***PS to parts list:
Dear List Members.
I failed to include a suggestion, which some may find of
critical importance. If you do not have immediate access to an O2
supply, and encounter an EMERGENCY experiment, you can connect into
any available air compressor outlet (however, you may have to change
out the Compressor-side fitting). To be safe, let the air compressor
charge to 35 psi and disconnect it from the power grid. There will be
ample air pressure to execute your protocol. The air-brush will
function quite well to below 20 psi. Although your air-supply may be
contaminated....the alternative to getting CS into the VOLUNTEER
animal/pet may a much more grave situation,
We had excellent, but less spectacular results using
compressed air as the driving medium in some animal experiments in
1998.......when addressing some serious pulmonary compromises
involving felines.
Sincerely. Brooks Bradley.
***Further to assembly:
To all interested list members.
Since I posted the original information about the
air-brush nebulizer (as developed and employed by one of our technicians) I
do feel constrained to answer the question as to why use a two-stage
regulator. Please recall my original post was designed to allow persons
with access to welding equipment, to capitalize on this without further
expense. Furthermore, most commercial oxygen bottles are charged to a VERY
HIGH pressure (in the neighborhood of 2000-3000 psi). Safety precautions,
alone, recommend that a two-stage regulator is a wise precaution. In case
of a regulator malfunction wherein the safety burst-disc failed to rupture,
the down-stream portion of your system would be exposed---instantly---to
system pressure......if only a single-stage was employed. Not a very
desirable circumstance involving O2 at 2000 psi. Two-stage regulation
mitigates against this.
Additionally, I was never recommending this economical
little system to replace or compete with ANYTHING. I am somewhat dismayed
that some of the newer membership seems to have seized upon such a
probability. My original intent was to encourage those among you----who
desired--- to experiment with a very economical and useful methodology
providing some characteristics not readily available at low cost. To wit:
small particle size; and compatibility with pressurized fluid systems
supplied by non-dependent accessories. We gained comparable performance
from this little system that equated---very well---to a $650.00
hospital-approved system (which required special demand-type regulators, a
separate pumping/pressurization system, etc.) The original cost of the
air-brush assembly, plus fittings and hoses, was under $20.00 U.S.
Additionally, for those having access to a conventional air compressor
system, they may avail themselves of this option at NO REGULATOR system
cost. This may be achieved, simply, by charging the air tank to 35 psi and
cutting it off. The system will work quite well---in a declining pressure
mode, down to 20 psi.
I hope this information is of some value.
Sincerely. Brooks Bradley.
***Efficiency of this nebulizer
To interest list members.
I believe it to be worth commenting on, that
during our more intense researches in this area (1997-1998), we were
unable to generate useful results from ANY type of conventional
vaporizer......REGARDLESS OF COST of the device. The mist-particles were
just too large and the mist-cloud concentrations too sparsely
populated.....to give the desired result.
Well-designed nebulizers, used in a
concentrated-delivery mode were the only methodology which yielded
satisfactory results-----for us!
In the near future I will post a simple, but
I believe useful----explanation of what actually happens (the physics of
venturi action, turbulence, changes in static and ram pressure in the
mouth, throat, and upper lungs). Such information may prove useful in
understanding some of the problems involved in transporting entrained
substances into the pulmonary tract.
I must leave now.
Sincerely, Brooks Bradley. .
***The silver transport vehicle:
Janine, and all interested list members.
Please be advised this is a circumstance I can not
address professionally, as we do not give medical advice or any form of
medical consultation.
I can, however, make a few observations that may be of some value to
you in your personal researches. First, we have found that several factors
have to be in place....and acting in concert, to yield satisfactory
results----from among our volunteer experimental populations. We found it
essential that: (1) The colloidal silver employed MUST be of the proper
particle size ( the ppm concentration was less of a factor). (2) A
MSM/DMSO mixture of approximately 80% MSM and 20% DMSO was needed as an
effective penetration/transport mechanism. (3) Pure oxygen was required
as
the gas-drive. (4) The mist-particle size was of consequence, also. The
finer mist clouds, driven at higher pressures (30 to 35 psi) seemed to carry
further into the lower pulmonary regions before terminal attachment.
In all circumstances where we were unable to get the CS
solution into direct contact (across the mucous-ladened barrier), we had
only limited success.
Assuming you successfully generated a CS x pathogen
interface, I am deeply puzzled by your announced results. I can offer no
further comment on this circumstance.
Sympathetically yours. Brooks Bradley.
p.s. The inhalation technique was, also, of some consequence. Deep, slow
inhalations where the volunteer discharged the mist for approximately 4 or 5
seconds, shutting it off while continuing the inhalation to the count of
8.....seemed the ideal. If the volunteer had insufficient lung capacity to
maintain an 8 second inhalation, the ratio should be maintained at 50%
airbrush ON and 5O% Off for scavenge breathing (completing the inhalation)
for whatever their inhalation time constant is. e.g. 6 seconds> 3 seconds
on for airbrush discharge, and 3 seconds continued inhalation after airbrush
shut-down.
***Case study:
Dear Mr. Bassett.
I have just read your posts; I have a little comment
that may be of value to you in your experimental research. We have
evaluated CS, and many methods of its employment. Only one was ever
rapidly effective in an "essentially terminal" evaluation. This involved a
volunteer (male,
72 yrs.), during the winter of 1998. He was suffering from late-stage
bi-lateral bacterial pneumonia. The methodology employed in these
experiments included the following protocol: Using a very fine particle
nebulizer, a 25 psi to 35 psi, regulated O2 supply as the gas drive and a
colloidal silver
mixture---compounded as follows: Starting with 8 ounces of 10 ppm CS
(warmed to approx. 105 degrees F.) dissolve methyl sulphonyl methane (MSM)
in this solution to the point of saturation (until no more will go
into solution); he next added 20%--by volume--(approximately 2 fluid ounces
of DMSO, undiluted) to the parent mixture. Using this material in a very
simple nebulizer fashioned from an artist's airbrush, we were able.....in
this case....to witness an astonishing, rapid, recovery from this moribund
individual.
The patient used approximately 3/4 of an ounce of liquid (in the smaller of
the airbrush fluid supply vials). every 4 hours. Within 48 hours his lungs
started to clear (his lung capacity was around 25% when this protocol was
instituted and his attending physicians had openly resigned themselves to his
immediate demise).
The rapid onset of pus and mucous-bound bacterial debris did, indeed, place
a biological challenge on him.
The volume of this material was astonishing. We believe that the
accompanying oxygen, plus the transporting capability of the MSM/DMSO
combination.....were critical to this splendid outcome.
We do not prescribe medicine....or give any type of medical
advice, being , STRICTLY, an experimental research organization. I am,
simply, relating a case in which a non-toxic protocol seemed to be
of efficacy in a very CHALLENGING circumstance.
Sincerely, Brooks Bradley..
At 09:58 AM 7/25/2008, you wrote:
Any alternative ideas would be greatly appreciated.Thanks in advance. Tom
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
