GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bengalus who wrote (199)	2/4/1999 2:44:00 PM
From: Iceberg	Read Replies (1) of 5582

Bengalus, you said... > -- 67 patients is a very small study. True. >Dividing 67 patients into two concentration groups further dilutes the power of this study. True, if that's in fact what they did. I have not seen the protocol for their study. >--If the article has not yet been submitted to the NEJM, then it could be months before it appears, if it actually does. True. >It also seems unlikely that the NEJM would publish it given that Hensley and co. have already begun making public claims based on the study's results. Interesting concept. I don't know to what extent that might be a factor in the NEJM's review process. On the one hand it would seem to undermine their prospects for publication. On the other hand, it seems to me the study should stand on its own merits without consideration of extraneous factors. >In summary, both issues appear to be negatives in light of the enthusiasm for the stock. I think there is no doubt, as you say, that had the sample size been larger, and had there been no existing claims made prior to a peer review process, the credibility of the Zicam product could have been greatly enhanced. I certainly can't disagree with the two basic points you made. Thanks, Ice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next