Member Info for bald_eagle

"Somebody sold two shares wonder what they are going to spend the money on ! ha ha ha"
=======================================================================
They now have 2 pennies to run together!!

I had a hippy physics teacher who had a theory that we were all born knowing everything about the Universe, so it was 'just' a case of re-learning what we already knew. Perhaps a version of 'unknown knowns'....or just too many magic mushrooms!!

Arthur, just searching for the truth on the path to a better understanding.

"Aside from our current patent lawyers, Futura recently retained a specialist biotech IP and strategic advice company to assist in maximising the robustness of the MED3000 intellectual property. " [FUM website]

Perhaps that explains who has been trying to make FUM's patent offering read slightly sexier.

Obviously, all this talk about IP and patents isn't just for 'fun'. Potential partners will be employing real experts to crawl over all FUM trying to work out what sort of an outfit they are and how much they want to pay for any deal (or whether to seek a deal in the first place). So strong patent protecttion is important (IMO).

If FUM are trying to sex-up their IP offering it may fool us but it won't fool the real experts.

MED3000 doesn't currently have a patent...it is patent pending. That is why the patent would be extended...it is a brand new application (IMO).

FrankMu, you seem to have some experience regarding patents....how does one protect the patent on a 'formulation'? What is to stop a competitor making a slight change to the formulation and marketing that? Sounds like marvellous work for patent lawyers.

theItalian, thanks for the link. I wondered how FUM were going to explain how MED3000 works. A new word for me...'Exipient' and even more grand sounding "Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) pharmaceutical excipients".

Wonderful stuff.

Just noting that early this year RNS's often contained "DermaSys® is a proprietary patented transdermal technology platform"

Last weeks RNS contained something a little different: "....proprietary, transdermal DermaSys® technology. Each DermaSys® formulation is separately patented and specifically tailored for the selected indication and application"

So it's the 'formulation' that is 'separately' patented and NOT Dermasys itself.

BTW MED3000 doesn't actually have its patent yet...it is patent pending.

All of the previous patents obtained on now defunct products (CSD500, MED2002/2005, PET500 etc) are now pretty much worthless from an IP point of view. The unfortunate truth.

So the question still remains, why did FUM try to sex-up their IP by saying Dermasys was 'proprietary patented'? Do they think they have a weakness with IP?

Everyone ignores 'known knowns' when they are uncomfortable to admit - whether investors or governments - but I'm not sure they can be classified as 'unknown knowns'. They are often facts that are ignored for a reason....eg governments choose to ignore that the Crown Saudi Prince had someone murdered or that China has Uighur concentration camps. It is often just easier to ignore the 'known' facts....it doesn't make them 'unknown'. Similarly investors often cherry pick the 'known' facts to suit an agenda...whether short or long. It is what people do.

It seemed to start circa Dec 2019...by pure coincidence just about the time that MED3000 transmogrified into a non-placebo standalone product. Namely the 'claims' that Dermasys was proprietary patented. This continued for many RNS's and several months but has now ceased...when confronted with potential legal action (perhaps!!).

So the interesting question is what & who drove the 'need' for IP??

My guess is Ken James. I also suspect he 'came up with the idea' of MED3000 (clutching face saving 'victory' out of the jaws of defeat). I reckon it's his 'American pharma' background that has enabled him to see an opportunity in the face of defeat (double his salary).
Unfortunately 'us' shareholders are left wondering who do we trust....I used to trust Mr Barder (but he is a now a shell after the humilation of the FM57 trial). So investors are left at the mercy of Ken James...a person I trust as far as I could throw him (possibly even less). Apart from that life is wonderful on Fantasy Island...Amanda has just wandered past..topless of course!! (not a pretty sight)

"The demise of Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1'st 2003, was the result of a hole in one of its wings that filled with hot gas, a hole that had been caused by a piece of insulating foam that fell off the fuel tank. But five days later, NASA still didn't think that the foam was to blame—it simply couldn't be, was the thinking." [original idea by Paul Wiltshire, MD at CityIQ]

- Everyone knew that foam had fallen from the shuttle...so there were 'known knowns'
- Some engineers thought the foam could have seriously damaged the shuttle...so they had ' known unknowns'. They knew there could be damage but they weren't certain. They kept silent
- NASA management knew nothing about the potential damage...so they had 'unknown unknowns'

At no point were there any 'unknown knowns' (it is a silly concept). The problem was made catastrophic when engineers didn't try to resolve their 'known unknowns' by asking NASA management to look for damage. Simples!

"Unrealized = unknown until the penny drops through time, using reasoning, after demonstration of the facts."
=====================================================
?? You seem to be using a different language to me. If you had written the above in Urdu it would probably have made more sense (to me).

Tricky_D, you're not Paul Wiltshire, MD of CityIQ, are you?

"In the O.J. Simpson case the blood-stained gloves were known to exist but their inability to fit the alleged culprit's hands was an unknown until he was asked to try them on.
That was not a known unknown until demonstrated - it was an unknown known."
========================================
Don't they call that 'clutching at straws'....is it so hard to admit that your original post of 'unknown knowns' was a typo? That there is 'obviously' no such thing as an 'unkown known'. But you seem to want to double down (in a very Trumpian way) because you seemingly cannot admit that you made an honest mistake. There comes a point when one is in a hole it is advisable to stop digging!!

"where did they say "clinically insufficient"?"
==============================================
FrankMu. you are quite correct...there was no mention that the FDA said it was 'clinically insufficient'. Sorry about that. I should have said that the clinical data was insufficient.

" So how the hell was this not found earlier? "
===============================================
DosAndDonts, it was 'spotted' in 2016 during the initial trial conducted by Professor David Ralph....the results were there back then. Just nobody seemed to realise, they were concentrating everything on the product with the active ingredient (GTN) MED2002/2005. They even increased the GTN strength in the P3 trial in an attempt to counteract the behaviour of the Dermasys placebo but the darn thing wouldn't go away. Finally after exausting all avenues & most of their money they clevery created MED3000 overnight and here we are. So there was an opportunity 4 years ago to investigate the Dermasys placebo effect. So missed opportunity or water under the bridge, same thing really. P3 trial would have been required anyway (or something similar).

Tricky_D, I think we can agree to disagree!

Although I'm not sure the 'dodgy dossier' was a 'Known' by those 'in the know'...it was a sexed up document created with the sole purpose of getting Parliament to agree to the Iraq war, so that Blair could deliver on his promise to Bush (Walker) in the aftermath of 911. So I'm not sure 'Spin' or 'fake news' (the modern parlance) can be classified as a 'Known'.

BackInBlak, I mostly agree with your post on the risks post P3 trial. But just for clarity & for the benefit of new investors:
- The P3 trial failed in one of it's main objectives...namely the formulations under test were no better than the placebo used in the test.
- MED3000 the new product was in fact the placebo used in the P3 trial. Only after the P3 trial was ended did they name it MED3000 (formerly the placebo formulation in the trial)
- MED3000 has not undergone a P3 trial against a placebo.

Sure, they have data for MED3000 generated by the P3 trial (FM57) but the FDA have now said that is 'clinically insufficient'...albeit they have supposedly agreed to a 'least burdensome' design for the additional trial.
This does not mean that potential partners may not seek futher assurances that the claims being made for MED3000 can be substantiated. For example, prior to the original P3 trial FUM (& Mr Barder) were saying that deal(s) were imminent...however potential partners questioned the rapid speed of onset claims because in an earlier trial the test product could not be differentiated from placebo (the same results obtained in P3 trial) and wanted the P3 trial to show clinical supperiority over placebo (by using increased strength of active ingredient, GTN). The P3 trial failed in this respect. FUM cleverly created a new product instead...MED3000 (the former placebo).

Just a bit of background and for the benefit of new investors.

"Is B E feeling just a little remorse at the outcome , so far, of his actions ?"
============================================================
Arthur, do you really believe that I have the power to influence the news flow coming from FUM and specifically the decision of the FDA to seek further clinical data? I know I'm influential but 'unfortunately' I'm not that powerful...I'm not Trump!!

Do I feel remorse for telling people the truth?..NAH!

BTW did you read about the numptie who suggested using Dermasys to deliver a Coronavrius vaccine?...keeping quiet about that I see!!

"... slow impeachment of life..."
========================================
Milhous, you've got impeachment on your mind...let's hope there isn't a smoking gun.

Never seen a better example of someone trying to justify a simple mistake, probably because they cannot admit they are ever wrong....very Trumpian.