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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (56770)	6/24/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: FuzzFace	Respond to of 58324

OT GM, I have used Cold-Eeze. It seemed to work the first time, reducing my normal 7 day cold to about 4, but the second cold I got dragged out to 10 days. Nevertheless, assuming it does work some of the time, their formulation (Zinc Gluconate Glycine,) constantly touted as being double blind tested, is not enough to make me want to invest. First, one study, even double blinded, does not firmly establish an effect. Three or more studies by different groups would do so beyond a reasonable doubt. And now we see why one should wait for confirmation. The second Cold-Eeze test, with only a slightly lower dosage (10 vs. 13 mg) failed to confirm the first's results. And all that damage control about not adhering to protocols? Well many perfectly valid studies have design, methodological or procedural flaws. There are usually statistical adjustments that can be made, and qualifications made about the results. But even a somewhat flawed study should have shown a dose-response relationship - that is, a 25% reduction in dosage should not have caused a complete lack of response unless the original dose was right on the precipice of an S-shaped curve - something I find hard to believe given how they were doing a lower dose study, not a higher dose study. They really thought the results would be identical or at least proportional to dosage and so they were blindsided by the null results. Thus the virulence of the press release. Consider that if the study had confirmed efficacy, would Quigley have jumped all over the study's deficiencies? IMO, they now need to increase the dosage and repeat the whole original study, or stop saying they have scientific proof Cold-Eeze works. Second, If Zinc in a particular oxidation state or chelated with the right ligand is the active ingredient in Cold-Eeze, I can think of no reason why similar formulations wouldn't work as well. The reason no studies have been done on the cheap knockoffs is probably quite simple: why spend good money confirming a cheap knockoff works? The risk of totally negative results is too high when you consider that Cold-Eeze is, at best, only mildly efficacious. Better to just piggyback on Cold-Eezes hard work in establishing Zinc in the public's mind as a cold remedy. Then, trusting that the average Joe doesn't notice, or doesn't believe the difference in the ligands is crucial, make a lozenge with "Zinc" prominantly displayed on the package, and charge less than Cold-Eeze. It'll make money until a real cold remedy comes along. The really odd thing is, in many ways QGLY seems to be a repeat of IOM. From superstar to fallen angel in a year or 2, competition on all sides, margin pressure, good press followed by bad, etc. But RR only hates one of them. Let's see - he has traded QGLY successfully, but not IOM. Could it really be as simple as that? Nah.