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 (4094)	3/11/2002 10:53:57 PM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5582

Mark, I didn't notice any brand or firm mentioned anywhere. Why should Zicam have been singled out? If you didn't notice any brand or firm, you didn't read very carefully. For example, this excerpt: "Topical decongestants may be more effective than oral decongestants. One study showed that the topical ingredient, oxymetazoline, produced four times the decongestion as the oral use of pseudoephedrine (the ingredient in Sudafed and several other oral products). The topical remedy also worked faster, producing improvement within five minutes versus 30 to 60 minutes for the oral decongestant. Most standard topical decongestants, such as Dristan and Neo-Synephrine, use phenylephrine hydrochloride as their active ingredient. Other, longer-acting products (such as Afrin) contain oxymetazoline." Of course the approach was to mention possible treatments and then give brand names of products that contain them. Since zinc is not mentioned ANYWHERE on the link as a possible treatment for colds, it makes sense that they wouldn't mention Zicam either. But that still begs the question of why the place that is cited by Zicam as the source of the research didn't see fit to mention either zinc or Zicam in a fairly comprehensive section on the treatment of colds. In any event, do you really care or do you just enjoy tweaking Dan? I still follow the company because it's simple to follow and I hope that I might get another good shorting opportunity. I don't short much these days, for a variety of reasons, but I'd certainly be willing to come out of retirement for this one. Dan's dark hints that the company might soon return to selling its only successful product give me some hopes on this score. Since I am following the company, if I think there's a point worth making, I'll make it. I do not enjoy tweaking Dan, in fact I find dealing with Dan to be quite depressing. I like to think that investors learned some lessons from the bubble, but every interaction I have with Dan leads me to think that this is probably not the case.