To: Hank who wrote (4287 ) 3/9/2003 10:02:49 PM From: DanZ Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 5582 <1) The clinical trials are not valid and prove nothing. Any expert in conducting clinical trials (except those paid by MTXX)can tell you that.> Two clinical trials were peer reviewed by separate medical journals and published. The p values were statistically significant. That's good enough for me. As I have posted before, it doesn't matter if YOU or anyone else thinks that Zicam works, or whether YOU or anyone else thinks that the clinical studies are invalid. The company satisfied the regulatory bodies in conducting the studies, they were conducted by independent researchers, they were double-blind placebo controlled, and were published in independent peer reviewed medical journals. <What countless testimonials?> There are countless testimonials published on the Internet, in news stories published on the Internet, and in interviews on television. <Where are the independent poll results from Ziscam (sic) users nation wide to confirm this statement?> Did I not suggest that it would be interesting to conduct such a survey? <As for the suggestion that Ziscam (sic) Allergy and Extreme Congestion etc etc will be the big runners up to propel this company into the stratosphere even though they contain absolutely nothing new> The word "stratosphere" is yours, not mine, although last year's 47% revenue gain and this year's projected 30% increase are very good. I disagree that Zicam Allergy, Extreme Congestion, and Sinus don't contain anything new. However, even if they didn't, that is not a prerequisite to increasing sales and making a profit. How many companies sell aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, vitamins, etc under various brand names for a profit?