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: mchip who wrote (3735)	9/19/1999 10:05:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Respond to of 10293

<< So 'Ionic' Zinc snarfed into my nose as a gel ZICAM is going to reduce how long the common cold disrupts my life AFTER I'm already infected? >> The viruses have life cycles in your cells. This life cycle includes replication and continuous infection of neighboring cells. This is called "autoinfection" and is characteristic of most infections. Zicam theoretically blocks the initial infection and autoinfection. <? I just don't get that. You say ICAM, I think SCAM. > Based on what logic? The mechanism of rhinovirus infection is well-known and is in basic pathology textbooks, as I have posted on this wretched thread. The molecular structure of the ICAM is well-known and has been reverse engineered as Tremacamra, as was published in JAMA this year, as I have previously posted on this thread. Short away. That is your prerogative. Zicam is real and works. The upside for us longs is much greater than the downside.

To: mchip who wrote (3735)	9/19/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 10293

mchip, <Since you want to pick up shares at a lower price why post here at all?> You missed my point. Whether or not the discussion on this thread or any venue on the Internet affects the price of a stock isn't the issue. People are entitled to know the truth when others lie and they are entitled to hear opposing opinions. Taking your comment to the limit, there is no need for any message board to discuss stocks. I still find it amusing how the bashers here don't mind hearing continued BS from other bashers about GUMM, but when confronted with posts from those outside the bash group, they put them on ignore. This is a cult mentality, and at a minimum, highly hypocritical. <If Zinc does inhibit the ICAM-1 to HRV, it would be too late AFTER one is infected.> You obviously don't understand the pathological response of the common cold. It might be a good idea for you to do some research before you spout off that the science is flawed. Here are some general articles. If you do a search for ICAM-1 on the Internet, you can find much more detailed information on how ICAM-1 receptors interact with viruses. Some of this isn't easy to understand and requires a strong background in various science disciplines. msnbc.com news.uns.purdue.edu purdue.edu at.embnet.org Good luck with your short position. If the NEJM accepts the study for publication, the resulting hype will most likely cause you serious losses. This is just an opinion based on how the market normally operates. If the article is accepted, buying from thousands of traders at #daytraders and #activetraders, and current shorts, will make you wish you'd never heard of GUMM. The time to short GUMM for a very short term trade could be after the article is accepted, if it is accepted. The risk of shorting GUMM is extremely high right now. This opinion is based on an understanding of the market and has absolutely nothing to do with my position in the stock. I wouldn't short any stock under these same circumstances. The downside risk is a point or two, and the upside is 5, 10, 20? How high do you think GUMM would trade if the article is accepted? The risk to reward is about as pitiful as it gets for shorting.