Using Bicarbonate Against the Swine Flu & Colds
Courtney
Recommended dosages from the Arm and Hammer Company for colds and
influenza back in 1925 were:
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/index.php/administration-methods/arm-hammer-soda-company/
http://www.facebook.com/naturallivingforum#/pages/natural-living-forum/65950834522?ref=mf
Courtney
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
Don Klipstein
Courtney 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=92t 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=92ve 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).
Sodium bicarbonate is one of the two sodium salts of carbonic acid, the
one where one of the two "acid hydrogens" is replaced by a sodium.
Carbonic acid is the result of combining carbon dioxide and water.
In solution, sodium bicarbonate dissociates into carbonic acid and
sodium hydroxide,
or more properly, carbonic acid (part of which dissociates into
bicarbonate ions and hydrogen ions, with a few carbonate ions), sodium
ions, and hydroxide ions.
The body regulates breathing to conserve-vs-exhale carbon dioxide from
bicarbonate ions and acid hydrogen ions in the bloodstream to regulate
blood pH.
But basically, sodium bicarbonate is the less alkaline one of the two
sodium salts of what you get when you dissolve CO2 into water.
It is hard to see anything so magical about it.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
> 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.
I dont either, and I dont bother to do anything special to ward them off.
Its likely some medical effect.
I used to, but it stopped once I was about 25 or so.
Courtney
>
> It is hard to see anything so magical about it.
>
No, not magical...it just simply works.
Try it the next time you find yourself in or heading into a cold...
Jim Janney
Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to its
alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
inexpensive.
I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking treatment.
If you think you might have swine flu, do see a doctor. I put that
off and ended up with pneumonia.
--
Jim Janney
Courtney
> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to its
> alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
> inexpensive.
>
> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking treatment.
> If you think you might have swine flu, do see a doctor. I put that
> off and ended up with pneumonia.
>
Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or
indluenza as the Arm & Hammer Company claimed it would back in 1925.
Jim Janney
H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take
chances with it. In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
--
Jim Janney
Rod Speed
> Courtney <cki...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 26, 5:12 pm, Jim Janney <jjan...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to
>>> its alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
>>> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
>>> inexpensive.
>>>
>>> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking treatment.
>>> If you think you might have swine flu, do see a doctor. I put that
>>> off and ended up with pneumonia.
>>>
>> Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or
>> indluenza as the Arm & Hammer Company claimed it would back in 1925.
>
> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take chances with it.
It is in fact a pretty minor variant of flu.
> In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
That utterly mangles the real story.
Jim Janney
> Jim Janney wrote:
>> Courtney <cki...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 5:12 pm, Jim Janney <jjan...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to
>>>> its alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
>>>> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>
>>>> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking treatment.
>>>> If you think you might have swine flu, do see a doctor. I put that
>>>> off and ended up with pneumonia.
>>>>
>>> Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or
>>> indluenza as the Arm & Hammer Company claimed it would back in 1925.
>>
>> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take chances with it.
>
> It is in fact a pretty minor variant of flu.
My experience of it was much different, and worse, than other flus.
>> In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
>> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
>
> That utterly mangles the real story.
Could be. Feel free to expand on that.
--
Jim Janney
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote>>>> Jim Janney <jjan...@shell.xmission.com> wrote
>>>>> Applied topically it has a mild antiseptic effect, probably due to
>>>>> its alkalinity. I've never tried drinking it, but we don't need an
>>>>> explanation for there to be an effect. At worst it's harmless and
>>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>> I take that back: at worst it might keep you from seeking
>>>>> treatment. If you think you might have swine flu, do see a
>>>>> doctor. I put that off and ended up with pneumonia.
>>>> Or, more likely, it will allow the body to "cure" the Swine Flu or indluenza
>>>> as the Arm & Hammer Company claimed it would back in 1925.
>>> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take chances with it.
>> It is in fact a pretty minor variant of flu.
> My experience of it was much different, and worse, than other flus.
And statistically that doesnt happen with many at all who get it.
Yes, like with any flu, it does kill some people, but the fatality rate is very low.
>>> In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
>>> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
>> That utterly mangles the real story.
> Could be. Feel free to expand on that.
It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the
vastly more virulent second phase, even tho they had very stong immune systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
Jim Janney
Courtney
>
> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take
> chances with it. In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
>
Well, here's a prominent physician who "took chances" by treating
folks with bicarbonate in the influenza outbreak you refer to:
"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.”"
Lou
anecdote. On average, ill people will report feeling better 30% of the time
if they're given a sugar pill, but that doesn't mean sugar is a remedy for
any illness.
To come to a reliable conclusion as to whether or not a particular treatment
is effective for a particular condition, you need to assemble a group of
people who have or are likely to develop the condition. You randomly assign
some of them to get the treatment you're interested in - the others get a
placebo that's as nearly a look-alike to the treatment being tested as
possible. You arrange things so that the members of the group don't know if
they're getting the placebo or the treatment, and neither do their
doctors/nurses/caregivers. And then you wait, and watch, and record
everything about them that may be relevant - blood pressure, blood and urine
tests, all other drugs they may take and why they're taking them, diagnostic
tests for the condition, standard markers for the severity of the condition
and how long it takes until recovery (or death), etc.
And when it's all over, you compare the two groups - which group had more or
fewer cases of the condition, which group had a quicker recovery time, which
group took longer to die, had more car accidents, had higher blood pressure,
etc.
And then, because your group of people is just a sample drawn from the
population at large and there is statistical variation among samples, you do
it again, several more times.
Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably reliable conclusion
as to how effective your proposed treatment is. If anyone's done that for
using bicarbonate to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
"Courtney" <cki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db04d021-c181-426b...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
around them had the �Flu.�"
Les Cargill
> Jim Janney wrote
<snip>
>
> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the
> vastly more virulent second phase, even tho they had very stong immune systems.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>
Something like that. The epidemiology of the1918 flu is
extremely complex. They traced it back to one training
barracks in ... France, I think. Taples? Factors for development
and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but
it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" -
a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to secondary
pneumonia.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jim Janney wrote
>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>> even tho they had very stong immune systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
> Something like that.
Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to one training barracks in ... France, I
> think. Taples? Factors for development
> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
> secondary pneumonia.
And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Jim Janney wrote
>
>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>> Something like that.
>
> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
>
I can only work from memory, but there was this bizarre logistical
twist to *this flu*. Just the right number of people were under
just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to one training barracks in ... France, I
>> think. Taples?
Etaples.
>> Factors for development
>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>
> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
>
I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not
have a story on this flu. They have clues, but no real story.
Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this
mother had a better chance of killing you than all other
things that happened besides.
Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu
virus is, the hypothesis that caught my eye is that external
conditions made it so. The same virus release in Arizona would
not have worked.
DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a
minefield.
>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>
> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
> form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
>
But then it died down. There were months where no infections were
reported. That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples
strain, just that we don't have any information to show a linkage.
And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many
months means we simply do not know.
SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the
Etaples strain was equal to the Kansas strain. We don't know.
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
>
>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>> secondary pneumonia.
>
> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
>
>
Was it? The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction?
Positive feedback loop?
Explain yourself.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jim Janney wrote
>>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>>> Something like that.
>> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
>> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
>> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
>> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
>> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
>> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> I can only work from memory,
You dont have to use memory, you can look at the facts.
> but there was this bizarre logistical twist to *this flu*.
Nope.
> Just the right number of people were under
> just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
That is just plain wrong. That flu killed a huge percentage of the
population in even very isolated pacific islands and the arctic,
and the reason it did that was because the once it mutated to
the second phase, it produced that gross over reaction in the
immune system of healthy and fit individuals and that is what
killed them. Other flus dont work like that and that didnt
happen in the first phase of that particular flu either.
>>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced
>>> it back to one training barracks in ... France, I think. Taples?
> Etaples.
That phase was just another flu.
>>> Factors for development
>>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
>> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
>> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not have a story on this flu. They have clues, but no
> real story.
They do have the real story on why it was so lethal to fit and healthy people.
> Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this mother had a better chance of killing you than all other
> things that happened besides.
Yes, it killed a hell of a lot more people than any other infectious disease has ever done.
And killed a hell of a lot more people that ALL of those killed by WW1 too.
> Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
> frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu virus is, the hypothesis that caught my eye is that
> external conditions made it so.
No they didnt. If it had been that, it wouldnt have been so utterly widespread.
> The same virus release in Arizona would not have worked.
Wrong again.
> DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a minefield.
Its got nothing to do with DNA except in the sense that the virus mutated between
the first and second phase into a much more lethal strain in phase two.
>>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal form that killed vast numbers of people
>> because of that immune system effect.
> But then it died down. There were months where no infections were reported.
That was BEFORE it mutated into the vastly more lethal
and virulent form that produced the second phase.
> That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples strain, just that we don't have any information to show a
> linkage.
Yes we do, its completely trivial to check the DNA of the two strains.
> And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many months means we simply do not know.
That is just plain wrong. Its well known that it mutated between the first
and second phases and that is completely trivial to prove using the DNA.
> SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the Etaples strain was equal to the Kansas strain.
Yes there is, the DNA of the two strains.
> We don't know.
Yes we do. Read the wikipedia article.
>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
>>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>>> secondary pneumonia.
>> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
> Was it?
Yep.
> The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction? Positive feedback loop?
Nope, the gross over reaction of the immune system in healthy and fit individuals
was what killed those that the much more virulent and fatal second strain killed
and is why it mostly killed the young fit and healthy, because their immune system
was much more effective than those of say the middle aged and elderly etc.
> Explain yourself.
The wikipedia article spells it out pretty clearly.
Courtney
>
> Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably reliable conclusion
> as to how effective your proposed treatment is. If anyone's done that for
> using bicarbonate to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
So you're denying any degree of validity to the claims of a prominent
physician of the day, working day in and day out in the trenches of
the largest influenza outbreak of that era?
Especially regarding something that is so simply and easily
demonstrable for oneself. Most folks have a box of Arm & Hammer in
their kitchen or bathroom.
Rod Speed
> Lou <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably
>> reliable conclusion as to how effective your proposed
>> treatment is. If anyone's done that for using bicarbonate
>> to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
> So you're denying any degree of validity to the claims of a
> prominent physician of the day, working day in and day out
> in the trenches of the largest influenza outbreak of that era?
Unless he does proper double blind trials, yes.
> Especially regarding something that is so
> simply and easily demonstrable for oneself.
You cant possibly work out for yourself what would have happened if you had not used bicarbonate.
> Most folks have a box of Arm & Hammer in their kitchen or bathroom.
And plenty have a clue about rigorous science too.
Lou
On Jan 29, 6:50 pm, "Lou" <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably reliable
conclusion
> > as to how effective your proposed treatment is. If anyone's done that
for
> > using bicarbonate to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
>
> So you're denying any degree of validity to the claims of a prominent
> physician of the day, working day in and day out in the trenches of
> the largest influenza outbreak of that era?
Not at all. It's such observations, among others, that lead to new areas to
research. I am saying that what was described here doesn't come anywhere
near the standard of scientific proof.
> Especially regarding something that is so simply and easily
> demonstrable for oneself. Most folks have a box of Arm & Hammer in
> their kitchen or bathroom.
You've lost me. How do you demonstrate it to yourself? Take some
bicarbonate every day, and if you don't come down with the flu, you can
conclude the bicarbonate prevented it? Even at the height of the 1917-1918
epidemic, most people did not come down with the flu, and it seems unlikely
that most of the people who didn't swallowed bicarbonate every day.
Let's try this - George Burns lived to be 100. For the last 70 years of his
life, he smoked 10-15 cigars a day. Is it reasonable to conclude that
smoking cigars is the secret to longevity?
Courtney
> You've lost me. How do you demonstrate it to yourself?
The next time you are in the midst of a cold/flu or are heading that
way start on bicarbonate as described above, keeping it well away from
meals, coffee, acidic juices and sodas.
Courtney
> And plenty have a clue about rigorous science too.
Remain in that little box if you wish.
Rod Speed
You're the one in a little box who cant even manage to grasp what rigorous science is about.
Courtney
> You're the one in a little box who cant even manage to grasp what rigorous science is about.
"Rigorous science" like this?
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.
Rod Speed
> On Jan 30, 7:59 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're the one in a little box who cant even manage to grasp what
>> rigorous science is about.
> "Rigorous science" like this?
Nope the double blind trials your stupid nose was rubbed in.
Lou
Oh, I have no doubt you'll get better. People all but always recover from a
cold, by far most people recover from the flu, and everyone has experienced
early symptoms and managed to avoid coming down with a full blown case of
the illness. The thing is, this happens whether or not the patient swallows
bicarbonate.
Remember when Linus Pauling said that large does of vitamin C could prevent
a cold, or shorten its duration, or mitagate the symptoms? How many people
followed his advice, how many people swore it worked? 30 trials such as I
outlined, spread among 10,000 patients have been carried out. No reduction
in the severity of symptoms have been observed, and no significant reduction
in the risk of catching a cold has been found, except in people in extreme
circumstances (like soldiers engaged in sub-arctic exercises, skiers, and
marathon runners). No significant benefits have been observed when starting
to take vitamin C after the onset of symptoms.
That doesn't mean that bicarbonate doesn't work. But your subjective
experience, however suggestive, isn't proof.
Courtney
> No significant benefits have been observed when starting
> to take vitamin C after the onset of symptoms.
>
> That doesn't mean that bicarbonate doesn't work. But your subjective
> experience, however suggestive, isn't proof.
Numerous times I have also found that though I can sometimes dampen
out a cold, in its early stages with vitamin C; once the cold is
underway C seems to have little effect.
This is why I was so intrigued by my experience with bicarbonate. I
was right in the midst of a severe cold and from the first dose the
cold was dampened and then tapered out. I have a sister out west who
is having a similar experience with a cold.
I'm not offering this as "proof." Just offering my experience. Those
who may have "ears to hear" may wish to give it a try - all others
feel free to disregard.