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: out_of_the_loop who wrote (189)	2/4/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

I spoke to a friend of mine today who is a Pharmacist. I asked him if he would look at the literature on Zicam and some of the research that has been done on colds and ICAM-1 receptors and give me an opinion on the product. He agreed to do this and get back to me in a couple of days. His initial reaction was that zinc has been shown to be effective against the common cold (Coldeeze e.g.) and that Zicam is a new delivery method that delivers zinc to the point of infection. He surmised that this would be more effective than a product that does not deliver zinc to the site of infection. He also talked about zinc molecules being larger than rhinovirus molecules and said that this could be the reason why it blocked the virus from entering the body. I also told him that some people are skeptical of Zicam because the company has not yet published clinical studies that demonstrate its effectiveness. He told me that zinc has already been shown to be effective against the common cold, and since Zicam is another delivery method for zinc, he did not believe clinical trials were necessary, nor did he think that they would be conducted by a company the size of Gum Tech. He said it is common practice to not perform clinical studies on OTC products where the active ingredients have already been shown effective in other products. For example, a company that develops and markets a product containing commonly used fever reducers, antihistamines, decongestants, and expectorants would not be expected to conduct clinical trials before releasing their product because the active ingredients have already been demonstrated in other products. If this is true, then why should one expect GumTech to conduct clinical trials for Zicam when this is not standard industry practice. Can anybody verify that this is standard industry practice? Thanks, Dan

To: out_of_the_loop who wrote (189)	2/4/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: Bengalus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Dr. Epstein, my point was exactly what you say: Zincum gluconicum is "the same material" as that found in Cold-Eeze. That's why I'm comparing the products. The argument that Cold-Eeze delivers a "less concentrated" supply of ionic zinc to the site of action than does Zicam is completely unproven. If you believe the published research, Cold-Eeze delivers ample amounts of ionic zinc. It would be nice to hear from people who've used the product whether Gel Tech's claims about how long a spray bottle of Zicam lasts are accurate. I've read the packaging directions, but I don't always believe what I read. About dental gums, well, you still have nothing to offer but insults. Quigley's market success has thus far been extraordinary. Even so, its stock is now flirting with the sub $5 mark. Unless you're just interested in playing a speculative pop in GUMM's stock, you need to consider the way initial sales don't reflect sell-through but mere channel filling. If you look at Quigley or CNXS (the Breathe-Right people), then you will see how channel-filling sales can prove misleading. Finally, I find the tone of your comments insulting and childish. You can't make GUMM's stock go up by being an ass to me. You might as well try to be cordial to someone who's helping you think about the risks of your investment.