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: TRIIBoy who wrote (2195)	7/15/1999 3:39:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Respond to of 10293

I made the assumption that you were probably short because of the tone, calling the studies or the announcement hilarious, and you were directing your comments to Wexler, who has used what I consider libelous terms with regard to the company. If this is unfair, I apologize, but it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. In any case, I have to reiterate that the people who developed Zicam are Ph.D.'s from USC who are well-aware of what a scientific study is all about. Even if by any stretch of the imagination they were not, it is inconceivable that any major university would engage in such research without the proper scientific model being applied. All the things you ask for are appropriate, but most studies do not give out all the info until they are done and then, not usually until they are published. Take for example a cancer drug where a lot of the subjects may die. Why limit the sample size at the beginning by announcing it? People drop out. Since we are all fully aware that we are dealing with the not-too-commonly-deadly common cold, it is known that people often drop out of studies for compliance reasons or other reasons. They cannot be counted until the study is done. I cannot not give you other details since I do not know them but I can say with confidence that this will be a double-blind trial or group of trials because the first ones were and, very simply, the investigators are not stupid. Again, what is considered a "rush Job" by you may be completely adequate time to answer the relevant clinical questions because of the large pool of people available and the duration of the "disease" or symptoms in question. You characterization is not fair since you neither know details of the study or have taken into account the parameters I have described in this and my previous post.