SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

jnk... while I don't think picking out random words out of context is helpful, thank you for discussing the article.

The article simply shows that tanks infested with bacteria can result in breathing in concentrations of bacteria that can lead to infection, and yes, that could be filtered out. (Maybe that's common sense, but some people on here make it sound like it's not an issue). I also don't think the article talks about any difference between cleaning CPAP equipment according to manufacturers' recommendations versus using an unproved approach like SoClean. I agree with you completely. That's not why I posted that article.

Again, the article is simply a source of evidence that breathing from a CPAP machine with a biofilm of Serratia marcescens can cause infections. There were definitely a NUMBER of people posting that because that stuff is in the air, it's no different than in the CPAP, and that's not true because it's in much higher concentrations as a biofilm in the reservoir. I don't expect anyone to lay next to the pink slime in their shower and inhale it for 8 hours straight a night. I'm uncomfortable with people claiming you don't need to occasionally sterilize your equipment, and some people were claiming that.

I also agree that SoClean doesn't do the same thing as soap and water. That's an excellent point. If someone thinks that, that's not good. But soclean does mention that you still need to clean it with soap and water (of course that does sound silly). But if your argument is that it does nothing, then I disagree. So it's not 100% snake oil. It could take the place of weekly or monthly sterilization.. and maybe for some people that's worth it. I can tell you someone like my mom who is getting older and is immunocompromised... I'd be more comfortable with her sticking the thing in every morning without thinking than remembering to satanize it every week, which she might have trouble with. So that doesn't make it snake oil in my book... but doesn't mean I think you or I or most people have to even consider the thing.

Again thanks for reading and discussing the article!

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 . . .

Actually home oxidizers are quite common...

like this:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Air-Purifier ... 3=&veh=sem

also whole house versions like this.... not ozone specifically but another oxidizer like it
https://www.rgf.com/products/food/reme- ... -purifier/

Just for the record before someone twists this... i DON"T recommend ozone generators in your house. It's not healthy to breath. But it sure would make the house and toilet smell fresh!!!

True, it could take the place of weekly cleanings, but only because weekly cleanings of XPAP mask and hose Isn't needed in most cases. Jim

I assume you are nice guy, and I love you and all. But my opinion is that you do not understand the article, you are misapplying the article, and it provides no evidence whatsoever for anything you have said anywhere in this thread. In fact, I believe it does quite the opposite. Although I personally consider your words to be misleading, hopefully someone else here has learned something from you.

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:08 pm

True, it could take the place of weekly cleanings, but only because weekly cleanings of XPAP mask and hose Isn't needed in most cases. Jim

See.. this is the stuff I was talking about. I think it's dangerous. Maybe it's fine for your and other people to clean your stuff twice a year... but not for everyone. Someone is going to come on here and say.. .okay I can be lazy, I don't need to follow the manufacturers cleaning instructions... and then they end up with a severe infection, pneumonia, etc. Please stop telling people they can ignore their doctor and manufacturers cleaning advice, just because for you, cleaning less works. It's dangerous for some people!

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:09 pm

I assume you are nice guy, and I love you and all. But my opinion is that you do not understand the article, you are misapplying the article, and it provides no evidence whatsoever for anything you have said anywhere in this thread. In fact, I believe it does quite the opposite. Although I personally consider your words to be misleading, hopefully someone else here has learned something from you.

Perfectly reasonable disagreement. I also disagree with your assessment, and consider the article to demonstrate that people need to make sure their equipment is sterilized on a regular basis (vinegar, bleach, etc work fine). Others can decide for themselves. But I thank you for at least not saying I'm an idiot and not to read anything I post.

Maybe Kushner should put us both on his Middle East team!

Righteous wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:01 pm

The article simply shows that tanks infested with bacteria can result in breathing in concentrations of bacteria

There was no breathing whatsover in the experiments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556912/

Duck wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:28 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:01 pm

The article simply shows that tanks infested with bacteria can result in breathing in concentrations of bacteria

There was no breathing whatsover in the experiments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556912/

Breathing was simulated:

Resistance to air flow simulating the use of properly fitted masks was performed by affixing a plastic plug to the end of the supplied breathing tubes in which a 6-mm hole was created with a drill. Flow rates were set to 20 cm water pressure, providing flow rates of 60 to 70 liters per minute (LPM) and confirmed by air-flow meter measurements at the beginning and end of each experiment.

The experiment collected the bacteria from the hosing, and in large amounts. The bacteria was introduced only into the humidifier reservoir. You can expect if it made it all they way into the hose, it would make it all the way into your lungs.

"It's not healthy to breath[sic]"
Umm, then putting one on a CPAP does not really sound like a good idea. Hmmmmm?
Someone even reported that theirs turned on spontaneously--WHILE THEY WERE WEARING THE CPAP.
It has also been pointed out that most microbes in our environment are benign--or even BENEFICIAL.
Go after those, and you are taking big risks with your health--to say the least.
But you just go ahead and do what you want--it's a free country.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:09 pm

"It's not healthy to breath[sic]"
Umm, then putting one on a CPAP does not really sound like a good idea. Hmmmmm?

Well ozone is converted to regular oxygen automatically. The SoClean keeps the ozone contained, and you're not supposed to open it for two hours to ensure the ozone is fully converted. There's also a replaceable filter in it that speeds the transformation back to oxygen.

Do NOT use your CPAP right after the cycle runs. The unit and documentation warns you of this.

So what about the kit to attach it directly (and continuously)
to the cpap? Somebody DID report a problem with that.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:17 pm

So what about the kit to attach it directly (and continuously)
to the cpap? Somebody DID report a problem with that.

There's no way to run it continuously. The unit won't run as long as the mask is out of the container as a safety mechanism. So if you're wearing it, it won't start pumping ozone into your lungs.. that would be bad!

It does attach directly to the CPAP. But it only runs for 7 minutes of ozone generation, then sits for 2 hours till the ozone is gone.

ChicagoGranny wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:41 am

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:52 pm

Sorry the link maybe doesn’t work on your device... posted from a mobile device. Here’s the article directly...
Seems pretty relevant.

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

Oh, your link worked on my device. You just posted the wrong link, and now you sneakily posted the correct one. Your dishonesty is showing.

What's really showing is righteous's ignorance... he posts a study from 2007 to support his ignorant comments.. ignoring the study from 2013 that says that his point is baseless.

palerider wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:24 pm

ChicagoGranny wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:41 am

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:52 pm

Sorry the link maybe doesn’t work on your device... posted from a mobile device. Here’s the article directly...
Seems pretty relevant.

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

Oh, your link worked on my device. You just posted the wrong link, and now you sneakily posted the correct one. Your dishonesty is showing.

What's really showing is righteous's ignorance... he posts a study from 2007 to support his ignorant comments.. ignoring the study from 2013 that says that his point is baseless.

Just because I'm genuinely curious, can you link the 2013 article. I missed it. (again, I don't appreciate the personal attacks, but I am curious about the study)

Righteous wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:53 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!

Your link is old research, superseded by what I posted.