From: Tim Campbell on
On Feb 2, 1:35 am, David <david.spro...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tobacco stuff aside, that still leaves the fact that you're trying to
> use a sales brochure from 1924 as "evidence" that baking soda cures
> colds/flu.

No, what I'm using as evidence is the fact that I tried it and it
worked.
Suggested it to my sister; she tried it and it worked...

From: dr_jeff on
Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:35 am, David <david.spro...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tobacco stuff aside, that still leaves the fact that you're trying to
>> use a sales brochure from 1924 as "evidence" that baking soda cures
>> colds/flu.
>
> No, what I'm using as evidence is the fact that I tried it and it
> worked.
> Suggested it to my sister; she tried it and it worked...

Or, in both cases, both of you got better on your own and would have
improved at the same rate without the bicarb.

JEff
From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Tim Campbell <timc...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:35 am, David <david.spro...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tobacco stuff aside, that still leaves the fact that you're trying to
> > use a sales brochure from 1924 as "evidence" that baking soda cures
> > colds/flu.
>
> No, what I'm using as evidence is the fact that I tried it and it
> worked.
> Suggested it to my sister; she tried it and it worked...

"Working" for self limiting conditions is pure speculation.

From: David on
On Feb 2, 2:07 pm, Tim Campbell <timc...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:35 am, David <david.spro...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tobacco stuff aside, that still leaves the fact that you're trying to
> > use a sales brochure from 1924 as "evidence" that baking soda cures
> > colds/flu.
>
> No, what I'm using as evidence is the fact that I tried it and it
> worked.
> Suggested it to my sister; she tried it and it worked...


This is called "extremely limited anecdotal evidence". Unfortunately,
it is next-to-worthless from a scientific standpoint -- pretty much on
par with the sales brochure from 1924.
From: Tim Campbell on
On Feb 2, 5:29 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:

>
> Or, in both cases, both of you got better on your own and would have
> improved at the same rate without the bicarb.

Your evidence for this supposition?