Member Info for bald_eagle

Endlman would have got his fee for doing his 'research' into Blinkx/RTHM.
He was also invited over to London to do a presentation for an investor event hosted by Tim WhiningFroth. He did his slideshow - fairly geeky innocuous stuff IMO - and then whiningFroth attempted to ask lots of leading questions of Endlman to try to get him to 'dish the dirt' on Blinkx, who dodged them quite neatly, preferring to stick to his trivially pointless research....he wasn't asked back again!!
But the damage was done by then.

The nutty professor reference totally passed me by....What has Eddie Murhpy got to do with TRMR I thought?

He was an associate professor....a hired gun. The people behind him are the dangerous people. Endlman was/is a tool (in every sense of the word)! But it was a very effective slur & I expect they made a lots of money.

Tricky, it is 'almost' impossible to work out what is truth and what is fake news. Only by sticking with boring but safe news sources can we hope to filter out all the fake stuff.
There are algorithms that know exactly what buttons to push to make us behave in a certain predictable way....we are all susceptible (some more than others). The QAnon garbage is a perfect example....some people lap it up.

I can see it being used to influence investors in the future. There are ham fisted - low tech - attempts by posters on message boards to influence people....they are quite easy to spot. I am sure that the attempts will get more sophisticated in the decades ahead. When money is on the line then some people will try to stack the deck.

I'm still trying to work out who are the goodies & the baddies, whether we have baddies pretending to be goodies & where Randolph Scott fit into all this. Cue: "I shot the Sheriff but I didn't shoot the deputy!"

Stuck on AIM...I don't believe there is any barrier to getting a full listing on London stock exchange (apart from the cost). Perhaps TRMR like to be in the Dodge city of exchanges. The rule is, there are no rules!!

Moodle?!....is it something cows do?

Tricky, why so negative?. TRMR could easily get to over £15 per share....a 10 for 1 share consolidation springs to mind, £20 at the swipe of a pen!!

No seriously, personally I have no idea what TRMR will be 'worth' in 2 years. £15 would be 'wonderful' but realistically £3 is probably nearer the mark (and still good). Perhaps it is a positive sign when 'new' investors start popping up with 1 post under their belt and start 'cautiously' predicting £15...maybe TRMR is getting on the radar of certain types of investors who alone or together are able to drive the SP higher. I wish them good hunting if that is the case.

What is a 'cautious' prediction anyway? Is it a 'conservative' prediction that the SP will be at least £15 in 2 years (probably far higher) OR is it someone who isn't certain of their prediction and plucked a figure out of the air to testing the reaction.

Personally I like £300 in 2 years....obviously based on a 100 to 1 consolidation!!!

It would be good to see the SP power through 232p and keep on going. But I have no idea how much more the current run has to go....not even sure what is driving this (apart from our American chums of course).

Didn't someone say recently that the share buy-back is coming to an end....they could be reaching the end of the allocated money.

I agree with you NDR. We can speculate about whether there is or is not an 'active ingredient' in MED3000. If it works, it works.

However, we have a theory on how MED3000 works from the experts, FUM themselves. Presumably (hopefully) a theory endorsed by Prof D. Ralph (although I haven't heard if he backs the theory) or another academic. The 'fact' is that Futura - for whatever reason - don't seem to have identified an active ingredient. That is a fact. For non-expert investors to create their own theory that suggests there is an active ingredient is 100% pure speculation. Let's keep to facts (as we know them)....not create theories to suit an agenda.

Obviously people are free to contact FUM to discuss any theories they have.

Good luck

I guess we can expect lots of similar RNS's as they spend the money they have raised. When are they going to get a new coffee percolator for the staff canteen?

NDR, perhaps you should contact FUM directly to discuss your theory on the MoA for MED3000...it seems to differ slightly from FUM's theory (regarding an active ingredient).

Perhaps FUM are 'downplaying' the active ingredient that you seem to have identified in order to make regulatory approval easier.

Good luck

Re. CBD100 shelf life....if FUM can solve the 'shelf life problem' then it could give CBD100 a signficant commercial advantage. It is something to watch out for in future company news.

"Dermasys/MED3000 contain no active ingredients"
==========================================================
Bucolic, isn't the lack of an active ingredient in MED3000 part of FUM's own regulatory submission...hence why it has been classed as a de novo device. If there is an active ingredient that passes through the skin barrier then the regulatory pathway is far more onerous....side effects etc etc.

FUM themselves also describe the MoA for MED3000 as an evaporative cooling and warming cycle that enervates the glans pen1s....no mention of an active ingtredient from FUM.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

"possibly tackling the shelf life problem was i recall given some emphasis in the last announcement."
==============================================================
theItalian, in the last announcement (interims) the 'shelf life problem' re CBD100 wasn't given as much emphasis as you suggest...it was buried deep in the report (not in the highlights that most people in a hurry read). The initial CBD announcement (in fairness) did emphasise that shelf life was an issue with all CBD products & that FUM were hopeful of solving it.

BIB, you refer to FDA in your post....did you mean EMA?

If EMA asked for a separate 6 month trial then that could have significant costs, surely?

Worse case scenario....FUM start the FDA trial in March 2021 and subsequently EMA ask for a data that requires a trial that cannot be incorporated by the ongoing FDA trial. I am sure FUM will want to avoid this and are hopefully in discussions with EMA to determine their thinking on data sufficiency.

Just for clarity (getting confused myself) regarding Odysseus' last few posts:

The pain relief product is TPR100

The CBD100 work is aimed at delivering cannabidiol through the skin for 'therapeutic' purposes....which may or may not involve pain relief. Just not limited to pain relief....cosmetics for example!!

So MED3000 is like paracetamol!!....excellent, so perhaps Futura can add that to their marketing strategy.

"Guys, when your partner has a headache suggest MED3000!"

For clarity, I don't believe the Mode of action for MED3000 has been scientifically proven. FUM have a theory - quite a fancy theory - but I haven't heard if it has academic backing (from someone like Prof Ralph). The theory relies on cooling by evaporation, and then a warming phase that stimulates the glans pen1s. There is no mention of an active ingredient passing through the skin.

If anyone has more information on the MoA then please inform us....especially if it is backed up by a scientific study or someone with an academic reputation.

Must have been a bit of a blockage....oh the relief!!