Replies to post #10153 on PharmaRoth Labs, Inc. (ROTH)

[sweetlou]

Here is a small sample of false statements in your post
1. Press releases and their circumstances have been covered in detail and will be reposted for information
2. Website www.pharmaroth.com is operating
3. "Irving said results will be right after the trial". The announcement has no wording in it about timing of release of results. Further, multiple shareholders have contradicted your claim that "Irving lied to all shareholders about this." Very simple, provide proof of your conversation or correspondence with Irving.
4. "Owes a million dollars". Actually the previous incorrect figure you defended was $1.25 million and I showed how that was false below: Aditionally your own admitted definition of insolvent is different than the published and the company is paying its bills.
5."Not a drug according to the FDA" is verifiably false. Below is proof:
6. A Las Vegas business license is not required as operations occur in Mexico City. I called them. Their website will be corrected in time.
7. The "sales down almost 90%" statement has been disproven on many occasions. Giving you the extreme benefit of the doubt, one quarter of sales is picked out of the last 4 years and sloppy accounting is used on top of that to paint a misleading picture.

Regarding #5, for the complete FDA letter here is the link so readers can evaluate for themselves as opposed to incomplete and misleading excerpts:

https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-S-0023-0011

In the middle of page 2 the FDA letter states:
"Moreover, the product to which you refer in your submission appears to be a drug under the Act and thus subject to the regulatory requirements of drugs."

So the FDA says Sucanon is a drug. They further state in the letter that Sucanon has been subject to "significant clinical investigations" and reference the Sucanon study in Latino prediabetics presented at the EASD 2013 annual meeting and included in their journal. Even more evidence is listed and source attributed in my previous posts on this issue.

Regarding #4 and 14 You previously stated "Sorry--you are wrong--the CEO's $374K needs to be added to the liabilities"

$371,593 is listed as a related party payable in the liabilities in the latest quarterly statement. Further, if you read under "Employment contracts" later in the statement, the CEO deferred salary of $371,593 matches up exactly and is therefore with definitive proof already included in the liabilities.

So the following have been definitively proven:
1. You didn't check the financial statement itself before making yet more inaccurate statements.
2. $374K is not even the number in question, as noted above it is $371,593
3. The liabilities already include the $371,593
4. Even giving the extreme benefit of the doubt and including your serious mistake, liabilities would still not equal the stated figure of 1.25 million.
5. You impugned me as "wrong" without checking the accuracy of your own information.

You again falsely and repeatedly state "COMPANY IS INSOLVENT" yet admit that "your own definition" of insolvent is different than Websters published definition.

This conforms to an ongoing pattern of falsely claiming a "verbatim excerpt" from a Consumer Reports article when the article in question was verifiably modified to remove the subject sentence and conceal the change with modifying the punctuation to falsely implicate ROTH and Sucanon in an FDA warning that in fact had nothing to do with the company or product. It is verifiable in post 4477 and many subsequent posts.

I will state further that if you can really prove anything at all that I have posted is factually incorrect then have at it. Aside from one factual mistake that was identified and immediately corrected, there are no errors of fact in my posts, because my information is verifiable from publicly available sources and cited in their entirety without modification

[old biohf guy]

Maybe you can add post #4477 to your list? Modifying a Consumer Report article to change the meaning and intent is in violation of the terms of service on the Consumer Reports site. I wonder how they would feel about someone doing this?

Here is the full Consumer Reports article. I have highlighted in bold red the omitted sentence.

Watch out for fake diabetes treatments
Published: July 31, 2013 08:00 AM

If you see products on store shelves that claim to treat, cure, or prevent diabetes and its complications, the Food and Drug Administration wants to you to beware: 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.
What can you do? Watch out for the following product types and their treatment claims:
• “Natural” supplements. We’ve warned consumers in the past about the dangers of supplements. Some drugs labeled as “natural” were found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients that may actually harm rather than help.
• Dietary supplements. These supplements claim to treat and even prevent diabetes. These products are not FDA approved and therefore cannot make such a claim.
• Online pharmacy drugs. Online suppliers are selling prescription drugs to people without a prescription. Unapproved versions of diabetes drugs are found on these pharmacy websites.
• Unapproved OTC medications. These drugs claim to relieve symptoms associated with diabetes, but are not approved by the FDA.
Besides potential harm from the various treatments, there is concern that using these products will prevent people from seeking medical treatment and FDA-approved drugs.
Here are three generic, low-cost options that our CR Best Buy Drug experts recommend you discuss with your doctor:
• Metformin and Metformin Sustained Release (alone or with glipizide or glimepiride)
• Glipizide and Glipizide Sustained release (alone or with metformin
• Glimepiride (alone or with metformin)
In addition to taking medicine, it’s important to closely monitor your blood sugar. In our tests of blood glucose meters, the Accu-Chek Aviva and the FreeStyle Freedom Lite were two that came out on top. Results from blood glucose meters can help patients make adjustments to diet, exercise, and treatment plans. Close monitoring can help to lower the risk of diabetes-related issues, such as kidney disease and seizures.
Although there are no reported injuries yet, according to the FDA, the agency urged people who have experienced any side effects to report them through an online form.
— Ciara Rafferty