PurSleep Product Safety

StillAnotherGuest wrote:

-SWS wrote:

article wrote:In the elderly (8E 60 yrs)

I couldn't find "8E" in a search either. And I didn't have access to the full article without purchasing it. I wonder if "8E" might have referred to a demographic or even epidemiological category specific to the document---perhaps in a table, diagram, or external reference somewhere.

The character is actually an "equal to or greater than" sign, but that didn't strike me as being quite as funny as a routine that involved "stoving someone's head in".

SAG

Sure it's not "eighty" misspelled.

Thanks.

-SWS wrote:

article wrote:In the elderly (8E 60 yrs)

I couldn't find "8E" in a search either. And I didn't have access to the full article without purchasing it. I wonder if "8E" might have referred to a demographic or even epidemiological category specific to the document---perhaps in a table, diagram, or external reference somewhere.

I think you only need to register to Medscape, without pay.

O.

Thanks for that tip, ozij. Indeed:

Medscape Registration Page wrote:Register for free access to CME, medical news, journal articles, the eMedicine Clinical Reference, and MedPulse - Medscape’s email newsletter that highlights the week's key news and features. Registration on Medscape also includes email alerts, special editions, and selected information from industry as it relates to your specialty or area of clinical practice.

-SWS wrote:

StillAnotherGuest wrote:

-SWS wrote:

article wrote:In the elderly (8E 60 yrs)

I couldn't find "8E" in a search either. And I didn't have access to the full article without purchasing it. I wonder if "8E" might have referred to a demographic or even epidemiological category specific to the document---perhaps in a table, diagram, or external reference somewhere.

The character is actually an "equal to or greater than" sign, but that didn't strike me as being quite as funny as a routine that involved "stoving someone's head in".

SAG

Sure it's not "eighty" misspelled.

Thanks.

Let's see if it wll work this way...

In the elderly (≥ 60

OK, I have made the proper punctuation corrections, so insert this paragraph:

Cognitive therapy addresses patient-specific unrealistic expectations about sleep and misconceptions about the causes of insomnia. The addition of behavioral techniques to cognitive therapy has been shown to produce longer lasting improvements in sleep parameters, particularly sleep latency, than the use of behavioral techniques or pharmacologic therapy alone. Do not call the elderly (≥ 60 yrs) elderly lest they stove your head in with a lead pipe. Cognitive behavioral therapy appears to be effective for sleep-maintenance insomnia.

StillAnotherGuest wrote: Let's see if it wll work this way...

In the elderly (≥ 60

Well, no matter how it's written, I'm mightily offended by age 60 being used, even if just as a jumpoff point for qualifying as "elderly!!!!!" Means I'm already four years into it!

<grumble, mutter> Young whippersnapper researchers...I swear....where's my lead pipe cane...

StillAnotherGuest wrote:OK, I have made the proper punctuation corrections, so insert this paragraph:

Cognitive therapy addresses patient-specific unrealistic expectations about sleep and misconceptions about the causes of insomnia. The addition of behavioral techniques to cognitive therapy has been shown to produce longer lasting improvements in sleep parameters, particularly sleep latency, than the use of behavioral techniques or pharmacologic therapy alone. Do not call the elderly (≥ 60 yrs) elderly lest they stove your head in with a lead pipe. Cognitive behavioral therapy appears to be effective for sleep-maintenance insomnia.

Thank you, SAG. That's a perfect way to address writer-specific unrealistic age terminology.
Elsewhere in that paper, they called (≥ 65 yrs) elderly, which this 56 year old found slightly more congenial... But still, one has to assume, cognitive problems affect paper writers of all ages, even if they are (are they?) brash and youngerly. Maybe somebody already stoved (spl?) their head in with a pipe for other reasons before that.

O.

Okay. This thread is about PurSleep Product Safety. So my question for Bret is as on-topic as a question can be.

I'm confused about the PurSleep product safety text on the PurSleep web site. Here's what it says:

PurSleep Web Site wrote:Are Essential Oils Safe?

Essential oils are the aromatic component of plants and are derived from botanical materials (herbs, citrus, flowers, leaves, etc.) through simple distillation techniques. We use only the highest quality 100% pure therapeutic-grade essential oils....

http://www.pur-sleep.com/content/?page=3&pg=1#cp_3_1

I think there's plenty of room for consumer confusion reading that page. If I'm not paying close attention to the details, then I'd think that page probably implies that PurSleep as an aromatic product line fits that bill of safety. But when I look a little closer at details, it clearly appears as if the FAQ page discusses only the safety of "100% pure therapeutic-grade essential oils". Ooops! My guard was initially down so I got subconsciously fooled. I'm sure that wasn't on purpose since the PurSleep product line evolved toward offering synthetic aromatics while the FAQ page clearly did not.

The product safety information released on the PurSleep web site and at the beginning of this thread are all limited to the initial PurSleep product line: the "100% pure therapeutic-grade essential oils". However, as we have probably discussed ad nauseum in this thread, that's not at all relevant to "synthetic cosmetic grade fragrances". We know what's in the PurSleep 100% natural essential oils, but we have absolutely no idea what's in the artificial PurSleep fragrances.


So the unanswered question remains: What details are known, if any, about the artificial chemicals comprising PurSleep artificial fragrances?


I would also propose that PurSleep and CPAP.COM rework text to minimize implied confusion about "100% pure therapeutic-grade essential oils" product safety versus "synthetic cosmetic grade fragrances" product safety. Despite this thread aiming to discuss PurSleep product safety, so far I have read only assurances about "100% pure therapeutic-grade essential oil" product safety. I would suggest being abundantly clear about exactly which fragrances are 100% pure essential oils, and which fragrances contain artificial chemicals.



As a final side note, let’s compare estimated hours of chemical exposure between Vick’s Vapo rub and undisclosed PurSleep synthetics:

Vicks- 49-to-80 hours of annual exposure (assuming 7 to 10 eight-hour nights of annual exposure to address colds)
PurSleep- 2,920 hours of annual exposure (if used eight hours nightly)

But this is a discussion forum for all things CPAP related, and that's why PurSleep is up for discussion here versus other incidental chemical exposures. We already know what's in Vicks. But considering the annual hours of chemical exposure, consumers here deserve better disclosure about the entire combination of artificial chemicals that are employed in the PurSleep cosmetic grade synthetic fragrances.

-SWS wrote: . . . estimated hours of chemical exposure . . . PurSleep- 2,920 hours of annual exposure (if used eight hours nightly) . . .

And, as SAG put it (on page 1), "with an enhanced driving pressure."

jnk wrote: And, as SAG put it (on page 1), "with an enhanced driving pressure."

He has a lot of excellent points presented in this thread IMO. I personally don't think increasing driving pressure by low CPAP magnitudes would adversely alter the absorption dynamics at a cellular level---at least not in a manner conducive to say mechanically tearing or altering tissue (versus chemically altering). Potentially unknown systemic and localized chemical exposure is really the central mystery here IMHO. That question was first posed by SAG as well.

Additionally, addressing concerns about PurSleep Product Safety (as an entire product line) by citing assurances only about the 100% all-natural essential oils (now only a portion of that product line) clearly has the potential to confuse and mislead consumers where product safety is concerned.

-SWS wrote: . . . I personally don't think increasing driving pressure by low CPAP magnitudes would adversely alter the absorption dynamics at a cellular level---at least not in a manner conducive to say mechanically tearing or altering tissue (versus chemically altering). . . .

Would it cause the chemicals to reach areas deeper in the lungs than it otherwise would? Or does that really matter?

jnk wrote:Would it cause the chemicals to reach areas deeper in the lungs than it otherwise would? Or does that really matter?

I think those dispersion dynamics probably better describe heavier particulate matter.

These are much lighter air born particles (molecular chemicals) that should lung-disperse about as evenly as inhaled ambient air. But that's only my take and it sure could be wrong.

-SWS wrote:

jnk wrote:Would it cause the chemicals to reach areas deeper in the lungs than it otherwise would? Or does that really matter?

I think those dispersion dynamics probably better describe heavier particulate matter.

These are much lighter air born particles (molecular chemicals) that should lung-disperse about as evenly as ambient air. But that's only my take and it sure could be wrong.

Ozij was wondering about molecule sizes earlier in this thread, I think.

Lungs are one (or two, I guess) big mystery(ies) to me, personally. But I oversimplistically imagine that pressure might tend to inflate areas of the lungs during the night that might not be quite as inflated during the day while off PAP therapy. Again, even if that is so, I'm not sure it matters. It just crossed my mind.

And I also wonder if placing a chemical close to a machine intake that is drawing in air, but not expelling air from that same intake, might make for a greater concentration than even putting the source the same distance from a non-masked nose.

But those are only the wandering thoughts of a layman wondering what wonders should even be wondered about. And I don't mean to detract from what I agree is the larger question--the chemicals themselves.

jnk wrote: Ozij was wondering about molecule sizes earlier in this thread, I think.

Part of the challenge in this discussion is that we are lacking empirical measurement and methodology in general. IMO it's very hard to say just how safe or unsafe a product happens to be without data to substantiate that safety assessment. But we sure can acknowledge that cosmetic grade fragrances are a bigger chemical mystery, and therefore an even bigger health mystery when it comes to those 2,920 hours of annual nightly exposure.

jnk wrote:Lungs are one (or two, I guess) big mystery(ies) to me, personally. But I oversimplistically imagine that pressure might tend to inflate areas of the lungs during the night that might not be quite as inflated during the day while off PAP therapy.

Now I think I follow. That's not so much an issue of particle-and-membrane driving pressure, as it is an issue of inflationary pressure availing a little more surface area for chemical contact. I follow and I agree. However, I don't think this effect contributes significantly more added chemical exposure. The sum total particle count introduced to the lungs is pretty much going to get exposed to the lungs---regardless of CPAP pressure.

jnk wrote:And I also wonder if placing a chemical close to a machine intake that is drawing in air, but not expelling air from that same intake, might make for a greater concentration than even putting the source the same distance from a non-masked nose.

It's a matter of particle count presented at the intake port. It's a particle-count throughput issue with exit path not being central to that overall throughput (and thus particle exposure rate to the lungs).

CPAP pressure will help influence the incoming airflow rate and particle draw of chemicals taken from the diffuser pad. However, that rate or air-volume per unit of time relationship is regulated more by the human respiratory drive than the machine, since we're not talking about a closed ventilator. Our working and biologically-regulated respiratory drive pretty much decides our flow rate. And that's the largest part of the air volume that gets drawn through a CPAP machine's intake port. So CPAP flow volume and flow rate are largely human regulated---unlike the case of a hospital ventilator.

-SWS wrote: . . . I don't think this effect contributes significantly more added chemical exposure. The sum total particle count introduced to the lungs is pretty much going to get exposed to the lungs---regardless of CPAP. . . .

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. I was thinking that particles might get breathed into areas of the lungs that would make it less likely for the particles to then be breathed out. But molecules of chemicals breathed in are likely just breathed in, period, huh?

-SWS wrote: . . . It's a matter of particle count presented at the intake port. It's a particle-count throughput issue with exit path not being central to that particle throughput. However, CPAP pressure will influence the incoming airflow rate and particle draw of chemicals in the diffuser pad. However, that rate or air-volume per time relationship is regulated more by the human than the machine. It's a working and biologically-regulated respiratory drive that decides flow rate for an obstructive apneic on CPAP---not the CPAP machine.

That helps. Thanks again. I was trying to figure out whether it made any difference that the unmasked nose breathes in and out from the same location, so I assume it actively blows chemicals (such as from a vapor rub on a chest) away as much (or nearly as much) as it draws those chemicals in. Whereas the blower's intake only serves to funnel air (with chemicals) in. But your explanation on that is very helpful to me.