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 (5052)	11/24/1999 1:13:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 10293

I am sure GUMM would welcome the scientific scrutiny from the nation's leading regulatory authority. All that free publicity can only help sales. Or maybe not.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (5052)	11/24/1999 1:28:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

The Wexler Fraud. Gum Tech hasn't made any claims with regard to Zicam that would concern the FTC. The Zicam package says: "Helps reduce the duration of the common cold." "Helps relieve the symptoms of the common cold." "Soothing and easy to use." "Non-drowsy formula" The company won't make any claims about how much Zicam reduces the duration of the common cold until the results of the independent clinical study are back. Gum Tech's attorneys have read their packaging material and are aware of the results of the first clinical study. The packaging is within the guidelines established by the FTC and is substantiated by the first clinical study. Go ahead and give Ms. Bernstein a call. I'll be interested in her answer.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (5052)	11/24/1999 1:40:00 AM
From: pz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Bill, Unfortunately you are missing a big point here. Bad news Bill, Zicam works and it's flying off of the shelves. I just had another friend try Zicam a few days ago and their cold was gone right at 3 days after taking the product. Pretty amazing that such a "scam" company could make such an amazing product. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one for sure. Paul

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (5052)	11/24/1999 9:29:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

To the thread.... Is it my imagination, or has anyone else noticed this pattern... When a fraud stock such as GUMM, REFR or VLNC suddenly rockets upwards a few points, the shills and touts claim that it is "institutional buying" or "big boys" getting in, but when the stock inevitably collapses it is due to short-seller "manipulation". I hereby nominate the following post by Dan "Valium" Zimmerman (I call him "Valium" because his posts are so long you can't get through half of one without falling asleep) as the greatest example of complete ignorance of the markets by a shill: Message 12080231 If you can manage to stay awake through the last paragraph, this little gem will make you cringe.... I seriously doubt if anyone who is long would dump stock like that because they wouldn't get the best price for their stock. The stock was quiet at the time and they could have sold it off in smaller pieces without driving the price down. This indicates that most likely a short seller unboxed all or part of his long position in an attempt to manipulate the stock. The price popped right back up to where it was when he started selling within a few minutes. Somebody has tried this game several times over the past few months, and each time the stock has recovered quickly. BTW, if somebody is actually doing this, it would be a violation of SEC regulations because it shows intent to manipulate a publicly traded security. Obviously, the likeliest reason the stock dropped is because someone was simply selling, but I'm still scratching my head over Dan's hallucination that unboxing any position is a violation of SEC regulations. Dan...how about pointing out that regulation for all us ignoramuses?