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: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (3115)	11/8/2000 10:26:27 AM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

ENT Article Review: My Assistant has brought me a copy of the paper. I have read it and now I will go through it point by point. During the introduction, the Authors make a point of stating that "Of the more than 100 different cold viruses, the most important are rhinoviruses", yet no where in this paper is any attempt made to verify that any of the subjects were suffering from a rhinoviral infection. Numerous references are made to the evidence that zinc may inhibit rhinoviral attachment, yet without the knowledge that each patient had a rhinoviral infection, you can not draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of Zicam against rhinoviruses in vivo. The study also states that : "Our methodology was similar to that used by Mossad et in their clinical evaluation of zinc lozenges in 1996. Subjects were recruited from four sites in the Los Angeles area." We already know the methodology used to conduct the clinical trials on zinc lozenges is now regarded as flawed and that zinc lozenges are now perceived to be ineffective against the common cold. Yet, here they followed the same protocol with out any attempt to eliminate the pitfalls of the original study: ie no verification of a rhinoviral infection and no controls for other variables which may have accounted for the disappearance of symptoms such as a sporadic allergic episode. It also goes on to say that: "Only subjects whose cold symptoms had been manifest for 24 hours or less were enrolled in the study. Subjects were required to have had at least three of the following symptoms: cough, headache, hoarseness, muscle ache, nasal drainage, nasal congestion, scratchy throat, or sneezing." As most people know, LA has some of the worst air quality in the country. A bad smog day in LA alone can cause at least three of the above symptoms to occur, yet this was not controlled for. Allergies can cause at least three of these symptoms as well as a host of other infections such as influenza. Again, without verifying the symptoms were the result of a rhinoviral infection, the results are meaningless. There was also no attempt to determine whether or not the test subjects routinely experienced cold symptoms that lasted for 3 days or less. The only criteria for dismissal from the study was the following: "Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, an immunocompromised state, a duration of common cold symtoms beyond 24 hours, and the use of certain mediations". Not everybody routinely experiences cold symptoms with same level of severity or for the same length of time. No attempt was made to control for this variable. Interestingly, the study did state that: "…45 zinc patients (42%) and 39 controls (37%) did report that they had experienced a slight tingling or burning sensation". I can tell you from experience that the burning sensation they speak of can be quite uncomfortable. Hardly what I’d call a good selling point for a product you’re going to squirt up your nose. Finally, they go on to conclude that: "Further research is needed to understand the interaction of ionic zinc and rhinoviruses, as well as the extent of susceptibility of other viruses to this treatment". Assuming that the majority of their test subjects even had rhinoviral infections, there is no way to know whether or not they were all suffering from the same strain of virus or multiple strains. Since all of the subjects were selected from the LA area, it is very possible that IF they had a viral infection, it was the same strain of virus. That leaves open the possibility that the majority of viruses that cause cold symptoms are not affected by ionic zinc. In conclusion, there was no attempt to verify either the source of the infection or, if it was viral, the strain(s) responsible. Without this critical piece of data, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this study. In essence, all this study did was to mimic previous clinical studies done on zinc that have already been shown to be flawed.