You state "this is due diligence"(referring to verifiable information posted on a website)"not alleged phone calls from an anonymous poster to an unknown person"
That is really an excellent point which has 2 solutions:
1. Call the Nevada SOS yourself to verify or dispute what I alleged below and in past posts.
2. Dismiss my information as inaccurate until the website is actually updated.
Since you have chosen option 2 on the basis that information from an anonymous poster is not trusted, then logically, your claim to have called FDA and that the person you spoke to said
"FDA not happy with press release"
"They said this was just an application to take it over the border to test"
And when asked whom you spoke with for verification, claimed "my source is privileged"
All that information logically is equally suspect as it is also from an anonymous poster to an unknown person.
Likewise you previously stated "I would rather stick to what the Secretary of State in Nevada publicly officially posts than romor from insiders or posts"
Therefore my claim based on information from Nevada SOS that the company does not require a business license because there are no operations (sales, production etc) in Nevada is seen as not valid because the published records on the website have not been updated. That's fine, I will concede that it is not verifiable outside of a phone call or the website update. Then logically this standard of validity should apply to anything else posted here, including modified Consumer Reports article, FDA letter, posted financials, clinical studies etc. For example:
The Consumer reports article in post 4477 and in many following posts is modified from the actual content of the Consumer Reports website to falsely indicate Sucanon as one of the supplements warned about improper advertising by the FDA when it was not and has not been sold in the US. So instead of falsely indicating a "verbatim excerpt" from the CR article and website, Then concede the obvious, that the statement is verifiably false as it was altered from the version on the official website and is verifiably false.
It is stated that Sucanon in post 3963 contains only inactive ingredients despite the active ingredients being publicly stated, in one location directly above the cut and pasted inactive ingredients listed on the healthcanada website. The statement verifiably conflicts with the posted information on the official healthcanada website and is verifiably false
The contents of the FDA response letter from the official FDA website were misrepresented by leaving out FDAs clear statements that Sucanon is a drug per the food and drug act, that Sucanon has undergone "substantial clinical investigations" as they reference the press release announcing presentation of a 12 week study of Sucanon in prediabetics in which 81% showed normalized HbA1C at the conclusion and that the study was presented at the 2013 EASD annual meeting and the abstract included in the EASD journal.
It was stated in post 2679 I (Jayyy) spoke with FDA, they are not happy with press release. Last I checked the existence of or contents of that conversation were not listed on the official FDA website.
It was stated falsely that Canagen (the Sucanon distributor for India, a multinational company) is a fake company and located in a diner. Those statements are certainly disproven by the official Canagen website.
The Ihub website, ROTH message board post 4550 confirms that the purpose of the modification to the Consumer Reports article was for "scaring others away". This is verifiable on the official website.
It was stated falsely that sales in Mexico are down 90% which has been repeatedly disproven based on published quarterly and yearly revenues at otcmarkets.com. That is an official website also.
Verifiably false information was repeatedly posted here drawn from hotstocked.com and modified with continued false information on share sale prices and amounts. Perhaps hotstocked.com could be changed also, or if it were at all a credible source, the information wouldn't need to be modified and still incorrectly represent stock sale prices actually listed in the filed reports at otcmarkets.com
I'm pretty sure these examples illustrate my point. However, if the standard really applies that we should not believe the information unless it is verifiable on the official website, I am more than willing to go by that standard as my information on scientific studies, financial filings, and issues associated with medical research and disclosure have been proven reliable based on publicly verifiable information. If it takes some time before the information is updated in Nevada, that's ok with me. I'm glad that there is actual objective criteria suggested to evaluate the truthfulness of information that we are provided
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
