To: Bill Wexler who wrote (7746 ) 1/17/2001 11:48:11 PM From: DanZ Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10293 <Zicam is a fraudulent homeopathic placebo.> It's all in your choice of words. If you said, "I don't think Zicam reduces the duration of the common cold", I wouldn't have a problem with you. If you said, "Zicam didn't work for me or my brother or my sister", I wouldn't have a problem with you. I have a problem with your saying that Zicam is a fraudulent placebo for two reasons. One, fraud alleges that Gum Tech is intentionally deceiving the public, when you are lying. If fraud existed, the FTC would not allow Gum Tech to claim that Zicam reduces the duration of the symptoms of the common cold. Gum Tech is following the FDA's regulations with regard to homeopathic labeling, and fraud does not exist in any way, shape, or form. Two, placebo is a medical term that implies Zicam has no more effect than a nasal gel without any active ingredients. This is a lie that has been dispelled by three clinical studies, one of which was published in a peer reviewed medical journal. <Zicam has been touted as a "cure" for the common cold on numerous message boards.> The company has never said that Zicam is a "cure" for the common cold and the company can't control what every over-zealous investor writes on the Internet. I personally don't believe that one should characterize Zicam as a "cure" for the common cold. The reason being that in the preponderance of cases, the common cold will go away by itself without any treatment whatsoever. Regardless, Zicam has been proven to reduce the duration of symptoms from about 9 days to about 2 days, and that has value with a lot of people in that it increases their quality of life, makes them feel better sooner, can reduce medical expenses since they won't go the doctor for something as trivial as a cold, and decreases their time away from work, etc. Your comments about the CSFB press release are preposterous. Like any company, Gum Tech has a fiduciary responsibility to announce material events. I consider retaining CSFB as Gum Tech's investment banker material information, and Gum Tech would very likely be in breach of their fiduciary responsibility if they signed an agreement with CSFB without disclosing it publicly. Your claim that Gum Tech intentionally leaks information is also preposterous. What benefit would there be to leaking information? If the news is going to make the stock go up, it will go up when the news comes out. There is no benefit to the company intentionally leaking news. I don't always show up within minutes of your garbage posts. I generally only read message boards on the Internet before work and after work, and it just so happens that you posted your last two messages about GUMM after I got off from work. In fact, I posted about an hour after your post yet you replied to me within 10 minutes. Now who is the hypocrite? This is more than just a squabble on a public message board. You have accused me in the past of being paid by Gum Tech to "tout" GUMM. This is in fact a bald faced lie, and you could spend a million dollars to defend yourself and still be found guilty because it didn't happen. You have also accused me of posting messages to myself on the Internet in an attempt to manipulate the price of GUMM. This too is a bald faced lie and can easily be proven by identifying the real identity of the aliases in question. My reputation is important to me and I will not tolerate you or anyone attempting to damage it by posting malicious and intentional lies on the Internet that I can very easily prove are false.