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.
You are 100% correct. It would appear that truth is not the goal of every post.
Not banned ever, not even for a day. The FDA invited Sucanon to be considered for approval drug.
Nope, not banned, try again.
You are 100% wrong!
You say "The FDA DENIED this scam...", but the FDA only denied the application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug. The FDA never used the word scam.
You say "not allowed in the US....", but in fact the FDA is encouraging application for further evaluation as a drug, thus shipping samples into the US for testing would be logical at some point, so it is not "banned"as you always claim. The FDA never used the word "banned".
Size of bank account and size of office do not imply fraud. For other things size does or may matter, but not for this.
I find it very interesting that your interpretation of the FDA letter is the only one different from the interpretation of all the other readers.
In light of modified Consumer Reports article in post #4477, this does not surprise me.
Here is a sentence directly from the FDA letter excerpt you posted:
"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".
Seems that you agree Sucanon is a drug. Progress!
The Truth: If it was banned by the FDA they would not have suggested applying for approval as a drug.
For any who don't believe the clinical trials are done and complete, that the hospital and doctos are a fraud, then you should not own stock. Those who deal in facts and own stock are awaiting good news which in immenent.
There is No FDA ban. If there was a ban then they would not have suggested pursuing approval as a drug. This does not sound like a banned substance to me.
As for the other false claims and incorrect information in your post, everything has already been addressed and anyone just has to read them here for the answers.
But regardless, great news is just around the corner for the shareholders.
I did address the China issue. I said "its water under the bridge". It didn't pan out for whatever reasons, but if you want to know more then I'm not the person to ask. For me, this is old news and I looking out the front windshield and not in the rearview mirror.
Did you ever date a girl and not marry her? Maybe this helps you to understand.
Wrong again!....3 times in one day is a hat trick!
There is no fraudulent scheme and there has never been any credible evidence presented.
Wrong again. Not banned by the FDA. If it was banned then they would not have suggested applying for approval as a drug.
$700 in the bank account does not imply fraud.
Still waiting for some credible evidence of scam or fraud.
Nothing credible presented yet.
Wrong again. Sucanon is certainly not in the same category as witch hazel and mouthwash as these products are not for diabetes, and surely you can't produce a link to back your claim. As I recall you could not even find Sucanon on the Health Canada website.
Interesting!.....you didn't deny it.
I would guess someone is settling a score with the IR guy, where it should be about facts concerning Roth and Sucanon.
Well, everyone knows I wasn't referring to Mike Irving, so who is left?
Stockmaster, not every poster deals in facts.
There is an alternate agenda.
Sorry, but your claims hold no water. Try again.
The facts you present do not equate to fraud.
Well, if you have evidence of something unlawful, then please post it, otherwise it carries no weight. But good luck as you can't even seem to get the hospital to acknowledge your existence.
This has been posted this at least 20 times, but still awaiting responses to outstanding items.
Warren Buffet once said "When the tide goes out you can see who is swimming naked".
We are focused on the list like a high-intensity laser beam. Where is the list of companies who list all their investors? Heck, we will settle for just one company....any company....just one!
You brought it up and we all are demanding it. The drumbeat will not stop. As Clara Peller of the old Wendy's commercials fame would say "Where's the Beef?"
"Misdirection" seems to be the new catch phrase. Every response seems to labeled 'distraction' or 'misdirection'. The reality is that posters try to give guidance on how to get answers to the questions, but there is never any follow-through.
For who owns the shares, contact the tranfer agent.
For clinical trial financing, contact Barry Hall or Mike Irving.
As for myself, I don't care who owns the shares and I don't care where they got the money for the clinical trials. The important thing is that the clinical trials are complete and results are due out soon.
As for "misdirection", would not modifying a Consumer Reports article to falsely implicate Roth be misdirection? How about an FDA youtube video that does not apply either?
I suggest that everyone keep their eye on the ball and watch for clinical trial results in the next couple weeks.
Sorry, if you wish to focus on a scam or fraud you have the wrong company. You of course would never claim scam or fraud or post misleading or incorrect information, so we all know that honest and accurate posts are you goal, so surely you would want to identify another company other than Roth that is a scam.
You asked for 5% of the owners and OTC Markets will have that much at least, but it seems you want more info. Have you contacted the transfer agent? The answers are out there if you are willing to do a little homework.
This information is available on OTC Markets.
There is no misdirection on my part. You asked me a question that I do not know the answer to, so I told you where to get the answer.
Why are you asking me? Call the company and find out if you consider this to be a burning issue. Maybe it was done with a bank loan, maybe a private loan, who knows.
I do know that the clinical trials have been completed and we are awaiting the report to be issued.
Go Roth!
This is an exact repeat of a very recent post, but if you read my responses you will see that unaudited financial reports meets all the reuirements of OTC Markets pink category, so this is not fraud. This is an undeniable fact.
Similarly, the size of the company bank account means nothing concerning scam or fraud.
No credibile evidence has been presented concerning printing stock.
Finally, OTC Markets is an exchange, but even if it were not this changes nothing concerning the false claims being made. The fact is that there is no scam or fraud here.
Have a great weekend!
More half-truths. Yes, OTC Markets is for smaller companies that cannot meet the listing requirements of the larger main exchanges, but OTC Markets is still an exchange.
But regardless, you are diverting from the main point, that being Roth meets the requiremtns of OTC Markets and in the pink category audited financial reports are not required.
Being OTC pink with unaudited financial reports does not constitute fraud or scam as you claim.
Roth is in full compliance with OTC pink requirement.
We can add "OTC Markets is not an exchange" to the long list of false claims.
A review os some past false claims:
1) Sucanon contains no active ingredients....FALSE
2) Sucanon is not a drug.............................FALSE (FDA says it is)
3) Roth is a scam and a fraud......................FALSE
4) Sucanon does no work............................FALSE
5) Sucanon is a health scam........................FALSE
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but the pattern is the same.
Roth is in compliance with OTC Markets. This is Undeniable.
Stockmaster15, I read the article about short sellers. I was amazed by the extent of trading in penny stocks by some large companies. Thanks for the link.
Unaudited financial reports are acceptable for OTC Markets pink category. This is not fraud.
You continue to spread more misinformation. The video is a general warning and does not apply to Roth or Sucanon. Roth is in good standing with the FDA. Roth has never been issued a warning letter of any kind by the FDA, or to tell them to stop selling Sucanon as there were never sales in the US in the first place. Yes, Roth applied to sell as over-the-counter, but the FDA said Sucanon "appears to be a drug" and this is the only reason the application was denied. If Roth wanted to sell in the US illegally as you keep claiming, they would never have applied to the FDA at all and would just have sold illegally, but Roth played 100% by the laws of the US and FDA. Sucanon has never been sold in the US.
Again, as I have stated many times before, the FDA said that Sucanon is a drug and would require more testing to be approved as a drug by the FDA. Also, Sucanon works and has active ingredients, contrary to your claims in previus posts. There is no health fraud or scam here.
Multiple failed and unsupported attempts to connect Sucanon to general FDA warnings and videos hold no water, even attempts to modify make a Consumer Reports article by removing a key sentence containing the violating products and companies (Roth/Sucanon is not listed) to try to make it appear as applicable to Sucanon has been identified as a bogus attempt.
When these bogus claims are presented as factual, I encourage all readers to be very suspicious and do some due diligence as they never hold up to scrutiny in the cold light of a Monday morning.
Unfortunately for you, this video does not support your claim of health scam for Sucanon.
Here is why:
1) This video is general and does not apply to or mention Sucanon
2) The FDA says Sucanon is a drug
3) Sucanon has never been sold in the US as it is not FDA approved
4) Roth is in 100% compliance with the FDA
5) Sucanon never claimed to cure diabetes as mentioned in the video
6) If you call the FDA you will learn that Roth is in good standing with the FDA
7) If you call the FDA you will learn that Sucanon is a drug, but further testing would be required to be approved as a drug by the FDA
This is just pure misinformation and propaganda.
A lame attempt to connect Sucanon to this video.
I agree with Stockmaster15's post 7358 completely. This is a very accurate synopsis of the company and the product. Please take the negative information you read with a grain of salt as there is never any credible supporting evidence to the false claims.
Anyone who does not believe in Sucanon and Roth should sell immediately all shares that they might own, then sell millions more shares not owned (ie short selling) and become rich, filthy stinking rich!
The real investors on the other hand will do very well when the clinical trial results are released and Canagen sells in India.
Soon India will approve and the shareholders will reap the benefits. Ja(y^3) most likely never owned or shorted, but I certainly hope he has a large short position.
Read post 4477, modifications to a Consumer Reports article, and decide what is the real scam and fraud.
Agree with you 100%. Some posts are just soundbites and meaningless. When India sales kick in and the SP goes to .05 or .10 then these posters will disappear.