SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ProDeath who wrote (3894)8/4/2001 9:42:27 AM
From: DanZ  Read Replies (1) of 5582
 
"stock conmen"? Those are strong words for someone that apparently doesn't understand that the study on Zinc Sulfate Nasal Sprays doesn't have anything directly to do with Zicam Cold Remedy. I posted the following on Yahoo this morning in response to another naive poster. I'll be happy to discuss it further if you have anything intelligent to say.

Since the study on zinc sulfate sprays didn't include Zicam for obvious reasons, one can't conclude anything about the efficacy of Zicam solely from that study. However, if you combine that study with the studies published to date on Zicam, one can hypothesize the following:

1. Zinc Gluconate is effective against the common cold while Zinc Sulfate is not.

2. The concentration of zinc in Zicam makes it effective while the concentration of zinc in the spray tested is not.

3. The gel in Zicam contributes to the effectiveness of Zicam while the viscocity of the spray tested contributes to its ineffectiveness.

These are hypothesis, not statements of fact, that could be proven in various ways. The bottom line is that Zicam has been proven to work in a double blind placebo controlled study, the results of which were published in ENT Journal. The unnamed nasal spray(s) tested were shown to be ineffective. One can infer why the spray didn't work and Zicam does work by comparing things such as the type of zinc, concentration of zinc, and viscocity of the medium. The benefit of the Reuters article on the stock is that it gives Zicam more free publicity. Dr. Davidson did an excellent job explaining why Zicam is different than the spray tested. In fact, the Reuters article said more about Zicam than it did about the study. The study itself is a nonevent to this stock IMO. Any ancilliary publicity such as the Reuters article provides the main benefit.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News