PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[sweetlou]

Now you state "Yep. Irving lied to everyone through phony press releases"
The interesting thing is the press release about the study did not mention a specific timeframe for release of study results, much less say that they would be out "right away" as falsely claimed. This statement is yet more misdirection from what you initially stated and has been verifiably proven wrong. Namely:

I never claimed to know when trial results are coming out. Despite your false claim in post 9757 that I am an Internet insider trying to misdirect facts, my only claims are all verifiable. It is also verifiable that you falsely stated that
1. Irving lied to all shareholders
2. Irving said results will be right after the trial
3. The supposed letters to SEC and FINRA are without any evidence
4. When Sucanon was correctly referred to as a drug, falsely stated "Not according to the FDA"

I note that none of the above was addressed, yet I am told to give an exact date when the study will be released (a change of subject). Evidence was given in minute detail.

By the way my "verbose affirmation" was not an affirmation of anything you stated. On the contrary, my evidence definitively disproved all your statements above. If one wants to call it verbose so be it. The evidence is listed so any can verify the information for themselves. Far better in my opinion to be "verbose" and list the evidence than to mislead by verifiably altering, for example, a Consumer Reports article to falsely implicate this company and its product, all the while calling it a "verbatim excerpt". Once again the evidence for that is below and the evidence is clear and irrefutable.

You state in post 9651 "It's an exact excerpt from CR"

Let's consult the definition of exact from Merriam Webster "Strictly and completely in accordance with fact; not deviating from truth or reality. Since the article has been provably modified it is neither "exact" nor verbatim as falsely claimed. For completeness, the verb definition of exact is included also in case any find it applicable:
" to demand and get (something, such as payment or revenge) especially by using force or threats"

Each time the Consumer Reports article has been posted as supposed evidence that FDA warns against Sucanon or 'types of products' like Sucanon, the subject sentence is left out of the middle of the claimed "verbatim excerpt" (post 6475, 6489 and others).

It reads : "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. " Note that Sucanon is not mentioned in the article and has not been sold in the US.

Further, IF the article was applicable, why would it be necessary to leave out the subject sentence? It is claimed a "verbatim excerpt" in many previous posts, when it is not which leads to a false conclusion. That is a notorious omission and the falsity easily and definitively established.

Read the complete unedited article here:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/diabetes-treatment-alternatives/index.htm

Let's consult the definition of verbatim: "in exactly the same words that were used originally", which your post is clearly not. More disturbing, when the error is pointed out, it is incorrectly repeated again for the stated purpose of "scaring others away" as stated in post 4550.

This is further evidence of my contention that no credible information has been put forth of a scam or fraudulent actions by this company. If the "evidence" has to have the subject sentence removed while falsely claiming a "verbatim excerpt" and attempting to lead others to an incorrect conclusion, then that is not evidence at all. In court it would be false testimony. If the company is a scam and fraudulent as claimed, there would be plenty of supporting information for those claims. Instead, information is falsely and surreptitiously edited to make it appear to support the false claim and conclusion as above.

On one final note, I don't "carry water" for IR as falsely claimed nor do I post any lies. The accusations themselves are inappropriate but easily disproven by me since my statements are all backed up by publicly verifiable information. I'm still waiting for the proof of correspondence or a conversation with Irving where he stated any of the alleged comments.