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: rli123 who wrote (3900)	8/5/2001 5:15:18 PM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

"What I don't understand about the article is why the researcher didn't simply evaluate Zicam..." It's real simple. Ziscam is the obvious "positive" control in this experiment but they probably left it out intentionally in order to avoid an embarrassing negative result. Even the GUMM shills assert that zinc nasal spray is ineffective unless the zinc is suspended in the "magic" gel, so why test zinc saline solution at all? This was probably a plant by GUMM. My guess is they wanted to give the illusion that Ziscam is effective due to it's "viscosity" by simply saying it is so and referring to the ENT publication as proof, rather than repeating the experiment with Ziscam to offer additional proof. It's a fixed phony result that, in my opinion, is intended as cheap publicity for their worthless product and completely invalid. More smoke and mirrors science from the boys at GUMM. Remember, GUMM claims to be going after copy-cat products that have been on the shelves next to Ziscam for awhile now. Just look on your pharmacy shelves and you'll see them. This is probably GUMM's attempt to discredit those products without offering any additional proof that Ziscam is any better. The article states that the study was funded by CNS Inc. Although I don't know for sure, I'd bet money that CNS Inc. has some sort of connection with GUMM.

To: rli123 who wrote (3900)	8/5/2001 5:53:16 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Did some searching on CNS Inc. I can't find any direct mention of GUMM in the SEC filings but they do have a co-marketing agreement with P&G. Could that be the connection? I don't know. It could be they simply wanted to test zinc since they are in the cold product business and wanted to use Ziscam in the study but GUMM told them no. If that's the case, then GUMM would have accomplished exactly what I previously hypothesized without having to be directly connected to the study. Pretty convenient. Either way it's a joke. You gotta read between the lines when you're dealing with smoke and mirrors science.