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.
As usual, 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.
There is no smoke screen. All one has to do is read sweetlou's recent posts. End of story.
As a wise old cowboy once said, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".
Sweetlou, surely every post has the goal of 100% truthfulness even if it may appear otherwise.....yes, of course, certainly.
Read sweetlou's previous post. Everything is explained very thoroughly.
Oh wow!....yet again a repeat of false information, and yet again it remains still incorrect.
Just a note of caution: If you bold the entire post then the bolding becomes meaningless. Also, I must wear my shades to get through it.
Wrong again! Repeating incorrect information over and over will not make it correct. Here are my comments and clarifications:
1) Ref "FDA ban": As stated many times before, there is no FDA ban as the FDA only denied the application for over-the-counter sales, but invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug. This does not sound like a ban to me.
2) Ref "failed sales in Mexico": Sales have been ongoing in Mexico. Surely everyone wants more sales, but to say "failed" is an exaggeration.
3) Ref "BS press releases about "contracts" "Purchase orders etc"". The $85 million contract with Canagen for sales in India is real and contingent on passing clinical trial just completed in Mexico. My understanding is that the report is complete or near completion and the release of the report and press release is imminent. Yes, a long time in coming, but it is definitely coming and aparently days away.
4) Ref "$762 in the bank": Sure, this is true. Sales volume and thus lack of profitability at this point is reflected in the 1/2 cent share price. When sales increase and a profit is turned then share price will be much higher.
5) Ref "printing stock": This has been debunked many times before. Just read old posts.
6) Ref "fraudulent enterprise": There is no evidence to support this statement. It is just an unfounded opinion.
All patient investors will be rewarded with the expected news of successful clinical trials completed.
This post is just more misinformation and outright childish.
Saying "I agree this is a scam" as though another poster said it is unethical. Trying to attribute statements to others who did not make them is wrong.
Saying "thank you for appreciating me for providing FACTS" when nobody said this is wrong. Again, you are trying to attribute statements to others who did not make them.
But you admit that is it being sold in Mexico so it must be approved in Mexico and so cannot be a scam or health scam.
So would not this conflict with your previous posts??...No?...Yes?
Excellent!....so you admit that Sucanon is approved in Mexico!
What is the purpose of all the misdirection? (ie not a drug, no active ingredicnts, etc)
Anyone posting 100% negatively with incorrect information would not be a shareholder, so what other reason could there be?
You keep repeating that it is banned by the FDA, but this is not accurate. The truth is the FDA denied Roth's application for over-the-counter sales only because it is a drug and would require an application to be approved as a drug. This is not a ban. This is an invitation to be approved as a drug.
You say "It's one thing to tout a penny stock and another to engage in playing with people's health and life.shameful in fact". The truth is that Canada and Mexico both approved Sucanon for sale as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. Major countries like Mexico and Canada do not play with peoples health.
What is shameful is misinformation being posted to scare people and to discredit Sucanon and Roth without any evidence.
You have it all twisted around.
Here is the truth:
1) Not banned by the FDA
2) Not hiding from FDA Compliance
3) Roth made no claims that it was a drug
4) FDA says "it appears to be a drug"
5) Application for approval as a drug is Roth's option
This has all been addressed before, but the misinformation continues to flow.
Thank you for saying "not approved" instead of "banned" as this is accurate, but still it is only half the story. This begs the question as to why it was not approved? The answer is because it is a drug and must undergo additional testing.
Wrong!....not banned by yhe FDA.
More propaganda that fly in the face of the facts.
The truth:
1) Not banned by the FDA
2) FDA says its a drug
3) Contains active ingredients
4) Meets all rquirements of OTC Markets pink
5) Approved in Mexico and Canada
6) Consumer Reports article (#4477) modified to misrepresent
There are undeniable facts. Don't be a shape-shifter.
Th evidence presented that Sucanon works was good enough for Mexico and Canada, but aparently not good enough for you. Amazing!
It is really discouraging to see incorrect and misleading information posted over and over again.
Latest Example: Sucanon is not "banned", as the word banned implies it was being sold in the US and Roth was made to cease selling it, but this was never the case as Sucanon was never sold or marketed in the US. ALso, the word "banned" implies never ever to be sold in the US, but this is not the case either as the FDA invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug, allowing for the eventual sale of Sucanon in the US. So, using the word "banned" is not an appopriate application of the word.
ALso, the FDA said that Sucanon "appears to be a drug" and these are the exact words from the FDA letter. The FDA words are synonymous with saying it is a drug. To state otherwise is incorrect and to attempt to mislead investors and potential investors is morally wrong.
Modifying a Consumer Reports article (post #4477) by deleting a key sentence which identifies offending companies and products (Sucanon/Roth not included) to make it appear as though the article applies to Sucanon is morally wrong.
You say "no matter how much the many penny stock scams that inhabit this sleazy end of the market..."
So humor me. Which other OTC pick stocks boards do you post on besides Roth? Surely you would want to protect marks from all sleazy OTC pink scams.
What a bunch of malarkey! Roth meets all the requirments of OTC pink and audited financials are not required and filing with the SEC is not required.
You are saying, I believe, that all OTC pink stocks are scams.
Amazing!
A real whopper! Roth never marketed Sucanon in the US.....not ever. This is just not true.
Wrong....approved in Mexico and Canada.
The issue of sales in Canada is a separate issue. Approved in Canada but no distributors are set up yet.
I am amazed that the governments of Mexico and Canada have approved Sucanon to treat type 2 diabetes, but yet your standards for approval must be even higher. Even higher than the FDA that says its a drug.
No serious person can doubt that sucanon works. Soon clinical trial results will be out and any remaining negativity will evaporate.
There is plenty of evidence that Sucanon works and word very well.
In a matter of a few days, the clinical trial results, conducted by a prestigious doctor and prestigious hospital in Mexico,will be news and then approved by Canagen and india.
Hopefully this will meet your expectations and result in kudos.
Two problems with your post:
1) You state "generally do not have to meet any minimum standards". There are requirements to meet such as filing the financial reports on time, otherwise you get a red stop sign. This is true even for OTC pink.
2) You state "while OTC markets are prone to fraud and dishonest traders". While this may be true, this is not a blanket statement and does apply to all OTC companies. Don't fall into the trap of "guilt by association".
As for the issue of is it an exchange or not, to me, this is irrelevant.
Stay tuned for good news. I would guess due any day.
OTC stands for "Over The Counter", not "Off The Cuff". Perhaps this explains many postings of incorrect and misleading information.
A very interesting comment. What other penny stocks should the public be protected from?
I suggest that maybe anyone who lost money in a penny stock can't handle the risk. Perhaps a safe tracking stock like QQQ, DIA or SPY might be more appropriate for these risk-averse people.
That's right Torman.....Jayyy said so himself!
Wrong again.
A famous person once said "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts". It may have been the same person that said "if the shoe fits then wear it"
Amen!
You want answers but you will not call Mike Irving, the one you say is running the company. If you do not trust Mike Irving, then maybe you should call the CEO Luis Lopez or the CFO Barry Hall?
If you don't trust any of these 3 people, then I just can't understand why you would spend so much time with this stock. Maybe you could get contact one of the production workers in Mexico, because there are no other people associated with the company.
You have asked me many questions as though I was an executive of the company (I am not - I am just a stockholder and have never worked for the comapny in any capacity) but I do answer your queries as honestly as I can, but I don't have detailed answers to some questions, especially sidebar questions that are not important in my opinion.
If you want answers you just have to ask. Its really very simple.
You say "Never did hear anyone explain.....".
Well, have you called and asked for an explanation??
A wise man once said "god helps those who help themselves".
Agreed! Even a blind man can see read the FDA letter clearly.
Sorry, not banned, unauduited reports are acceptable for OTC Markets pink category, and the primary business is selling Sucanon and not printing stock.
Keep trying.
I agree and sweetlou's posts. The 'some' are not interested in truth.
Nope!.....not banned and not snake oil.
You state "this snake oil BANNED by the FDA is not a drug".
Wow!....you certainly post false information efficiently
(3 falsehood using only 11 words).
1) It is not snake oil
2) It is not banned
3) It is a drug
You keep repeating this, but its always 100% incorrect.
Again 100% wrong.....
There is no ban on Sucanon as the FDA invited Roth to apply for application as a drug.
Unaudited financials are acceptable for OTC Markets pink category.
The false claim of "primary business is printing stock" has been debunked many times by sweetlou and others.
And for the record, this post is an exact duplicate of #7564, and finally if you bold everything then it has no effect, just like the person that yellows the entire page in his textbook.
Sometimes denied is good.
Example: Babe Ruth applies to be on a sandlot baseball team, but he is denied Because he is too good and he goes straight to the NY Yankees.
Got it?
Wrong again. The FDA did not catch Roth doing anything wrong. The application for over-the-counter sales was not approved only because Sucanon appears to be a drug.
Furthermore, the FDA did not ban Sucanon, but rather encouraged Roth tio apply for approval as a drug. If it was an outhright ban, then the FDA would not have encourae applying for drug approval.
This is clear in the FDA letter.