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: ProDeath who wrote (3894)	8/4/2001 9:42:27 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

"stock conmen"? Those are strong words for someone that apparently doesn't understand that the study on Zinc Sulfate Nasal Sprays doesn't have anything directly to do with Zicam Cold Remedy. I posted the following on Yahoo this morning in response to another naive poster. I'll be happy to discuss it further if you have anything intelligent to say. Since the study on zinc sulfate sprays didn't include Zicam for obvious reasons, one can't conclude anything about the efficacy of Zicam solely from that study. However, if you combine that study with the studies published to date on Zicam, one can hypothesize the following: 1. Zinc Gluconate is effective against the common cold while Zinc Sulfate is not. 2. The concentration of zinc in Zicam makes it effective while the concentration of zinc in the spray tested is not. 3. The gel in Zicam contributes to the effectiveness of Zicam while the viscocity of the spray tested contributes to its ineffectiveness. These are hypothesis, not statements of fact, that could be proven in various ways. The bottom line is that Zicam has been proven to work in a double blind placebo controlled study, the results of which were published in ENT Journal. The unnamed nasal spray(s) tested were shown to be ineffective. One can infer why the spray didn't work and Zicam does work by comparing things such as the type of zinc, concentration of zinc, and viscocity of the medium. The benefit of the Reuters article on the stock is that it gives Zicam more free publicity. Dr. Davidson did an excellent job explaining why Zicam is different than the spray tested. In fact, the Reuters article said more about Zicam than it did about the study. The study itself is a nonevent to this stock IMO. Any ancilliary publicity such as the Reuters article provides the main benefit.

To: ProDeath who wrote (3894)	8/4/2001 10:05:22 AM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 5582

Schmandel, I may have misinterpreted your "conmen" comment. Initially I thought that you were directing it at me and other longs but now I'm not sure. If I misinterpreted your intentions, please accept my apology. If not, my reply stands. lol Either way, have a nice weekend. Dan

To: ProDeath who wrote (3894)	8/4/2001 11:48:46 AM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 5582

Why would anybody need to respond to this article? Nothing new under the sun. Zinc sprays don't work and we've known it for quite some time. Zicam does. End of story. Instead of wasting his time studying zinc sprays, I'd like him to do an independent analysis of Zicam.