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: Hank who wrote (4020)	12/2/2001 1:41:12 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

<Although this protocol has been used by others, it is hardly accepted, as is evident by the statements of Dr. Turner and others.> The protocol used in Dr. Hirt's study was used by Quigley for Cold Eeze, BDT for their internal study, and several other studies over the last several years. While this protocol might not be accepted by what I call some hard-core scientists, it is accepted by Government regulators for the purpose of making advertising claims. Consumers would not buy Zicam if they didn't derive any benefit from it. The fact that retail sales are up 100% year to year coupled with positive feedback from consumers to the company suggests that the majority of people that have used it believe that they derived a benefit from it. Scientists can argue until they are blue in the face if Zicam works. Gum Tech has satisfied the Government regulations for making their claim, and consumers will vote by buying or not buying the product. I don't see how sales of Zicam will be hurt by Dr. Turner's study because very few people ask their doctors for a recommendation on which OTC cold product to use, and I doubt if Dr. Turner's study will receive enough publicity, or if a significant number of consumers or even physicicans will read it. His study will not affect Gum Tech's claim one iota. Incidentally, BDT's internal study was conducted over a two year period at multiple sites and the results were similar to Dr. Hirt's. This study too seems to dispute the likelihood that all the subjects had the same rhinovirus. Like I said before, the data from various studies suggests that Zicam is effective against many strains of rhinovirus, and perhaps against the ones that occur most commonly in nature. One can hypothesize that Zicam showed only 75% efficacy in Dr. Hirt's study and BDT's study because it is ineffective against certain strains of rhinovirus that occur less frequently. I would agree that Gum Tech should undertake a study to try to prove this hypothesis, though they are not required to do so to sell Zicam with the current claim.