Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (1933)	7/11/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Respond to of 10293

<< If Zicam's claims have merit, then the company would no doubt be more than willing to submit Zicam to carefully controlled double-blind studies against placebo. As such, Zicam is just another quack remedy in a never-ending march of quack remedies.>> Bill, our point is that this is exactly what has been done in conjunction with a major university. You will see when it is published. My point is that a double-blind study is NOT the same as a three-phase trial. Once again, the GelTech guys who invented this are Ph.D.'s who were on the faculty at USC and ALL this can be substantiated with a little DD. Don't let your ego get in the way of the truth. You are the one who proclaimed initiation of personal coverage with a "short sell" rating and then admitted to only looking at the balance sheet for less than 3 minutes.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (1933)	7/11/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Bill, Do you read my messages?? Do you read those of Dr. Epstein?? Do you read those of Mike M?? Each of us has told you in one way or another that the first clinical study backed by a MAJOR California University was a DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLED clinical study, the results of which indicated that when one used Zicam, common cold symptoms went away in an average of 1.5 days as opposed to an average of 12 days without Zicam. The study had a p-value < 0.001, meaning that the probability of the results happening by chance alone were less than 1 in 1000. It is clear to me that you have closed your ears to anything that one says about GumTech unless they agree with your hogwash opinion. If GUMM goes up, you will say it's a stock manipulation fraud. If GumTech's revenue and earnings go up, you will say that they fraudulently sold nicotine gum and Zicam. If Zicam is accepted by the world, you will say that the world has been suckered by fraud. By having an excuse for everything, you will never be wrong, even if you ARE wrong. You also continue to insist that representatives of GumTech, GelTech, or BioDelivery Technologies claim that Zicam is a cure for the common cold. I have said on more than one occasion that the company makes NO SUCH CLAIM. Some investors have said this but you won't hear it from the company. If you think that Zicam is quack medicine, how about proving it instead of throwing out unsubstantiated trash talk. Otherwise your claims of fraud and quackery are hypocritical since the company has already proven their claim that Zicam works and you haven't proven squat.