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 (3793)	9/20/1999 2:44:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Hank, You claimed that 200 patients isn't statistically significant. The fact that a study was published in a major medical journal on the same subject (common cold), that had only 100 patients, proves that the results are statistically significant enough for a peer reviewed article. Presumably, medical journals would not publish a study if they didn't think the results were statistically significant. The FDA may indeed have it's own set of rules regarding how clinical studies should be conducted and what is statistically significant. I invite you to provide a link to them. However, I must reiterate. Zicam is not a drug and is not bound by the FDA rules that govern drugs. <Marketing anything as a homeopathic medicine is just a convenient way of side stepping FDA rules and regulations.> This comment has no relevance on any business that sells homeopathic products. If they work, they will probably sell. If they sell enough, the stock will probably go up. If you or anybody else wants to short a stock because you disapprove of the FDA's regulations, go for it bud. Selling for spite doesn't normally have good results in the stock market.