JDN:
Several of the people who post here, both short and long, are medical doctors, so the degree does not necessarily confer any particular expertise. It does not confer academic experience. It does not confer the ability to think independently. That is in the individual. Some physicians are bullheaded and not very bright. My ex-father-in-law once said to me, "you know, I do not see what the big deal is about diseases like lupus. You know, I have been in practice over 30 years and never seen a case." I thought to myself but did not say aloud, "you mean, you never RECOGNIZED a case""
I disagree with people who seem to ignore the facts in this case regarding what is a labeling issue and the nature of specific studies about which they have little understanding. I have studied the company and cold remedies for months and months. The financial aspects are explained well in Dan Zimmerman's posts on SI and in the posts of "Makemilns" on the Yahoo thread. I have read the S-3 and 8k in some detail.
Short sellers and potential shortsellers have been trying to misrepresent the financing aspects which are, in actuality, good for GUMM shareholders. These have also been explained in posts by Dan and others. In addition, Zeev Hed read them and had nothing negative to say about them. This is all verifiable by searching on the individual posters.
GUMM is a company made up of decent individuals. Gary Kehoe and Brown Russell are fine people and not "crims", "frauds" or "scammers". Brown is available as the IR person. Drs. Davidson and Hensley are Ph.D. researchers from USC who have gone into business together, with a few other people, in GelTech. They are concerned with their academic reputations enough to do decent research. They are not rubes or "any nut" (as posted recently by a physician on this thread describing who may submit articles to the NEJM). They are scientists with good academic reputations and with publications that can be searched EASILY by using Pubmed or any NLM (National Library of Medicine) search engine. Their reputation is not effectively smeared by people who have done a minimal amount of research, have no ability to look beyond their one-liner arguments (and I use that term loosely), and who do not keep up with basic science research in the area.
There are no significant players in management who have filed to sell; that has been explained by Dan in previous posts. Any financing may carry some dilution but with you have to take into account the size of the company and the potential revenue of its products. Two examples: If there is minimal growth potential, a 15% dilution is significant. If the growth potential of the products is exponential, even a 100% dilution may not be harmful.
In the case of GUMM, the potential dilution is not significant in my opinion and the options for payback if financing have been explained by Dan and are to the benefit of shareholders. Nobody is hiding the s-3 or 8-k; they are public, albeit long, documents.
The potential of Zicam is tremendous, but the truth will be seen not by positive or negative hype, but by reorders and increasing distribution. If I were a shortseller, and I knew that a product was going to be in WalMart, Albertson's (already ordered 9 times), and over 40,000 stores in 8-12 weeks, I would pass.
If you have any specific questions please ask, but I ask you to do some DD. The people who post here, even some of the physicians, cannot get past irrelevant labeling issues. Some do not seem to understand the differences in types of medical studies. Short sheep are just as bad as long sheep.
Sarcasm and the simulation of wit has been used as a substitute for logic and direct arguments of specific points. |
