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: StockMiser who wrote (2229)	2/9/2000 12:27:00 PM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

SM,, Thanks for a lucid and well educated assessment of GUMM and it's lead product Zicam. It's nice to finally meet somebody on this thread that actually understands the science and rationale behind my arguments. I agree 100% with everything you said except one thing. You said: "So this is my final risk factor - Gumtech management for goofing the science and blowing a huge opportunity." While the AJIC withdrawal could certainly have been a screw up on GUMM's part, it could also have been intentional in order to get free media attention. After all, if you have a product that is based on questionable science and you know it, what better way to make it seem legitimate than to have it submitted for publication and then intentionally "screw up" so that the data never sees the light of day (and consequently avoid close scrutiny). I'm not saying they did this but it is a viable possibility in my book. Hank

To: StockMiser who wrote (2229)	2/9/2000 3:40:00 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Stockmiser, thanks for sharing some well thought out ideas. I suspect there is truth in much of what you have to say. Many of us were very surprised and disappointed that AJIC withdrew publication. It was a big blow. Sure management has to take a hit on that...but I think you might be too severe and I don't entirely agree that it was a disaster. Management ran the announcement by AJIC for their approval. What AJIC had not counted on was the sheer explosion of interest from the media. Was it a disaster for GUMM. Not entirely. This is a tiny company that had to borrow $6M to get the product launched, pay for the independent clinical, etc. They had limited manufacturing and inventory and the debt servicing was onerous. Reaction to the news was dramatic and demand for the product overwhelmed their ability to service. Three months later they have paid off the debt, have augmented manufacturing capacity, are flush with cash and have completed an independent study which they expect to be published. Furthermore the stock price is double what it was in Nov. Every thing is a trade off. They might have waited for AJIC to publish in February. They probably would have sold very little Zicam and would still be mired in debt. Maybe the stock would be 50 but the cold season would be coming to a close and who knows how much demand there might have been for Zicam after the publication(so late in the season). We can all question management after it is said and done. I am sure they have second guessed themselves. But, I am not entirely unhappy with where they are and don't really need a $50 stock right now. If the article is published in a couple months, perhaps the improved finanicials and other business circumstances will warrant even higher valuations. Before you become too critical of the company, please take a look at all the other irons that are in the fire. Talk to Gary Kehoe. See if you can take the time to visit the company. You might be surprised what is going on in Phoenix. Regarding any similarities with Cold-eeze. I disagree. But do not wish to revisit the discussion hashed and rehashed on this and other threads. I owned this stock before Zicam and would own it without it. But I am encouraged by Zicam and expect it to be a big winner. Time will tell.

To: StockMiser who wrote (2229)	2/9/2000 11:38:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

One comment on your point concerning the ease of copying the product without infringing on the patent. I do agree that it should be possible to get around the patent, but my understanding is that a simple saline solution is not adequate. From my reading of the thread my understanding is that the gel is in fact what makes the product work. The problem, as I understand it, is that the normal nasal discharge is sufficient to wash away the Zinc under normal circumstances, and sneezing is also a problem. The gel was devised so as to be hold the zinc in place giving it time to be absorbed and do its work. I do agree that if others want into this market badly enough they may well be able to devise other methods of holding the zinc in place, but I do think that the patent probably provides some protection. On the other hand, if the market is so good that others want in, I would expect the stock to be significantly higher than this before competition can get in. Carl