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: Hank who wrote (3746)	9/19/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

<<The problem with this abstract is that it initially states that over 200 viruses can cause the common cold but most are caused by rhinoviruses. What it fails to mention is the fact that there are over 100 different rhinovirus serotypes.>> The 200 includes most rhinoviruses and is not a "failure of mentioning" but a limit on words. Abstracts typically have a word limit. That is why they are "abstracts". <<There was no attempt to establish the diversity of serotypes present in the test population or to even verify the fact that the test subjects were suffering from a rhinovirus infection. >> True, yet it alleviated symptoms in a double blind study. The p<0.001 and stats were done independently by university statisticians. <<Nor was there any explanation as to how and where the test subjects were selected. If they were all chosen from the same geographic location, such a single college campus, then the probability is high that they were all suffering from the same rhinoviral serotype (assuming they WERE in fact suffering from a rhinoviral infection). >> It's a presentation abstract, not a complete study paper. That would be in the M/M portion of the paper. Yeah right, they all had the same infection. The tests were done over a two year period. Highly unlikely. You seem to be saying either there is one strain to account for all these cases (not likely at all, but then see below - that was the Tremacamra study model) or there are multiple strains that have not been accurately categorized (probably true - then see above re: statistical significance - and frankly, that is the whole point). << is that a zinc based treatment may not be equally effective against all rhinovirus serotypes. Without a study that is clearly designed to test the effectiveness of Zicam against all known rhinovirus serotypes, it is very likely that the overall efficacy of this treatment may be significantly less than what is suggested in this abstract. >> The overall efficacy can be known as best feasible. Nobody really cares which specific serotypes of rhinoviruses cause the most colds since they share the same mechanism of entry. Nobody seriously tracks this data year to year, either. Since it varies from location to location, it does not matter. That is precisely why a remedy that works like Zicam is desirable. I suppose you would posit the same argument against the Tremacamra study in JAMA, published this spring. Tremacamra is a bioengineered ICAM; they studied one known viral strain of rhinovirus. Good enough for JAMA, not for Hank, I guess. The point is that the rhinoviruses are known to share the same ICAM. That is precisely why an OTC like Zicam will be more feasible since it blocks a generic mechanism rather than inactivate a specific viral protein. <<Since Zicam was specifically designed to inhibit rhinovirus absorption, we can also assume that the treatment is worthless against other viruses which can cause cold symptoms.>> Most colds are caused by rhinoviruses. If you subtract out the viruses that typically infect kids, it is even more significant to the remedy-buying adult population. If I knew there was a greater than 3 of 4 chance that I could alleviate my symptoms in 2 days vs. 10-14, I would spend the $10-$12 to find out. I think most adults would, too.

To: Hank who wrote (3746)	9/19/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Hank, Thank you for your comments on the abstract. You raise some valid points. Research indicates that rhinoviruses are responsible for about 70% of colds. Theoretically, Zicam is effective on any virus that attaches to, and gains entry though, nasal ICAM-1. While research to date has focused on rhinoviruses, other viruses may also attach to ICAM-1. Even if they don't, I would be happy if Zicam was only effective against 70% of colds. I note that the mechanism of action is theoretical because it hasn't been proven through a clinical study. It has been demonstrated through "desktop research and analysis" by researchers worldwide. For example, I provided links to the Purdue University study earlier, and further research conducted at the Common Cold Centre, Cardiff UK, came to the same conclusion. cf.ac.uk The clinical studies currently underway will address this issue by infecting subjects with a known virus serotype. I think the challenge is from a marketing and public education perspective. Let's assume that Zicam isn't effective against some colds because the virus that causes them enters differently than rhinoviruses. If a person uses Zicam and it doesn't work, they might conclude that it isn't effective at all, whereas it might have been effective if their cold was caused by a different virus. Since Zicam was specifically designed to inhibit rhinovirus absorption, we can also assume that the treatment is worthless against other viruses which can cause cold symptoms. I don't think it matters which virus infected the subjects because they had cold symptoms and reported the results of using the gel. This doesn't invalidate the results, but does make it unclear precisely which viruses Zicam is effective on. Zicam wasn't designed to inhibit rhinovirus absorption. It was designed to interfere with any virus that infects the body through nasal ICAM-1. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your comment. You can't conclude that it is worthless against other viruses, but it would be fair to say that you don't know which other viruses it is effective against. Sincerest thanks for your feedback. Dan

To: Hank who wrote (3746)	9/19/1999 12:45:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

I also wanted to thank you for your comments. Even though I disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate that you not only looked at and read the abstract, but did some honest thinking about it.

To: Hank who wrote (3746)	9/21/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Marconi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10293

BINGO! Thanks Hank. holding GUMM is rank speculation An unqualified Zicam study is more fodder for misinterpretation based on the lack of qualifying science than helpful for incrementing the knowledge of mankind. The Zicam study indicates that Zicam met some criteria of effect on unsubstantiated suspected viral forms, which forms could be one or a few or many of thousands of possibilities, and therefore there is promise that thousands of possibilities are treatable, implying cure for the common cold. There was no random test population, no characterization of the infectious agent, no controls on either of these key issues. Nothing can be concluded scientifically from such an unqualified and uncontrolled study. What is most lamentable about this Zicam publication is the science that was not done. Some effect was observed by their criteria. It is all too easy to use the absence of meaningful science to launch a 'scientific' argument that is really describing observations that are indistinguishable from anecdote, by their merits. That is deplorable when used to deceive less knowing people, or non-scientists; which in business terms is fraud, whether the ignorant or idiot welcome it or not. A question veering more to my sentiments...if zinc ions are a mild antiseptic, then I suppose adding some silver ions to a formulation so that the antiseptic qualities are increased, would be a major enhancement. Hey, maybe the GUMM enthusiasts will abandon ship and fly with this notion and back us. With your virology credentials and my corporate scientist credentials, among others, we should be worth megabucks hands down!...at least to a handful of vagrants on this thread. Nah. I couldn't do that in good faith, not even to the idiots, to whom I owe a debt of love (caring for their highest good), not greed. Inventing on thread is fun. Whoops, now I've probably spoiled Zicam II. Well there is always formulation with menthol as a kindly whiff. Whoops, there I go again. Zicam III is public domain. I know! Charcoal. Powdered charcoal should be added. It's a great absorbent of trace compounds. And through the wit of 'marketing' black nose could be turned into a mark of distinction...stay away from contact--I have a cold! Best regards, Marconi