"Dr. Hirt's study concluded that Zicam is effective against naturally occurring colds. You can dismiss those results if you want but you haven't articulated a valid reason for doing so."
What I dismiss is the notion that all of Dr. Hirt's subjects were suffering from a rhinovirus infection. Rhinovirus is not that difficult to culture in the lab. Had Dr. Hirt taken nasal swabs from each subject and verified that they were infected with rhinovirus, then you would have a valid point. The fact is he didn't differentiate between symptoms and the causative agent. As you know, there are a variety of maladies that cause cold symptoms. It could have been allergies. It could have been a mild case of the flu. It could have been coxsackievirus A9, which is an enterovirus and causes fever, sore throat, and rhinitis ( clues to your questions Mikey. Done yet?). At least Dr. Turner tested rhinovirus specifically. You can draw absolutely NO conclusions about what caused the subjects in Dr. Hirt's study to feel ill or what the basis was for any therapeutic effect Zicam had in these cases, if any. Additionally, as I have said before, the test population was WAY too small given the large number of rhinoviruses in the environment. One could argue that, assuming the majority of patients actually had a rhinovirus infection, they were all infected with the same strain and that Zicam is only effective against this one strain. Without the corresponding lab tests, you have no way of disproving this possibility.
Although this protocol has been used by others, it is hardly accepted, as is evident by the statements of Dr. Turner and others. |
