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 (3759)	9/19/1999 6:30:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

<<While they do share the same mechanism of entry, the I-CAM binding affinity for each rhinovirus is different. Therefore, some rhinoviruses are more difficult to displace from I-CAM than others. >> Your statement does not prove anything. Here is how pleconaril works. "The drug integrates within the viral capsid at a specific site that is common to the majority of all rhinoviruses and enteroviruses. " That is from viropharma.com That does not mean that all the viral capsids are molecularly identical nor does it mean that they have the same affinity. In addition, if the virus does not get to attach, the point is moot. The abstract shows a dosage effect of the zinc ion. Even if receptor affinity were a factor, the efficacy of Zicam is better than pleconaril, it is OTC and available today. The fact that it worked for these people to the extent of p<0.001 is demonstrable and not premature, although further study is warranted and the second studies will focus (actually I bet they already done by now) on some issues brought up by the first studies. Again, the 2nd Zicam study will be modeled after the Tremacamra study that was published in JAMA. Do you not think that was worthy of publication because they did not test more than one rhinovirus serotype?