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.
Again, this does not include Roth/Sucanon. This names offending names are dedacted in your posts over and over again to present a false picture.
The Consumer Reports/FDA article does not apply to Roth.
Sorry, keep trying.
You are wrong on both counts:
1) Roth/Sucanon was not mentioned because it is not an offending Company/Product.
2) The other products listed are NOT ALLOWED in the US and that is why they were listed and why they received warning letters.
Its very interesting that some sentences are in bold, but at the same time the names of the offending companies and products are redacted.
Here is the redacted 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."
What could be the purpose?
Please state specifically what comments are incorrect and why.
As uaual, just false unsupported claims.
Unfortunately, these are all half-truths at best. The Consumer Reports article was modified to falsely implicate Roth, while the FDA never banned Sucanon, but rather did not approve the application for over-the-counter sales while saying Sucanon is a drug for further study.
Even after the distortions, half-truths, misleading statements and modifications are pointed out they continue to be presented over and over again in defiance of the facts. Board readers surely recognize this and don't give any credibility to these incorrect statements.
2011 is ancient history. Link please.
If one respects the other board readers then one should present an easy to follow post with links too. Please be respectful of everyone and not require readers to wonder where the information came from.
How about a link with time, date, country, etc?
Readers would appreciate some background so they can follow along, otherwise this just muddies the water. People read but they have no context.
Please be considerate of al board readers.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, no dice. Keep trying.
Saying something over and over does not make it true.
Keep trying.
With all due respect to you and your unbiased and finely honed DD research, no credible evidence of fraud or scam has been presented so far. I believe if such evidence existed it would have been presented by now.
Its nice to see that you agree that Sucanon is a drug, but just not FDA approved.
Sucanon is a drug, just not FDA approved. This is undeniable as the FDA said so in their letter. Yes, they denied the application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug.
This has been explained many times before, but the half-truths and misrepresentations and misleading statements continue.
About 2 weeks until clinical trials are completed.
An application is not what defines a drug. The chemical composition and formulation does this.
The appiication is just the beginnning of a process to make a drug into an approved FDA drug.
Since no issue is taken with my previous post, I take this to be implied agreement, that "The full story is that the FDA says it is a drug, but to become an FDA approved drug it would require an application and additional testing".
In fact the FDA words presented in your post reinforce this.
"A product intended for use as a drug within the meaning of21 U.S.C. 321(g)(l)(B) is subject to regulation under the drug provisions of the Act".
Report the full story please. The full story is that the FDA says it is a drug, but to become an FDA approved drug it would require an application and additional testing.
So, Sucanon is a drug per the FDA, but not approved.
Are you denying that the FDA says its a drug?
And the rest of the story:.......BECAUSE its a drug.
The FDA language is self-explanatory, but your conclusions do not follow logically from it.
You keep repeating this over and over, but it is a distortion of the facts. Your statment does not logically follow from the FDA words you reference.
The FDA never had a problem with any Roth press release. If it did this would be new information. Link please.
If one trusted the FDA, then I would think that would include not leaving out a key sentence in a Consumer Reports / FDA article.
Trusting the FDA should include reading the FDA letter to Roth thoroughly and presenting reasoned and thoughtful responses.
Excuse me, but the first sentence are your words and not the King's English. The following words from the FDA are fine, so exactly what is your issue with them?
Roth was not "caught" or "tripped up" by the FDA. This is pure nonsense. Roth is 100% in good standing with the FDA and always was.
Silence on my post 6766 must mean agreement that there has been only one name change (not many).
Seems that Roth is being held to a higher standard then all the many thousands of public companies that make no signed contracts publicly available online, but that roth is expected to. Seems that Roth is being held in very high esteem in spite of all the negativity.
You state "The scam company has changed names many times", but there has been only one name change, from Fero Iindustries to PharmaRoth Labs.
You have asked Roth to release a signed contract, but yet you cannnot produce even one from any other company.
Again, this is general information and not specific and does not apply to Roth.
Sorry, keep trying to make your case. Unless there are links to support claims with facts then its just an opinion.
Many homework assignments have gone undone time and time again.
Simple tasks like producing a signed contract for any stock listed on any exchange, so surely it should be easy to produce one. Any company will do, just pick one. If one cannot be produced then why would anyone expect Roth to produce one?
We all still await responses to to all detailed information presented by sweetlou, unless of course there is agreement, in which case it would be polite and respectful to just simply acknowledge agreement.
Still not evidence of scam or fraud presented, but just a lot of unfounded or provably incorrect claims. Board readers surely want to deal in facts.
A late filing does not equate to being a scammer.
Too bad. Try again.
Still no credible case for scam or fraud. Keep trying.
Addressing my recent posts point by point instead of repeating incorrect statements over and over will be more beneficial to the board readers.
Still no credible evidence to point to a scam or fraud.
Sorry, but keep trying.
What you have in bold is correct. There is no problem. What is your point?
Again, for the zillionth time, contacting Compliance is optional.
Roth is in good standing with the FDA and a call to the FDA will confirm this.
And finally, you state per the FDA "You should contact. FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)".
This FDA group is about drug evaluation and research. No company is required to have a product evaluated or researched - unless, of course, if they are going after FDA approval as a drug.
You state "These fraudsters were caught and tripped up by the FDA by their own BS press release".
Please expain how they were "caught and tripped up".
This is just 100% incorrect.
Roth is is good standing with the FDA. This is undeniable.
As I explained many times before, contacting Compliance is optional at the discretion of Roth IF they want to get approval as a drug.
Again, as I explained many times before, the company has decided to market in countries where they have approval already, where FDA does not have jurisdiction. FDA approval would cost millions and take years, so the company has decided not to for FDA approval as a drug at this time.
Again, half the story does not tell the full story.
Telling half the story on 2 different issues does not equal telling the whole story.
Full story #1:
Denied BECAUSE is is a drug.
Full story #2:
Referral to Compliance by FDA is not mandatory, but is at the option of Roth.
Two halves do no always add up to one.
For the benefit of all readers, please tell the full story in the future. Thanks in advance!
Allow me to correct your statement, point by point:
1) There is a business......marketing and selling of Sucanon
2) Yes, they are pink sheet and unaudited, but dark is such a sinister sounding word.
3) I believe dark and unaudited is the same thing, but surely the 120 sq ft office has lights. A 120 sq ft office is a very nice size office, approx 11 ft by 11 ft
Misleading to say denial......and the rest of the story.....denied BECAUSE it is a drug. Please tell the whole story and not just soundbites. Thanks in advance.
Another lame attempt to sell the scam fraud charge. Yet another general article (or modified article) in a series to attempt to be applicable to Roth. Keep trying. No dice yet.