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: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4575)	11/1/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

You know as well as I do that news announcers are only allowed to look disappointed when someone dies or a Republican gets elected to office.

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (4575)	11/1/1999 11:23:00 PM
From: Kelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Howard: I have no position in GUMM, but I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I was having dinner with a couple of medical researcher friends, fairly high up on the food chain, and was telling them about the zicam study, and the nejm issue, and how nejm dragged their feet on reviewing/publishing the data, so they submitted it to someone else, a lesser journal. my friends thought--and granted, this is strictly off the cuff, as they are not familiar with gumm--that if the data were really as good as gumm says they are--reducing the common cold by 85%--well, this kind of study, if well done, doesn't get the runaround. these data would be published, and quickly, and if not in the nejm, then at the very least in science (my friend didn't know about the nejm, but at science, if you paper is hot, you're accepted in a month or so). so my question is: is there a study flaw that caused the nejm or a more prestious journal to pass on it? thanks for your insight. kelly