Brooks, Can you tell me a little more about bronchial spasm? I bought the air brush kit you mentioned in an earlier post and am planning to try this nebulizer set up.
My mom is coming to visit from out of state. She frequently gets bad sinus problems from the smog when here in San Jose, Ca. She will get so congested she looses her hearing, has to have tubes put in to drain her ears, and vomits accumulation of mucus. I thought I might try a nebulizing system if she begins to develop this problem. She was a heavy smoker up till two years ago when she quit following quadruple bypass surgery, but still lives in a house of smokers. Do you consider this would have a relationship to the likelihood of bronchial spasm? Is this a rush to the emergency room situation or just a back-off on or stop treatment type reaction? At any rate I am looking forward to trying it for myself also. Thanks, Diana ---------- > From: BROOKS BRADLEY <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CS/nebulizer & CS and saline solution/Brooks Help? > Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 10:28 PM > > To all interested list members. > I will try to shed a little light on this nebulizer-mist > protocol discussion; at least to the limit of my present knowledge. There are > several considerations involved in this issue.....I will try to address those of > which I have some direct knowledge. > First, the issue of using saline solutions. We did use > saline solutions in several of our protocols----some with CS....and some without. > Because of the surface tension variations between saline and distilled water, > saline is more readily passed through epithelial tissue, than is plain water. > However, we found that it was the suspended "particle size" moreso than the type > of H2O solution, that made the principal difference as to whether or not bronchial > spasm occurred. Additionally, the "fluid density" had an effect as to whether or > not bronchial spasm occurred (e.g. as the mist concentration went up, the > likelihood of spasm increased---without regard to the solutions; so long as no > tissue-irritants were included). > There is another consideration----the depth and duration of the > inhalation. > Long (8 seconds, plus) inhalations caused much more bronchial spasm, than did > shorter ones (5 to 6 seconds)----no matter what the nature of the fluid solution > being employed. > Additionally, the pressure setting had an influence on both the > volume and the velocity of the mist-stream. Because of this, to overcome spasms > (when they occurred in susceptible volunteers) from this cause, we simply reduced > the driving pressure to about 20 psi. This adjustment, in almost every case, > solved the problem of bronchial spasm. Please remember that there is very wide > variation in the pulmonary capacity, and response, among every age group. Also, > remember that the existing condition of the volunteer's pulmonary system, has a > pronounced influence in their immediate response to any externally-imposed > "insult".....beneficial or otherwise. Most formal physicians, especially > alleopaths, have little patience in addressing these variations----choosing > instead---more of a one-size must fit all, approach. I do not mean to be > denigrating, but this is just the way things are. > Both penetration distance and volunteer's tolerance were affected > by the particle size characteristic. The mist-stream geometry yielded by the > nebulizer was the determining factor between acceptable and non-acceptable > variations. Some rather costly main-stream medical-supply nebulizers were > "completely unacceptable" when examined for this characteristic. The very > economically-priced (less than $10.00) artist's airbrush was superior to > most----for this characteristic. While it is true that our little $10.00 airbrush > was more than adequate, although being a single-action, internal mix device; the > "best" droplet-size and flow-control came from our double-action, internal mix > airbrushes (cost about $50.00). We did not deem the improvement worth the > additional cost----for our experimental/research purposes. > No matter the assumed cause for bronchial spasm among your > experimental population, I suggest the FIRST correction you might consider is > reducing the driving pressure of the airstream (or O2 source). I repeat; we have > found that the major cause for bronchial spasm to be the "Volume" and geometry of > suspended liquid delivered within the time-window of a given inhalation----and not > the specific nature (exluding tissue-irritants) of the solutions used. > I hope this information is of value to the discussion. > Sincerely. Brooks Bradley. > p.s. There are other, secondary considerations such as the variation of the > "cough reflex" among individuals, but they are not, really, germane to this > discussion. > > -- > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > > > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > > [email protected] -or- [email protected] > > with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > >
