Well-known member
A 52 week low with little progress in trials. Shareholders suffering the brunt. Yes, it’s time to bring on one or more members to the Board with significant Pharma experience.

From an institutional investor perspective the lack of experienced executives with a pharmaceutical background must be part of their decision making progress to invest or not. BTW, this is not significantly different than a tech startup where entrepreneurship takes you only so far before they need to add experienced managers.


Well-known member
Just to be clear on the order of events:

It was announced on 21/01/2015 that he was joining the Board as a Director. His initial holding statement published on 21/01/2015 showed that he already held 383,145 shares at that point.

On 02/07/2018 it was announced that he purchased 1,359,973 shares in an off-market trade which coincides with the Lagoda sell down.

On 18/10/2019 it was announced that Stan McLiesh was stepping down from the Chair and that Blijdorp would take the role from 30/11/2019. He had been Chair of the Remuneration Committee before this point and remains so.

I believe his progression to the position of Chair was likely irrespective of the Lagoda share purchase, but the purchase certainly helped confirm the path.

Given Clinuvel is a listed pharmaceutical development company, I believe it most appropriate that in the long term it be chaired by someone with proven pharmaceutical development and sales experience. To me this is more important than product distribution knowledge. A track record of leadership in a listed organisation which has provided attractive total shareholder returns would also be desirable in my view.
Fair enough! I stand corrected! Thanks for the clarification!


Active member
It is imperative that sharesoldiers hold the line! A declining share price has the potential to deter many investors who are primarily concerned with protecting their investments. Is this a deliberate move on the part of the company? Could they be aiming to discourage shareholders ahead of the AGM to face less opposition? Strategic, loyal shareholders are prone to remain calm, while others who have invested their life savings in this stock are likely to be rather nervous.
It is a matter of shareholder democracy, and every vote counts. Therefore, try to cast your vote, regardless of the size of your holding. A 'Yes' vote signifies your satisfaction with the current management team, whereas a 'No' vote signals your dissatisfaction with the subpar performance and lack of clinical progress.


Well-known member
Blijdorp's business has zero relevance to Clinuvel's OTC lines.

Cosmetics aren't generally subject to tariffs (per the Harmonized Tariff Schedule), so there's no point in selling them in a duty-free store in the airport next to his bootleg whiskey.
iirc L’Oreal has a major focus on airports (I think there was 3 pillars their CEO mentioned in a recent interview: travel, digital and fast cosmetics (?). The idea being that you have millions of passengers perusing shops while waiting for their flights so why not try to capture some of that market. I think this is where Bildjorp’s experience and connections would come in handy, not so much any advantage that could be had through duty free or whatnot. Check out the Chinese travel cosmetics market, it’s huge and experiences substantial growth yoy.

Since reading that interview, it appeared to me that was the kind of approach PW was looking to emulate. They won’t have brick and mortar stores (rather obscure clinics in sunny climes), but they could have a presence in airports through WB’s connections and maybe do it at a low cost.
Last edited:


Well-known member
I don't understand why their OTC cosmetics products are marketed under "Healthare solutions" of their website.

I think their main target market for OTCs will literally be young ppl who follow Kim Kardashian and celebrities on social media and who want to tan (similar target market to brands like Bondi Sands and Sephora). These consumers are not going to care about the "healthcare solutions" on the website of a pharmaceutical company that treats genetic disorders. lol
I have said similar to the above repeatedly! Spend $10mill. and go where the market is.
Sad as it might seem, the market is where people read tabloid magazines (gossip, celebrity bullshit) wear false eyelashes and men who go to gym and shave body hair - It’s “fkn” true!
Household name in two years? ha ha - I’ll bet my left testicle it’s not gonna happen!
……..and, as I said in previous posts - I’m bailing!
I will keep about 10k shares, just for sentiments sake - cheers 😊


Well-known member
I was just wondering with the glacial pace of diversification beyond EPP does the relatively more complex administration of Scenesse via implant and the reasonably small patient population help protect from generic competition?

There is the potential of competition from other treatments like what MT and Disc are doing but there is also the ticking clock for exclusivity on what they've got approved. For the latter I was wondering if Clinuvel is likely to be somewhat protected from competition because any generic manufacturers need to develop an equivalent implant that has a relatively small target market and may not be so attractive? Is that something that could account for some of the apparent lack of urgency displayed by management so far?If anyone has any thoughts on that front it would be greatly appreciated and apologies if this has already been discussed


New member
I have said similar to the above repeatedly! Spend $10mill. and go where the market is.
Sad as it might seem, the market is where people read tabloid magazines (gossip, celebrity bullshit) wear false eyelashes and men who go to gym and shave body hair - It’s “fkn” true!
Household name in two years? ha ha - I’ll bet my left testicle it’s not gonna happen!
……..and, as I said in previous posts - I’m bailing!
I will keep about 10k shares, just for sentiments sake - cheers 😊
If they got some celebrities like kim kardashian and even basic makeup gurus and influencers on youtube/instagram, they will literally be an overnight household name in less than a year 🤣 (to young Gen Y - Gen Z types that watch social media and are buying self tanners and bronzers). Like I said before, "health" is not a major factor in their purchasing decisions - it might be an extra benefit but not the main thing.

Also if they want to be a legit company that makes skin pigmentation products, what's to stop them from producing skin lightening products? That's going to make them huge in Asia and India. I guess they all know this but nothing happens.

Maybe the management at this company are old boomers that have zero idea about cosmetics and want to be considered a "serious" pharmaceutical company...well then why are they even releasing OTC products then?

Maybe it's better to just sell the key ingredient to other cosmetics companies for them to make the products since they know more about the cosmetics market 😕 It looks like they wasted too much time. They should have done this a lot earlier if that was the plan :D
Last edited:

Albatross Ad Infinitum

Well-known member
I care now. I cared in 2018.

You do realize that Disc medicine (our future competitor) has the equivalent of a CUV year 2014 share price of $40. That's 5 years before Scenesse was approved. They are at $40 (equivalent) in 2014 time (equivalent), while we are at $15 (actual) now in 2023.

So no, I'm not waiting till 2026. I'm done waiting and casting two NO votes now. We have a selling product, while DISC have a future product. Yet they are worth more than we are right now. The first step to fixing this imbalance is building an independent board.
Since one of Clinuvel's performance rights triggers is achieving a market cap of A$150 per share, I don't care about $40 per share. I see the performance right trigger as a minimum. Being in a Fortune 100 company, my experience is that management sets achievable goals when it comes to these types of performance rights, so I see A$150 per share as a minimum that we'll reach in the near term, once their strategy to become a household name has been achieved. Besides, DISC medicine is not a competitor for all of Clinuvel's proposed indications. They may never get approval for even one indication that competes with Clinuvel, and even if they do, that's years away.

I'm happy to wait until 2026 for the real growth.

As for your votes, I'm guessing you don't have enough stock for that to matter.

Albatross Ad Infinitum

Well-known member
I use to agree with this. See my past comments.
Comment 1
Comment 2

But now I believe the liability outweighs the benefit.

Two things I remember are the insto exodus after his 2020 meltdown at AGM. And when the bad press came out about his legal dealings, that's when there was at least one other proven exit, some inflammatory articles came out, and the one analyst company stopped tracking Clinvuel and share price plunged.

I can only decide how to use my votes.
What I support is the universal fair 'stock option plan' for an incentive plan, not performance metrics. Any incentive plan not stock options, I don't support it.
He's still the best person to be Chair. To become a household name, that involves selling millions of products to consumers on a global scale. The business that he helped build over three decades reflects the perfect skill set for distribution. Clinuvel has hired additional people to handle the marketing.

"We partner with the world’s premium consumer brands in beauty, liquors, personal care, food, health and consumer electronics to serve millions of consumers daily - either directly or through our wholesaler and reseller partners." (empasis mine) See

" Willem A. Blijdorp serves as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of the Company. Mr Blijdorp is an internationally recongnised entrepreneur who has helped build the B&S Group, one of the largest global trading houses, in a period spanning three decades. Mr Blijdorp has led B&S’s growth, with the Dutch group focused on specialty distribution services to difficult to serve markets. The B&S Group has global reach and is a leader in its market sector." See

As for institutional holders selling, I thought you meant currently. In any case, you provided (and we have) no specific data on institutional selling (number of sellers, volume, etc.). So again, the impact of this is ripe for speculation.

More people will support the current management, Chair and CEO. I don't see anything changing.