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: Bill Wexler who wrote (4615)	11/2/1999 10:47:00 PM
From: allen menglin chen	Respond to of 10293

Thanks Bill for your updates. I have CLIC. Comparing to CMRC and BVSN's huge Q/Q growth rate, is CLIC a slow horse in a hot sector? If you check the CLIC board, there's rumor about lost of large contract last Q. Currently, CMRC, BVSN and CLIC's market cap is about 5, 6.5, and 2 Bil respectively. If you comparing market cap to revenue, CLIC is a bit undervalue. But w/ the current growth rate (CMRC and BVSN y2y growth rate is 200-400%, while CLIC is lousy 55%) and BVSN's exponential profit growth, I would pick BVSN, CMRC and CLIC in this order. Before this Q's earning report, CLIC has better revenue each Q for the past few yr. But CMRC has 100 Mil Q comparing to CLIC's 80 Mil. BVSN has 3 times current revenue comparing to CLIC, and is trading about 3.5 market cap. BVSN has better growth rate, and most importantly, BVSN is a profitable internet company. Should we add BVSN on your buy list again? I'll keep my position for one more Q, and hope CLIC can have a better Q/Q growth. I believe CLIC will outperform the market since CLIC is in a hot sector... BTW, thanks for all your posting. I'm reading them everyday!

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (4615)	11/4/1999 12:59:00 AM
From: chester lee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Bill, biz.yahoo.com The Quigley Corporation Comments on News Story Touting a Zinc Spray That Shortens the Common Cold DOYLESTOWN, Pa., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- The Quigley Corporation (Nasdaq: QGLY - news), manufacturers and distributors of COLD-EEZE© cold relief products, said today that the public should wait until publication of an accredited study by the manufacturers of Zicam before blindly accepting the alleged results of the unpublished study. ``We have not yet had the opportunity to review the quality and nature of the Zicam study, which was controlled by the Zicam staff at an undisclosed location,' said Guy Quigley, chairman and CEO. ``Therefore, The Quigley Corporation is unable to comment on the efficacy and safety of Zicam's nasal product, since the study was not conducted under strict outside independent accredited institutional conditions as applied to Quigley's patented COLD-EEZE product.' Quigley noted the following facts: -- COLD-EEZE is a proven therapy as confirmed in two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies held at The Dartmouth College Cold Clinic and The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. -- The COLD-EEZE studies were peer reviewed and published in The Journal of International Medical Research and The Annals of Internal Medicine. -- Most respected Journals embargo study results and disqualify papers about products when their studies are widely broadcast prior to publication. For example, The Quigley Corporation was fully aware of the COLD-EEZE study results months before publication, but the news was embargoed by the Journals. -- The Quigley Corporation cannot understand the attempt to promote a study that has never been published. The Quigley Corporation is also responsible for the total funding of the homeopathic proving to establish the safety of Zinc Gluconate, which resulted in Zinc Gluconate receiving a monograph in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. ``I believe the public -- and the news media -- should use caution until there is an opportunity to review the entire study and its ensuing paper and determine what is fact and what is fiction in this case,' Quigley said.