Talk:Zinc gluconate

Merge

It seems like all trials of this as a cold remedy have occured in the glycine form. Therefore, I don't see much need for a separate article. I'm not sure which direction the merge should go; on a whim, I'd say this should be the final article because it's more general. Superm401 | Talk 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This should definitely be the final article, as you say, more general. ZGG can be a link to here. Said and done! (merged content, created section for ZGG.) --Slashme 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen from the section further down (Consumer Reports...), we are dealing with two different products, both using the name "Zicam". Only one is related to this article. The merge was not proper, or at least is no longer proper, since a separate article needs to be written, even if it's just a stub. -- Fyslee / talk 03:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I tried to straighten all the polemic comments in the section about safety concerns on Zicam. I also removed the comment that the claimed loss of smell was age related, as this sounded very inappropiate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.250.155 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Zicam: Homeopathic?

I have been watching the channel CNN, and they have been showing an ad for Zicam, in which it is billed as a "homeopathic remedy". Strange. Anybody got anything on this? — NRen2k5 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A friend suggests that "if it's a 'homeopathic remedy,' it's not subject to FDA regulation; if it's medicine, then it is." Whether that's the reason or not, I don't know. --Robotech_Master 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The box for Zicam Oral Mist says "ZIncum Aceticum 2x, Zincum Gluconicum 1x". Concept14 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It says it is homeopathic but it fails to meet any of the criteria. It is probably more of a marketing gimmic than an accurate self-description. PStrait 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The concentrations they describe are clearly not homeopathic (2x is 1/100, and 1x is 1/10, which is reasonable for common medicines). My take is that they have not been able to explain the reason why it works (if it does at all), so they can't call it medicine because the FDA would ban them. Using the word homeopathy gets the FDA off their backs and they can keep selling. Pablodiazgutierrez 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question as NRen2k5. It doesn't seem homeopathic in the least - unless "homeopathy" is now a catch-all synonym for alternative remedies. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the "homeopathic" claim. I was wondering about this myself. Cold-eeze seems to be an "alternative" remedy, but not "homeopathic" in the true sense.Good4allpeople (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes no odds whether the manufacturers call it homeopathic, the word has a meaning in English and the product isn't it. The article can't describe Zicam as homeopathic regardless of the sales literature or advertising. JohnHarris (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The article can and should state that Zicam claims to be homeopathic. The discrepancy between claim and fact can also be mentioned if properly sourced. Any controversies should likewise be mentioned if properly sourced. (see below) -- Fyslee / talk 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Reports, April 2008

A notable article about Zicam has created quite a stir in the homeopathic community. Consumer Reports is a RS and it can/should be used as a source here. The on-line article can be found here:

• "Homeopathic remedies can cause confusion" - by Doug Podolsky, senior health editor. This article first appeared in the April 2008 issue of Consumer Reports on Health.
• Google search
• Reference format: <ref name=Podolsky>Doug Podolsky. "[http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/03/homeopathic-rem.html Homeopathic remedies can cause confusion]". ''[[Consumer Reports]]'', April 2008</ref>

-- Fyslee / talk 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NeutraZin

Should the use of zinc gluconate in Breath Savers be mentioned? They seem to market it as NeutraZin, perhaps to parallel to the copper gluconate (Retsyn) in Certs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polyparadigm (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Info on label.

Trade Name: Zicam Active Ingredient: zincum gluconicum

"Homeopathic" No-drip Liquid nasal gel (on a nasal swab...like a Q-tip"

"Cold Remedy Swab"

Developed and distributed by Zicam LLC Phoenix, Arizona 85016 a wholly owned subsidiary of Matrixx Initiatives, inc. U.S.s. Patent 6,365,624B1 and other patents pending.

Call toll-free 877-942-2626

Talk

Very interesting article. I was in the U.S. about a year ago and came down with a very bad cold. My friend from the States gave me Zicam, swearing by it's "quick fix" for a cold. Though I did get the burning sensation when using Zicam, my cold symptoms did improve very quickly.

I don't like taking medicine unless i am in great need and because I sing, I will try different remedies to maintain my health. However, reading this article (I wanted to research more on this cold remedy, as I was looking to use it again) I read how the ingredient Oxymetazoline, found in Zicam, may "If overused, cause a "rebound congestion" (rhinitis medicamentosa) where the tissues of the sinuses are damaged, become swollen, and therefore become congested after the drug wears off. " - Wikipedia article on Oxymetazoline

And I realized, estimating the timing of when I used Zicam, that I have since felt an almost permanent nasal congestion. I can't say definitely if it is related, but it does call for extra concern and consideration before using this product. Mae girl3 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted review

Most of the reviews that found Zinc gluconate effective (and were deleted by User:MastCell) were dubious indeed, but PMID 15496046 seems more respectable as far as venue and author go. Perhaps it should still be mentioned in the article? Xasodfuih (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the same author draws more cautious conclusions here. YMMV. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. I guess I don't have a problem with re-inserting PMID 15496046. Well, I do, kinda. The Cochrane Library and CID reviews were both systematic reviews - they specified a search strategy and evaluation criteria. PMID 15496046, on the other hand, is a narrative review - the abstract reads: "STUDY SELECTION: By the author. DATA EXTRACTION: By the author." Which is a bit vague, to say the least. I guess my point is that the two systematic reviews are a far stronger level of evidence than a narrative review which chose to highlight 3 of the dozens of available trials for reasons which are not specified. That kind of distinction between quality of sources is a bit hard to convey in the article text, though. MastCell ^Talk 09:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I think you did a pretty good job, Xasodfuih. MastCell ^Talk 09:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It seems that the difference in conclusions comes from the inclusion/exclusion or poorly designed studies. This is even more obvious if you read the same author's article here. I wrote this version to that effect. I was going to ask if you are okay with it, but we edit conflicted :) Xasodfuih (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Merge? Zicam(the company/product) should have it's own page!

The page itself is supposed to be about the mineral zinc glutonate. At the bottom it goes into detail about the company Zicam. Did I miss a memo or a news conference where the company has complete & total ownership of this compound? (By the way, they don't. There's several products out there that use this.) There should be a seperate page for this. The company is not the same thing as the actual item & the product sold on the shelf is not the same as the compound- the product comes in several different forms. I think that someone jumped the gun on this merge & as a result this article is completely ridiculous. I can understand where it would be notable to list that there were some complications by one company who used this compound, but Zicam needs it's own page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

I disagree with some of what you said. It's nice that multiple products use zinc gluconate, but Zicam is basically just zinc gluconate. As an example, Allegra (drug) redirects to Fexofenadine. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a project-wide convention of redirecting all drug articles to their active ingredients, and more than one person would seem to think there should be a separate Zicam article. Please propose any merges if someone creates a new article with refs and original content, and feel free to move any product-specific content from this page to Zicam. If you look in Google News, there is a ton of news articles about Zicam, both positive and negative, so there's plenty of third part reference material. Steven Walling (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this material, including the recent FDA warning on Zicam, should be moved over to the Zicam page, with maybe just a reference here. Zicam is zinc gluconate administered nasally, which is a much different (and specialized) application than oral administration and other zinc gluconate uses/properties. Discussion of nasal administration of zinc gluconate should be kept on the Zicam page. 209.48.229.98 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam's so-called 'inactive' ingredients?

It strikes me that there might be a problem with the inactives rather than the active. Especially the first on the list, benzalkonium chloride. I'm not too fond of the idea of snorting Scrubbing Bubbles, but apparently thats what's been going on with this crap! There are *already* problems being looked into with benzalkonium, so why is all the doubt here being cast on zinc gluconate, which probably does exactly what the FDA says it does... absolutely nothing! Zaphraud (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is section referencing Eby legitimate and good?

Does anyone have access to the study by Eby? Is it legit? Should the highly technical language here remain? Should it be deleted or reworded? Locarno (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Indented line: I think there is special attention being paid to Eby and it does a disservice to other scientific articles. At the very least I don't think it gives the article a neutral tone by giving so much detail one purportedly "positive" study whose quality is still in question. At the very least its findings briefly summarized in a sentence or two and put in context of the other research. --68.64.209.241 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph because it is based solely on a paper published in the journal Medical Hypotheses, which is not a peer reviewed journal. I don't think it meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source, and doesn't follow guidelines at WP:MEDRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Could this be interesting?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1156.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge in animal sterilization articles

Neutersol (marketed as EsterilSol in some countries) and Zeuterin are two zinc gluconate-based sterilization drugs. I recommend that they be merged into this article. If there is no consensus to merge them into this article, I recommend they be properly merged into each other (an editor boldly redirected Neutersol to Zeuterin without a full merge and without discussion, I reverted, this will serve as the discussion). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) Someone looking for information about Zeuterin should not be redirected to Zinc gluconate and then have to find the information they want somewhere down in the body, that’s counter intuitive. 2) Its not just the drug that the article needs to cover, but also the technique; it appears that Neutersol failed specifically because vets where not properly trained in the techniques of administering that version of the drug. 3) The main promise of the drug is the social/animal welfare changes it would bring about due to the drug being so cheap ($15)that it could be applied almost universally. It seems unlikely that the social side would be covered adequately in an article about zinc gluconate - at least I don't see that happening. Zeuterin may flame out just as Neutersol did, but I feel strongly that it deserves its own article; if it flames out then stick it here after the fact as a historical footnote. I would have no problem with it being merged/redirected to something along the lines of “Nonsurgical sterilization of dogs” or “Chemical castration of canines” or whatever. Its not an alternative to surgical sterilization, because no one would ever again go to the expense and trouble of surgically sterilizing a dog; assuming it works it would become SOP for vets. For the record I have no connection to Zeuterin, nor had I ever heard of it until it popped-up on Google news. I simply see it as being a significant new technology. Brimba (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  @Brimba:Your first objection is routinely handled in Wikipedia by having the other pages redirect into a section of this article, such as #REDIRECT [[zinc gluconate#Animal sterilization]] or something similar. I'm okay with just merging the various mammal-castration drugs into one article, but I would prefer merging them into a section in this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinc gluconate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070622070819/http://zicam.vanosteen.com/ to http://zicam.vanosteen.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Shelf life

Shelf life is briefly mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

Interestingly, this product contains Zinc gluconate and claims:

https://www.coldeeze.com/faq

"Do Cold-EEZE® products have an expiry date?

Cold-EEZE® Lozenges do NOT have any expiry. However, they should be used within the first 6 months after opening".

So perhaps inert gas, seal, or something else is used which vanishes after opening?

--ee1518 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)