>perhaps you can give me a rational and objective view of the following news release off of YHOO
I will attempt rational but obviously, by definition, I cannot provide an objective view. If you recall, I am long the stock. Therefore I have a biased opinion. I admit that I hold a position unlike several shorts or other bashers of the stock that publicly proclaim to have no position long or short. If true, I have even less respect for these individuals because it makes no sense to me why someone would spend so much time offering their opinion (hardly unbiased)on a company when they don't even trust their thoughts enough to put their money where their mouth(or keyboard)is.
My read on the press release is that, while unfortunate, it won't make that much difference in the long run. The cat is already out of the bag so to speak. I believe the reasons AJIC pulled the piece has more to do with ego than with the quality of the study. I read from the following excerpt that the study was up to snuff otherwise it would not have been selected for inclusion in any future publication.
>>The Journal had planned on using the study in a future issue.
According to Elaine Larson, editor of AJIC, the peer review process was in order and the manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field. It followed an accepted blind review process. However, based on the pre-release of data and related issues not in compliance with the established policies and copyright regulations of the Journal, the manuscript has been withdrawn from publication.<<
I also believe they felt snubbed by the appearance of the news in USA Today, Wall Street Journal and all over the net, TV and radio. I am employed by a media company and I know that there is little value in publishing old news.
Back to the point that is doesn't matter. Did you see the follow up piece in USA Today noting the withdrawal of publication? Neither did I because there wasn't one. My wife is a pharmacist and her store has sold out their inventory of zicam AFTER the publication was pulled. Regardless whether you believe the efficacy of the product is that of what is claimed by GUMM tech, you cannot erase sales that have already occurred. And based on an informal survey of my wife's pharmacist friends (and she has many)it is selling extremely well. So in the short term GUMM tech should benefit from these sales but I believe in the product because it works so I have no trouble with the long term either.
>>While your at it you might want to comment on the following post of Aurics;
Message 11823099
I would not waste my time responding to comments made by Auric Goldfinger. He is obviously a short with a big ego who thinks his opinion is bigger than the market. Why don't you ask Auric for an objective opinion? Let me let you in on a little secret, HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE EITHER. He has his own thread called the "Auric Goldfinger's Short List" and GUMM is one of his picks. But I guess, given the limited research you perform before forming your opinions, you would probably consider him objective. He seems about as unbiased as you anyway.
Here are a few of my favorite Auric Goldfinger posts
Message 11813082
siliconinvestor.com
Message 11826670
Good luck with your short position. I also wish you luck with rational thought, something new you're trying? |
