SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

jnk... · Post by **jnk...** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:22 am

Sorry that you consider disagreement bullying.

Hopefully (for you) the next forum where you act as a shill will be more accepting of your work. Let them know up front, though, that you expect your opinions to be accepted as fact without challenge. That might keep you from having to pretend that your feelings are hurt at the end of the thread.

Have a good day, sir.

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:59 am

jnk... wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:22 am
Sorry that you consider disagreement bullying.

Hopefully (for you) the next forum where you act as a shill will be more accepting of your work. Let them know up front, though, that you expect your opinions to be accepted as fact without challenge. That might keep you from having to pretend that your feelings are hurt at the end of the thread.

Have a good day, sir.

You’re the one spouting opinions as fact. Read the article I posted and talk about that. I notice you ignore direct evidence. Maybe you think science is a scam??? Are you a world is flat believer? God forbid you read an article from a scientific journal.

jnk... · Post by **jnk...** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:59 am
. . . I notice you ignore direct evidence. Maybe you think science is a scam??? Are you a world is flat believer? God forbid you read an article from a scientific journal.

Thank you for your observations. I will give them all due consideration.

And I am sure you did not mean for them to sound like a personal attack of any sort. I know that, because you already said . . .

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:59 am
If I think your [sic] wrong, I won’t insult you.

Enjoy your day.

chunkyfrog · Post by **chunkyfrog** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:17 am

The troll's screeching is scaring away my crickets.
Please foe or ignore him.
I am SO hungry . . .

Lucyhere · Post by **Lucyhere** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:41 am

Okay now... since I usually agree with 99.999999% of what JNK says, PR is actually correct. Great, because I never invested one penny in the SoClean. It never made much sense to me anyway. So easy to use a little warm water, soap and maybe some vinegar.

That said, Righteous isn't a troll in the true sense of the word. He is entitled to his opinion. However, I'm glad there are people who point out that his 'opinions' aren't necessarily correct. It's hard enough for new people to learn to sleep with an alien on their face, no less trying to decide if they need/must purchase a SoClean. Anyway, now this thread will go down in history as, "another one of those threads". Seriously, that machine deserves its own sticky, if for no other reason than to direct people to it.

jnk... · Post by **jnk...** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:48 am

Lucyhere wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:41 am
since I usually agree with 99.999999% of what JNK says,

Ouch.

I mean, even I only agree with maybe 74% of what I say when I later reread it.

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:53 am

jnk... wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:59 am
. . . I notice you ignore direct evidence. Maybe you think science is a scam??? Are you a world is flat believer? God forbid you read an article from a scientific journal.
Thank you for your observations. I will give them all due consideration.

And I am sure you did not mean for them to sound like a personal attack of any sort. I know that, because you already said . . .

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:59 am
If I think your [sic] wrong, I won’t insult you.
Enjoy your day.

jnk... I'm only responding to you calling me a shill. You started with the personal attacks, not me. I won't make personal attacks if someone disagrees with me... but if they start with personal attacks, I can give as good as I get.

So how about we drop all personal stuff... I won't tell you what I think of you, you won't do the same with me. Instead try a post that focuses on just facts. I dare you to read the article I linked to in it's entirety. And then discuss it openly... you don't have to agree with it or disagree with it. It's just a single point of evidence. You can discuss it's merits or if it's applicable.

Here's the link again

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556912/

I dare any of you vocal users to read the whole article and discuss it!

prodigyplace · Post by **prodigyplace** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:01 am

Lucyhere wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:41 am
Seriously, that machine deserves its own sticky, if for no other reason than to direct people away from it.

Fixed that for you

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:04 am

Lucyhere wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:41 am
Okay now... since I usually agree with 99.999999% of what JNK says, PR is actually correct. Great, because I never invested one penny in the SoClean. It never made much sense to me anyway. So easy to use a little warm water, soap and maybe some vinegar.

That said, Righteous isn't a troll in the true sense of the word. He is entitled to his opinion. However, I'm glad there are people who point out that his 'opinions' aren't necessarily correct. It's hard enough for new people to learn to sleep with an alien on their face, no less trying to decide if they need/must purchase a SoClean. Anyway, now this thread will go down in history as, "another one of those threads". Seriously, that machine deserves its own sticky, if for no other reason than to direct people to it.

Lucyhere... sorry this post made you feel this way. If you reread it I never suggested ANYONE needs SoClean. In fact I kept saying you DONT need it!

I also didn't post 'opinions'... I provided multiple sources and links to wikipedia articles and suggested everyone educate themselves. I guess my saying that you should research things for yourself is an 'opinion'. But I'm not sure how pointing out to some users with pink slime in their resevoir that it's actually bacteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens) is an opinion?

Lucyhere · Post by **Lucyhere** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:11 am

Okay... so it's bacteria. Use a little soap, vinegar and warm water and it's gone. I reread the link you posted. Last paragraph says, "may" get rid of bacteria. I'll stick to the above. Must get out in the sunshine or I "may" get bacteria in the brain. Have a nice day everyone.

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:14 am

Lucyhere wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:11 am
Okay... so it's bacteria. Use a little soap, vinegar and warm water and it's gone. I reread the link you posted. Last paragraph says, "may" get rid of bacteria. I'll stick to the above. Must get out in the sunshine or I "may" get bacteria in the brain. Have a nice day everyone.

You're exactly right Lucy.. that's exactly what I said dozens of posts ago!! But someone early in the post said it kept coming back and not to worry about it. That person needs to use vinegar or some other sanitizer, because Serratia marcescens can and will cause respiratory infections. I specifically suggested vinegar... i never suggested they get a SoClean. Others here are trying to spin everything I say for some reason.

I think because I suggested that SoClean does kill pathogens, some people took offense with that. I never recommended it, but just stated based on the science it would be an effective sanitizer. Again... vinegar works too!!

Here's my very first post...

I do have some experience with ozone. It’s used extensively in the reef aquarium hobby... it’s used to sterilize and protect fish from pathogens, and kills algae. It’s quite effective even with tanks with large water volumes.

Also that “slime” in the humidifier reservoir is actually what’s called a biofilm, which is caused by bacteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm
Biofilms will form in a tank, even one with distilled water rather quickly.

Biofilms are important in aquarium keeping... they are the primary source of filtration (the bacteria eat all the fish pee). Aquarium keepers that run ozone generators too high can actually harm the biofilm in their tank and cause all kinds of issues.

So the premise of the soclean is actually sound (comparing it to hospital systems is silly... those are cleaning enormous volumes, not a five inch square box)... BUT... you can also accomplish the same thing with soap and water. The soap breaks apart the biofilm and destroys bacteria very effectively.

So I wouldn’t say it’s snake oil, but you still have to weigh whether it’s worth it to you. Regular cleaning with soap and water will do the same thing, obviously for a lot less money. But if you want to never wash your reservoir, it’s probably pretty effective at keeping out pathogens.

ChicagoGranny · Post by **ChicagoGranny** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:38 am

Jeff_Snore_No_More wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:48 am
The salesperson spoke about killing germs and all that stuff. But she also said that it wouldn't be necessary to wash the mask every day, but rather once a week. This appealed to me, because I'm lazy. I do understand that the SoClean would not clean the skin oil and so forth. I've been on BiPAP for about 11 years.

At any rate, I'm returning it.

Any problem getting your full money back?

jnk... · Post by **jnk...** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:42 am

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556912/

I dare any of you vocal users to read the whole article and discuss it!

Once. For free. But only because you asked nicely. Hopefully fair-use considerations should allow for my collecting what I consider to be the most pertinent statements by those who rigged up a simulation to test a filter, which is all that "study" is.

. . . may . . . may . . . may . . . under conditions simulating . . . simulated-use conditions. . . . suggest . . . may be . . . may . . . can . . .

. . . those treated with mechanical ventilation for sleep apnea appear to be at lower risk for developing respiratory infections . . . patients using heated humidifiers without regard to good hygienic practices in maintaining their humidifiers by thorough cleansing and replacing their breathing tubes showed . . . compared with those who cared for their equipment regularly, . . .

. . . consistent with . . . potential for . . . may be . . . serves to challenge . . . conditions simulating home use . . . . potential . . . easily visualized pink colonies . . . bacteria were grown . . . simulating the use . . . breathing tube was immersed, at its middle, into an ice bath to promote condensation, . . . recovery of the condensate . . . exposed to the maximal temperature setting of the heated humidifier . . . for 10 consecutive hours, . . . positioned . . . to ensure condensate would flow back . . . representing the most severe humidification challenge . . . preconditioning humidification cycles were repeated . . . through a DeVilbiss nebulizer into a chamber . . . to convert the aerosolized microbial suspension into discrete dry monodispersed microbial particles. . . .

. . . In general, . . . but they were largely limited . . . continues to be debate over the likelihood . . . Important distinctions should be made between heated humidification used for chronically ventilated patients and those using nCPAP for OSA. . . . the impact of nCPAP for OSA on infectious complications is relatively unstudied. . . . potential . . . not unlikely to expect . . . may be . . .

. . . There is a widely held view that passive (“passover”) humidifiers do not aerosolize water but merely help to produce, and allow for the passage of, water vapor. Supporting such a view are the results of a recent study. . . . fair to say, . . . may . . . particularly if water is added to the humidifier without rinsing between refills. Our study also employed slightly higher flow rates . . . could also account . . . it is possible . . . suggests . . . conditions that simulate clinical use. . . . test conditions used in this study . . . may . . . may . . . may . . . may . . . that may be present . . .

I see nothing in the study or the speculative wording that accompanies it that relates even remotely to real-world use, and there is certainly nothing in what was done that relates at all to the difference between cleaning CPAP equipment according to manufacturers' recommendations versus using an unproved approach like SoClean, as if that were actually useful for cleaning equipment.

I do NOT consider the premise of SoClean sound. I DO consider SoClean to be snake oil, since it does not actually clean anything the way that manufacturers recommend their products to be cleaned. Regular cleaning with soap and water does NOT do the same thing as SoClean, because SoClean does not use soap or water, which is what is recommended by the manufacturers over alternative approaches with mere ozone.

You don't need SoClean to clean your kitchen or bathroom. Likewise, it is a total waste of money for CPAP equipment.

In my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Outie.

chunkyfrog · Post by **chunkyfrog** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:53 am

If it worked, why don't they make one for a TOILET?
Almost every home has at least one toilet--often more.
Can you imagine that market for a FUNCTIONING sanitizer?
Oh, HELL, YES!
(Of course, they would have to PROVE it works.)
Oh, well . . .

LSAT · Post by **LSAT** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:56 am

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:53 am
If it worked, why don't they make one for a TOILET?
Almost every home has at least one toilet--often more.
Can you imagine that market for a FUNCTIONING sanitizer?
Oh, HELL, YES!
(Of course, they would have to PROVE it works.)
Oh, well . . .

Hey one for people too. Instead of wasting soap and water, just stand under a So Clesn shower.

SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??