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.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hank who wrote (1862)	12/8/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Hank, I think that your last post was fair and reasonable with the exception of the following comment. <Unfortunately, since those events have not occurred yet, I have nothing to base my opinion on but anecdotal evidence and the posts on this thread. Since that is a far cry from a convincing argument, I can only assume that Zicam is a hoax and GUMM is doomed to fail miserably.> I personally think that this logic is flawed because a product is not necessarily a hoax simply because the company hasn't put enough data in front of you. There are valid reasons why the data that you seek isn't publicly available. The data from the second study, if the company even has possession of it, can not be released before publication. Can we agree on this? The data from the first study can't be released because the company may still be trying to publish it. Isn't your real issue that Gum Tech is selling Zicam before the study has been published? If this is what concerns you, then let's discuss it, but it isn't reasonable to call Zicam a hoax simply because you haven't seen the clinical data. Based on this logic, any health care product that is sold without published clinical data would be a hoax by your definition, and this isn't reasonable. I can understand that some people would be skeptical before clinical data is published, but a hoax implies that Gum Tech is knowingly selling a product that they know doesn't work. This is absolutely not the situation that we have here. To the contrary, Gum Tech has gone well beyond what is required by the FTC and FDA before they can sell Zicam and they have plenty of evidence that it works. The FDA regulates homeopathic products such as Zicam. The active ingredient in Zicam is listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS), and has been approved for use as the active ingredient in homeopathic cold remedies. If you read the criteria for inclusion in the HPUS at hpus.com, you will find that the FDA has stringent requirements for including active ingredients in the HPUS. It isn't as easy as simply filing a form to get a new ingredient added. Quigley sponsored clinical studies that concluded that zinc gluconate is efficacious against the common cold. Plenty of scientific research exists to explain how zinc interacts with the rhinovirus and ICAM-1 receptors. To call zinc products a hoax in the face of all this research isn't reasonable, IMO. Finally, there is more to Gum Tech than Zicam. The core gum business has been growing rapidly and will be profitable within two quarters after nicotine gum comes on line (IMO). The company also said that negotiations for a sizeable dental gum agreement are progressing well and that they expect a deal to be announced in the first quarter of next year. Of course there are never any guarantees in any business; but, the expected cash flows are becoming much more predictable and that's why I think that the stock price will continue to trend higher. Zicam has been the focus of much discussion here, but you have to look at the entire company when evaluating their future. Regards, Dan

To: Hank who wrote (1862)	12/9/1999
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Finally, your comment about having "so many shares" should make it clear to any lurkers here exactly how "open minded" your opinions really are. You and I view the function of this forum differently. I use it to search for information which I may then independently verify. The better informed, the more likely my decisions are fruitful, or so the thinking goes....Your comment suggests that you see this forum as a place to manipulate thought. This, of course, explains why you believe that longs are "shills" and "touts". I don't believe there are enough GUMM SI lurkers to impact the price movement of this stock, let alone enough that would buy on Dan or my recommendation that could have an impact. I have owned the preponderance of these shares for over two years. It is simply preposterous to think that my motive has been to fool someone else to take my shares. (Of course, unless someone can show me why I shouldn't own part of this company, I will continue to own it for years to come). Nothing that you, mad or Wexler have said would come close to convincing me, Dan or Howard etc. to sell. But, if legitimate problems surface which, in fact, undermine promulgation of the business plan, then I would quickly review my position. That is my definition of open minded. Yeah, you conducted the infamous "Hank Study"...anybody who thought that was unbiased should stand in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Your opinion was well documented at that point and your comments throughout the "trial" belied any hint of impartiality. To suggest otherwise simply flies in the face of reality. Your dog and pony show in front of the dog pound was theatrical but not one whit believable.