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: Mad2 who wrote (3654)	9/17/1999 8:38:00 AM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 10293

You are so illogical mad2 that it is useless to respond to this childish response. This I know. You don't have a two year history with this company...that is patently false. You say you have done your due diligence....Explain then to me 2 things: One: What makes Gel Tech's product unique to all others including HITK's....hint: you haven't a clue.... Two: Why does GUMM own 60% of the product if they "didn't bring anything to the table".... You are clueless mad2...and are going to remain clueless as long as you keep your head buried in the sand...

To: Mad2 who wrote (3654)	9/17/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Mad2, Your insistence to continue rehashing the same issues over and over and over is getting very old. As a significant shareholder in GumTech, I won't sit idle while you and others who have no idea what you are talking about toss around blatantly false and derogatory accusations. <GUMM's deal with Gel-Tech smells of a stock promotion scheme, that was hastily put togeather to prop up the price of GUMM and attract new money. Confusing press releases and conflicting information from consultants all add up to a seat of the pants approach centered around pumping the zicam story.> When I first read the press release in January about Gel Tech LLC, Biodelivery Technologies, and GumTech, I was confused, and I admitted this in a message that you referenced in your post. I was confused because Dr. Davidson owned a private company named Gel Tech Inc., and he was also a party to Gel Tech LLC. I called GumTech to clarify the issue, unlike you who continues to post the same crap about it being confusing. When GumTech, Inc. and Gel Tech, Inc. established the joint venture, Gel Tech, Inc. changed its name to Biodelivery Technologies, Inc. and the joint venture was named Gel Tech LLC. Gel Tech, Inc. no longer does business under that name, and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you on SI. Despite that, you continue to post the same old ABA listing and continue to point out that you are confused. It's not that damn confusing, Mad2, unless you are completely dense. Now, why did Biodelivery Technologies and GumTech form Gel Tech LLC? You have suggested that their motive was a stock promotion scheme designed to prop up the price of GUMM. This is so far from the truth and utterly preposterous, that I can't see how you wrote it with a straight face. Here is the story as I know it. Drs. Hensley and Davidson developed Zicam on their own with little or no input from GumTech. Some of the history of their development work is in the "History Behind Zicam" section of zicam.com. After they developed Zicam, they wanted to market it. Don't all developers want to sell their products? GumTech's core business is using alternative delivery systems for OTC drugs (chewing gum). Biodelivery Technologies' core business is developing and using alternative delivery systems for OTC drugs (nasal gels). Do you see the similarity? Dr. Davidson had prior dealings with Gary Kehoe (President of GumTech) because both companies were working on alternative delivery systems for OTC drugs. This is how they knew each other. Dr. Davidson approached Gary and asked if GumTech would be interested in marketing and distributing Zicam. There are several reasons why he approached GumTech: 1. They knew each other and had consistent goals of using alternative delivery systems for OTC drugs. 2. GumTech has marketing and distribution expertise and accounts with most major retailers. 3. GumTech is publicly traded and has access to the capital markets for financing. GumTech also paid Biodelivery Technologies $3.5 million for a 60% share of the joint venture. The only motive that these two companies have is to successfully market Zicam, and yes, to make money. GumTech's motive is to build shareholder value, not to pump their stock. It isn't unusual for a company that develops a product to team up with another company that has marketing and financial resources to successfully market the product. It happens every day in the business world from big companies like Hewlett-Packard to small companies like GumTech. Biodelivery Technologies could not have gotten Zicam in 40,000 stores in the last few months without GumTech's help. Biodelivery Technologies couldn't have gotten $6 million in financing from Citadel without GumTech's help. In return, GumTech owns 60% of a cold remedy that has the propensity to significantly increasing shareholder value over the next few years. Your claim that this is all a stock promotion fraud is completely without merit, and quite frankly, I'm tired of these accusations so loosely being tossed around on this thread. It is completely irresponsible for anybody to allege such unethical, and possibly criminal activity, when they have no idea what in the hell they are talking about. Regards, Dan