>Other than that, I think publication is a nonissue.
Dan,
At this point in time, and for all practical purposes, I think you are right. The marketplace will determine the status of Zicam before any article showing clinical support becomes available, if it becomes available at all.
But the reason I considered the potential article to be of importance, wasn't for free advertising purposes as was mentioned earlier on this thread [how many customers actually sit around reading medical journals?], but that it might have offered some insight for potential investors into whether Zicam is truly a "breakthrough", "wonder product" cold remedy, or whether it is simply another "run-of-the-mill" cold product mixed in with countless others on the store shelves. So IMO, without a supporting article, and with little or no evidence in from the marketplace, potential investors must take on a certain amount of added risk compared to a new product with published results.
At least that's why I think the article is, or would have been, important. A well designed and peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal would help reduce investor risk by taking away some of the unknown factors about how well the product works. But in this particular case, as you say, with the product hitting the marketplace prior to any published clinical results, a publication months from now is probably a mute point - a "nonissue".
Ice |
