Jump to content



Recommended Posts

This is already posted to ST, I thought it prudent to post here for fellow shareholders and hopefully we will get a confirmation from Clinuvel shortly.

This trial ticks all the boxes regarding eligible patients, type of drug, duration of the trial, location of the insult (M2 and above) and Professor Rosenfeld’s association with Monash University Dept of Neuroscience.


The following is from the Monash University Projects page:


A Proof of Concept, Phase IIa, Open Label Study to Evaluate the Safety of Afamelanotide in Patients with acute Arterial Ischaemic Stroke (AIS) due to Distal [M2 segment and beyond] Arterial Large Vessel Occlusion (LVO) or Perforator Occlusion and who are ineligible for Intravenous Thrombolysis (IVT) or Endovascular Thrombectomy (EVT).


Start date: 10/12/20 Finish date: 31/12/22


Monash University Projects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • royco


  • Kiwi1


  • seeva222


  • Reality Check


Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

When someone on another forum said he was going to sell CUV, the resident smarta$$ said, "May I suggest you buy some Gamestop?" - which

garnered plenty of laughs.


Maybe the smarta$$ should have taken his own flippant advice. It's been a 7-bagger again off its lows since that post.


Not to compare the two stocks or companies or suggesting others sell CUV...but, just goes to show.


Meanwhile, how many boxes has Clinuvel ticked for all the things they were going to do in Q1 this year?


What about that other indication the Frenchman said was going to be mentioned in December?


Hard to have good marketing and build credibility with investors when this kind of stuff continues.


Buy hey - about time for another 6-page newsletter. It's my go-to source for reading about the world economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This CEO has volumes of truely undeniable data to turn this sunlight demonising space (ideology) on its head but he’s simply still too scared to rock the boat, it seems?


What other reason could there be?


It’s 2021 Pier, you’ve promised so much for way too long. Please get off of your A and get our story out there to enlighten our confused and diseased society that sunlight is not their enemy and that “there really IS such a thing as a SAFE SCENESSE TANâ€.



Some say this super safe and effective drug should have been widely available at least 5 years ago but they don’t appreciate that you’ve worked yourself to the bone and you’ve done all you could of course so maybe they’re just misguided or simply frustrated but either way (not trying to scare you) more

“black swans†are circling above Pier.


Maybe they’re our friends?? ?


Surely it’s a priority of yours in 2021 to have this company and it’s safe photo protective skin cancer preventing skin tanning drug widely known and understood by all??


Quick question if I may?


With Scenesse locked down into “special centres†for 10 years is it even slightly possible that these skin tan hating toxic suncream loving regulators will allow systemically acting Afamelanotide “cosmetic†cream to become a reality or will this “Clinuvel cosmetic†truely be some half assed, laughable, embarrassment of a cosmetic ??


Surely not!!


Just about everything surrounding Clinuvel (other than the drug thank F) is strange and concerning and confusing and has forever been causing a great amount of uncertainty. Cmon Pw, be straight for one moment with your long standing and loyal buddy’s.


Your continued silence here only helps these manipulative shorters. You do understand this right??


Luv u!! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


“Something seems to be brewing.â€


This super safe, cancer preventing, skin tanning drug was developed in the 80 FFS.


Billy would have been a spritely 40 something at the time if my math is correct?


Its now quarter way into 2021 and 18months post momentous FDA (forced through decades of A1 safety and locked down through malice) decision, so if not now, when???


Every day that passes just proves the safety of Scenesse and the stupidity of those that remain in the way and in denial of the drug further.


The only company in the history of the world attempting to commercialise a product that western governments rhetoric says “there’s no such thing†and is not safe.


At to the stupidity and strangeness the CEO agreed many many years ago that it couldn’t be proved that constant sunburn injury led to skin cancer hence the glacial pace, resistance, stonewalling enigmatic saga that has ensued ever since.


As safe and effective as this game changing drug is and as good as the future is looking right now (has looked for the past 2 decades) one can never be too sure with this company. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Hear hear I say to the hysteria, outdated beliefs, sudo science and utter BS that has no doubt kept Scenesses progress eternally “glacial†and the untested beyond suspect toxic suncream industry thriving.


Here’s but one example!!


And from a reputable source. The tide in this wacky space is slowly changing for the better.




Expert view: Sunbed use and melanoma – is there really a link?


“Research UK, it states that “using sunbeds can increase your risk of melanoma skin cancer by 16-20%â€.1 “


In support of this statement, a meta-analysis of observational studies in 2014 of those with melanoma who had used indoor tanning beds (sun beds), found that the odds ratio for melanoma associated with “ever use†of sunbeds was 1.16.2 In other words, there was a 16% increase in the odds of getting a melanoma with sunbed use compared to not using a sunbed.




***However, the authors conceded that the quality of the evidence contributing to their analysis ranged from poor to mediocre and the acknowledged a recognised limitation of observational studies, namely recall bias. ***




In contrast, a meta-analysis of observational studies in 2018 was less circumspect and concluded that scientific knowledge [on the link between indoor tanning and melanoma] is mainly based on poor quality data and that there is currently no convincing evidence that moderate/responsible use of solarium (indoor tanning) increases melanoma risk.3


Link to comment
Share on other sites



This is but one issue in the sunlight and skin tanning space that has significantly affected Clinuvels progress.


Sunbed usage really is the perfect example where emotion and irrational bias (through decades of falsehoods being stated by trustworthy?? authorities has ruled and been at the heart of the issue rather than scientific data and real evidence.



“The gap between sunbed studies and earlier studies on risk of sun exposure remains remarkable. “


Confounding caused by exposure to the sun – the major UV source – is often neglected or corrected for inadequately. Most often, such work lacks a proper analysis of covariance (collinearity or other) to eliminate a possible dominance of sun over sunbed exposure due to an a priori highly plausible strong correlation between sunbed use and sunbathing; OR=2 to 7 for sunbathing among sunbed users versus nonusers (12-14).


As pointed out in a recent French study (15), sunbeds were estimated to have only a minor contribution to melanoma incidence (1.5% in men and 4.6% in women) compared with the sun (83%); that is, sunbeds were not likely to be a major driver of the increase in melanoma incidence.


Moreover, the authors noted that disentangling risk from use of sunbeds from that of the sun is difficult [anecdotal attribution of melanoma to sunbed use is often offset by excessive sunbathing, as exemplified by an Australian publicity campaign to regulate solaria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...




To deny someone with the life expectancy of just a few short decades, a super safe and proven photo protective drug that could potentially cure them from such a horrible disease and existence where they have zero hope and zero options takes a special type of logic, empathy and compassion: none!



Scenesse safety has always shown A1 profile and has never been suspected of anything even mildly serious at any level, which just goes to prove that the ethics evaluation used to deny such a trial for these utterly vulnerable and suffering people was based purely on fraudulent self serving grounds.


Hopefully this corrupt period of Clinuvels history can be examined in great detail in the the up coming movie so that some of the orchestrators of this costly and deadly scandal can be called out and shamed: at a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are cheering all the communiques, webinars, strategic updates, etc? Seriously?


To me, it's cover to appease the shareholders. Don't pay any attention to all the Q1 deadlines

they already missed - trials they listed at the last AGM timelines that didn't start on time, the new indication

that Wolgen said last November he would tell us about in December that still has not been mentioned.


And pay no attention to the fact that bringing the manufacturing in house will almost assuredly

push back the OTC product timelines.


If you think they will release the first OTC product this year as they said repeatedly, you're gullible.


Madman & Johnny Tech are two of the few that see what's really going on and call out the BS.


2021 - same old crapola. Missed deadlines, and numerous delays.


But hey, the communiques are getting longer, and another exciting script-reading webinar may come soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...