Recommended dosages from the Arm and Hammer Company for colds and
influenza back in 1925 we

During the first day take six doses of half teaspoonful of Arm &
Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda in glass of cool water, at about two hour
intervals.


During the second day take four doses of half teaspoonful of Arm and
Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda in glass of cool water, at the same
intervals.


During the third day take two doses of half teaspoonful of Arm and
Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda in glass of cool water morning and evening,
and thereafter half teaspoonful in glass of cool water each morning
until cold is cured.

***Well the sodium bicarbonate cure for colds and sore throats.
A friend called as I was reading about it, I told her to try it.
She is rapt! Relief in a few hours, and she went to work the
following day! And she was miserable and could hardly talk,
had just woken with it full on, and was planning on missing
work.***


http://sodiumbicarbonate.imva.info/i...-soda-company/

http://www.facebook.com/naturallivin...0834522?ref=mf

Testimonials:
My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
Doctor).

Dr. David B Winter, DO

Tim Campbell wrote:
> Testimonials:
> My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
> born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
> sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
> felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
> full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
> responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
> illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
> recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
> bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
> being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
> Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
> Doctor).
>
> Dr. David B Winter, DO

As a physician, you should know about clinical trials. And, you should
also know about the placebo effect. Now, with this info, please show us
reliable data that show that sodium bicarb is worth anything to treat or
prevent cold symptoms. Please, also tell us the mechanism by which it
works. Use your scientific background.

On Jan 24, 4:25*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
> > Testimonials:
> > My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
> > born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
> > sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
> > felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
> > full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
> > responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
> > illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
> > recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
> > bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
> > being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
> > Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
> > Doctor).
>
> > Dr. David B Winter, DO
>
> As a physician, you should know about clinical trials. And, you should
> also know about the placebo effect. Now, with this info, please show us
> reliable data that show that sodium bicarb is worth anything to treat or
> prevent cold symptoms. Please, also tell us the mechanism by which it
> works. Use your scientific background.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why not simply give it a try the next time you are starting to get a
cold or find yourself in the middle of one?

Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:25 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>> Tim Campbell wrote:
>>> Testimonials:
>>> My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
>>> born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
>>> sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
>>> felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
>>> full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
>>> responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
>>> illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
>>> recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
>>> bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
>>> being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
>>> Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
>>> Doctor).
>>> Dr. David B Winter, DO
>> As a physician, you should know about clinical trials. And, you should
>> also know about the placebo effect. Now, with this info, please show us
>> reliable data that show that sodium bicarb is worth anything to treat or
>> prevent cold symptoms. Please, also tell us the mechanism by which it
>> works. Use your scientific background.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why not simply give it a try the next time you are starting to get a
> cold or find yourself in the middle of one?

And how would I know if it is working or I would have become better on
my own, perhaps even faster? The plural of anecdote is not data.

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>> Testimonials:
>> My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
>> born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
>> sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
>> felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
>> full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
>> responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
>> illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
>> recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
>> bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
>> being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
>> Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
>> Doctor).
>>
>> Dr. David B Winter, DO
>
> As a physician, you should know about clinical trials. And, you should
> also know about the placebo effect. Now, with this info, please show us
> reliable data that show that sodium bicarb is worth anything to treat or
> prevent cold symptoms. Please, also tell us the mechanism by which it
> works. Use your scientific background.

The OP is not a physician. He's a copy/paste bot.

"Tim Campbell" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 4:25 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
> > Testimonials:
> > My father was a veterinarian and as far back as I can remember (I was
> > born in 1938 so my memory goes back to maybe 1943) he would take
> > sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a full glass of warm water whenever he
> > felt a cold coming on. I don’t remember him ever coming down with a
> > full blown cold. He would treat my cold symptoms likewise and I
> > responded equally as well. He also treated farm animals for various
> > illnesses with sodium bicarbonate via a gastric tube and they
> > recovered quickly. So I’ve known about the benefits of sodium
> > bicarbonate from early childhood on. Glad to see that its benefits are
> > being more widely touted. Although my father was a doctor of
> > Veterinarian medicine, he sometimes referred to himself as an MD (Mule
> > Doctor).
>
> > Dr. David B Winter, DO
>
> As a physician, you should know about clinical trials. And, you should
> also know about the placebo effect. Now, with this info, please show us
> reliable data that show that sodium bicarb is worth anything to treat or
> prevent cold symptoms. Please, also tell us the mechanism by which it
> works. Use your scientific background.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>Why not simply give it a try the next time you are starting >to get a
>cold or find yourself in the middle of one?

How do you know it's not the warm water? What if you have hypertension?

On Jan 26, 4:48*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
> > Why not simply give it a try the next time you are starting to get a
> > cold or find yourself in the middle of one?
>
> And how would I know if it is working or I would have become better on
> my own, perhaps even faster?

Give it a try, and you decide.

Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:48 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
> >
>>> Why not simply give it a try the next time you are starting to get a
>>> cold or find yourself in the middle of one?
>> And how would I know if it is working or I would have become better on
>> my own, perhaps even faster?
>
> Give it a try, and you decide.

I did. The bicarb is totally useless.

On Jan 28, 8:15*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
> > *Give it a try, and you decide.
>
> I did. The bicarb is totally useless.

Well, a rather prominent physician from our past apparently would
disagree.

"The paragraph below is from a 1924 booklet, published by the Arm &
Hammer Soda Company. On page 12 the company starts off saying, “The
proven value of Arm & Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda as a therapeutic
agent is further evinced by the following evidence of a prominent
physician named Dr. Volney S. Cheney, in a letter to the Church &
Dwight Company:

“In 1918 and 1919 while fighting the ‘Flu’ with the U. S. Public
Health Service it was brought to my attention that rarely any one who
had been thoroughly alkalinized with bicarbonate of soda contracted
the disease, and those who did contract it, if alkalinized early,
would invariably have mild attacks. I have since that time treated all
cases of ‘Cold,’ Influenza and LaGripe by first giving generous doses
of Bicarbonate of Soda, and in many, many instances within 36 hours
the symptoms would have entirely abated. Further, within my own
household, before Woman’s Clubs and Parent-Teachers’ Associations, I
have advocated the use of Bicarbonate of Soda as a preventive for
“Colds,” with the result that now many reports are coming in stating
that those who took “Soda” were not affected, while nearly every one
around them had the “Flu.”"

On Jan 28, 8:15*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
> > *Give it a try, and you decide.
>
> I did. The bicarb is totally useless.

It is worth noting that it is important to take the bicarbonate on an
empty stomach and well away from the ingestion of food and any drinks
that may be acidic; like coffee, many juices or soft drinks.

I don't take food or drink 2 hours before or after taking the
bicarbonate.

Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:15 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>> Give it a try, and you decide.
>> I did. The bicarb is totally useless.
>
> Well, a rather prominent physician from our past apparently would
> disagree.
>
> "The paragraph below is from a 1924 booklet, published by the Arm &
> Hammer Soda Company. On page 12 the company starts off saying, “The
> proven value of Arm & Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda as a therapeutic
> agent is further evinced by the following evidence of a prominent
> physician named Dr. Volney S. Cheney, in a letter to the Church &
> Dwight Company:

<garbage deleted>

The key words here are "from out past."

Your "evidence" is totally worthless.

On Jan 30, 7:06*am, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
> Your "evidence" is totally worthless.

Feel free to disregard the testimony of bicarbonates effectiveness
against the flu by a prominent physician during one of the largest
influenza outbreaks of that era.

Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:06 am, dr_jeff > wrote:
>> Your "evidence" is totally worthless.
>
> Feel free to disregard the testimony of bicarbonates effectiveness
> against the flu by a prominent physician during one of the largest
> influenza outbreaks of that era.

OK, but tell us who this prominent physician is. Certainly, the one you
speak of is not (and was not) a prominent physician. If I am incorrect,
demonstrate that.

And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know, testimony of
this sort is nearly worthless in science.

Jeff

On Jan 30, 2:27*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:

> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know, testimony of
> this sort is nearly worthless in science.

Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value out in the real
world.
Simply give it a try.

"Tim Campbell" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:

> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know, testimony of
> this sort is nearly worthless in science.

>Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value >out in the real
>world. Simply give it a try.

Oh "science" , how funny. As for science, If NaHCO3. were of value as an
antiviral, it would have been all over the planet for the last 80 years.
Also, it can be dangerous when taken internally. Advising people to try it
is unwise.

On alt.food.vegan, dejablues > wrote:

> "Tim Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com... On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
>> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know,
>> testimony of this sort is nearly worthless in science.
>
>>Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value >out in
>>the real world. Simply give it a try.
>
> Oh "science" , how funny. As for science, If NaHCO3. were of
> value as an antiviral, it would have been all over the planet
> for the last 80 years.

You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over the
media and the scientific community through ad revenues and grants
and salaries to scientists and educational instititions, etc.

There are hundreds of 'folk remedies' out there with real medicinal
value that you never hear about because they are a threat to the
profits of said medical-industrial-complex.

Here's a perfect example of the corruption of the scientific
community:

In the early 1950's the enormous animal-foods industry bought a
large number of 'scientists' and told them to tell the public
that dairy products were essential to the health of their teeth
and bones.

A real scientist, of course, would look at the real world and
conclude that milk was for babies and cow's milk was for cow's
babies.

And he would quickly discover, if he didn't know already, that
half the people in the world consumed no dairy products at
all and had healthier bones and teeth than those who did.

> Also, it can be dangerous when taken internally. Advising
> people to try it is unwise.

People have been taking it internally for its medicinal
for a very long time. And cooking with it.

google:

"bicarbonate of soda" medicine

1,520,000 hits.

Taking anything can be dangerous, depending on the dosage.

Duh

Are you ignorant, stupid, and lazy, or are you lying?

Sid

Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
>> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know, testimony of
>> this sort is nearly worthless in science.
>
> Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value out in the real
> world.
> Simply give it a try.

I have. It doesn't work.

And what you say is useless in the real world, unless you work for Arm
and Hammer.

On Jan 30, 8:12*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:

> You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
> medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over the
> media and the scientific community through ad revenues and grants
> and salaries to scientists and educational instititions, etc.

Well said Sid.

Study: Money Talks in Drug Trials
June 5, 2007

http://www.intelihe alth.com/ IH/ihtIH/ EMIHC256/ 333/21291/
558296.html? d=dmtICNNews


SAN FRANCISCO (The New York Times News Service) -- Money talks -- and
very
loudly when a drug company is funding a clinical trial involving one
of its
products, according to a study released Monday.

University of California at San Francisco researchers looked at nearly
200
head-to-head studies of widely prescribed cholesterol- lowering
medications, or
statins, and found that results were 20 times more likely to favor the
drug
made by the company that sponsored the trial.

"We have to be really, really skeptical of these drug-company-
sponsored
studies," said Lisa Bero, the study's author and professor of clinical
pharmacy and
health policy studies at the university.

The research, reported in the online editions of PLoS Medicine, a San
Francisco medical journal, focused on studies of six statins --
including Pfizer
Inc.'s Lipitor, Merck & Co.'s Zocor and the generic drug Mevacor --
that had
already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The trials
typically
involved comparing the effectiveness of a drug to one or two other
statins.

"If I'm a clinician or funder of health care, I really want to know
within a
class of drug which one works better," Bero said.

"What our study shows is that depends on who funds the study."

UCSF researchers also found that a study's conclusions -- not the
actual
research results but the trial investigators' impressions -- are more
than 35
times more likely to favor the test drug when that trial is sponsored
by the
drug's maker.

Drug manufacturers, through the industry's trade group, said the
federal
government cracks down on biased research.

"The new study overlooks the crucial role of the Food and Drug
Administration
in reviewing and approving claims that are based on clinical trial
results,"
said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of Pharmaceutical Research
and
Manufacturers of America, in a statement.

"Our industry is dependent upon well-designed clinical trials that
will pass
muster with the FDA," Johnson said.

Mark Gibson is deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based Policy
at
Oregon Health & Science University, which reviews existing clinical
evidence for
drug effectiveness and safety. He called the UCSF study an "important
piece of
work."

"If Americans really want to be able to have sound evidence on which
to base
their choice of treatments, they need to think about ways to fund
independent
research," he said.

About half of the 192 statin trials examined in the study between 1999
and
2005 were funded by drug companies. Bero said drug companies fund up
to 90
percent of drug-to-drug clinical trials for certain classes of
medication.

About a third of the statin trials did not disclose any funding
source.
Trials with no disclosed funding source were less likely to favor the
so-called
test drug than those with industry funding, researchers found.

The researchers found other factors that could affect trial results.
For
example, pharmaceutical companies could choose not to publish results
of studies
that fail to favor their drugs, or they could be designed in ways to
skew
results.

The study found the most important weakness of trials was lack of
true
clinical outcome measures. In the case of statins, some trials focused
on
less-direct results such as lipid levels but failed to connect the
results with key
outcomes such as heart attacks or mortality.

"None of us really care what our cholesterol level is. We care about
having a
heart attack," Gibson said. "For the drug to be worthwhile taking, it
has to
be directly related to prevent a heart attack."

The UCSF study was funded by a grant from the California Tobacco
Related
Disease Research Program.

The study, "Factors Association with Findings of Published Trials of
Drug-Drugs Comparison," can be found online at www.medicine.
plosjournals. org .

Copyright 2007 The New York Times News Service. All rights reserved.

On alt.food.vegan, Tim Campbell > wrote:

> On Jan 30, 8:12=A0pm, Sidney Lambe >
> wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
>> medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over
>> the media and the scientific community through ad revenues
>> and grants and salaries to scientists and educational
>> instititions, etc.
>
> Well said Sid.
>
> Study: Money Talks in Drug Trials June 5, 2007
>
> http://www.intelihe alth.com/ IH/ihtIH/ EMIHC256/ 333/21291/
> 558296.html? d=3DdmtICNNews
>
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (The New York Times News Service) -- Money talks
> -- and very loudly when a drug company is funding a clinical
> trial involving one of its products, according to a study
> released Monday.
>
> University of California at San Francisco researchers looked
> at nearly 200 head-to-head studies of widely prescribed
> cholesterol- lowering medications, or statins, and found that
> results were 20 times more likely to favor the drug made by the
> company that sponsored the trial.
>
> "We have to be really, really skeptical of these drug-company-
> sponsored studies," said Lisa Bero, the study's author and
> professor of clinical pharmacy and health policy studies at the
> university.
>
> The research, reported in the online editions of PLoS Medicine,
> a San Francisco medical journal, focused on studies of six
> statins -- including Pfizer Inc.'s Lipitor, Merck & Co.'s Zocor
> and the generic drug Mevacor -- that had already been approved
> by the Food and Drug Administration. The trials typically
> involved comparing the effectiveness of a drug to one or two
> other statins.
>
> "If I'm a clinician or funder of health care, I really want to
> know within a class of drug which one works better," Bero said.
>
> "What our study shows is that depends on who funds the study."
>
> UCSF researchers also found that a study's conclusions --
> not the actual research results but the trial investigators'
> impressions -- are more than 35 times more likely to favor the
> test drug when that trial is sponsored by the drug's maker.
>
> Drug manufacturers, through the industry's trade group, said
> the federal government cracks down on biased research.
>
> "The new study overlooks the crucial role of the Food and Drug
> Administration in reviewing and approving claims that are
> based on clinical trial results," said Ken Johnson, senior
> vice president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
> America, in a statement.
>
> "Our industry is dependent upon well-designed clinical trials
> that will pass muster with the FDA," Johnson said.
>
> Mark Gibson is deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based
> Policy at Oregon Health & Science University, which reviews
> existing clinical evidence for drug effectiveness and safety.
> He called the UCSF study an "important piece of work."
>
> "If Americans really want to be able to have sound evidence on
> which to base their choice of treatments, they need to think
> about ways to fund independent research," he said.
>
> About half of the 192 statin trials examined in the study
> between 1999 and 2005 were funded by drug companies. Bero said
> drug companies fund up to 90 percent of drug-to-drug clinical
> trials for certain classes of medication.
>
> About a third of the statin trials did not disclose any
> funding source. Trials with no disclosed funding source were
> less likely to favor the so-called test drug than those with
> industry funding, researchers found.
>
> The researchers found other factors that could affect trial
> results. For example, pharmaceutical companies could choose not
> to publish results of studies that fail to favor their drugs,
> or they could be designed in ways to skew results.
>
> The study found the most important weakness of trials was lack
> of true clinical outcome measures. In the case of statins, some
> trials focused on less-direct results such as lipid levels but
> failed to connect the results with key outcomes such as heart
> attacks or mortality.
>
> "None of us really care what our cholesterol level is. We care
> about having a heart attack," Gibson said. "For the drug to be
> worthwhile taking, it has to be directly related to prevent a
> heart attack."
>
> The UCSF study was funded by a grant from the California
> Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.
>
> The study, "Factors Association with Findings of Published
> Trials of Drug-Drugs Comparison," can be found online at
> www.medicine. plosjournals. org .
>
> Copyright 2007 The New York Times News Service. All rights
> reserved.
>
>
>

Good article, Tim. Doesn't surprise me a bit.

The Medical-Industrial-Complex is corrupt as hell.

And the real corruption is this: They don't make any
money unless we are sick or afraid of being sick.

Show me a corporation anywhere that actively works
to achieve its own destruction, which is what would
happen if they were to make us healthy.

So they sell artificial, industrial poisons instead
of natural chemicals that have the same chemistry
as our bodies.

And irradiate us with x-ray machines and MRIs
and the like.

If the doctors were trying to make us healthy
they'd tell us to quit eating garbage, yet what
do you get when you are in a hospital? Garbage food.

And so on.


Sid

On Jan 31, 5:11 pm, Mark Probert > wrote:


>Wishing and keeping your eyes crossed does not help.


Perhaps not, but I have been immensely helped by being one who is
guided more by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.

And I rather think my liver and kidneys are healthier for it.


Go through drugs.com using a Ctrl - F search for "liver" or "kidney."

On Jan 31, 5:10 pm, Mark Probert > wrote:


> Be that as it may, yes, this study is demonstrative of the checks and
> balances that occur in science based medicine. It examined confounders
> and selction bias, which are important to determine whenever anything
> is offered for medicinal use.



Biases indeed - and at a more fundamental level it is amply
demonstrative of the entrenched, triangulated and incestous corruption
that
occurs between pharma, the AMA (including physicians) and the
"research"
community (& the medical education system in general.)