I hold only common stock in GUMM, just like Dan and Mike. I think that is pretty clear. It is in my profile and you don't have to do an AMA search. I receive no compensation from GUMM or Gel tech. My stake is merely that as a shareholder; you people are making slanderous comments that are not substantiable. I am merely trying to figure out what makes you tick and what it takes to convince you that there is a possibility that zicam works. That's why I asked Wexler the question I did. Simply, are any of these people who shout "fraud" going to be able to admit they were wrong if the NEJM publishes this study? That's all. Everyone is fallible and should, at some point, admit to the possibility that they are wrong. I would do that - I do - and I would not trust anyone who carries any argument ad absurdum.
Accusations of fraud are serious. In this case they are not true and those of us who have done serious research in this feel forced to respond to lies, misinformation and distortions of people who try to convince shareholders to sell based on admitting that they have looked at last years' balance sheet for 3 minutes. What about this is unreasonable or makes it ok to bash the GelTech or GUMM people and the company in which I own stock? Please answer that.
You would be surprised at the scope of pathology. Many pathologists oversee blood banks, run microbiology labs, run hematology and chemistry testing as well as diagnose all the diseases on surgical specimens. Many research M.D. scientists are pathologists by background and many pathologists include basic science research in their residencies. Many also do clinically-oriented research with their colleagues, and some see patients and do clinically oriented things such as taking and interpreting needle biopsies. Some do all these things simultaneously and have published research articles in several of these areas. If you know how to do a medical literature search, you can confirm this. To learn more about pathology try ascp.org or try cap.org . You will see that most pathologists spend less than 5% of their time doing what most people associate them with because of one TV show. Anyway, back to your question.
A 3 phase study is ridiculous when the graded toxicity portion does not apply and animal testing is unnecessary. They already have the dose and know that the levels absorbed of zinc are lower than the RDA if one takes the whole bottle. (More easy dd to do). Therefore, that would obviate that portion of a 3-phase. What is hard to understand about that? If you were going to park your car in a driveway, would you test it first to see if it would park two semi-trailers. Simply, not appropriate in that case. |
