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: Bradley W. Zohn who wrote (2672)	10/22/2000 9:03:52 PM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

I find it interesting that my lack of 100% accuracy is making me "look foolish" but when pro shill's like Dan and Mike make all types of claims based on hypothetical scenarios that ultimately fail to pan out- it's ok. The fact is that they are holding a money losing stock that is still more than 60% off it's highs. Those that listened to their crap last year at this time took big hits as they stomped their feet and made statements like "'m not selling until it hits $100! and "This stock will NEVER see the single digits again!" As for your comments regarding ENT, yes it is an insignificant publication. Cold meds are not a common priority amongst ENT specialists. They deal with much more serious maladies. If GUMM really wanted to hit their target within the medical community, they would have pursued a much more widely read publication like NEJM. Ask your family Dr how often he reads ENT and then ask him or her how often they read NEJM. General practitioners are ones that deal with minor infections like colds. The suggestion by Mike that GUMM pulled their manuscript from NEJM because they were "impatient" has got to be the dummest thing that has ever been said on this board. It's like saying, "I decided to go to Community College because I didn't have the patience to wait for my acceptance letter to Yale." If, in fact, a manuscript was ever submitted to NEJM, you can bet it didn't make it into print because it got rejected. The fact is there are 100's of scientific journals out there and not all of them are difficult to get published in. Also, not everything that gets published is believable or accurate. You obviously have NO experience in this area from which to issue your "holier than thou" comments. Hence, you and your opinions mean nothing.

To: Bradley W. Zohn who wrote (2672)	10/22/2000 10:24:47 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 5582

Brad, Welcome to Hank speak. You have to admit he talks with authority though he actually knows very little. Funny how he considers the decision to withdraw the publication "dummest (sic) thing he ever heard" without having a vague notion of the circumstances. It is immaterial whether he believes it or not but, in my opinion, it turned out to be one of the smartest things they ever did. You can believe Hank and his bombastic comments or me. Your choice. When the preventive claim is announced I have a feeling that this issue of "quality of publication" will be put to rest. Can't tell you what Hank will say not that it matters. To suggest that ENT would publish almost anything is, of course, laughable. By the way, I did note that Zicam was the lead article this month. I am sure there were optimistic comments of stock price just as there were pessimistic (make that hopeful forebodings)... Hank sees no difference with his unwavering assurance of Zicam's "voodoo science". Like I said, welcome to Hank speak. <g>