Hank,
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. How many times do we have to discuss the same issues? Here again, is my response to your dead horse issues.
<As for GUMM, my principle criticism of their product Zicam is, and has always been, the fact that their one and only "clinical" study was neither large enough nor statistically significant enough to convince either the scientific or the medical community at large of it's efficacy.>
Quoting from a recent press release:
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not in compliance with the established policies and copyright regulations of the Journal, the manuscript has been withdrawn from publication.
Now let's be honest, Hank. How are your assertions substantiated with this quote from the journal's editor? BTW, I bold printed the word "fact" because this is your opinion. It is far from a fact, and your opinion isn't even believable based on the facts.
In addition, if memory serves me correctly, Quigley's study that was peer reviewed and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, had 100 subjects. The number of subjects was statistically significant enough for two medical journals, but it's not good enough for Hank? I have to tell you. You aren't fooling anyone.
<It may have been good enough to allow them to make claims under the rules and regulations governing homeopathic remedies but that is a cheap cop out.>
There is no cheap cop out. Gum Tech conducted a second independent study, the results of which should be out soon. There are two reasons that they conducted the second study. One, the FTC requires this before they can make claims that Zicam reduces the duration and severity of the common cold by X%. Two, they are confident that Zicam works and this reduced the risk of spending shareholder money to conduct the study.
<GUMM states in it's own SEC filings that they are actively seeking strategic partnerships with, among others, pharmaceutical companies. I can assure you that IF their clinical data regarding Zicam was convincing enough to substantiate the claims printed on the side of every Zicam box that they would have had NO problem finding partners in the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, the big drug money would have been lining up to get a piece of the action. Obviously, this has never happened. I wonder why?>
You wonder why? They are selling Zicam as fast as they can make it right now and they are increasing their capacity. They are distributing Zicam to 40,000 to 50,000 retailers, or nearly every grocery, drug, and mass retail company in the US. Why would they give away part of the profits when they obviously don't need to? The option discussed in the SEC filings related to a joint venture simply convey the company's options to shareholders. They may or may not exercise that option, depending on what is in the best interest of the company. IMO, they are more likely to establish a joint venture for international distribution of Zicam than domestic distribution because their network isn't as strong outside the US. It makes more sense for them to partner with a company that has a strong distribution network overseas. They might even establish various partners for world regions, such as Asia and Europe.
Sales and profits will continue to grow at a rapid rate for at least the next several quarters (as far as I can see right now). This is why GUMM will turn around and make new highs above 19 in the future. The bottom at 12 yesterday was at a critical support level and the stock reversed quickly to close at 13 7/16. It's up 5/16 right now to 13 3/4, so we may have seen the low. For your sake, I hope you have a price in mind where you will take your profit. Otherwise, and IMO, it will evaporate and turn into a loss.
Good luck,
Dan |
