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: BDR who wrote (2078)	7/13/1999 8:57:00 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

That is, it is being fraudulently labeled homeopathic for convenience so that the company doesn't have to be accountable to any regulatory body. Dale, aren't you intelligent enough to know that fraud is illegal and what GUMM did was perfectly legal. Do you know this decision to be fraudulent or are you so used to throwing the word around that it is no longer important whether the word is really appropriate or not. You don't really appear to be of the same ilk as our charlatan host but I think you have allowed yourself to fall into his pattern of self effacing name calling and libelous commentary. Too bad. You have promise.

To: BDR who wrote (2078)	7/13/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Dr. Russell, You are entitled to characterize the decision of GumTech management as fraudulent if you so desire. The fact of the matter is that the FDA says zinc is a homeopathic substance and GumTech is within their legal right to label a product containing zinc as homeopathic. If you have a problem with that, then perhaps you should write a letter to the FDA and complain rather than allege that a company, who follows the FDA's guidelines, is committing fraud. GumTech didn't label Zicam as homeopathic to avoid the FDA's scrutiny. They labeled it as homeopathic because it saved them millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses and allowed them to get the product to market quickly. Most importantly, it is within their legal right to do so. This makes good business sense. In the eyes of some of you, GumTech will never make a good decision. If they didn't label Zicam as homeopathic and wasted millions of dollars on unnecessary red tape, I have no doubt that the same people who are crying foul now would cry foul then too. If GumTech wanted to avoid the scrutiny of anyone, they wouldn't have conducted a clinical study and submitted the results to the New England Journal of Medicine. From an investment perspective, the issue isn't whether you agree with Zicam being labeled as homeopathic. Zicam IS labeled as homeopathic and it IS already in stores. This is a given and you can't change it. If the product works and is marketed properly, it will sell. If it sells, then short sellers will probably lose money despite their objections about the label. I guess I don't understand the logic exhibited here. Do you short stocks out of spite or because you think you have a chance to make any money?