Today's RNS



Alas, ZeroV, I sold my last 100k today so for the first time in 12 years I am “FUM-less”.

Why? Due to my initial take on yesterday’s RNS and the particular annoyance and worry regarding TPR being delayed for 5 months. But mainly due to the funding requirement and Lombard having 28 million shares, most being bought at 7p. If they’re “paying attention” I’ll be very surprised if they don’t take advantage of this situation and ultimately decimate the SP yet again like last year - it’s very much Groundhog Day.

I still have great faith in MED and do intend to re-enter, but I think we’re in line for a drop to 10p to 15p in the next couple of months, which equates to salvaging over 10 grand on my disposal and impending repurchase. It’s a big gamble, I know, particularly after being a holder for so long. But once bitten twice shy.

It’s weird I’m now looking in from the outside, hoping for a fall (this is purely business and nothing personal, guys). It’s a bit like finishing with a lass then feeling jealous when seeing her going out with someone else.

But I still feel part of the “team” and hope you’ll all treat me well and understand where I’m coming from. It’s also good to see this BB spring back to life with some excellent contributions.

A genuine GLA despite my different “wish” (in the short term).


I know exactly what you mean Tony, FUM has been my life for the past three years I’ve been invested.

I’d wake up everyday checking for an RNS, check this board throughout the day and read the great posts that people have done.

It feels weird to be out and a big part of me wants to be back in but everyone just has to do what they believe is right.


“Are futuras advisors going to tell them to do a fund raiser and complete phase3b trials to get the best value again? It could very well happen”

I suppose it all depends on the phase 3 results
If the higher doses show an increased efficacy the value gain by carrying out phase 3b trials via fundraising would be minimal. In fact it would destroy value.
I can understand the derisking aspect when we jump from phase 2 to phase 3 but not from a phase 3 to a confirmatory phase 3.
Therefore IMHO if the higher doses in phase 3 trials show an increase in efficacy we should have a different outcome compared to the position FUM found themselves in previously.


fx2452 - last year - “what aren’t I reading correctly?! What have I missed?!”.

I asked myself why there were no bidders for a potential ED market disrupting technology, that had successfully completed a phase II study, available via a hostile takeover for peanuts.

Any large pharma could have cheaply squashed the new science, and continued selling PDE5’s uninterrupted.
I’m astonished a takeover did not materialise, because global pharma had all been schmoozed by Barder, signed a Non-disclosure agreement, and introduced to Dermasys and what it had already achieved.

Its a sure thing that if phase 3 pt1 results meet primary and secondary outcomes it places Futura in an excellent bargaining position - even if pretty much potless, whereas last year Futura was a sitting duck target.

I could have invested in the 7p offer but decided not to add to my problems.
How unwise was that now FUM has survived.

Be happy to hear others reaction to the sp decimation last year.


If you actually read that paper on the phase 2 trials you can actually understand why the big pharma’s didn’t go for a deal.
It actually comes down to the fact that we need to show an increase in efficacy.
With the higher doses we should be able to achieve this. Not only that, but with the higher doses the residual amount of GTN should also help with the duration aspect too.
In the phase 2, 46 percent of respondents did not show an improvement on either placebo or Med.
14 percent of the placebo group showed an improvement.
Now when you compare that to the fact that this time round, 25 percent of the trial will be taking placebo and the fact that 80 percent of participants chose to carry on, it speaks volumes. Most likely pointing to the fact that we will indeed see an increase in efficacy. (Especially as they are not getting paid for this part of the trial)
Even if we assume a worst case 50 percent placebo response rate, that would equate to 12.5 percent of the participants , however we have 80 percent selecting to carry on… just think about that…

Why the hell would I decide to carry on using a gel if I were not seeing some benefit?

I’m excited and look forward to the headline data.



The following is a quote from yesterdays Interim results.

"TPR100 - Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory for the pain and inflammation associated with sprains, strains and bruises and soft tissue rheumatism

UK partner Thornton & Ross (a subsidiary of STADA AG) received feedback from UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in February 2019 requiring additional laboratory work to be conducted to support the UK filing. This work is progressing, and we expect to respond in Q1 2020 within the timelines agreed with the MHRA."

‘This work is progressing’ sounds to me like the laboratory work, and the analysis stemming from it, is still incomplete.

If anything has been misleading, it is the Ken James interview earlier this year where Ken states that we need to do a few weeks work in the lab to answer MHRA questions, (or words to that effect). This it seems, was less than accurate. Ready to stand corrected, but I don’t see Thornton and Ross solely to blame for holding things up.



In FUM’s AGM statement released on 24/6/2019 they said this about TPR:

“The Company’s novel topical pain relief gel TPR100 is partnered for manufacturing and distribution in the UK with Thornton & Ross, one of the UK’s largest consumer healthcare companies and a subsidiary of STADA AG. In response to Thornton & Ross’s marketing authorisation application filed in July 2018, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has raised a number of questions requiring additional lab work to be conducted. This work is well advanced, and we expect Thornton & Ross to respond to the MHRA in September with regulatory opinion before the end of the year.”

I’m sure FUM would have got the “well advanced” update from Thornton & Ross, so it’s of some concern that within a couple of months of this statement, the intended response has now been put back 5 months. That’s some delay, even by FUM’s standards. Maybe it’s a stitch up or genuine problems with the issues raised.

So (for the time being) TPR IMO is very much out of the equation, and I had high hopes of this product with the links with STADA and a possible buy out / funding arrangement.

So now it’s all or nothing on MED, of which I have great belief in, reinforced by Aberdeen’s commentary on the trials.

But nobody can underestimate this horrendous stranglehold Lombard have on FUM and the effect they can have on the short / medium term SP especially with talk of a funding. If FUM approach Lombard for further funding it’s almost certain they will shed much their current holding - I’m surprised in the circumstances some think 28p-ish is a good buying opportunity.


Tony, looking forward to your continued input whether your in or out. We are all here to make money, not because we think that MED is the second coming (apologies). There is a difference between your posts and those that gloat that their view is the correct one and the rest of us are idiots - or those that preach that it is all in the charts :joy::joy:

Anyway - I bailed a few years ago as just saw delays in csd, returning when I saw the price crash and how much further along the journey we were with MED. about the only wise investing decision I’ve taken (and partly a forced hand) - so in some ways I hope your decision pays off.


Ok, thanks.
I’m just trying to get my head round the effect of yesterday’s RNS.



You are clear that “FUM would have got the “well advanced” update from Thornton & Ross.”

Ken James mentioned lab work in an interview, so I believed he meant Futura was doing the lab work.

Anything to do with Dermasys for instance would need Futura’s and not T&R’s attention.

I can see Futura and T&R teams jointly analysing results.

I see both companies needing to respond, each needing the other.

Its T&R’s problem, - after all its their marketing application, but FUM need to find answers in conjunction with T&R.


This is supposition, but I believe the problem could even be something like this:

1 The MHRA may have bowled them a googly, asking a question they thought they had an answer to, or possibly the results of analysis are not repeatable.

2 A piece of equipment out of calibration perhaps, and this is refusing to allow progress.

3 Test materials past shelf life or stored incorrectly.

This list is endless trust me, I’ve been there.


Can I just say, loving the dialogue here today. Long may the sp remain suppressed to stop the mindless hordes joining in! (Oh right, ii have already seen to it that the hordes don’t join!)


There’s been some really good arguments for and against keeping/selling shares.

And there’s a lot of respect for each other a lot more on this board.


This is clearly the FUM ‘Woodstock Board’ - great to see so much love in the ‘room’

Tony, I feel you’re one of the founding grandees of this board and I’m sure you’ll always receive the respect that deserves.

I fully understand why you & a few of the others are currently ‘out’. I really hope this ‘wait & see’ works out for you. I clearly don’t own a crystal ball but if things start turning against you, this may mean you never re-enter. If this occurs and the results of 3a are great, you’d kick yourselves, especially after being in for several years when we’re only a possible 12 to 16 weeks away from either Armageddon or ‘The Promised Land’. I’m nervous for you fellows!

Please bear in mind that FUM are at the USA big sexual health conference towards the end of October, so there may be a forward thinking uplift concerning this.

Please also be aware that all it takes is 1 institutional investor to make this stock price get turbo charged.

When all is said & done with MED, we should try and meet up for a few drinks and put faces to the posters!



I know I’ve become known as the king of conspiracy theories but I’m absolutely sure all the delays when it comes to STADA is connected to the MED.
The same thing happened with regulatory filing of TPR by STADA. (That dragged on and on for absolutely ages as did the discussions) with STADA ONLY filing for regulatory approval in July after all the discussions had been had and after FUM had made the decision to go it alone…

The exact same thing is happening again.
They’ll delay submitting the responses to the regulatory body until they know which way FUM is heading. Why ? I honestly don’t know unless it’s being used as a bargaining chip or whatever other reasons you can think of.

I certainly don’t think it’s just a coincidence


You may be right Daring Aberdeen. However, it may simply be down to the fact it’s a 3 way conversation. Think how long it can take for solicitors to complete on a house sale especially when a chain is involved.

Anyone have any idea when the MED 3a study is likely to be ‘unblinded’? I don’t suppose it’s soon enough that the FUM team have enough time to analyse the data and release it at the end of October at the major Sexual Health Conference?! (This is my personal dream scenario: that we have great results and the world hears about it at the conference)(probably unlikely though due to needing a few more weeks?)



Is there anyone on this board who has access to a sophisticated trading platform?..

Wondering if this mornings Buys look like PIs or IIs? After all, FUM just had their analyst meeting.


I very very much doubt that the results will be unblinded and the team has the time to analyse them.
500 patients have been through the trial and with every passing day the remaining 500 will be completing the trial.
I expect the trial to conclude by end of October early November with the team then going through the data.


Not sure I can add anything to the TPR debate/delay. I got a reply from Igor (I kid you not) the Senior Medical Information Associate at TR last week when I asked for an update. Exact words; “please note, the application is currently still under assessment”.
Interesting choice of words. Read into it what you want. Same old FUM story on the commercial side in my view.


Re the new venture. And I apologise to those who wish this B.B. to remain serious, but I am wondering about a combined cannabis Med application. Can you imagine?
The Stoner Boner?
The spliff that gets you stiff?


I see Lombard have released an RNS saying they’ve INCREASED their holding! Typical, I bet they were waiting for me to sell up - I might have made a serious error of judgement!

But ……… on reflection I was totally mad holding 250k in a high risk bio-tec anyway so I’m not kicking myself (just yet) at reducing my holding. As Mark has said, significant holders saw a huge swing from the 7p days - my swing was approx. £100k. If I would have won that on “The Chase” I would have been over the moon but it was “just a number” in my SIPP.

I will still hold out for some funding clarity and if that means buying in at 60p and making a smaller profit (but significantly de-risked) then so be it. I suppose we’ll all be happy in that situation. I feel uncomfortable “wishing” for a drop - I feel like a traitor.