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.
The SEC already shutdown the fraudulent sales.
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25413.pdf
"1.This is an accounting fraud case arising from schemes by UHP's ..."
Legitimate companies don't behave in this manner. Obviously this worthless band-aid is a total failure even over the counter. It failed in class 2. It's hilarious anyone is trying to peddle the idea it would ever be used surgically with class 3 approval. What scam next? Pretend their are classes 4 and 5?
"On 12/4/17, UEEC issued a PR stating:
it is proceeding with its application for HemoStyp under the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program. The FDA selected UHP’s HemoStyp as only one of nine participants for the program.
Concurrent with its CtQ Pilot Program participation, UHP reaffirms that its current Class II application – Expanded Indication submission with the US FDA-- continues to progress, and is in an advanced stage of review"
"UEEC--Volume before price.
Sustained volume foretells the PMA."
SPORTYNORTY
Re: Scumbag Fraudsters post# 10908
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 9:36:42 PM
Post# 10909 of 12746
Pre-Market Approval NOW CONFIRMED. Thank you
What project?...
"At least they haven't cancelled the project, yet."
"Your parents failed you!"
You think something is up? The filming came out of nowhere. But still, it is too silent for my taste. The company itself, mwwc, has not said anything since last April. This has incredible potential. But it needs execution and especially more buzz.
Agree. Price is far higher than I would expect.
Wallace must have a glass pipe in hand.
"I’m perplexed"
Common sense is the dire enemy of scammers.
Those weeds are actually growing on the site. And of course there is still Pasaca.
Love this internet boiler room with long failed product attempting another pump and dump run with yet another PMA application. Even though the application is certainly headed for failure; and like all the other PMA's no one will ever be notified about it.
This is all so transparent...que in the secret "company" employees with their bullshit luring more suckers into their Ponzi Scheme...
Maybe the flowers, glasses, and chair are made.with.quantum.dots? It's unlikely the website was hacked since the page is "all-products". The Skwyerz family might be sending their shareholders a subliminal message with quite a sense of humor. I wouldn't be surprised if this outsells the quantum dot internet sales, Health ID app, and used office furniture combined in short order. Skwyerz finally nailed it!!!!!!!! He finally figured out what business is about. If only he had done this years ago before he was delisted. This money may have done shareholders some good. Yippee $5.00++++
https://www.qmc-health.com/category/all-products
Due diligence is with the SEC and FDA. The SEC lets us know what a sleezy con game United Health Products is. Nothing put before the FDA has ever had the results brought before the public...never to be heard about again. No one ever sees the results/rejection from the FDA regarding this totally failed product. Everything else is obvious unverified internet bullshit from a bunch of clowns taking everyone's money for absolutely nothing. Do real companies act this way?
"FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section IO(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
(UHP and Beplate)
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section I0(b) and Rules IOb-S(a) and (c) Thereunder
(Schiliro)
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section lO(b) and Rule 10b-5(b)
(Schiliro)
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(All Defendants)
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 Thereunder
(UHP)
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)2)B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
(Beplate and Schiliro)
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1
(Beplate and Schiliro)
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rule 13a-14 Thereunder
(Beplate)
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act
(Beplate and Schiliro)
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304(a)
(Bcplatc)
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-3 Thereunder
(Beplate)"
Class III is laughable after failing at Class II
What a crock of bullshit this phony is!!!!!!!!
Replace CtQ with estar for the newest bullshit:
"On 12/4/17, UEEC issued a PR stating:
it is proceeding with its application for HemoStyp under the FDA’s new and innovative CtQ Pilot Program. The FDA selected UHP’s HemoStyp as only one of nine participants for the program.
Concurrent with its CtQ Pilot Program participation, UHP reaffirms that its current Class II application – Expanded Indication submission with the US FDA-- continues to progress, and is in an advanced stage of review"
I think we all share that sentiment.
Skwyerz is hawking the stuff and not cutting shareholders in on a cent even though he uses the QMC name. He just calls it QMC Health to cover his butt so the cuffs don't get slapped on.
Bullshit!!! Why can't they sell this POS band-aid?
Moderators can only delete posts and restore them. Banning and removing bans is strictly the province of admin.
It's all just unverifiable Internet bullshit.
What if this scam is delisted?
Why if sterilization and packaging were really the problem wasn't Johnson and Johnson subcontracted many years ago to perform this task? Johnson and Johnson has been successfully packaging sterile gauze for 124 years now. That's right, since the year. 1900. There must be much more serious issues going on.
Why aren't the surgeons and locations named? What happened to the PMA submission in 2019? Too much is unverified to take this bullshit seriously. Peculiar this is only your second post and you are not the slightest bit concerned about the the SEC charges. But your concern is with people pointing out the obvious shell game and you are especially concerned about other people's money. It sounds amazingly similar to someone else who pipes off. Luring people and their money in is much more of a concern than over a decade of product, business, and management failures. It's very telling.
Due diligence begins with SEC vs United Health Products. What better source of factual information is there than the Securities and Exchange Commission? There is an abundance of information in there describing how investors were victims.
Newbies interested in becoming a Ponzi Scheme base should listen to the con men trying to bamboozle them.
You do realize this is unrelated to Jason and mww.
Maybe they are worried about another Wells notice from the SEC? They are skating on very thin ice with these shenanigans. They have already filed this PMA 5 years ago and neglected to tell shareholders the outcome. The article and the SEC charges demonstrate a failure on the over the counter market. There is no evidence they have modified the failed product in any meaningful way. Submitting a product they know is far from passable to pump the share price is grounds for more fraud charges from the SEC.
You can't read pdgood. Either that or you are intentionally misleading everyone which would make you the sociopath you are supposedly concerned about. Zubrow was added; not Schottenstein.
They will regurgitate the PMA bullshit again once it is forgotten. It's common with these types of stock scams. Meanwhile the gravy🚂 train chugs along
Thanks. No connection other than Lima. One might as well associate Emma Slater with Charles Manson, because at one stage of their lives, they each lived in the LA area, using that mentality.
What connection does he have to the others? What relationship?
I'm not seeing the slightest connection between these people/events. I'm not even seeing the connection of Honigford to nwgc other than internet bullshit. This is incoherent and disjointed.
LIMA OHIO All ya need ta know
LIKE SCAM DD?
Heres ur boys. Wanna watch em get taken out?
Watch what happens then.
Strawman CEO
Jason A Schlenk
Age 32, Born March 1991
5817 N Dixie Hwy
Lima, OH 45807
(513) 907-5335 - Wireless
(513) 844-2425 - Landline
MARK MILLERS PARTNER AT NWGC
Robert Honigford
Lima, OH | 70 years old
2786 Amanda Lakes Drive,
Lima, OH 45805
(419) 222-8638
Robert J Honigford Attorney
121 W High St # 1004
Lima, OH 45801-4381
Get Directions
(419) 879-5297
Robert Honigford was born in April 23rd, 1953 and is 70 years old. Robert currently lives in Lima, OH. In the past, Robert lived in Orlando, FL
PARTNERS DIRTY LAWYER and JUDGE PARTNER
Rodabaugh & Honigford
?Add to Favorites
Attorneys, Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning Attorneys
234 N Main St, Lima, OH 45801
https://www.limaohio.com/news/2015/12/01/6-file-for-lima-municipal-court-judge/
A runner
https://www.hometownstations.com/news/judge-david-rodabaugh-retires-after-50-plus-years-of-service/article_2bd515ac-9648-11ee-bca8-07389b5e838a.html
Defendant contends that his trial counsel's failure to have Robert Honigford testify in his behalf justifies this Court finding trial counsel was ineffective. However, as noted by the Government, Honigford's law partner and co-owner of Lawyer's Title, David Rodabaugh, did testify
Disbarred felon attorney see BLLB posts on this clown
David R. Rhodehamel
Columbus, Ohio
Lawyer gets 6 years in prison for defrauding elderly client
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2010/12/29/lawyer-gets-6-years-in/23923724007/
Evidently it happened in 2019 among any other times. They just neglected to update you of the FDA's status/decision because it doesn't suit their purposes. There is no evidence they have updated this POS band-aid so there is no reason to believe anything will change.
As long as everyone has been waiting it’s the least they could have done.does anyone know when it will happen?
"United Health Product’s PRs Describing Its HemoStyp PMA Application Process Are Bizarre, Suggesting A Denial Is Likely
UEEC’s announcement of the PMA submission was released on 10/4/19 stating:
UEEC today announced that it has submitted a Premarket Approval (PMA) application for Class III approval to the FDA for HemoStyp.
This was seemingly very significant news about an important milestone concluding clinical study data analysis and submission. The text of the announcement was, however, very generic and reserved. It further states:
The PMA program confirms the safety and efficacy of a product. If approved, UHP expects that HemoStyp will be authorized for use in surgical procedures in abdominal, cardiovascular, thoracic and vascular surgeries per UHP's PMA filed Instructions For Use.
This October 4th PR mentions nothing about the results of the clinical studies, simply noting that the FDA submission has occurred.
A pre-market application (PMA) application is a very detailed and stringent process. As described in drugwatch.com, the PMA includes:
Source: drugwatch.com
Therefore, the October 4th PMA submission should have included clinical data, including a statistical analysis of its results.
Then, on 10/18/19, a relevant, yet bizarre, PR was announced, claiming positive results of the HemoStyp clinical study. We are puzzled because this announcement comes two weeks after the PMA submission on 10/4/19.
The PR says the final analysis report has been received, and it is from an independent reviewer (does “independent” mean that UEEC didn't pay for this analysis?). It further states:
In summary the independent statistical reviewer (website here) stated:
“For the primary analysis comparing HemoStyp versus Surgicel for hemostasis in 10 minutes, both non-inferiority and superiority were satisfied in both ITT population and PP population. For the secondary analysis, HemoStyp was significantly better than Surgicel with respect to the percentage achieving hemostasis at 2 minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes.”
It further states:
UEEC... today announced that it has received the final report from an independent review of the results of its human clinical trial.
The way the above sentence is worded, it seems as though UEEC had just received the statistical results on October 18 or a day before. It doesn't say that this report was received and sent to the FDA 2 weeks earlier on October 4th. But if it was in fact sent to the FDA in tandem with the October 4th submission, then it is strangely communicated.
Why would they do the analysis after they already sent the application? There is such a thing as a PMA Amendment if the applicant is revising existing information or providing additional information. But UEEC didn’t say that they were doing a PMA Amendment. It is sometimes required to continue statistical analysis after the PMA submission if the clinical study is continuing and the longer patient follow-up is recorded. But according to the UEEC protocol, the follow-up was 30 days and that was finished long ago.
Because this “independent” statistical reviewer apparently gave its analysis after UEEC already submitted its application to the FDA, we would take it with a grain of salt. If it were a relevant review, it should have been included in the PMA application on October 4th. If this analysis was not included, we also wonder then what analysis was included and why the results of that analysis were not mentioned in the PR from October 4th.
But what is the most alarming to us in the 10/18/19 announcement is that the PR went silent on the very important product safety outcomes. From the UEEC clinical protocol, described on its clinicaltrials.gov page we learned about four secondary study outcomes:
Source: clinicaltrials.gov
While the Primary outcome and the Secondary outcome #1 in the UEEC study protocol are efficacy related, the Secondary #2, #3, and #4 outcomes are all safety outcomes and are of critical importance for FDA approval. The October 18th PR only addresses success of the Primary outcome and Secondary outcome #1. The PR didn't say if the study has shown a non-inferiority or superiority of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in the secondary outcomes #2-4. The history of UEEC only disclosing positive news makes us believe that the omission of results relevant to outcomes #2-4 could have been on purpose, because the clinical study likely showed the inferior performance of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in these outcome measures.
The statistician was very specific to claim non-inferiority and superiority of HemoStyp only in the initial hemostasis after application of HemoStyp to the wound. It is silent on what has happened after the initial hemostasis was achieved.
HemoStyp, according to UEEC, quickly dissolves in an aqueous environment due to its unique degradation properties. We can find this on the company’s website.
From UEEC’s product testing page:
The data obtained during analysis of sample UHP Box of 2” x 2” Pouches indicates the material begins to dissolve in water within one minute. The sample is completely dissolved within 24 hours. Not enough material remains for analysis at the 24 hour time point.
If HemoStyp dissolves too soon, the surgical wound would start bleeding again, and this would be a very serious safety issue.
Imagine a major disaster when bleeding re-occurs after the surgeon has already closed the outmost patient skin layer! The outcomes 2-4 directly address this key safety concern, describing in quantitative terms how well the initially achieved hemostasis is maintained during the surgery. Outcome 4 is about the failure of initial hemostasis, as measured in reoperations, during the one month after surgery. It seems to us that a hemostatic agent that is quick to achieve initial hemostasis, but rapidly dissolves and may frequently fail later resulting in recurrence of bleeding, is a major health hazard. Why would the FDA approve HemoStyp, if it indeed fails to maintain hemostasis, knowing that Surgicel is already a reasonably effective and safe FDA approved product?
From all these observations, we conclude that the clinical study of HemoStyp versus Surgicel was likely a failure. However, if and when its PMA application gets rejected, we doubt that shareholders will hear about it. We expect it will be just like when UEEC applied for PMA approval for Class III in late 2017, there will just not be any updates, like it never happened."
"United Health Product’s PRs Describing Its HemoStyp PMA Application Process Are Bizarre, Suggesting A Denial Is Likely
UEEC’s announcement of the PMA submission was released on 10/4/19 stating:
UEEC today announced that it has submitted a Premarket Approval (PMA) application for Class III approval to the FDA for HemoStyp.
This was seemingly very significant news about an important milestone concluding clinical study data analysis and submission. The text of the announcement was, however, very generic and reserved. It further states:
The PMA program confirms the safety and efficacy of a product. If approved, UHP expects that HemoStyp will be authorized for use in surgical procedures in abdominal, cardiovascular, thoracic and vascular surgeries per UHP's PMA filed Instructions For Use.
This October 4th PR mentions nothing about the results of the clinical studies, simply noting that the FDA submission has occurred.
A pre-market application (PMA) application is a very detailed and stringent process. As described in drugwatch.com, the PMA includes:
Source: drugwatch.com
Therefore, the October 4th PMA submission should have included clinical data, including a statistical analysis of its results.
Then, on 10/18/19, a relevant, yet bizarre, PR was announced, claiming positive results of the HemoStyp clinical study. We are puzzled because this announcement comes two weeks after the PMA submission on 10/4/19.
The PR says the final analysis report has been received, and it is from an independent reviewer (does “independent” mean that UEEC didn't pay for this analysis?). It further states:
In summary the independent statistical reviewer (website here) stated:
“For the primary analysis comparing HemoStyp versus Surgicel for hemostasis in 10 minutes, both non-inferiority and superiority were satisfied in both ITT population and PP population. For the secondary analysis, HemoStyp was significantly better than Surgicel with respect to the percentage achieving hemostasis at 2 minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes.”
It further states:
UEEC... today announced that it has received the final report from an independent review of the results of its human clinical trial.
The way the above sentence is worded, it seems as though UEEC had just received the statistical results on October 18 or a day before. It doesn't say that this report was received and sent to the FDA 2 weeks earlier on October 4th. But if it was in fact sent to the FDA in tandem with the October 4th submission, then it is strangely communicated.
Why would they do the analysis after they already sent the application? There is such a thing as a PMA Amendment if the applicant is revising existing information or providing additional information. But UEEC didn’t say that they were doing a PMA Amendment. It is sometimes required to continue statistical analysis after the PMA submission if the clinical study is continuing and the longer patient follow-up is recorded. But according to the UEEC protocol, the follow-up was 30 days and that was finished long ago.
Because this “independent” statistical reviewer apparently gave its analysis after UEEC already submitted its application to the FDA, we would take it with a grain of salt. If it were a relevant review, it should have been included in the PMA application on October 4th. If this analysis was not included, we also wonder then what analysis was included and why the results of that analysis were not mentioned in the PR from October 4th.
But what is the most alarming to us in the 10/18/19 announcement is that the PR went silent on the very important product safety outcomes. From the UEEC clinical protocol, described on its clinicaltrials.gov page we learned about four secondary study outcomes:
Source: clinicaltrials.gov
While the Primary outcome and the Secondary outcome #1 in the UEEC study protocol are efficacy related, the Secondary #2, #3, and #4 outcomes are all safety outcomes and are of critical importance for FDA approval. The October 18th PR only addresses success of the Primary outcome and Secondary outcome #1. The PR didn't say if the study has shown a non-inferiority or superiority of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in the secondary outcomes #2-4. The history of UEEC only disclosing positive news makes us believe that the omission of results relevant to outcomes #2-4 could have been on purpose, because the clinical study likely showed the inferior performance of HemoStyp vs Surgicel in these outcome measures.
The statistician was very specific to claim non-inferiority and superiority of HemoStyp only in the initial hemostasis after application of HemoStyp to the wound. It is silent on what has happened after the initial hemostasis was achieved.
HemoStyp, according to UEEC, quickly dissolves in an aqueous environment due to its unique degradation properties. We can find this on the company’s website.
From UEEC’s product testing page:
The data obtained during analysis of sample UHP Box of 2” x 2” Pouches indicates the material begins to dissolve in water within one minute. The sample is completely dissolved within 24 hours. Not enough material remains for analysis at the 24 hour time point.
If HemoStyp dissolves too soon, the surgical wound would start bleeding again, and this would be a very serious safety issue.
Imagine a major disaster when bleeding re-occurs after the surgeon has already closed the outmost patient skin layer! The outcomes 2-4 directly address this key safety concern, describing in quantitative terms how well the initially achieved hemostasis is maintained during the surgery. Outcome 4 is about the failure of initial hemostasis, as measured in reoperations, during the one month after surgery. It seems to us that a hemostatic agent that is quick to achieve initial hemostasis, but rapidly dissolves and may frequently fail later resulting in recurrence of bleeding, is a major health hazard. Why would the FDA approve HemoStyp, if it indeed fails to maintain hemostasis, knowing that Surgicel is already a reasonably effective and safe FDA approved product?
From all these observations, we conclude that the clinical study of HemoStyp versus Surgicel was likely a failure. However, if and when its PMA application gets rejected, we doubt that shareholders will hear about it. We expect it will be just like when UEEC applied for PMA approval for Class III in late 2017, there will just not be any updates, like it never happened."
I wouldn't be so cocky about what is transpiring behind the scenes.
Another month another swing and a miss
"My wife a former cosmetic surgery nurse reviewed the product with doctors who were impressed but unaware of its use."
"Hemostatic agents have existed for some time but none like Hemostyp gauze!
More effective and less costly!"