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: out_of_the_loop who wrote (1954)	7/12/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Hank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Sorry for jumping in here prematurely. I was scanning the messages in a hurry and didn't take the time to read all the background info on Zicam. I don't have a position in GUMM. Never have. However, I was under the assumption that they only made gum. Thanks for clearing this up for me. The fact that Zicam is a nasal spray still doesn't explain why their preparation will be the product of choice if others decide to make a similar product. I would imagine that a large drug company could blow a small guy like GUMM out of the water if they wanted to compete head to head. The fact that they aren't interested in doing this, as far as I know, indicates that they are unconvinced by the efficacy of zinc treatments. Can you provide me with any scientific references regarding the interaction of zinc and ICAM? If these results are published, it would seem that the data is not impressive or one or more of the big drug companies would be all over it by now. I would also like to point out that Mr. Zimmerman's statement that Cold-Ez and Zicam work through different mechanisms of action is still false. The applications are different, sure. However, they both work (supposedly)through the interaction of zinc with ICAM. Hence, the mechanism of action for both products is the same.