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: Mad2 who wrote (4263)	10/8/1999 8:45:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Mad2, First, I have some more information on the return policy. GumTech does not normally issue cash refunds. If Zicam is returned, the retailer would be issued a credit. GumTech's return policy is really a mute point. As you know, two studies are currently underway. The first study is being conducted to determine whether Zicam reduces the duration of the common cold. The second study is being conducted to determine whether Zicam prevents the common cold. If one or both of these studies come back conclusive (positive), it is my opinion that very little Zicam would be returned. If both studies come back inconclusive (negative), then the company would not be able to make any claims with regard to the efficacy of Zicam. I don't know what they would do in this case, but they could recall it and discontinue selling it. I don't see much room for middle ground; therefore, I think the return policy is a mute issue. In the former case, a small amount of Zicam might be returned that is damaged in shipment but this is well accounted for in the reserve account. Regarding your question about the first clinical study: if memory serves me correctly, the study was submitted to the NEJM in March or April. Reviewers sometimes request revisions and this time may not be included in the 6 to 8 week period. It is my understanding that revisions can sometimes add months to the review process because the writers must make the changes and the editor must review them. I assume that there could be more than one iteration of this. Additionally, the time periods that you were given are averages. Some articles might take longer to review and some might take less. There are two many variables to draw a conclusion that the article has been accepted or rejected on the basis of the amount of time that it has been since submission. A more important issue is that too much emphasis is being placed on the NEJM. I don't think it matters which medical journal the article appears in as long as it is reputable and the media picks it up. The reason that I have been referring to the NEJM over the past few months is because that's where it was submitted. If it had been submitted to JAMA, I would have been talking about JAMA. If it had been submitted to XYZ Journal, I would be talking about XYZ Journal. My point is that I won't be disappointed if the article appears in a journal other than the NEJM as long as it is reputable. Most investors will probably look at it this way as well. Best regards, Dan