Replies to post #9234 on PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[Jayyy]

Completely irrational. Its one thing to "promote" a scam stock, but playing with peoples health and lives is dangerous at the least--and the FDA DENIED this fraud its application. Especially when this fraud is run by people like this..Paramount Advisors LLC (parvise.com) and Robust Media Group LLC CEO and convicted felon Hugh "Larry" Clark and business partner Michael."Mike" Irving. Now Mike Irving is an interesting character and partner of of David Deleon and here are some facts about this Dynamic Ponzi Scheme Duo: They
are both heavily invested in both Renuen Corporation and PharmaRoth Labs because Michael Irving is the investor relations guy for both companies and David Deleon provides the online scamming for both companies.
Mike Irving worked for the infamous Southstar Funding and became popular from this article:
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/509-southstar-funding-goes-under
Mike also worked at Madison & Wall Worldwide and Elite Financial with someone named "Dodi Handy' go ahead and google her and prepare to be amazed again, yup! another Massive scam and another convicted felon"

[sweetlou]

Your rationale in comparison of Sucanon and Metformin is reasonable given current limited information. I would also point out that in preclinical testing summarized at sucanonhealth.com, Sucanon outperformed biguanides (which include Metformin) and sulfonylureas (Micronase among others) in lab rat muscle, Sucanon also outperformed Glyburide in a 370 subject 6 month double blinded placebo controlled study. Presumably the results of the 12 week study conducted in Mexico City will be consistent with the above and other previous Sucanon studies.

I also agree that in the big picture the study results are very important especially when considering the previous study results for supporting information and perspective.

The only reason that I made any issue of the cash and financials is that I posted a brief accurate summary when financials were released and subsequently definitively refuted some inaccurate posted information and was told falsely that I "read the financial reports incorrectly". I'm all for vigorous debate on the issues, and welcome any who present facts to dispute anything that I post. I anticipate that may be difficult given that any of my stated facts are backed up by publicly available information.