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: Troutbum who wrote (3790)	3/17/2001 12:11:25 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

I have some time before I have to leave to catch my flight, so I'll try this one more time. The so called clinical studies for Ziscam contain glaring flaws that any competent scientist with a virology background would recognize. I posted them here before and now you have independent confirmation from Dr. Turner that the studies were not conclusive. Yet, when the studies were released, the shills on this thread proclaimed that because the study has accepted by a journal (of low quality, I might add)and performed by a well know Harvard MD, Dr. Hirt, the results were both scientifically valid and accepted by the scientific community. Obviously, neither conclusion is true or Dr. Turner would not have made those comments. So the question is, why would Dr. Hirt, a well respected Harvard MD, conduct an obviously flawed study? There are only two possibilities. Either he 1) is really incompetent as a scientist or 2) intentionally conducted a flawed study under the direction of GUMM in order to obtain results that support GUMM's efficacy claims regarding Ziscam. I don't know Dr. Hirt, so I can not assess his level of scientific competence. However, I would assume that if he routinely conducts clinical trials, then he probably knows what he is doing. That leaves us with the second possibility. IF the study was performed with the intent to manipulate the data, then I would call that fraudulent behavior. Wouldn't you? The fact is, you can make any drug look good in clinical trials if you know how to stack the deck. That's why prescription drugs have to go through a rigorous approval process by the FDA. Since Ziscam is labelled homeopathic, these trials don't have to be approved by the FDA or anybody else. That makes it WAY too easy to manipulate the data in your favor IMO. The laws governing homeopathic remedies have to be changed because there isn't a company out there that won't take advantage of a loophole if one is afforded them. It's the law of the jungle, like it or not. The Ziscam clinical studies aren't worth the paper they were printed on IMO.