Member Info for NicName

Dosand: "Haleon did a trial with 3k people with ED & got the exact same results as FUM with a 60% succes, as did coopers!"

Fair enough, I'll listen - please quote the details or provide links. Thank you.

Welcome AI-Besmerch, member since 19th Feb 2026, so long, and thanks for all the fishy stuff.

"Analysts" plural... So more than one. Which analysts then? Do tell, name them please, if you can. (Excuse me, I jest, you cannot.)

The sole 12 month 30p price target for FUM was published more than 12 months ago and that was within a client (FUM) sponsored (paid for) note. As it is a) time expired and b) the client has already demonstrated the projections were dramatically incorrect, what possible value has it now? The answer is simply none whatsoever.

All of which which leaves one to conclude that you are either extremely naive or attempting to deceive others. Would you like to tell readers which?

" ...it works on 60% of men with ED " >> The "fact" is that it doesn't (and there's the rub). FUM's flimflam 'determination' of a failed sample study, all of whom thought they were likely receiving an active elixir (drug), is not representative of all men with ED.

" Haleon..., question is what can they do with Eroxon? " >> Having already announced that it has been a 'disappointment' they might consider to drop it entirely.

"...i have been loading up..."

Sounds like you'll find a bag (or two) comes in handy, Lookingshot.

"... the 30p prediction was made before the 50% dilution" and apparently the said 'analyst' remains mysteriously unidentified.

Hmm, releasing your position in FUM left you with a loss then Bucolic. Oh well, c'est la vie. Better luck next time.

rpg: see 15 Dec 2025 13:35. Are you long?

Hopefully: Apologies, I had given you the benefit of the doubt, seems that was misplaced. Do filter, please.

Bucolic: You posted in response so I think you "give a stuff". Perhaps had you done so sooner you might not have found yourself at the loosing end of FUM. Additionally you would not find yourself in the embarrassing position of having heavily promoted FUM to many others over the years. I'm not sure they will be thankful for any attributable losses.

Hopefully: If you are really interested, you may find it helpful review in depth the product development (and FUM's) long history with additional diligence. It far pre-dates your time on these boards (under your posting moniker) so may involve a bit of effort (sorry). Otherwise the dilution and s/p action over time may be sufficient demonstrative guidance if you are time poor.

Re. placebo: It's "an insight" because it provides (provided) strong evidence of the inevitability that the product (and hence FUM) were 'doomed to fail'.

I post insights for all who wish to read, not for one egocentric individual, Jeff. You chose to interject with your inveighing 'ventings', hence your exhortations are much a case of you 'calling the kettle black'. Some find difficulty in grasping the obvious...

I'll leave you to get back to 'building your position', moaning about "buys showing as sell's" and considering the correct useage of the apostrophe. Cheerio.

A trite excuse, Jeff. BTW, I don't "give advise" (sic) or advice, I just offer a little insight as food for thought.

When did you first decide to 'invest' in FUM?

So Jeff, rather than offer a synopsis of the 'investment' case you preferred something tawdry, vapid and puerile. Good luck with your 'investment'.

Rpg, this is a bulletin board, a forum for "share chat", one where you have been around for several years where 'your business' has been whinging about the collapsing share price. Despite your reluctance, I have been trying to help you understand that.

"You can lead a horse..."

Jeff, had you put aside your misplaced delicate sensibilities and taken a moment for thought before choosing to interject upon a subject post addressed to another you would see your responding query was already previously answered.

However, as you have displayed such umbrage, if you are able, please do provide a synopsis of the 'investment' case here, now, in FUM, as you understand it, to support your implied assertions and activities. I won't hold my breath.

Hopefully, Hopefully, to save those where 'hope' exceeds common sense. :-)

To be an "investor" one would need to consider this to be an 'investment'. It isn't.

Rgp: "i repeat the product is not a placebo"

Still in denial I note. Fool yourself if you wish ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, but please don't try to fool others, for they may not be deserving of such foolishness. Instead, buy the stock in size and take your chances. Bags are available to carry the recent dilution and the lo overhang.

Rpg: Spending your life in denial is no way forward; in testing, it was THE placebo. If you fail to grasp the facts you will never be able to bring yourself to understand what is going on with FUM as a business or (and at this stage I use the term particularly loosely) as an 'investment'.

Henners: Clearly, for Eroxon and drivatives, FUM do. Not as a 'drug' (because it isn't, so they cannot) but as a 'medical device' and it is on that basis they have obtained permissions to market it.

Hopefully: It's not what anyone is going to call it, but factually that it is undeniably a placebo. Indeed, in testing, it was THE placebo.

Not surprisingly then that a majority (not a minority) of those who try it (which includes Sparky's suggested 99% of buyers that may have no idea that it was/is a placebo) consider it to be ineffective.

Quite so, Hopefully! For at the moment Nigel is expressing a doubt. Given that it that it is a 'placebo' and the presence of that doubt, on the balance of probabilities, had he tried it, he would know without doubt that the product is non-effective or, echoing Nigel's titular expression, not "real".

Do you need an extra bag to carry your views, or are they unsupported? :-)

Or you could just try rubbin' the belly of the budda'

"FTI said the Revolution and Revolucion de Cuba brands and assets had been bought by the bar and club owner Neos Hospitality Group."

The merry-go-round still turns, for the moment at least... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekom_UK