Member Info for The.Italian

morning all .so no market reaction and low volume .tbh I'm quite relieved, as the concerns i expressed yesterday about the going concern and covid effects were based on genuine fears. perhps i am making too much of these points. sorry heimdal I'm not really with you on the name change.its just a matter of opinion, of course, and i assume they have done research etc into it,but it seems to me you can only make a link to longevity by the most tenuous of associations. anyway, as i say, names are always just a matter of opinion. the results do carry just the suggestion (maybe more than that actually)in view of the longevity branding) that they are looking for another longevity sphere deal.big question.how can one be financed? time will tell.

accepted as per my previous post.ive read all this before and should have remembered it.no excuses.

liambooth.looks like i owe you an apology. I've read back over the dec2019 ren and you are right.it does say no GTN.no intention to mislead and i should have remembered this.not sure what the references in the patent documentation are all about.once again my apologies.

apologies to other posters .i was trying to cut and paste the specification section alone,but it didn't work,so you will need to click on the specification document and read through that.its quite interesting.now wait for the pseudo demolition job.lol

https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201816639435.A&lng=en read the specification.clearly refers to GTN and the other components. doesn't say much for your creditability and research does it.

not exactly snappy is it? seems to me to convey absolutely nothing I'm afraid.

agreed reflex.far more succinctly put than my effort!lol

lewis xt,sorry meant to make it clear that the first bit of my post was in response to your question (not the waffle of course)

the active ingredient is glyceryl trinitrate.it's all detailed in the patent application, but I'm not going to post any more detail, as it will just be turned into ammunition by those with a determined negative and partisan agenda.i am a proponent of the company and product because i am invested and hope that it will be successful. i am, therefore, not completely objective, but i believe i have demonstrated a reasonable and realistic approach to the prospects of success over the period of my investment (dec2019) and have on many occasions highlighted the risks involved (typical of small pharmas etc) and have stated that for most of my involvement it was a very speculative punt and that great caution should be exercised. however, imo, there has been a sea change in the situation now with the imminent ce mark approval. this for me was the seminal movement when the risk profile changed dramatically. there are of course still risks and some of them have been highlighted today.i have no problem with the risks being brought to attention, but some posters do so in an entirely unbalanced and sometimes distortive way, driven by a clear agenda. for me many of the observations based on ostensible scientific appraisal of the supposed method of operation or the ingredients etc, carry little weight. these are not real scientific appraisals of the actual product and many of the posters who adopt such an approach are really just relying on generalised knowledge, not the specifics of this particular device (including for example the exact composition formula to which they have obviously not been privy).i have no scientific background whatsoever and as such, am completely unqualified to express any valid view on the scientific issues, which at the end of the day are going to be determined and hopefully approved by the relevant regulatory authorities, one of whom has already, in effect, provided such approval.i have to take certain things on trust, basing my assessment solely on the official RNSs and such other sources as can be regarded as relatively irrefragable. as always it's the age old risk versus reward question. imo the ratio has now moved very markedly in favour of reward.that is, of course,just my opinion.apologies for the prolixity.

well matt you beat me to it. doubtless the irony will be completely lost on the BOD.on a serious note(and apologies for the previous frivolous post,as this is fundamentally a very serious matter of money)i don't know how the caveats and concerns about a going concern compare with the last statements as i haven't checked .they may simply be repeating by and large what has been said before,but i do hope the market will be distracted by the name change and not focus,as it should,on the going concern warnings and the covid effect analysis. very bad news imo. as to the name change ,i think i will refrain from commenting until i have seen the market reaction,if any to the full results.gla

so where are they then? have we found an extra day?

need to bear in mind that CE certificate not only authorises use in europe, but is the gateway to relatively easier approval in other areas as previously outlined. fda approval only authorises in US,a very important market of course,but not the only one.not suggesting it's without risk(no shares are )but need to offer a balanced vie which the overblown nature of some posts most certainly does not.

i cannot imagine anyone would think that the FDA trial would not have to demonstrate clinical efficacy. that's the whole point of cialis as a comparator. obviously if it doesn't work it will fail the trial.we do not know the precise endpoints but based on the efficacy results from the med 2500 trial, there is every expectation that it will prove as effective or virtually as effective as cialis (as indicated in the james interview.)we will only know the trial result when it has been conducted and announced.it seems that some have prejudged the issue.

indeed backinblack. i take your point.

incorrect.read the provisional rights regulations applicable from the publication notice, which has already been published.

3000 that is!

complete nonsense. the patent application for the precise med300 formulation is proceeding perfectly normally. notice of publication was issued on the 7th jan 2021.it will be some time before the process is completed and the full patent granted, as the procedure is indeed protracted, but in the meantime fum has the protection of the provisional rights regulations. potential marketing partners will not,imo,wish to allow the opportunity here to pass by and be taken up by others and will be perfectly happy to enter into a partnership/licensingarrangement on this basis, as soon as the right commercial terms can be agreed. ifyou snooze you lose. Liambooth's post completely misrepresents the position.

when is lansing davis going to be appointed? why hasn't it happened yet?

further thought. on reflection i dont think it can be dollens.he is a director isn't he, so wouldn't his sales have to be reported as director disposals?

well BA i always thought it likely RN would sell down over time and this would depress the s/p for some time.i don't know if it is them or dollens or someone/body else entirely. no point speculating until we get a formal announcement. my reason for thinking it could be RN is that their business is now moving in an entirely different direction. they are not an investment company and probably have no continuing interest in napster. clearly if they had a substantial interest in continuing with it as an investment, they wouldn't have sold it ,unless of course MVR paid massively over the odds for it, which doesn't look likely given its revenue. perhaps the market thinks differently though.given the comments about how RN's s/p has performed in comparison to Naps,it may be relevant to mention that RN's s/p is down now 34% from its recent high on the 19th march.doesnt mean anything really either way imo.