The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
bald egale will just confine myself to agreeing that the very slight percentage variations seem to me,as a very non scientific layman,to show no statistical significance and therefore so far as i am concern med 3000 is as effective as med 2005.im glad you agree.
theItalian, good to know. Presumably any differences could be explained through % error in the data.
Shame that they knew about it in 2016 and didn't investigate a little deeper. A missed opportunity IMO. Instead they doubled down on the GTN dosage and we are where we are. 4 years and a lot of money down the swannie.
Hopefully potential partners, regulators and the patent office believe the data on MED3000....that's all we can hope. Although FUM do seem to play word games with their patent claims. Any potential partner will see right through it...so they are wasting their time in that respect. Although it does manage to fool some people....and newbies of course who take things at face value. Cannot blame newbies but Liberum & ananda are another matter.
Bald Eagle he did indeed.you can still view it on website under investor centre/webcasts.it was on the 1st april.ive gone through it again but couldn't get a screenshot of the relevant section. there is a chart showing the comparative results of med3000 (the placebo as then was) against the three doses of GTN which were being tested. so far as i could see (i mean the litterally as my eyesight is not as good as it was and my screen is quite small )med3000 was superior or equivalent on all measures except one against the largest dose of GTN tested ,where it was a percentage point or so down. certainly nothing to suggest inferiority any meaningful sense. please have a look as it may be helpful (if anyone can take a screenshot it would be very helpful) i hope this post is accurate but a screenshot would put the matter beyond argument.i do agree with the water under the bridge comment ,although as i wasn't invested then i accept that that is easier for me to say than perhaps for some others.
theItalian, didn't Ken James do a presentation on that very subject (was it April 1st Webinar thingy). I seem to remember that MED3000 was slightly inferior in some respects but not dramatically & in all scenarios.
Bucolic, to some extent both yourself & theItalian are correct (how is that possible I hear you gasp?). MED3000 may well be inferior to the GTN products but the benefits of having no active ingredient outweigh the 'slight' loss in performance. I believe that's the thinking of FUM's management.
Why they didn't spot that MED3000 was a 'wonder' product 4 years ago and save wasting £ millions on unecessary reports & trials...that's another question. FUM have a history of missing the bleeding obvious (CSD500 2 year shelf life another example). Water under bridge suppose!!....but poor management.
thats exactly what i thought frnkmu.see below.
The thing is: MED3000 was proven to be as effective as the formulation containing GTN, this is why they are not adding GTN: same effect, lower costs and fewer risks. MED3000 is in fact superior for those reasons
bucolic if you wish to change my mind i must ask you to point specifically to where it is stated that med 2005 was proved to be more efficacious than med 3000 (the placebo as was). i cannot recall any statements to that effect.my understanding is that it was equally as efficacious and the fact that it does not contain an ingredient in med 20005 does not, in itself, detract from that efficaciousness. i do not ,despite appearances, have a closed mind.i simply do not think there has been any statement about med 2005 being more efficacious. if i am wrong and you can show me i will accept it. there is no merit in obduracy, as opposed to accuracy.
the.Italian, if MED2005 contained gtn, a tried and tested vasodilator and known treatment for ED, and MED3000 doesn't; and MED2005 was proved to be more efficacious than Dermasys (MED3000) in a clinical trial, then how you can say you've never seen anything to suggest that MED3000 is inferior? Those facts speak for themselves. Whilst I agree that it will be cheaper and easier to get MED3000 to market, that doesn't make it a better product. All my opinion, of course, and I'm clearly never going to change your mind.
" But it taught me a valuable lesson - never pay too much credence to people like Ananda."
=============================
Bucolic, it's a painful and expensive lesson to learn (but thankfully you have learned it and may be able to avoid such pifalls 'most' of the time). I wish you the best of luck with your investment in FUM (I really do). But I cannot stand the lies and fantasy valuations offered by some here.
PS ananda is 100% self-interest, all he says is designed to maximise gain for himself. He is very cynical IMO.
no bucolic i do not agree that med 3000 is an inferior product.i have seen nothing to suggest that it is.as it has the advantage of being able to seek approval as a device and as it it is a simpler formulation and thus cheaper potentially to manufacture, i regard it as superior in terms of potential marketability.also,with respect,i see no point in referring to historic events. they are just that,history.i am solely concerned with the present position not what has gone on in the past.my only question is how likely is this product to get approval.i have my own opinion.secondary questions may then arise as to how sales will pan out,what type of marketing deal is likely,but these are,so far as I'm concerned ,questions for a later date,and again.with respect,i attach no importance or value to your speculations in these areas.
baldy, don't get me wrong. I am one of those investors in a hole and hoping they'll pull a rabbit out of that hat. I lost a lot of money on Immupharma and their drug Lupuzor which also "couldn't fail." Luckily, alongside all the ramping on ADVFN, there was a chap called Hamhamham and he advised caution as you never know what might happen. Because of his wise words I didn't lose the farm, just a couple of barns and several outbuildings. The dairy was a gonner too. But it taught me a valuable lesson - never pay too much credence to people like Ananda.
It's a fair cop, the.Italian, that was a slip of the pen. I didn't mean to say that the placebo worked better than MED2005 because I know that it didn't. My other posts on that day didn't reflect that error. However, aside from my small faux pas, do you not agree that MED3000 is an inferior product to MED2005, or indeed any of the previous formulations? They were all going to make us rich, but didn't, and now MED3000 is, even though it's not as good.
Bucolic, thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately there are quite a few investors who in a hole with FUM and are 'hoping' that they pull a rabbit out of a hat and make us money. Doesn't mean that investors (new & old) don't need to know the truth about what they are invested in. Knowing risks may help us avoid any shock events. I would suggest a rights issue is a big danger h1 2021. Take profits where you can and 'hopefully' get in a position when only a small amount of 'real' cash is at risk.
Do what I suspect ananda is doing...selling on the surges & hype (he tries to generate). Then buy back when the SP weakens (when unsurprisingly he/she goes very quiet).
PS I'm not saying that he/she personally moves the SP, just that he/she times his ramping to try match the natural waves in investor sentiment. That's my theory!!
dermasys!
bucolic i don't mind knowledgable discussion or even speculation although i completely ignore it. what does help though is a bit of consistency.on the 25th june at 15.10 you posted (inter alia) ''in the FM57 trial the placebo,durmasts, worked better than the medication being trailed, med2005" i fail to see how you can now suggest that it is inferior to the trialed product and thus second rate.
"People with negative comments should be banned. Its a crying shame that they are allowed to infect good honest debate."
sb88, you clearly have no understanding of what a debate is, let alone an honest one. It's a discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward in a civilised way without the insults and vilification that come from people like Ananda if someone dares to oppose their views. Surprisingly, bald-eagle has come back to the BB with some timely advice for people who may want to invest here. I've suggested before that people don't bet the farm on it, baldy has said it's not for widows and orphans. Yes, the potential upside is huge and I hope as much as anyone else we make some money. However, FUM's track record is not inspiring. They're bringing a second rate product to market because it's easier and cheaper. Let me elucidate - MED2005 was the "sure thing" product which contained GTN, but it didn't reach endpoints at any dosage in FM57 because it wasn't sufficiently better than placebo., and therefore failed the trial. It was however more efficacious than the placebo, which became MED3000, the new "sure thing" product, which is why I called it second rate, and FUM are concentrating on that because they don't have to put it through any more trials so it's cheaper and quicker. These are facts, not pie in the sky fantasy figures of the market potential which depends on the product getting to market in the first place.
People with negative comments should be banned. Its a crying shame that they are allowed to infect good honest dedate. Too much fake news is not good news. Plenty of money in the bank. Good news on the way. 100% comited.
Of course Baldy, but can you handle the truth is the question? 108p (minimum) on the way.
I'm waiting.
Can you handle the truth? Darling!!