SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (4943)11/26/2003 11:07:20 AM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5582
 
LOOK WHAT THE CAT DRAGGED IN? cOMMENTS DAN? Message 19533831



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)11/26/2003 5:13:12 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
Critical stories While consumers are buying Zicam, Gel Tech has been subjected to some criticism. Time magazine ran a story after the study was pulled from the Journal of Infection Control, suggesting that washing your hands could be just as beneficial.

One of its biggest competitors, Quigley Corp., a Pennsylvania company that makes zinc lozenges marketed as Cold-EEZE, was among the first to raise questions about the early release of the Gel Tech study. Quigley issued a statement cautioning the public and media to wait until the Zicam study is published before "blindly accepting the alleged results."

Even Gel Tech officials believe more trials are needed to prove to the scientific community that Zicam works.

"There's still the question of whether it will play out the same in the real world," said Fariba Ghobsian, senior vice president and biotech analyst at Cruttendon Roth. "They have done the clinical experiments, but when you go to the real world, things can change."

Ghobsian served as an early advisor to Gel Tech.

Meanwhile, Gel Tech's founders are already talking about the possibility of an initial public offering in another year and more homeopathic products down the line.

"There's a lot of pressure to expand," Davidson said. "We had a successful launch and we're growing fast, so there's a lot of catch-up to do."

---------------------------------------
findarticles.com

Team Strikes Gold With a Zinc-Based Cold Remedy.(Brief Article)
Los Angeles Business Journal, Dec 6, 1999, by Jennifer Netherby

Two L.A. researchers were tossing around ideas back in 1994 about how natural remedies could slow the common cold when they hit upon an idea: Why not turn the remedies into a nose spray? After all, they reasoned, colds are located in the nose.

It took another two years for Charles Hensley and R. Steven Davidson to quit their jobs at a biotech company and start their own firm to develop the spray.

Earlier this month, their company, Gel Tech Inc., was propelled into the national spotlight after the release of a study indicating its Zicam product could reduce the average duration of a cold from nearly 10 days to less than two.

Stories appeared on television and in USA Today and other publications detailing the study commissioned by Gel Tech. The company also indicated that the results would soon appear in the American Journal of Infection Control - though because scientific publications don't take kindly to having their articles pre-released, the journal decided against publishing the results.

Sales have spiked

That hasn't slowed sales of Zicam, which is available over the counter. Sales have spiked since the media coverage, and the company has had trouble keeping up with demand. Revenue so far this year has surpassed $10 million and Davidson projects $20 million for the current cold season.

"The extent of publicity it got was a surprise," said Gel Tech Chairman Brown Russell. "We've seen a big increase.

The study claims that Zicam, a zinc nose spray, shortened the duration of the common cold when tested on 104 people over two cold seasons. Gel Tech officials said the study underwent a peer-review process and was reviewed by medical experts before being released.

An independent study of Zicam is expected to be released in the coming weeks. While the scientific community is divided over the effectiveness of zinc in fighting colds, Hensley, Gel Tech's chief scientist, and Davidson, its chief executive, are confident that their results will be confirmed.

The theory driving their work is that zinc reduces cold symptoms because zinc ions are roughly the same size and shape as the molecules that cold viruses must pass through in the nasal cavity. A zinc nasal spray coats that cavity, conceivably stopping any movement of the virus.

"To us, it was common sense," Hensley said. "The cold is in the nose, not the mouth."

Gel nose spray

With lofty ambitions to develop a cure for the common cold, the two quit their jobs at another biotech firm in 1996 and joined two other friends to finance BioDelivery Technology, their startup in Woodland Hills.

Hensley has a background in testing cardiac drugs and Davidson has worked in holistic health. The two began work in a lab, testing various zinc compounds and eventually settling on a gel nose spray that adheres to the nasal cavity. Throughout the first year, they say they brought in experts to review their methods and to hold in-house trials.

"We spent many, many months doing different combinations before trials," Hensley said. "We brought in technicians from the field, chemists, biochemists - all to confirm what we'd found."

In February 1997, the two began talks with Gum Tech International Inc., a Phoenix-based company that makes gum products. Initially, the two companies partnered for distribution of Zicam at retail stores. But eventually they formed Gel Tech Inc., with Gum Tech owning a 60 percent stake.

"(Gum Tech) had experience on the regulatory aspect in terms of the FDA and could also help us get into retail," Davidson said. "We recognized that we have limitations."

In November 1998, Zicam began hitting retail shelves on a trial basis. (Zicam is not regulated by the FDA and isn't required to undergo vigorous testing for approval because it is sold as a homeopathic product.) Albertson's and Eckerd's began selling the product for anywhere from $9 to $12.

Last month, the product was launched nationwide in such chains as Rite Aid and 7-Eleven. The big jump in sales came after all the publicity earlier this month.

Critical stories

While consumers are buying Zicam, Gel Tech has been subjected to some criticism. Time magazine ran a story after the study was pulled from the Journal of Infection Control, suggesting that washing your hands could be just as beneficial.

One of its biggest competitors, Quigley Corp., a Pennsylvania company that makes zinc lozenges marketed as Cold-EEZE, was among the first to raise questions about the early release of the Gel Tech study. Quigley issued a statement cautioning the public and media to wait until the Zicam study is published before "blindly accepting the alleged results."

Even Gel Tech officials believe more trials are needed to prove to the scientific community that Zicam works.

"There's still the question of whether it will play out the same in the real world," said Fariba Ghobsian, senior vice president and biotech analyst at Cruttendon Roth. "They have done the clinical experiments, but when you go to the real world, things can change."

Ghobsian served as an early advisor to Gel Tech.

Meanwhile, Gel Tech's founders are already talking about the possibility of an initial public offering in another year and more homeopathic products down the line.

"There's a lot of pressure to expand," Davidson said. "We had a successful launch and we're growing fast, so there's a lot of catch-up to do."

COPYRIGHT 1999 CBJ, L.P.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)11/29/2003 10:17:41 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
Happy Turkey day, Steven Muth and Schneider Securities!

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF SCHNEIDER SECURITIES, INC.

On November 26, the Commission issued an Order
Instituting
Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the
Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions
(Order) against Schneider Securities, Inc. (Schneider), a Denver
based
registered broker-dealer. The Order finds that Schneider failed
to
supervise reasonably a registered representative from December
2000
through April 2001.

According to the Order, from December 2000 through April 2001,
the
registered representative made misstatements of material facts
to
Schneider customers, including false statements that: (i)
analyst
research reports for two securities existed and would be published
by
Schneider in December 2000; (ii) a hedge fund purportedly would
be
formed to invest millions of dollars in two securities; (iii)
Schneider
customers would not owe any funds for margin purchases; and
(iv)
Schneider customers would not receive margin calls on
securities
purchased on margin. The Order also finds that the
registered
representative gave baseless stock price predictions for two
securities
to Schneider customers. Moreover, the Order finds that the
registered
representative engaged in sales practice abuses in the accounts
of
Schneider customers. For example, the registered
representative
recommended unsuitable margin trading to several elderly
Schneider
customers with modest financial profiles and failed to follow
sell
instructions from several Schneider customers.

According to the Order, Schneider hired the registered
representative
and established procedures for the heightened supervision of
the
registered representative, while knowing that the
registered
representative had a disciplinary history and a history of
customer
complaints. The Order finds that Schneider failed to develop a
system
to monitor whether the registered representative's supervisors
were
adequately carrying out their responsibilities. Specifically, the
Order
finds that Schneider failed to establish a system for overseeing
and
monitoring the supervisors' implementation of the heightened
supervisory
procedures and other firm procedures for oversight of the
registered
representative's activities.

In the Order, Schneider undertakes to file a Form BDW withdrawing
its
registration with the Commission. Moreover, the Order did not impose
a
civil money penalty based upon representations in Schneider's
sworn
financial statements. Schneider consented to the issuance of the
Order
without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order.
(Rel.
34-48849; File No. 3-11321)

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES PATRICK DRIVER

On November 26, the Commission issued an Order
Instituting
Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the
Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions
(Order) against James Patrick Driver (Driver). The Order finds
that,
during Driver's tenure as the Compliance Director for
Schneider
Securities, Inc. (Schneider), a Denver based registered
broker-dealer,
Driver failed to supervise reasonably a registered representative
from
December 2000 through April 2001.

According to the Order, from December 2000 through April 2001,
the
registered representative made misstatements of material facts
to
Schneider customers, including false statements that: (i)
analyst
research reports for two securities existed and would be published
by
Schneider in December 2000; (ii) a hedge fund purportedly would
be
formed to invest millions of dollars in two securities; (iii)
Schneider
customers would not owe any funds for margin purchases; and
(iv)
Schneider customers would not receive margin calls on
securities
purchased on margin. The Order also finds that the
registered
representative gave baseless stock price predictions for two
securities
to Schneider customers. Moreover, the Order finds that the
registered
representative engaged in sales practice abuses in the accounts
of
Schneider customers. For example, the registered
representative
recommended unsuitable margin trading to several elderly
Schneider
customers with modest financial profiles and failed to follow
sell
instructions from several Schneider customers.

According to the Order, Driver participated in hiring the
registered
representative and in establishing procedures for the
heightened
supervision of the registered representative, while knowing that
the
registered representative had a disciplinary history and a history
of
customer complaints. The Order finds that Driver failed to develop
a
system to implement and monitor the implementation of the
special
supervisory procedures for the registered representative. According
to
the Order, Driver was also responsible for formulating procedures
and
systems to implement these procedures to respond to customer
complaints.
The Order finds that Driver failed to develop these procedures
and
systems to ensure that he and others responded adequately to
a
customer's complaint in January 2001 regarding the
registered
representative's misrepresentations of material fact and
fraudulent
sales practices.

Based on the above, the Order bars Driver from association with
any
broker or dealer in a supervisory capacity with a right to reapply
after
two years. Moreover, the Order did not impose a civil money
penalty
based upon representations in Driver's sworn financial
statements.
Driver consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or
denying any of the findings in the administrative proceeding. (Rel.
34-
48852; File No. 3-11345)

THE COMMISSION INSTITUTES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEVEN MUTH FOR VIOLATIONS
OF
THE ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND THE
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AND AGAINST RICHARD ROUSE AND BRUCE BATES FOR
FAILING
TO SUPERVISE MUTH

November 26, the Commission instituted cease-and-desist
and
administrative proceedings against Steven E. Muth (Muth), a
former
registered representative with Schneider Securities, Inc.
(Schneider),
Richard J. Rouse (Rouse), the former Executive Vice President and
a
Director of Schneider, and Bruce J. Bates (Bates), a former
branch
office manager of Schneider (collectively, Respondents). Muth is
a
resident of Houston, Texas, Rouse is a resident of Highlands
Ranch,
Colorado, and Bates is a resident of Parker, Colorado.

The Division of Enforcement alleges that Muth engaged in
fraudulent
sales practices and made misrepresentations of material facts
to
Schneider customers from December 2000 through April 2001. The
Division
of Enforcement also alleges that Rouse and Bates failed to
supervise
Muth reasonably to prevent and detect his illegal activities.

The Division of Enforcement alleges, from December 2000 through
April
2001, Muth made false statements that: (i) analyst research reports
for
two securities existed and would be published by Schneider in
December
2000; (ii) a hedge fund purportedly would be formed to invest
millions
of dollars in two securities; (iii) Schneider customers would not
owe
any funds for margin purchases; and (iv) Schneider customers would
not
receive margin calls on securities purchased on margin. The Division
of
Enforcement further alleges that Muth gave baseless stock
price
predictions and engaged in sales practice abuses in the accounts
of
Schneider customers, including recommending unsuitable margin trading
to
several elderly Schneider customers with modest financial profiles
and
failing to follow sell instructions from customers.

The Division of Enforcement alleges that Rouse participated in
hiring
the registered representative and in establishing procedures for
the
heightened supervision of the registered representative, while
knowing
that the registered representative had a disciplinary history and
a
history of customer complaints. The Division of Enforcement
further
alleges that Rouse failed reasonably to supervise Muth with a view
to
preventing Muth's violations of the federal securities laws by
failing
to develop a system to monitor whether Muth's supervisors,
including
himself, were adequately carrying out their responsibilities.
The
Division of Enforcement further alleges that Rouse and Bates
failed
reasonably to supervise Muth by failing to follow the firm's
procedures
regarding heightened supervision and failed to respond to red
flags
relating to Muth's misconduct. Finally, the Division of
Enforcement
alleges that Bates failed reasonably to supervise Muth with a view
to
preventing and Muth's violations of the federal securities laws
by
failing to follow-up on a customer complaint relating to
Muth's
misconduct.

The Commission instituted these proceedings against Respondents
to
determine whether: (a) the allegations against Respondents are true
and
to afford Respondents an opportunity to establish any defense to
such
allegations; (b) Muth should be ordered to cease and desist
from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations of
the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) (collectively, the
antifraud
provisions); (c) remedial sanctions against Muth, pursuant to
Sections
21B and 21C of the Exchange Act, should be ordered,
including
disgorgement and civil money penalties; and (d) remedial
sanctions
against Rouse and Bates, pursuant to Sections 15(b)(6) and 21B of
the
Exchange Act, should be ordered, including civil money penalties,
for
their failure reasonably to supervise Muth with a view to
preventing
Muth's violations of the antifraud provisions.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to
determine whether the allegations contained in the Order
Instituting
Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant
to
Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C
of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Order) are true, to provide
the
Respondents an opportunity to dispute these allegations, and
to
determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate in the
public
interest. The Commission directed that an administrative law
judge
shall issue an initial decision in this matter within 300 days from
the
date of service of the Order. (Rels. 33-8341; 34-48853; File No.
3-
11346)



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)12/1/2003 9:52:44 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
"Hirsch is also studying the possible efficacy of zinc, as tablets to be swallowed. Zinc, which appears to help the transmission of signals along olfactory nerves, seems to be safe, he said, though if taken as a nasal spray, it can cause a loss of the sense of smell."

web.archive.org

HEALTH SENSE
When stopping to smell is a problem

By Judy Foreman, Globe Staff, 5/8/2001

arbara Giurlando's troubles began several years ago after her office was remodeled and she was suddenly surrounded by new printers, faxes and copiers that gave off a weird odor that she now thinks was ozone.

All of a sudden, said Giurlando, 62, who lives in Boston, the smell of perfumes, deodorants or after-shave became sickening. She couldn't even read newspapers without feeling queasy from the ink smell.

Susan Rioff, 54, of Lexington has the opposite problem. Seven years ago, she was thrown from a horse and sustained a severe brain injury that left her with no sense of smell. Because smell is central to taste, food also lost its flavor.

''You can stay alive without smelling,'' she said ruefully,

''but you're missing a lot of pleasures. There's a whole part of experience that I cannot share. It makes me very sad.''

By conservative estimates, 4 million Americans have sustained the complete or partial loss of the sense of smell, sometimes, as in Rioff's case, after a head injury, but more often as a result of aging or Alzheimer's disease. In fact, half of all people lose at least part of their sense of smell by age 65 and 75 percent do so by age 80, probably because of lower levels of key brain chemicals, repeated colds or cumulative exposure to toxins or medications. Until recently, there was little that doctors could do to help.

Thousands of others, like Giurlando, develop a hyper-acute sense of smell that drives them to distraction. One woman became as sensitive to smells as cockroaches, whose noses are 100,000 times more sensitive than humans. She could walk around a room and trace by smell where different people had stood, a sensitivity that was so disabling she became housebound.

Still others suffer from phantom smells - imagined foul odors such as that from feces or strong chemicals - that may be caused by nasal polyps or damage to olfactory or taste nerves.

To those not afflicted, having too much or too little sense of smell may seem trivial. But as many as 90 percent of people who lose the sense of smell wind up depressed or anxious, said Dr. Alan Hirsch, neurological director of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. And because that loss often means losing the ability to taste as well, people who lose the sense of smell in accidents sometimes win multimillion-dollar awards in court cases.

The sense of smell is one of the most ancient parts of our nervous system, so old that it forms part of the reptilian brain, neural circuits that evolved eons ago. It is so basic that the sense of smell is the only part of the human sensory system that has a direct, neurological link from the outside world to the limbic system in the brain, which controls fear and other emotions.

This special wiring - a kind of neurological shortcut - is vital to survival. It allows an animal to detect immediately any nearby predators, or to avoid other potentially fatal dangers, such as rotting food. This quick link to the brain also allows an animal to detect the presence of an eager mate, through odor molecules called pheromones. The primitive nature of the link between smell and the limbic system is also the reason why smells can trigger long-buried memories.

Lay people often assume that there is only one way to detect odors - by sniffing, or orthonasal olfaction. But there is another way - retronasal olfaction by which smell plays its central role in taste, said Linda Bartoshuk, a psychologist at Yale Medical School.

''When you chew,'' Bartoshuk said, tiny puffs of air containing odor molecules ''drift up the backward route to the nose. You are not truly aware that this is olfaction: It's what most people mistakenly call taste.''

But, in fact, there are only five true tastes - sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umani, a Japanese term for a savory, delicious taste. All the other subtle flavors that we can detect are combinations of these basic tastes plus the sense of smell.

Basic though the sense of smell is, it's only in the last few years that scientists have begun to understand how it works and how to treat it when things go wrong.

Though humans can detect thousands of distinct odors, the nose only has about 1,000 olfactory receptors that lie on specialized nerve cells lining the top of the nasal cavity, said Linda Buck, a Howard Hughes neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School. She and others have recently discovered that particular odors are detected by particular combinations of these receptors.

When an olfactory receptor captures an odor molecule, it triggers electrical signals carried by nerves that run from the nose to the olfactory bulbs inside the brain. Along this path, wispy projections of these nerves, called axons, pass through a porous, paper-thin piece of bone called the cribiform plate.

Someone with a head injury sometimes loses the sense of smell because that bony plate shears off the delicate axons as the brain gets slammed around inside the skull. This breaks the connection between the olfactory receptors and the brain, said Marcia Levin Pelchat, a biological psychologist at the Monell Chemical Sense Center, a nonprofit research organization in Philadelphia.

If the shearing of olfactory nerves is complete, there is little that doctors can do to help. But if some neural connections remain intact, there is a growing array of drugs that may enhance whatever sense of smell is left, including in some people with age-related smell loss, said Hirsch. (So far, there appears to be little doctors can do for people who lose their sense of smell because of Alzheimer's disease.)

Steroids may help in some cases, particularly if the problem involves nasal polyps, benign growths that can cause nasal swelling that blocks odor perception.

Another approach now being tested in Hirsch's lab is to give patients a drug called phosphatidylcholine, a drug sold over the counter as Phoschol, which boosts levels of a brain chemical called acetylcholine, or ACH. The olfactory bulbs need lots of ACH, which suggests that increasing ACH might restore the sense of smell. So far, however, the results have been mixed.

Hirsch is also studying the possible efficacy of zinc, as tablets to be swallowed. Zinc, which appears to help the transmission of signals along olfactory nerves, seems to be safe, he said, though if taken as a nasal spray, it can cause a loss of the sense of smell.

Researchers are also experimenting with Ritalin - the drug used to quiet hyperactive children - because it can raise levels of a brain chemical called norepinephrine, which is important to olfactory bulb function.

Some people with age-related smell loss may also benefit from sniff therapy, which involves repeatedly smelling a strong odor, such as that of a banana, every day. In some people, this kind of olfactory retraining may improve a sagging sense of smell.

For people like Barbara Guirlando whose sense of smell is too acute, desensitization training may help. This means learning to pair a nonoffensive odor, such as pepper, with an offensive one. That doesn't really change the sense of smell, but does allow people to be less conscious of the noxious odor. Another solution is to sniff tubes of peppermint, which also can inhibit the conscious recognition of the offensive smell.

Phantom smells, or phantosmias, often respond to treatment with anticonvulsant or antidepressant drugs.

In the future, higher-technology solutions may become available, including transplantation of neural stem cells.

The bottom line, say those who treat smell disorders, is to see a doctor if you're troubled about smelling too much or too little. But there's also something else you can do: Wear your seatbelt in the car and a helmet if you ride a bike or a horse. You probably can't avoid losing some sense of smell because of aging but you can reduce the odds of losing it through a head injury.

Judy Foreman's column appears every other week in Health-Science. Her past columns are available on Boston.com and www.myhealthsense.com. Her e-mail address is foreman@globe.com.

This story ran on page C7 of the Boston Globe on 5/8/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)12/4/2003 5:23:33 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
Why is it that a dog product containing zinc gluconate gets approved by the FDA, but a human nasal spray containing the exact same ingredient is accorded protection behind the homeopathic glass wall?

At least dogs get their zinc gluconate neutralized with something.

allourpets.com

Neutersol® (Zinc Gluconate Neutralized by Arginine)
is First Approved Non-Surgical, Injectable Sterilant
for Safe, Effective Neutering of Male Puppies Ages 3 to 10 Months


(Columbia, Missouri, May 19, 2003)--- Puppy owners will now be offered
a choice for neutering their male puppies. The Federal Food and Drug
Administration has approved Neutersol® (Zinc Gluconate Neutralized by
Arginine) as the world's first injectable neutering drug for puppies 3
to 10 months of age.

taca.org Excerpt Pertaining to Neutersol

The behavioral effects of zinc gluconate neutralized by arginine have
not been adequately studied and consequently Neutersol® has not been
submitted to the FDA for an indication of behavioral modification. It
has been widely believed that with surgical castration, where the serum
testosterone levels are reduced by approximately 96% (4% being of
adrenal origin), unwanted behaviors will be modified. However, the
package insert for Neutersol® approved by the FDA states, "As with
surgical castration, secondary male characteristics (roaming, marking,
aggression or mounting) may be displayed."6 The behavioral modification
effects of surgical castration have demonstrated only modest effects on
a limited set of unwanted behaviors and are far from absolute. Fears
and aggressiveness have consistently demonstrated little or no effect
as the result of surgical castration. This is consistent with the
research that has been conducted assessing the behavioral effects of
surgical castration.8



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)12/18/2003 6:39:43 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
G'Day! KNOWN FELON INTERVIEWED CARL JOHNSON, MATRIXX INITIATIVES INC.( MTXX )PRESIDENT AND CEO. BARRED NASDAQ BROKER WHO DEFRAUDED CITIBANK AND SENTENCED TO 9 MONTHS IN PRISON JOINS A LONG LIST OF DUBIOUS MTXX PROMOTERS SUCH AS DAVID LAVIGNE THE EX CLOSED DOWN BY THE SEC SCHNEIDER SECURITIES BOILER ROOM ANALYST AND ONLINE STOCK TOUT DAN ZIMMERMAN WHO WROTE THE BASELESS PROJECTION THAT GUMM/MTXX WOULD REACH $100 PER SHARE.

================================================

Carl Johnson, President and CEO of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., was
interviewed by CEOcast on November 12, 2002. To listen to the interview,
please click on the following link:
ceocast.com
========================================

re:CEOCAST->Michael S. Wachs (Registered Principal, New York, New York) submitted a
Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent pursuant to which he was censured,
fined $250,000, barred from association with any NASD member in any capacity
and required to make full restitution to his member firm. Without admitting or
denying the allegations, Wachs consented to the described sanctions and to the
entry of findings that he misappropriated $20,800,000 in proceeds by means of
false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the sale of certain
of his member firm’s assets and then diverted the proceeds to himself and others.

=================================================

Monday, July 28, 2003 TECHNOLOGY TRADER

By BILL ALPERT

On the Internet, a Second ActMICHAEL S. WACHS HAS BECOME a bit of a celebrity in the online investing world. Since he started the investor relations firm CEOcast three years ago, he's supplied over 700 financial Websites with his audio interviews of chief executives, whose firms pay cash or stock to CEOcast. As smaller tech stocks have rallied, shares of some CEOcast clients have more than doubled -- including eResearchTechnology, a consultant to drug developers, and LendingTree, an online mortgage firm.Wachs greets each CEO with a peppy "G'Day!," serves up a few flattering questions, then closes like a newscaster: "This has been Michael Wachs for CEOcast...where Wall Street listens." As some on Wall Street listen, however, they've begun wondering if the 40-year-old CEOcast personality is the same Michael Wachs who defrauded Chase Manhattan Bank of $20.8 million in 1996.He is.Wachs was a high-ranking officer at Chase before pleading guilty to bank fraud in 1997, for a scheme in which he sold off the bank's assets to his own front company and then flipped them to real buyers at an instant profit. At his sentencing in Manhattan's federal court, Wachs said that gambling made him do it. In four years, Wachs had bet $30 million at six casinos. He made full restitution, served 11 months in federal prison in Allenwood, Pa., and agreed to be barred from the banking and brokerage industries."The government never claimed I was greedy," Wachs told me. "I gambled away every penny I had." Gamblers Anonymous helped him conquer his gambling addiction and teach him responsibility for his actions.One CEOcast client sounded shocked after learning the background of Wachs, last week. Barry Schechter, chairman of the computer consulting firm Island Pacific, said that Wachs had been pleasant, intelligent and effective at introducing the firm to investment funds. "It blows my mind completely," said Schechter. However, he added, "I would give him the benefit of the doubt and wouldn't hold it against him." He expects his firm to continue using CEOcast.Wachs says he's doing nothing that violates the terms of his consent decrees. Nonetheless, knowledge of his past could add to investor questions about the credibility of online stock promotion. Such efforts flourished during the boom of the late '90s and appear to be regaining clout.Tech Upgrade: Signs of higher chip prices led a couple of analysts to upgrade stocks like Texas Instruments and Micron. The Nasdaq Composite Index ended Friday at 1731, for a gain of 1.3% on the week.Wachs insists that his responsibilities at CEOcast don't amount to much. To persuade me that Wachs plays only a bit part at CEOcast, the Manhattan-based company faxed pages from its 2002 federal tax returns. They showed 70% of CEOcast as owned by one Joseph Trachtman, with the remaining 30% owned by Kenneth D. Sgro -- a gentleman who called me three times one day to assert that he was the boss, not Wachs. "I'm the president of the company and I decide what goes on here," Sgro said. "I have Michael doing routine stuff. He answers investors' questions. He does interviews."Other documents suggest that Wachs has played a larger role at CEOcast. A December 2000 consulting agreement, filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission by CEOcast client Kaire Holdings identifies Wachs as CEOcast's president. In May 2000, when Wachs incorporated CEOcast in the state of New York, he listed himself as "chairman or chief executive."Most impressive, however, is a sworn affidavit from February 2001 in which Wachs said he was CEOcast president. Wachs filed the affidavit in New York state court in Manhattan, where he was suing a rival online stock promoter for telling CEOcast clients about his criminal record.That rival firm had previously employed Wachs while he'd awaited sentencing for bank fraud, according to his affidavit, and welcomed him back after he got out of jail. Wachs alleged that his former employers started threatening him, however, after he told them that "I intended to, and subsequently did, leave their employ to form my own company." That company was CEOcast, said the Wachs affidavit. Wachs withdrew his suit in April 2001, after the rivals agreed in a settlement never to mention his criminal case.Wachs and Sgro told me that all those documents were true at the time they were filed.For its part, eResearchTechnology also tells me that it hadn't known of Wachs's criminal record. The Philadelphia-based firm provides heart monitoring of patients enrolled in medical studies, and just reported a 137% jump in June quarter earnings to $2.8 million, or 12 cents a share, on sales of $15 million.eResearchTechnology dropped Wachs as its investor contact back in May, after a Raymond James analyst criticized CEOcast for hyping eResearchTechnology while CEOcast was holding a hefty 366,000 shares in the company. CEOcast says there is no conflict and continued to boost eResearchTechnology in an investor email last Sunday, while disclosing in a footnote that eResearchTechnology continued to pay CEOcast $17,500 a month, to fulfill an earlier contract. Said CEOcast: "All growth-oriented investors should own this stock."After I began working on this story, a number of newly-created screen names appeared on the Yahoo message board that's devoted to eResearchTechnology. Whoever's behind these screen names claimed I was writing a negative story on eResearchTechnology, in exchange for bribes. One writer went so far as to threaten me -- vowing to knock me down for good, without warning.I hope some of you readers will remember me fondly, when I'm gone.Wachs, meanwhile, says investors can trust CEOcast. His fraud, he points out, was restricted to banking. "There were no securities involved," he told me. "We don't give investment advice," he added, before correcting himself. "I mean, I don't give investment advice."Biovail ReconsidersThe drugmaker Biovail plans to halt a program that paid doctors $1,000 for writing prescriptions for a new Biovail blood pressure drug if they reported back some information about patients.Biovail said it decided to stop adding doctors or patients to the program after receiving responses from more doctors than the 6,000 to 6,500 targeted, according to a published report.Not all doctors approved of Biovail's program. Some questioned the program's research component and called it a subterfuge to dodge U.S. laws against paying doctors kickbacks for prescribing a drug, as Barron's reported last week ("Pill Pusher1," July 21).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------E-mail: william.alpert@barrons.com



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)12/19/2003 3:29:46 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 5582
 
Contrarians should be able to voice views freely.

Contrarian opinions are needed for productive debate. Contrarian opinions must be protected from interference.



To: DanZ who wrote (4943)1/9/2004 11:49:56 AM
From: Frank_Ching  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5582
 
Looking at you post Dan Zimmermann I am trying to figure out how after 6 plus days of having a cold that Zicam worked for you. This appears to go against the taking Zicam in the first 24 to 48 hours of cold like symtoms.

From: Dan Zimmermann Wednesday, Feb 3, 1999 3:02 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 4604

At the risk of sounding like I'm hyping Zicam, I will offer the following testimonial. I normally get one to two colds a year and they are on the severe side. On average, I have to stay home from work for nearly a week. The OTC medications that I normally take, Dimetapp, Contact, Tylenol Cold, and the like, without question make me feel drowsy, lightheaded, and give me a dry throat. At times I can't tell if I feel worse from the cold or from the medication.
Last Thursday, I felt a cold coming on. By this weekend, I felt terrible with a runny nose, sneezing, wheezing eyes, and coughing. I missed work Monday and Tuesday this week because I felt so bad. Zicam is not yet available at stores in my area so I called GumTech and they sent me a package. I began taking it yesterday at about noon and by 10 p.m. last night, my cold symptoms were already subsiding. No more runny nose, no more sneezing, no more wheezing eyes, no more coughing. I still didn't feel 100% this morning but I felt good enough to go to work today. It is now 2 p.m. and my cold is almost completely gone. This is after 6 doses of Zicam.

Please excuse me if this post comes across as hype. I sincerely DO NOT intend it to sound like hype. Those who have known me on SI for several years know that I do not hype stocks and I'm a very honest person. Zicam is a new product and a lot of controversy has circulated about whether it is effective. My goal is to share my personal experience with Zicam so that other shareholders will know that it worked for at least one person. I assume that if it works for me it will also work for others.

Dan