Member Info for Odysseus07

Think about it. The prediction does not make sense. Nothing has changed since the FDA asked for another trial. Before that people bought in expecting approval Q3/Q4 2020. Now, we wont know the details until Sept. Approval probably Q3 2021. So no real share price upswing until Sept. The price wont be 20p next week. And if it isnt, please stop listening to people who are saying this based on nothing. The share price will slowly come down to about 12p, as people take their money out as they realise this will not suddenly double/increase until end of this year/early next year. And there are many risks ahead. My position is i will wait until share price goes to 10-12p and then make a call. Weighing up the potential upside against my concerns on the data and the company itself. And its history of disappointments.

well. CSD500 contains glyceryl nitrate which has been shown doesnt work. It had no positive effects in addition to the vehicle (not placebo) Dermasys. Which works by evaporation and cooling. So a bit like putting hand anti bac on your hands and then it evaporates. That's basically it - the technology, I just cant see how that will pass FDA and EMA. What else makes Dermasys special if it works by evaporation activating the nerve endings? The pain products may work - if the active ingredient decreases the pain. But pain is a crowded market and lots of cheap and proven drugs already. Not much money in that. FUM success depends on ED. And that success no longer depends on their lead molecule / R&D research (glyceryl nitrate and nitric oxide artery widening rationale mechanism of action). But on a coolant that evaporates and activates the penil e nerves.... in a MoA that cant be explained.... because its called evaporation and leaving the skin colder and that, as we all know when we put antibac on our hands, causes a tingle. I know, lets try tonight and apply some anti back down below and see if we get a result? :)

Hi all, Just realised. Most of you are probably not in the pharma industry and so just looking at this "penny share" as a punt - approval and you win or rejection and lose. But FUM has a longer history than that. Look at back at the products and launches and share price over 20 years and you will see many false dawns. Even within the last year, liberium said "looking positive - could be worth 500mill". Now its "300 mill". Thats a big difference. These numbers dont mean anything. Liberium dont really know - they dont work in pharma. They are jsut using standard broker estimates. And they are the house broker. On the other hand, the promises of the past 20 years could now be partially achieved if FUM do get a device approval and start making some money. Or sell the marketing rights to MED3000. My viewis that the SP will go down to 10p or so as soon as investors realise approval isnt imminent. And then i will buy if other factors look ok. Full disclosure. I hope now i have posted this will send the SP crashing and my dastadly scheme will work. (Cue cackle and ominous music). "And this time Castle Grayskull will be mine!" (taking the mickey out of skeletor and he-man and skeletor devising dastardly master plans). :)

good grief. open and honest views. Seriously, people, look above the discussion forum.

ok, i see your point. From my point of view, i work in the pharma industry and so know some of the processes. And nothing i have said is a negative. Also, why would i try and push down the sP? To buy at lower price? Its already 14p. Even after the Phase 3 "failure" (note the speech marks!!! :)) it only went to 9pp or so. So not much lower it could go, without folding. And if i buy at 14p or 20p, does it matter if it goes to 60p? I'm just giving some facts and thoughts. You know. For discussion. On a discussion board. And you know, being adult and polite, because that should be default position? No?

hi. I wouldnt say im negative about FUM. More just very questioning. I'm tempted by the thought of a OTC device that has positive Phase 3 trial. But also concerns over a company taht after 15 years of R&D in its active ED drugs just saying it doesnt work, scrapping it and just going with the vehicle. Makes me doubt how robust they are. And conflicting results (large phase 2 and phase 3). Im just trying to think outloud abd get other peoples points of view. But it seems that people think if they have invested they have to say the SP will rise and rise and rise. Im deciding as and when to buy. If it goes to 10p i will probably have a punt. But i like to invest in comapnies where the fundamentals are good.... here it seems some want to amke quick profit by ramping or being negative. Thats a strange way to invest IMO

hi. i work with the FDA and ema quite a lot in my job and they try (informally) not to majorly disagree. I mean they do sometimes (roughly 20-30% of the time). But normally if a drug is approved in FDA it gets approved by EMA. With similar outcomes. FDA usually slightly stricter (partly because of litigious lawyers and patients)

what do you think my agenda is? I'm genuninely confused

oh. just read the last bit. For fair disclosure. As I said, i bought FUM about 2002 when i was a student and invested £1000. Lost 90% of that. And SP has fluctuated since then. I am now, after 15 years of R&D thinking about investing at these low prices. But am being open with my thinking - pro and against. I dont see how that is disingenuous? At all

Fair enough. Thanks Italian. Your opinion/advice taken as intended. Cheers

Wow. A very defensive response Italian. Is this normal for this message board? People lose objectivity when they invest? I read and heard from the company update (I forget when, but think April) that they had funding until Q1/2 2021. And if there are delays (not least due to COVID) then may funding may be needed , which would dilute the share price. And obviously i don want to buy now if the SP then goes to 10p as that is 33% reduction. Which is massive. I dont have a low risk level. You have no information to base that on. I'm simply wondering that if things get delayed, rolls on into Q3 2021 and then sales (as with their condom products) are low and the "marketing wasn't right" then looking at 2 years before significant sales come in. Perfectly objective questions if I'm thinking about investing. The EMA and FDA, from my experience, are in synch in their decisions about 7/8 times out of 10.

Warrenbe. That's a little misleading. It mentions FUM once as a list of all companies doing research in ED. It does not say whether it has positive or negative views on FUM. I think this message board could be a little more objective and grown up. Rather than clutching at straws or adults (I assume) swearing at people. Surely we all just want to hear opinions as we invest and hopefully make informed (as much as we can) decisions? I dont get what the "nice mention" was? It was just mentioned once in a list with no opinion given.

Hi all. I read somewhere that FUM has funding until Q1/Q2 2021. Obviously the Ph 3 trial that reported in December was expensive and ate into company reserves (and FUM has little sales coming in). If, as seems likely, the FDA and EMA are delayed, and new funding / dilution is needed. How much of an impact do people think this will have on the share price? I am tempted to buy, despite my misgivings that 15 years of research led to a product that didnt work. As other vehicles have been approved and sold commercially for profits (but not as far as i know for a disease/condition as severe as ED). I just dont want to buy now and then in Jan, FUM declares extra funding/dilution and share price goes down.

Hi all. This is true. Believe me with no agenda. Dermasys is not a placebo. It is a vehicle. That means how the active ingredient is transported to where it needs to be (i.e. in this case through the epidermis and the derma of the skin). Dermasys is not an active medication. FUM were expecting that the active ingredient (the NO releasing compond - as NO [nitric oxide] widens arteries and increase blood flow and so makes the ***** erect) would show improvement against the baseline of the non-active transportation vehicle (Dermasys). In the end, both gave positive results. So the active ingredient researvh was shown to give no additional benefot - and that in essence did not work as they though, as Dermasys does not release nitric oxide). This raises questions - it means for 15 years their R&D were working on something that didnt work. At least it doent work any better than a non-active vehicle. That is odd and why im doubtful about investing more. They are obviously now clinging to Dermasys as the active "failed", But for 15 years they worked on this nitrate releaseing nitric oxide drug and now for the last 6 months they suddenly say, dont worry about that past 15 yeasrs. We will do an OTC device with no active ingredient. Thats odd, right? people have to see that

Italian.I agree. I was referring to the Phase 2 results that baldeagle poster. I agree,in Phase 3 then then Forrest plots showed it did work in patients with moderate and severe ED. My point was that in Phase2 Dermasys only worked in mild ED patients. And Phase 2 was about 250 patients (quite big for a phase 2). So, with that conflicting evidence and the fact that Dermasys is a vehicle not an active ingredient. The FDA and EMA may want additional trial to show that Phase 3 trial methodology did not somehow unconsciously biased and so gave a surprising result (i.e. the active ingredient that was worked on for 15 years showed no additional benefit to a quick-evaporating solvent - think something like acetone).

hmm. Those phase 2 results support the phase 3 results. No difference between the active ingredient (worked on for 15 years) and the delivery vehicle (Dermasys). That says the R&D rationale didnt work. Ok, that still leaves Dermasys as a medical device. But it only works on patients with mild ED. Look at the Forrest plots. Doesnt work on moderate or severe. It did in Phase 3 trials , i believe? But this was a big Phase 2. I predict FDA and EMA will want more evidence. It's hardly 1--% convincing. Sorry, thats my objective opinion

Hi Italian. I'm in two minds. On one hand, i ave doubts about the science - over 10 years spent by a company on a technology that doesnt work (guys, if you think Dermasys is the active ingredient i worry about how you make investment decisions. You need to do basic research). On the other hand, if the vehicle (Dermasys) does work and get approval, then that would send the share price up. I just have doubts when the company spends 10-15 years on a product that is no more effective that a solvent that evaporates and stimulates the penile cells. Well..... other companies could quite easily copy that. The actual active ingredient has no added benefit. It sort of means the company is just manufacturing a solvent that evaporates. Is that worth a lot of money? Like, any harmless solvent could be put on (even Vicks cold spray that is cold and evaporates quickly) and would that work? What is the actual intellectual property of FUM?

Hi Italian. I'm in two minds. On one hand, i ave doubts about the science - over 10 years spent by a company on a technology that doesnt work (guys, if you think Dermasys is the active ingredient i worry about how you make investment decisions. You need to do basic research). On the other hand, if the vehicle (Dermasys) does work and get approval, then that would send the share price up. I just have doubts when the company spends 10-15 years on a product that is no more effective that a solvent that evaporates and stimulates the penile cells. Well..... other companies could quite easily copy that. The actual active ingredient has no added benefit. It sort of means the company is just manufacturing a solvent that evaporates. Is that worth a lot of money? Like, any harmless solvent could be put on (even Vicks cold spray that is cold and evaporates quickly) and would that work? What is the actual intellectual property of FUM?

hi guys. sorry, this is simple. As i said, i work in pharma as a chemist. Deramsys is the "vehicle". This means in devices/OTC (usually) its the substance that is used to deliver the active ingredient. In some cases the vehicle is also "active" by which i mean relieves symptoms of the condition. I could give examples, but dont wish to use brand names here. Often in devices "vehicle" and "placebo" are used interchangebaly. But there is a nuance difference. Placebo is an inactive substance where any effect is down to people thinking they are getting an active substance. A vehicle can relieve symptoms, depsite having no active ingredient. However, the fact that the active ingredient in the trail didnt no ant better than the vehicle at the very least says that the science for the last 10 years doesnt work. The effect was down to the solution evaporating and that stimulating nerve cells in the penie tissue. Thats not great that the main active ingredient ,which the comapny was based on, is no more effective than just an oil you put on that evaporates. Why bother then the R&D? Dermasys may well work, but it is not based in any of the original science. Which at the very least raises questions about the entire purpose of FUM R&D.

Hi all,
Newbie posting here. Been following the discussions since Jan 2020 and actually i bought FUM about 10-15 years ago when they were priced about 0.85p. Lost almost all my cash - but only £1000 as i was a student at the time. And wanted a punt on these new ED treatments. So the company has failed share holders over the long term. I am now tempted to buy again (I still ave my original holding as not worth selling). I now work in the Pharma industry. Ive been following the debate. As a neutral, Ananda is massively over-ramping and views that have no basis in any fact. To clarify, MED300o never was a placeb. it is the vehicle of the active ingredient (the nitrile or whatever it was). In the trial, both the vehicle (inactive) and the active with the vehicle had a string response. So the active was no better than the vehicle. Now, they are just submitting the vehicle. This is slightly unusual, although happens sometimes with devices. And just the vehicle has been sold in other therapeutic areas and worked well and given substantial profits. The difference is, ED is a serious clinical condition. Normally devices are for more OTC conditions. This, as a scientist raises questions to me. Not least.... why did it take FUM over 10 years to realise this? And also why didnt the vehicle so this amazing response in earlier trials? Seems strange to me and im pretty sure the EMA and FDA will ask for further studies. Also,consider that Viagra and the other treatments are now OTC and generic. This will impact the market pricing. I may still invest. I am undecided. But it is risky - and therefore the potential rewards are higher. I would welcome views and advice from other sensible investors.