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: Bengalus who wrote (199)	2/4/1999 2:44:00 PM
From: Iceberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Bengalus, you said... > -- 67 patients is a very small study. True. >Dividing 67 patients into two concentration groups further dilutes the power of this study. True, if that's in fact what they did. I have not seen the protocol for their study. >--If the article has not yet been submitted to the NEJM, then it could be months before it appears, if it actually does. True. >It also seems unlikely that the NEJM would publish it given that Hensley and co. have already begun making public claims based on the study's results. Interesting concept. I don't know to what extent that might be a factor in the NEJM's review process. On the one hand it would seem to undermine their prospects for publication. On the other hand, it seems to me the study should stand on its own merits without consideration of extraneous factors. >In summary, both issues appear to be negatives in light of the enthusiasm for the stock. I think there is no doubt, as you say, that had the sample size been larger, and had there been no existing claims made prior to a peer review process, the credibility of the Zicam product could have been greatly enhanced. I certainly can't disagree with the two basic points you made. Thanks, Ice

To: Bengalus who wrote (199)	2/4/1999 7:04:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Bengalus, Response to your post... RE: "It also seems unlikely that the NEJM would publish it given that Hensley and co. have already begun making public claims based on the study's results." It's unreasonable to expect GumTech to wait months for the New England Journal of Medicine to complete their review of a manuscript before marketing Zicam. Further, it's unreasonable for the NEJM to expect GumTech to keep Zicam off the market while they review the manuscript. It follows that GumTech's efforts to market Zicam prior to publication of the manuscript should not have an effect on the NEJM's decision to review the document. Although I'm certainly not an expert in this area, I doubt what you suggest is done in practice for OTC medications such as Zicam. Perhaps you know of examples where companies waited for studies to be approved before marketing their products or making claims with regard to efficacy. RE: "Though there are exceptions, that kind of hype of an unpublished study is usually considered unseemly" GumTech hasn't hyped Zicam or the study. The people who hyped Zicam were pump and dump traders looking for a fast buck and the company can not be held responsible for that. I don't think you will get much support for your claim that the limited marketing efforts by GumTech (i.e. the Zicam website) or the package insert in Zicam are hype. I welcome you to cite examples of where you think the company "hyped" Zicam. Whether the results of the study are published in the NEJM isn't really all that important to me. While this could be used in advertising, I view publication more as a formality to pacify critics and doubters such as yourself. The success or failure of Zicam in the marketplace will depend on whether it works to people's satisfaction and not whether a study backs up the company's claims. I buy OTC cold remedies all the time and haven't once asked for a copy of the company's study that indicates whether it works as advertised. If the product works and I like it, I will buy it again. If it doesn't work, I won't buy it again. It's that simple. I have used Zicam and it works as advertised; therefore, I would buy it again. Dan

To: Bengalus who wrote (199)	2/5/1999 5:25:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

While 67 patients is not a huge study, p<.001 is nearly as impressive as it gets, so we will have to see the other study details. This number (1 in 1000) is quite a bit "more significant" than that which is generally considered "significant" (5 in 100). While it is way too early to judge without seeing the study, numbers such as these are precisely the kind that cause investigators to stop studies and just give patients the drug (in life-threatening diseases, not colds).