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 (2193)	2/6/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

<Since the rhinoviral serotypes of the test subjects wasn't established, nobody knows what the test population size is either.> You couldn't possibly know what was and wasn't established because the data hasn't been released. <Yeah, it's called the scientific process.> Yes, we can all see how your scientific process works. Draw a conclusion before seeing all the data. This doesn't sound very scientific to me, but others can draw their own conclusion. <I readily admitted that they were pro's at manipulating the media and public opinion. They deserve credit for that.> You missed quite a few things that Gum Tech deserves credit for. Your answer just proves my point (and others) that you are incapable of discussing the pros AND cons of Gum Tech and that you aren't credible. <Yet, pleconaril has been proven to be effective against only 50% of all known rhinoviral serotypes even though they all contain this pocket.> From viropharma.com In preclinical studies, VIROPHARMA scientists have shown that pleconaril effectively inhibits the laboratory replication of 96% of the rhinoviruses and enteroviruses isolated from 332 human patients. This would seem to refute your claim that pleconaril is only effective against 50% of all known rhinoviral serotypes. Do you have a link to some later research that proves your claim? From www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk There are 105 known serotypes of rhinoviruses, 91 of which attach to the ICAM-1 receptor site. 10 serotypes use the Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor and I don't see the other 4 in the table. There are 111 serotypes of enteroviruses, so pleconaril inhibited replication of 216 serotypes of rhinoviruses and enteroviruses combined. They didn't say how they calculated 96%, but it could be that pleconaril was effective on 100% of the rhinovirus serotypes and 92% of the enterovirus serotypes. (105 * 1.0) + (111 * .92) = (.96 * 216) This is just an example and not intended to describe how they calculated 96%. It could have been effective an average of 96% of the time across all serotypes. Unless external factors affect pleconaril's effectiveness, I don't see why it wouldn't work consistently on the same serotype of virus. I stand corrected that Zicam would not be effective against all serotypes of rhinoviruses if the mechanism of action is proven as hypothesized. If it is proven that Zicam blocks the rhinovirus from attaching to the ICAM-1 receptor site or blocks infected cells from infecting other cells, then Zicam should be effective against 91 of the 105 rhinovirus serotypes. Until the mechanism is proven, it is difficult to say why Zicam works. The bottom line is that people who have colds find that it works in most cases and it is selling well. People don't always know why something works. It would be interesting to know why Zicam works, but this isn't a prerequisite to selling it, and it isn't a prerequisite to claiming that Zicam is clinically proven to reduce the duration of the common cold by 78%. You might also notice that 3 serotypes of the Coxsackie A virus attach to the ICAM-1 receptor. I'm not very familiar with this virus, but if the mechanism of action is proven as hypothesized and the Coxsackie attaches to the nasal ICAM-1, then Zicam might also be effective against this virus.