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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony@Pacific & TRUTHSEEKER Expose Crims & Scammers!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ravenseye who wrote (283)	2/21/2006 11:51:25 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5673

Perhaps you should study up a little. You seem to be behind the learning curve here. Let me help you: by: PAINFULLYBLUNT2004 12/02/05 12:25 am Msg: 116335 of 116337 Perhaps you should study up a little. You seem to be behind the learning curve here. Let me help you: There have been three clinical studies involving Zicam. HIRT STUDY: The first was the by Hirt, et al. that was published in October 2000. It involved only 213 people, and only 108 of those received treatment with Zicam. There was no serology performed to determine (a) whether the study subjects even had colds, or (b) whether any colds they had were from rhinovirus. And while the study concluded that Zicam reduced the length and severity of colds symptoms, we are still left with a fundamental design flaw. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Zicam helped, we are left with the question of WHAT it helped. We don't know whether ANY of the subjects even had a cold, as opposed to something else. And we don't know whether any of them had a cold from rhinovirus. TURNER STUDY: The study by Turner, with was published in December 2001, corrected the serious design flaw in the Hirt study by first INFECTING the subjects with rhinovirus and then confirming through virology which subjects had a rhinovirus-caused cold. Rhinovirus was confirmed in 69 study subjects, with 32 of them receiving Zicam. The study concluded that "there was no effect of intranasal zinc treatment on rhinovirus infection," and "there was no significant effect of intranasal zinc treatment on rhinovirus-induced illness" [i.e. symptoms]. You will not notice this Gel Tech LLC-funded study mentioned anywhere in Zicam promotional materials or on the Zicam web site (at least not the last time I checked). MOSSAD STUDY The Mossad study, which was published in January 2003, involved only 78 patients who were included in the final analysis. Virological studies were done on these participants, which identified only ELEVEN members of the zinc group (i.e. the ones who got Zicam) who had rhinovirus-caused colds. Oddly enough, the analysis was NOT confined to the 27 individuals who actually had rhinovirus-caused colds (11 zinc and 16 placebo), but rather included all 78 participants (51 of whom had God only knows). Mossad concluded that Zicam reduced cold symptom duration from 6 days to 4.3 days and that it reduced the severity of symptoms. However, what relevance is there to symptom duration and severity in participants who didn't have rhinovirus-caused colds? Again, you are left with the question of, even assuming Zicam helped, WHAT did it help? You have only these three studies done on Zicam. One of which concluded Zicam was essentially useless. The second of which had no idea WHAT the test subjects had. And the third which analyzed the data in a senseless manner--including those whom they KNEW didn't have rhinovirus-caused colds. Therefore, based on the three studies available, even the fundamental efficacy of Zicam on colds remains in question. There have been two published articles on Zicam-induced anosmia. The first by Hirsch, et al. in October 2000 and the 2004 Jafek, et al. article. The first was a case report; the second was a case series. Moreover, there has been medical research since the 1930s that clearly documents the connection between intranasal zinc and anosmia. The total number of subjects with confirmed rhinovirus colds in both the Hirt and Mossad studies COMBINED is 27 (Hirt=0; Mossad=27). The total number of subjects with confirmed rhinovirus colds in the Turner study is 69. That is a ratio in favor of the Turner study of 2.55 to 1. In light of the Hirt "no serology" problem and the Mossad "fuzzy math" problem, comparing them to the Turner study is like comparing an 8th grade English composition to Tolstoy. Hopefully this has been a helpful review of the medical literature as it relates to Zicam. Posted as a reply to: Msg 116323 by hyddub_1999