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 (4278)	10/9/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

LOLOL Mad2. You either haven't read a thing that I posted or you don't understand it. At the time that I posted about the importance of the first study, the company hadn't declared that they were going to conduct the second studies. At that time, the first study was as important as I hypothesized. Things change, Mad2, and you have to be willing to change your opinion when they do. Now that the second round of studies are nearly complete, they are more important than the first study being published. I'm not waffling at all. The circumstances warrant a change in my opinion on the importance of the first study. However, I believe that the first study will be published, and I believe that it will have a positive effect on the stock if it is. <Dan what's going to make it fly this cold season> How many times do I have to answer this before you get it? <Whey (sic) the new studies? The old ones get rejected?> How many times do I have to answer this before you get it? <I think you know more than you openly admit> Of course I know more than I openly admit, Mad2. I simply don't have the time or desire to write every tid bit of information that I know about GUMM. I have made it clear that I have done a significant amount of due diligence on the company and its products. I wouldn't have a five figure position in the stock if I hadn't. I don't have any undisclosed material information. I do have a lot of information that isn't material that anyone could get by talking to the company, their customers, other investors, and doing research about the claims behind their products, etc. If you want to know as much as I know about GumTech, then put the same level of effort into your research that I have. I'm not your personal teacher. <The only thing I was worried about ewas (sic) the NEJM possible article....No NEJM atricle (sic) GUMM <5 by spring> You are so utterly naive, Mad2. I can't express enough how stupid this statement is. If you really believe this, you should hock your house and everything that you own and short the hell out of GUMM. If the second round of clinical studies come back positive, you will be broke like other idiots that don't understand the implications of issues that are right in front of their nose. I don't think you will ever see the stock below 9 because of the prospects for nicotine gum. Look at the chart. Where was the stock trading before the Zicam leak? What does this imply about the value of GUMM without Zicam? The risk to reward of a short position in this stock is as bad as it gets and you are a fool for shilling and touting anything less.

To: Mad2 who wrote (4278)	10/9/1999 11:13:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Mad2 or anyone: <By the way you confuse my comment with studies being published in NEJM with GUMM's requirement to make disclosure of material issues pertaining to their business.> Please speculate on what will happen to the price of GUMM if the company makes the following announcements with regard to the clinical studies that are nearing completion. 1. The clinical study concludes that Zicam reduces the duration of the common cold by a similar amount to the first study ~85%. 2. The clinical study concludes that Zicam prevents the common cold. Now, please speculate on what will happen to the price of GUMM if both studies come back inconclusive. Thank you, Dan