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: DanZ who wrote (4025)12/2/2001 4:52:56 PM
From: Hank  Read Replies (1) of 5582
 
"While this protocol might not be accepted by what I call some hard-core scientists, it is accepted by Government regulators for the purpose of making advertising claims.

Oh I see. So what your telling us Dan is that the opinion of "hard core scientists", many of whom are experts in the field of rhinovirus biology, are not to be taken seriously. However, we should believe the conclusions of a shoddy study simply because it satisfies the labelling requirement set forth by the FTC (none of whom are experts in the field of rhinovirus biology)for homeopathic remedies? Sure Dan. You keep telling yourself that and while you're at it, don't forget to send Santa a letter and tell him what you want for Christmas this year. By the way, what is a "hard core scientist" anyway? Is that somebody who believes that scientific studies should be constructed in such a way as to yield data from which valid conclusions can be legitimately drawn? The next time your Dr. prescribes a prescription drug for you, you'd better hope it was developed by a "hard core scientist" and the safety data was reviewed by "hard core scientists" at the FDA. Or would you prefer it was developed and approved by scientists that like to bend the rules?

"His study will not affect Gum Tech's claim one iota."

That's funny. When we were all anxiously awaiting the publication of Dr. Hirt's study with baited breath, you guys swore it would send this stock skyward.

"One can hypothesize that Zicam showed only 75% efficacy in Dr. Hirt's study and BDT's study because it is ineffective against certain strains of rhinovirus that occur less frequently. I would agree that Gum Tech should undertake a study to try to prove this hypothesis, though they are not required to do so to sell Zicam with the current claim."

And therein lies the basis for the whole scam. They don't have to do it, so you can bet they won't. Why risk letting science prove it's all a load of crap when they can sell on the basis of bad science, weak government regulation, and consumer's over zealous imaginations?
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