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: DanZ who wrote (3903)	8/6/2001 10:05:01 AM
From: rli123	Respond to of 5582

Dan -- couldn't agree with you more. Clinical studies are not cheap --- and the last thing GUMM is going to do is throw money away doing clinical studies of an irrelevant product -- a product that bears only slight, tangential resemblance to GUMM's commercial product, Zicam. My professional experience tells me that a significant difference in the viscosity of the product can have a profound effect on performance. Afterall, with a low-viscosity spray, the residence time in the nostril would be significantly lessened, compared to a gel. The longer residence time is supposedly one of the keys to why Zicam works. rli

To: DanZ who wrote (3903)	8/6/2001 11:18:56 AM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

"However, if they say something derogatory and don't have ample proof, they would be open to liability." So what are you suggesting Danny Boy? That perhaps CNS did plan on including Ziscam as a reference point but decided not to because GUMM's lawyers threatened to sue them if they didn't come up with a "positive" result? Isn't it grand that the competition has to prove the scientific validity of their studies beyond a shadow of a doubt but one pathetic study published in an even more pathetic journal is enough for you idiots to declare you have absolute proof of efficacy! If they really wanted to test a possible product then Ziscam would have been the obvious positive control. The fact that they didn't include it, regardless of the reason, is highly suspicious. The only joke is that you're still a free man and not behind bars where all P&D'ers belong.