PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[sweetlou]

You state "A flawed BS evaluation" in response to my posting

Regarding education on diabetes, which I think is an excellent suggestion, one must first start with scientific principles. Here is a review of "levels of evidence" as we refer to in the medical community.

Level 1 evidence is the most reliable studies upon which medical treatment decisions are made, and the criteria for levels 1 through 5 are outlined below:

1. Blinded randomized controlled trial with statistically significant differences and appropriate confidence intervals.
2. Randomized controlled trial without proper randomization, blinding, or poor follow up
3. Case control or retrospective study.
4. Case series. (For example, a paper outlining how I fixed a torn tendon in x number of patients and it worked. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of published medical literature fits into this category.)
5. Expert opinion.

Note that Sucanon outperformed Glyburide in a 6 month randomized double blind placebo controlled trial (level 1 evidence, highest reliability) in terms of fasting blood sugar reduction, excretion of urinary glucose, and glucose tolerance testing.
The trial in prediabetics in which 84% showed normalized HbA1C levels after 12 weeks of Sucanon is level 3 since not placebo controlled but was peer reviewed and presented at the prestigious EASD 2013 annual meeting and published in their journal.
I could claim expert opinion (level 5) based on training but instead claim only that my facts are independently verifiable from public sources so any can check as desired. Note that level 4 and 5 is the usual treatment opinion you get from your doctor if specific higher level evidence is not available or consulted.

Finally, if there is more reliable evidence than level 1 above (double blinded randomized placebo controlled study with statistically significant results, I'm all ears. Other than that the publicly available science speaks for itself regarding the efficacy of Sucanon

This information is scientifically accurate and publicly verifiable. Please state in specific terms how the above referenced study is flawed. Inquiring scientific minds want to know.