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: Mike M who wrote (3940)	9/10/2001 8:25:45 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

What do dietary supplements have to do with Gum Tech? If Gum Tech ever had a dietary supplement, it would have been sold it to Wrigley as part of the gum business. Neither of the two Zicam products are dietary supplements and non-tobacco nicotine products aren't dietary supplements. In fact, one reason that companies would have such a hard time getting around the Zicam patent is because they can't sell knock offs as dietary supplements. One has to wonder why four GUMM bashers that have been silent for what seems like months (on SI at least) came out of the woodwork on nearly the same day. Anyone thinks it's a coincidence or maybe a coordinated effort to try to eeke out another nickle because they want to cover? I had to laugh when I read Wexler's $1.00 propaganda. How one can get $1.00 per share out of $3.00 per share in cash, 60% of a profitable cold remedy, 60% of an upward trending allergy remedy, 49% of a joint venture with Swedish Match, and other nicotine assets that belong solely to Gum Tech coupled with new seasoned management is beyond comprehension. It is laughable. If GUMM ever did trade to $1.00 per share, it would be years from now, and only if they squander their cash, Zicam stops selling well at the retail level, the non-tobacco nicotine products never get off the ground, and the company doesn't do anything productive with their cash. Why would anyone want to tie up money in a short position in this stock with so many bargains around, and even better shorting opportunities, with the hope that they might make a few dollars a share over the next few years? It goes to show you that spite plays a role with these shorters because they aren't making rational decisions. I don't have much time to spend on the Internet these days and I am not going to get in a pissing match with these chumps. They don't have a million shares to sell and the company wants to buy a million shares. Cold season is coming, the fourth quarter should be good as retailers restock their depleted inventories, the stock has based all year, and Gum Tech has a lot of cash. I say let them whistle in the wind and short to their heart's content. Just like in early 2000 when Wexler shorted at 10, 12, 14...on the way to 36, he and his cohorts will lose again. BTW, why did he cover at ~25 last year if this is going to 1? LOL

To: Mike M who wrote (3940)	9/10/2001 10:39:37 PM
From: Mad2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5582

Here's a interesting development in the "non-nicotine", i. e. non-addictive cigarette catagory Mad2 Copyright 2001 American Marketing Association Marketing News TM February 12, 2001 SECTION: NATION; Pg. 21 LENGTH: 471 words HEADLINE: Tobacco co. throws weight behind smokeless cigarette; Not feeling the burn BYLINE: Catherine Wilson for The Associated Press BODY: Vector Group Ltd. of Miami plans to introduce a cigarette made from genetically modified tobacco that is virtually nicotine-free and could be used as a tool to quit smoking. Vector says smokers who tried the new cigarette think it smokes and tastes like a conventional cigarette. Previous attempts by other cigarette makers to market smokeless and nicotine-free cigarettes have flopped. "It certainly opens some new possibilities," says Jed Rose, nicotine research chief at Duke University. He is completing tests of the new cigarettes with five groups of a dozen smokers who expressed a desire to quit. Nicotine makes smoking addictive, and a cigarette without it wouldn't produce the dependency that others do. The cigarette now being tested also cuts cancer-causing nitrosamines, but other cancer-causing chemicals would be present in the smoke. "We believe that a virtually nicotine-free tobacco could provide a nonaddictive alternative to smokers and make smoking a matter of choice," says Vector chairman Bennett LeBow, who broke ranks with other industry leaders in 1997. LeBow has released incriminating industry documents, acknowledged smoking kills and is addictive, settled industry lawsuits and testified against industry leaders. Vector's cigarette arm, Durham, N.C.-based Liggett Group, hopes to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to sell the new cigarette as a tool for quitters. If that failed, the company could still promote the cigarette's lack of addictive power by telling smokers they can choose to smoke when they want to instead of when they needed. The genetically altered tobacco was developed by former North Carolina State University geneticist Mark Conkling, who now works for Vector. Tests have shown the nameless cigarette to be popular with older smokers. Smokers also report smoking less when they smoke a combination of the new and existing cigarettes. The cigarettes could be used as a stepping stone to cessation or as a less harmful alternative for smokers who can't stop, Rose says. Another interesting test finding is that the smokers showed no signs of harmful compensation, a practice seen in smokers switching from high to low nicotine cigarettes of drawing harder and holding smoke in the lungs longer, he says. The cigarette is expected to reach the market early next year after Liggett completes tests, picks a brand name and grows enough tobacco to build inventory. With 1.5% of the U.S. market, Liggett until now was content to live off the marketing of the majors to maintain sales, primarily generic and discount house brands sold by convenience stores and others. Unlike the competition, Liggett does not advertise its cigarettes, puts an extra warning on all packs saying smoking is addictive and puts an ingredient list in cartons. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2001