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: Druss who wrote (3870)	9/21/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: big run	Respond to of 10293

Druss....I don't think it has anything to do with whether it works or it doesn't and if the clinical study was under or over done. mayohealth.org One of the most interesting pieces of information to emerge from the Cleveland Clinic study was that participants whose colds were shortened by zinc didn't know it. The subjective impressions of both zinc- and placebo-takers about whether the medication had helped were similar. "That's why studies like this are important," says Dr. Hensrud, who points out that only by looking at a large enough group can researchers see whether a medication is effective. "One person can never know if a particular cold was shortened by zinc," notes Dr. Hensrud. "He just might have had a mild cold." So, while zinc may help you, you may never know for sure. ....it's all about marketing.

To: Druss who wrote (3870)	9/21/1999 10:03:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

<<<Marconi brought out some aspects of the study that has been mentioned here that I would like to question in more detail. Specifically as reported the study is relying on self diagnosing of the test population as to whether they have colds or not. This is a badly flawed model. >>> <<etc, etc>> Fact is this, Druss, plain and simple. This study was modeled after the first Quigley study to the letter. Period. That got published now didn't it? Why was it done that way? Because at the time it was developed, Zicam had only one competition: Quigley. So, it made sense to copy their study using a different remedy to see what the results were in comparison. All the criticisms of the first study will be answered in the second one - conducted similarly to the Tremacamra study published in JAMA this year. So, criticize the model all you want - there was a reason for it. How do I know? I asked. It was that simple.

To: Druss who wrote (3870)	9/23/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Marconi	Respond to of 10293

Hello Druss: GUMM and study significance You raise a superb point. Colds generally are not fatal (except those Soviet Premier colds a la Kosygin...). Infecting two halves of a sample population and treating both additionally with placebo as a control would make sense to have the basic form of a credible study (with appropriate blinding of all parameters to reduce observer bias). And repeating it several times would make further sense. Colds are largely once only for a particular strain of virus. Efficacy measured statistically over randomly selected strains would be important to generalize to colds in general. I have a few years grad level statistics in my background (and the degree), basically as a precaution to have a sense when people may be misapplying statistics (the majority of analyses) to knowingly avoid taking faulty stats too seriously; a form of pseudoscience easily perpetrated on the untrained. Best regards, m