Replies to post #3840 on PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[old biohf guy]

Jayyy, I belive you are misconstrueing what sweetlou is saying.

[Jayyy]

Another laughable filing. With hardly any sales big time CFO needsmore time to file --why?? What a joke.

Reason for Delay in Posting Financial Report: State below in reasonable detail why the Annual/Quarterly
Report could not be filed within the prescribed time period.
The annual report cannot be filed within the prescribe time period due to foreign currency translation and transaction calculations requiring additional time.

[sweetlou]

"Thanks you for not recommending"
There is a vast difference between:
1. Stating my favorable opinion about the efficacy and potential of Sucanon based on publicly available studies,while pointing out that,as a practitioner in the USA, it is not my role to recommend or prescribe Sucanon when it is not FDA approved for sale in the USA.
2. Your statement that I don't recommend (Sucanon)

That misstatement is known as a false dilemma. I, of course, am not in charge of other countries approval process for pharmaceutical sales or the process in the US. I can and do say based on my experience that preclinical results where Sucanon outperformed sulfonylureas and biguanides in animal testing with a therapeutic index of >10,000; randomized double blinded placebo controlled study in 370 adults, 6 months where Sucanon outperformed Glyburide, and a follow up 12 week study in 97 prediabetics that showed normalization of HbA1C in 81% of subjects presented at EASD annual meeting 2013, are all very impressive results which bode well for the future clinical success of Sucanon provided that it can be successfully marketed and those results communicated.

As any can see the above is a far cry from " not recommending"
It is however, recognizing that my recommendation means very little without being backed up by publicly verifiable information supported by cold hard science. I encourage any however, to do DD and look up the studies and judge for themselves the significance. The science doesn't change and can be reproduced and verified. My statements or other claims on this board can be "fact checked", a challenge which I thoroughly welcome.

[sweetlou]

"...a typical IR play to make money selling stock not product"
Please provide specific evidence of this claim.

The stock sales are listed in the quarterly and annual reports, as are the sales of product and the costs of manufacturing and distribution etc. How, exactly, in light of that, is the company making money from selling stock, any more than to meet expenses and production of Sucanon for distribution? What, exactly, is the evidence for the previous claim that "hundreds of millions of shares printed at zero cost basis" when at last report some 317 million shares total were outstanding? Where is the "pump" claimed so vividly? The promoters?
If the FDA application was just for a news release, where was the dilution of dump surrounding that announcement? For that matter, why put out information for a "pump" that states the company cannot sell Sucanon in the US as a Neutraceutical? While the acknowledgment that Sucanon should be considered a drug for US application, that cuts both ways in that a significant expense would be required to bring it to market. Not IMO a piece of news that will cause an immediate unjustified spike in stock price.
I have laid out my argument with the science of Sucanon studies. Let's see some cold hard facts on the above so they can be evaluated by any here that are interested