"I don't approve of any company bending rules, nor do I think that Gum Tech did that. What rules did Gum Tech bend?"
Dan, are you really that daft? I was giving you an ANALOGY. I was asking if you'd prefer that scientists who develop and approve REAL drugs (ie prescription drugs)were bending the rules. Go back and re-read my post. You obviously couldn't comprehend it the first time. I never said GUM bent the rules. In their case, there's very few "rules" to bend and that's the whole problem. Get it?
" 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."
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, like the rest of your post. If a news event is truely significant, it will affect the stock price either way. You're dancing the two step again.
"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."
Ridiculous. As long as the stock remains over $0, it's true worth, there's plenty of roon for downward movement.
"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."
Yeah I'll bet they're putting all sorts of things into squirt bottles to see which product would be best spun off to the uneducated public. Just because the rules are lax doesn't give GUMM or anybody else the right to make exaggerated claims based on poor science, in my book. I take offense to it because I've spent my life doing it the RIGHT way. How would you like it if I spent a couple of hours studying an electrical engineering book and then showed up at your job acting like I know more than you do? You'd take offense wouldn't you? Now you know why I'm here. |
