Replies to post #9645 on PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[old biohf guy]

This is a repeat of the infamous post #4477 where a Consumer Reports article s modified to remove the offending companies and products. Roth and Sucanon are not on the offending list.

Here is the complete Consumer Reports article:

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

Here is the deleted sentence:
"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 the period (.) just after the word "beware" has mysteriously changed from a colon(:) to make it appear to be the end of a sentence. A colon (:) implies there is more to come.

This modification is misleading, unethical and intentional. It is hard to fathom that this omission was done accidentally via 'fat finger' or other wise. Note that even after this has been pointed out dozens of times the misleading omission continues to be reposted.

[sweetlou]

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.