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: DanZ who wrote (2203)	2/6/2000 12:31:00 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Dan, Wexler said, "About the only thing that got my attention recently was when Howie Epstein M.D. explained to me that even though GUMM's phony cold medication is labeled as Homeopathic, it really isn't Homeopathic. I didn't bother asking the next logical question: i.e. how can you possibly trust anything on the label then? I didn't want to suspend my disbelief for another hour as I read through his 10,000 word reply." As you know, I merely cut and pasted the first two Q&A segments from www.gumminvestors.com over on Anthony's thread Message 12748245 I think this demonstration for the lack of understanding of operationally used definitions, in this case defined by the U.S. Government, shows an unwillingness to understand an issue. The U.S. government also has definitions of "income" and "capital gains" for tax purposes, has definitions of "underserved" regarding populations and their medical facilities, and "bank" for financial institutions. Thus, laws are written that place certain taxes on certain types of income, define who benefits from government medical programs and allow credit unions that fill the functions of banks to be controlled under different sets of laws. I think that most people understand these definitions and their necessity and thus also understand the explanation provided in the link regarding Zicam's labelling. If they do not, and do not understand operationally defined definitions or even homonyms, they are likely to be disappointed when they attend a specific political party's function and do not find a celebration going on (hey, this is not much of a party!, try to eat live a big red furry dog ( hey man, someone told me that was their chow, and also tries to open up shop in a bathroom or doggie park (hey, they told me that's where the business is done). Yes, it is that comical. They can't talk about slim sales truthfully and they can't talk about profitability, and they can't talk about not finding a nicotine partner. They do not understand operationally defining words that the FDA does, but they do not mind situationally defining ethics when it comes to truthfulness about a company.

To: DanZ who wrote (2203)	2/6/2000 2:22:00 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

If pleconaril inhibits 96% of all rhinoviruses, then they must have changed it's chemical structure from it's original form to make it more effective. When pleconaril was originally discovered, it only inhibited 50% of the known rhinoviral serotypes in the lab. This I know to be a fact because I consulted with the people who discovered this drug some 9 years ago when they first began to work with it. I know they were trying for a long time to synthesize an analog that would inhibit 100%. I guess they finally found one. At any rate, that doesn't negate my original point which is that not all rhinoviruses are necessarily equally sensitive to the same treatments. No matter how many facts you throw at me to give the illusion that you understand the science behind this, you can not prove otherwise.