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 (5010)	11/23/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

The Wexler Fraud. Mr. "Wexler", I have stayed away from this thread for a good while, and even bit my tongue during the recent run on your lack of credibility. However, the post that I am responding to is such bullsh*t and you are such a liar that I had to respond. <GUMM has been thoroughly discredited recently with the refusal of a scientific journal to publish bogus claims about its quack cold remedy and a lawsuit for a competitor.> In your mind Gum Tech might have been "thoroughly discredited", but this is not true for investors overall. You, sir do not make up the majority of the market. According to MSN.com, "Institutional holdings of GUMM increased significantly." moneycentral.msn.com Secondly, the scientific journal did not call the claims "bogus". Here is what Elaine Larson, editor of the American Journal of Infection Control said: "The peer review process was in order and the manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field. It followed an accepted blind review process. However, based on the pre-release of data and related issues not in compliance with the established policies and copyright regulations of the Journal, the manuscript has been withdrawn from publication." The only data that was "pre-released" was in the press release announcing that AJIC has accepted the article for publication. Since all this data was in the Abstract that was presented at a medical conference in Corfu, Greece, this is clearly either a case of politics by someone who didn't want the article published or AJIC was overwhelmed with the publicity that followed. Either way, the validity of the data and the study method were not questioned. The lawsuit that you refered to is completely bogus, and while it might have shaken some investors out of the stock, those who use their head and consult with patent attorneys will conclude that the lawsuit is completely without merit. Quigley manufactures Cold Eeze under a patent held by Mr. George A. Eby III. Here is a link to the patent: 164.195.100.11. The claims in this patent apply only to zinc gluconate applied to the oral mucosa, and two separate law firms working independent of each other advised Gum Tech before they launched Zicam that they didn't believe that they infringed on Mr. Eby's patent. This statement is directly from Gum Tech's press release on Nov 18: "In fact, during the patent application process, the patent owner himself (George Eby III) claimed the patent 'is directed to the application of zinc ions to the oral mucosa, and excludes application to the nasal opthalmic(sic) membranes.'" Furthermore, the description in the patent discusses nasal application of a zinc spray and it says that it didn't work. Gel Tech figured out a way to make their nasal gel work and Quigley's lawsuit is completely bogus. <GUMM has also made misleading claims about sales of Zicam.> You are a liar. What misleading claims have they made about sales of Zicam? Are you sure that you aren't just pissed that sales in fourth quarter are already about $8 million. I seem to remember your saying that retail sales would be zero. You are a liar, Wexler, and you have no class, integrity, or restraint about what is right and wrong.