Member Info for MrHumble

Tbf, it's probably already done by researchers. you just need to subscribe

Mol, let us all know what the regulator for each region says. Their context of the seal will interest all imo

They do recommend staying hydrated so I suppose anything that encourages drinking some water does that bit anyway, just to cover all arguments

I find clarity from regulators is much more useful than deciphering word usage of companies and BB's lol

'Provide scientific data showing that its product sufficiently and safely aids in the management of psoriatic disease '

You dont have to prove the 'aid'

If unclear, ask the regulator. They are very helpful

No it does not. You do not have to evidence 'affect' per se in the medical term re treating it. That would come under regulations that require drug level data. You have to prove it is not going to cause issue

'Submit completed application with test results demonstrating non-irritation, non-sensitization, and product safety/non-toxic.'

That may slip under the radar on AIM, but it wont @CRDA

I think its why they all like to be saying 'in commercialisation phase' for a decade. lol

If you were to forget AIM and look at what it has to achieve for investors to actually justify 17p soon, this is the required in value terms. I left expenses frozen because couldn't be arsed to create multiple expense points

hTtps://x.com/YankTrain17909/status/1951686581741392222

EPS forwards do have a few various calc models out there. Broadly speaking, that is correct Be the mid point of all institutions and they like to be near each other anyway for obvious reasons. Oddly enough, JPM's would typically have it lower imo. What a set up

Personally id forget trying to attach to every CRDA bounce as Zenakine driven. it gets embarrassing.

They had to pull out all the stops to try show a false floor, from director buys to JPM to shorters going under radar. Anything to try get liquidity to sell into

Fact of the matter is, it could not even do a standard fundamental breather.

https://x.com/YankTrain17909/status/1951678139635048757

They are probably praying for better tariff news to try sell into lol

I know. There are 5000 ways to RNS or blag it so it looks amazing before actuals. But if so, the actuals will be a horror show compared to what seems to be gerbil average expectations

If you are not gerbils, then you are simply doing what the lads do. Blag like hell and get on your bike before launch date haha

Still nobody address the true monetary return /royalty, for SBTX in a product. Very telling.

No matter which end of the market you look at, ingredients actually make up a small % of the total unit cost. Varies out there from 10-20%

So a £50 jar will have anything from £5to £10 in ingredients (very very few exceptions)

What % of the ingredients is a lysate going to be? Very low. I dont know why some keep talking about 10%. A better way to look at it, is 90% straight to Croda. So that's 90% of a very low number.

You could scale it by looking at other claimed mid to high end products out there with various lysates, and what each jar contains

1%?

3%?

You are talking pittance per jar.

Where they think...

Probably forgot to say it was mailing list samples maybe. So are we saying he meant Zenakine? Because I have found at least 15 other places where they it's theirs flying out the door

I guess anyone can

The prime issue (at least it would be for funds that include regulatory risk in their models): without full clarity on this, you could easily be exposed to 1-2 years of RNS's rattling on about volumes or clients, and be wholly exposed to a negative shock at launch re what is on the labelling.

Now, as a trader, you would not really care. But it's all investors here. Im sure you guys will have this covered somewhat. SO assure me - i can invest in 100% current claim regulatory compliance in major regions

This surely needs 100% clarification? Because you could get an RNS saying 'client made am minimum order' , but you truly have no idea if they are going to even use differentiating language - or simply state the same thing as 5 million other products.

Al i want to know is can clients now make all these claims directly on packaging without issue? Or will it be like the previous product here re practically cure everything - until it got to the packaging/labelling phase?

Because the only differentiator are the actual current claims, and nothing else would be.

Can somebody kill this issue please

As part of the ******************** evaluating ************, we identify elevated regulatory risk due to the product’s marketing claims that reference improved sleep quality, emotional well-being, and modulation of circadian gene expression via the skin–brain axis. These statements extend beyond traditional cosmetic boundaries and may be interpreted by regulators in key markets (EU, UK, US, China) as therapeutic or systemic in nature, triggering potential reclassification as a drug or borderline medicinal product. This assessment is consistent with established regulatory precedents: under EU Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, cosmetics must act only on the superficial layers of the skin without altering physiological functions, and the EU’s borderline product manual specifically flags mood, sleep, and neuroactive claims as high risk. The UK’s MHRA similarly considers any suggestion of sleep or psychological effects as indicative of therapeutic action. In the U.S., the FDA has repeatedly warned companies that claims relating to sleep improvement or stress reduction in topicals can render products unapproved new drugs. In China and across ASEAN markets, claims referencing internal or systemic benefit, such as mood or sleep, typically fall outside permitted cosmetic frameworks without separate functional product registration. Croda’s language—including “stimulates melatonin,” “modulates circadian genes,” and “improves happiness”—is particularly sensitive, as it implies physiological mechanisms of action that could attract regulatory scrutiny regardless of whether the product is topically applied. While Croda cites clinical substantiation for these effects, publicly available interviews and articles featuring Croda representatives, such as technical marketing managers, emphasize the scientific benefits of Zenakine but do not provide direct statements addressing regulatory compliance or assurances that clients “WILL not have regulatory issues.” (at least publicly available) Therefore, no explicit Croda commentary mitigates the elevated regulatory risk identified to-date. Unless clinical evidence is peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled, and clearly supports perceptual (not systemic) outcomes limited to the skin, regulatory concerns remain significant. We therefore consider this review fair and aligned with global regulatory stances, and recommend a comprehensive audit of scientific substantiation, marketing materials, and jurisdiction-specific compliance. Claims should be reworded to emphasize perceived skin comfort and well-being without reference to systemic processes, in order to minimize the risk of regulatory enforcement, reclassification, or barriers to market access.