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: DanZ who wrote (190)	2/4/1999 11:25:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Respond to of 5582

Dan: I cannot comment on what is standard industry practice but I have several observations. 1. GUMM/Gel Tech has stated that they have studies completed and are doing additional ones to prove that this delivery system is better. In a sense you are correct, but since they make specific claims regarding the exact average duration of zicam-treated treated cold, they are going to prove it. They have submitted their results to a peer-reviewed journal. This is what is said on the zicam web sites. One can choose to believe or not believe them. Time will tell. Until then, Bengalus et.al. can be semantically correct and choose not to believe the company's claims. You have had your own experiences with zicam and documented them on this thread. I do not recall if you had ever tried lozenges for colds. 2. The action of the substance at the site of infection is important because absorption via oral route/bloodstream takes more time itself. Thus, when you spray zicam in your nostrils and apply it to the site, it immediately starts to work to inhibit and prevent self-innoculation. The matrix helps keep it applied to the surface area of the mucosal cells. 3. We can conclude from some past studies that zinc works. Most physicians I have spoken to believe this. We investors are looking forward to the acceptance of zicam by the market because it appears to have several advantages: speed, safe/effective for children over 3, and lack of side effects. I would submit that it is cheaper to buy a bottle of zicam than to buy a bottle of afrin, a pack or two of lozenges, and bottles of day & nighttime decongestants that also have side effects. ***** These comments are mine as an investor trying to explain things and not as anyone's physician practicing medicine.

To: DanZ who wrote (190)	2/4/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: Bengalus	Respond to of 5582

Dan, A company needs to conduct clinical trials, even for a homeopathic product, if it plans to make any claims regarding its efficacy. While Quigley's delivery method may seem indirect, it actually seems to work quite well if you understand the theory behind it (alluded to in my earlier post). Here's more from the Med. Hypothesis article I quoted earlier. "If zinc ions indeed operate as postulated, it is logical to speculate on the efficacy of zinc salt solutions introduced by nasal spray or drip. This approach has been tried a number of times, but has not succeeded because of moderate to severe tissue irritation caused by this direct application to nasal tissues. Although the oral route employing the lozenges would seem to be less direct, it now appears to be fraught with fewer unwanted side effects." Of course, one of the co-authors of this study is JC Godfrey, the main Quigley patent holder.