Iceberg, thanks for the research. Two things to note.
-- 67 patients is a very small study. One of the mainstream cold community's criticisms of the orginal zinc gluconate study conducted by George Eby (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Jan. 1984, volume 25, number 1: 20-24) was that this trial of 65 subjects was too small to say much of anything. The same complaint arose over the next two positive studies using the Cold-Eeze zinc gluconate glycine formula (those had 73 and 100 patients, respectively). For further reference, the negative study on a lower dose Cold-Eeze formulation published in JAMA last summer (June 24, vol 279: 24) tested 249 subjects, which only further suggests that trial size may be significant. Dividing 67 patients into two concentration groups further dilutes the power of this study. Commentators who want to attack zinc-related cold remedies (and there are plenty of them) will highlight the small study size.
--If the article has not yet been submitted to the NEJM, then it could be months before it appears, if it actually does. Journals can take a long time to review an article, especially one written by people with no apparent expertise in the field and especially one making such positive claims. It also seems unlikely that the NEJM would publish it given that Hensley and co. have already begun making public claims based on the study's results. Though there are exceptions, that kind of hype of an unpublished study is usually considered unseemly. And if NEJM rejects it, the review process will have to begin again with another publication. Zicam may attract some media coverage, but I would be surprised to see a major media outlet play it up the way they played up Cold-Eeze until there's a published trial result.
In summary, both issues appear to be negatives in light of the enthusiasm for the stock. |
