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 (219)	2/5/1999 5:36:00 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 5582

It would be nice to say, "as published in the NEJM, Zicam was shown to cut the duration and symptoms of the common cold to 1.5 days"...blah blah blah. Other than that, I think publication is a nonissue. Especially,Dan, since publication in NEJM is out of their control. Can you imagine Gary's dilemma, wait for the Journal or get the product to market during the cold season. ;o) Mike

To: DanZ who wrote (219)	2/5/1999 6:09:00 PM
From: Iceberg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

>Other than that, I think publication is a nonissue. Dan, At this point in time, and for all practical purposes, I think you are right. The marketplace will determine the status of Zicam before any article showing clinical support becomes available, if it becomes available at all. But the reason I considered the potential article to be of importance, wasn't for free advertising purposes as was mentioned earlier on this thread [how many customers actually sit around reading medical journals?], but that it might have offered some insight for potential investors into whether Zicam is truly a "breakthrough", "wonder product" cold remedy, or whether it is simply another "run-of-the-mill" cold product mixed in with countless others on the store shelves. So IMO, without a supporting article, and with little or no evidence in from the marketplace, potential investors must take on a certain amount of added risk compared to a new product with published results. At least that's why I think the article is, or would have been, important. A well designed and peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal would help reduce investor risk by taking away some of the unknown factors about how well the product works. But in this particular case, as you say, with the product hitting the marketplace prior to any published clinical results, a publication months from now is probably a mute point - a "nonissue". Ice