
Here are three generic, low-cost options that our CR Best Buy Drug experts recommend you discuss with your doctor:
Metformin and Metformin Sustained Release (alone or with glipizide or glimepiride)
Glipizide and Glipizide Sustained release (alone or with metformin
Glimepiride (alone or with metformin)
In addition to taking medicine, it’s important to closely monitor your blood sugar. In our tests of blood glucose meters, the Accu-Chek Aviva and the FreeStyle Freedom Lite were two that came out on top. Results from blood glucose meters can help patients make adjustments to diet, exercise, and treatment plans. Close monitoring can help to lower the risk of diabetes-related issues, such as kidney disease and seizures.
Although there are no reported injuries yet, according to the FDA, the agency urged people who have experienced any side effects to report them through an online form.
— Ciara Rafferty
Here is the link so evevyone can see for themselves.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/diabetes-treatment-alternatives/index.htm
So what happened to the missing sentence???
Here is the missing sentence:
it warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream.
Here is the link to the story.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/diabetes-treatment-alternatives/index.htm
Everyone can clearly see the missing sentence and draw their own conclusions concerning thruhfulness. In court people swear to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
Hopping from issue to issue does not clarify anything. Everyone wants to know the story behind 4477 - how and why it was modified?
There is no FDA ban. The modification to 4477 was not an accident and this is plain for all to see.
The CR warning is not applicable to Sucanon and this is a well known fact. If the CR article was applicable then Roth and Sucanon would have been listed in the removed sentence, so if the sentence is removed (redacted) then readers might get the false idea that Roth and sucanon were in the removed sentence.
This does not strike my as being truthful, now does it?
When the heat is too hot and the truth is hard to ignore, requests for inhibiting the first amendment are invoked.
But still 100% incorrect. Just soundbites telling half the story at best. Modifying a Consumer Reports article (post 4477) and claiming it is verbatim is not in the interst of truth.
Modifications to a Consumer Reports article (post 4477) with claims it is verbatim is incorrect. A deletion makes it non-verbatim.
More repitition of the same false, misleading, incorrect and just plain wrong claims. All of these have been addressed multiple times by myself and sweetlou and others too.
The worst example is not just incorrect claims, but the creation of misinformation, reference "Consumer Reports also WARNS of these TYPES of health scam products. via this verbatim excerpt...".
This of course is from the infamous post #4477 where the list of actual offending companies and products are listed in the Consumer Reports article, but not included in post #4477. The clear intention here is to mislead readers to think that Sucanon and Roth are in this category (they are not).
Certainly truth and honesty were lacking from this post and thus credibility is zero.
Like the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the child claims "no my hand is not in the cookie jar".
Verbatim means "exactly without modification or omission".
#4477 is not verbatim.
Post 4477 is out there for everyone to read.
The intention of post 4477 is clear.
You say "Yeah yeah--still Banned by the FDA".
Still wrong. FDA did not ban Sucanon as they invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug. This does not sound like a ban to me.