<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.>
No, I didn't say that you shouldn't listen to scientists if you want to.
<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?>
You don't have to believe the conclusions of any study, and you can opine that Dr. Hirt's study was "shoddy" if you want. It doesn't matter what you think about it. Gum Tech satisfied all the labeling requirements set forth by the regulatory agencies and is entitled to make their claim.
<Or would you prefer it was developed and approved by scientists that like to bend the rules?>
I don't approve of any company bending rules, nor do I think that Gum Tech did that. What rules did Gum Tech bend?
<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.>
I didn't think that Dr. Hirt's study would send the stock appreciably higher absent publicity in the media. I thought that a preventative claim, which we now know is Dr. Turner's study, would have sent the stock much higher had it come back positive. The effect that news has on a stock has more to do with just the news. It also has to do with the price of the stock when the news comes out. The price of GUMM has factored in more bad news than exists in my opinion, and Dr. Turner's study does not conclude that Zicam doesn't work. It only concludes that it didn't work on two specific serotypes. Had the stock price been higher when his study results were made public, there would have been a better chance of it going down.
<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?>
Call it what you want. I don't know what studies Gum Tech is currently conducting, but their R&D expense was up last quarter so obviously they are doing some research. Even if they aren't studying Zicam Cold Remedy, you can't blame them. Companies are in business to maximize shareholder value. They do that by selling products within Government regulations, not by spending countless dollars to satisfy every critic that walks the face of the Earth. Gum Tech has satisfied all the regulatory requirements to sell Zicam. The product is safe and has been proven in two studies to reduce the duration and severity of cold symptoms. The common cold is a self limiting illness and I don't see how anyone is going to get hurt by using Zicam if they derive a benefit from it or even think that they derive a benefit from it. If Gum Tech was violating Government regulations, I wouldn't own the stock. I don't understand why you have such a spite for this company, but whatever floats your boat. It seems to me that you should direct your disdain at the rule makers, not companies that sell products within the rules. I believe that Zicam works and you don't. That isn't what matters. The only thing that matters is Gum Tech has satisfied the Government regulations to sell Zicam and consumers will buy it if they derive a benefit from it. The amount that they sell, along with other products that they sell, will determine the value of the company.
I previously had a copy of Dr. Hirt's study but it isn't on the computer that I'm using now. It must be on a different computer. The only reference that I have to the article is entjournal.com if you want to look it up. I seem to recall that the four sites were all in different cities, with Cleveland and LA being two of them. |
