Hello Ivan, Congratulations on your early successes. Hope they continue.
My wife, Anne, has advanced pulmonary Sarcoidosis and uses a Pulmomate nebulizer four times per day. She uses it to inhale 0.83% Albuterol. She also inhaled my homemade CS, with a some MSM in it, each day after inhaling the Albuterol. (Would it hurt to combine the CS and Albuterol to shorten the inhalation process?) She stopped it because it seemed, to her, that it was making her breathing more labored. She was also concerned the CS might be staying in her lungs and would further degrade her breathing. Being as stupid as I am about CS, I felt it best to not argue against stopping it. She continues to "swish" about four Tablespoons in her mouth each day. Anne's condition is such that she is on Oxygen 24/7, using the highest setting while she is not in bed. She is willing to try inhaling CS again (her own voluntary decision) it she can be assured that the CS, itself, won't cause her further harm. I have already told her that CS is supposed to self-flush in a week's time but she needs some more assurance. So, what is your opinion as to whether she should re-start the CS inhalation? Thanks, Steve > ** Original Subject: CS>Re-post CSXO2 nebuliser (nebulizer)...complete > ** Original Sender: "Ivan Anderson" <[email protected]> > ** Original Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:10:22 +0000 > ** Original Message follows... > > Folks, > I had occasion to refer someone to this protocol, but had trouble finding > the complete series, so I decided to consolidate them in one message for > easy reference (plus a few extras). Once again, thanks Brooks. > > Ivan. > > > ***The protocol: > > To all interested list members. > I would like to relate an experimental protocol recently developed > by one of our younger (and brighter) staff members. He originated the idea > and assembled all parts into a working model in less than two > days-------after his original inspiration. The original problem manifested > as a result of our fruitless search for some effective procedure for > attacking the bi-lateral form of those bacterial pneumonias which have > proved non-responsive to all of the anti-biotic protocols. This challenge > has been especially dear to our hearts since one of our engineers lost his > 47 year old wife (a wonderful school teacher), at the age of 47--------nine > years ago. > We have used this system on 3 volunteers----and this only----within > the past four weeks. However, we have been absolutely astounded by the > results. One 75 year old ashma sufferer, unable to gain more than > momentary relief during the past 8 years, was able to dispense with his very > labor-intensive (unbelieveably costly) hospice-assisted > protocols............18 days after undertaking this protocol. We now > suspect that his ashma was the result of some form of secondary bacterial > pathogen......this because of the speed and degree of his recovery. > Another of our volunteers (71 years), afflicted with a sub-clinical > bronchial infection-----non-responsive to any protocol----including Rife > Beam Ray Therapy, has improved by at least 75% within the past 21 > days.........and shows every indication of complete resolution within the > next week or so. This volunteer was in perfect health in every other > way----except for the bronchial disorder (complicated by a minor but > persistant post-nasal drainage) > The third volunteer was an 81 year old male, completely > non-responsive to all therapies for bi-lateral pneumonia of a bacterial > nature. This condition had persisted for 6 months and he was approaching a > moribund state, very rapidly. 24 hours after beginning this protocol, he > encountered a very serious crisis evolving from major Herxheimer's > Reaction. Pustule formation was so rapid and intense, 100% oxygen support > was required----and the treatment protocol was suspended for two days, while > the volunteer's condition was stabilized. Two days after resumption of the > Oxygen-CS protocol, no supporting O2 therapy was required as the subject > was fully able to breathe adequately unassisted. The volume of sputum/pus > fluid was massive. Excepting very sore chest area (from prolonged coughing) > the volunteer was much improved. Within five days he became very alert and > began to overcome his narcoleptic tendencies. Within ten days he became > ambulatory again. Within 15 days his lungs were unobstructed enough he > could breathe fully, with no audio evidence of fluid presence in the > pulmonary tract. Yesterday (the 21st day) his lungs checked to be 90% > clear, with only one tiny spot in the lower left quadrant of the left lung. > His M.D. pulmonary specialist is in a state of "schock" over the > developments. His analysis is this is the most pronounced case of > "spontaneous remission" in his 30 years of practice. No one has informed > the M.D. of our experimental protocols, used on this volunteer. Our > volunteer's immediate family is so irate over the fact that his alleopathic > pulmonary "team" was totally unable to reverse his decline toward immediate > life-departure (the crisis management team did offer to place him on 100% > life support until clinical death) they wanted to instigate some form of > legal action. We reminded them of their earlier agreement with us, that > regardless of the outcome of our experimental protocol, "neither the > procedural result nor the protocol itself, would be broached with the > volunteer's alleopathic counsel". Additionally, based upon the anecdotal > nature of this one case, there is no way to prove efficacy. > THE PROTOCOL; This consists simply of using a nebulizing system > constructed from a conventional artist's air-brush assembly, with modified > pneumatic plumbing facilitating its connection to a pressure-regulated pure > O2 supply. The air-brush mechanism was chosen because it provides an > exeptionally economcal means of furnishing a very small particle aerosol fog > (4 micron vicinity). Using a very simple adapter from the air-brush > pressure regulator, to the O2 supply hose coupling, plus a standard welding > system size oxygen fitting (female), the assembly is connected directly to > the Oxygen port outlet from either a small medical-type O2 bottle---or a > standard welding system O2 bottle outlet (they both contain the same purity > oxygen). > Using the small fluid-supply bottle which comes in the air-brush kit, > then filling the supply bottle approximately 3/4ths full (about 1/2 ounce) > of 5 ppm CS, we were ready to start. The O2 system (we used two-stage > regulators) was SLOWLY set for constant regulation at 35 psi, at which point > the system was ready for use. We placed the air-brush in the hand of the > volunteer, who in turn pressed the push-valve button when they wanted to > direct the O2/CS fog mixture into their mouth-----and inhale directly into > the pulmonary system. At the end of each inhalation, the volunteer simply > released pressure on the button and shortly exhaled. This procedure was > repeated until the entire contents of the air-brush supply bottle was below > the intake point of the supplu-siphon tube (about 50-75 breaths total). > This protocol was employed twice daily (24 hours) for the entire duration of > these researches. > I will post the bill-of-materials, plus assembly details in another > post sometime tomorrow. However, as a word of encouragement for those > unable to afford the $680.00 for a hospital-type nebulizer, the total cost > of our assembly, less the oxygen bottle and regulator, was less than $20.00. > Additionally, our particle size was BETTER from the $10.85 Taiwanese > bargain-brush, than from our $680.00 hospital-grade nebulizer (at least our > measurements indicated so). I will. also, tell you where you can purchase > these air-brush kits . We have, already purchased 20 of them; outfitted > them, and given them to very needy Experimental Volunteers of a charity > nature. Within the next 8 weeks, we should have some useable "raw" data, > which I will attempt to share with interested list members. > Please forgive this lengthy post, but my excitement over this > exceptionally low-cost----and promising protocol, has been keeping me awake > nights......lately. > May you all be well. Sincerely. Brooks Bradley. > > > ***Parts list and assembly: > > Good Afternoon List Members. > Following is a list of the components required for enabling > the protocol we used in the experimental researches I outlined last > evening. > The air-brush kit we used, was obtained from a mail-order > concern specializing in myriad hardware/electrical/hand-tool items. > Their quality is toward the low-end industrial, but quite adequate for > the home/hobby user. Our machine shop/proto-type builders have used > them for years. The company is Harbor Freight, located in Camarillo, > California. They now have outlets in one or two other cities. We > obtained our air-brush kits from the Fort Worth, Texas store (we are > located in Fort Worth). The stock number is #6131. Our purchasing > person informed me this item cost us less than $10.00 each, and the > last 20 purchased cost less than $8.00. As of last Wednesday, this > store still had some of these units. Included in the kit are two > liquid -supply bottles (one 1/2 and one 1 oz), one air hose which > couples between the pressure regulator and the air-brush assembly; > one air pressure regulator; and the air-brush assembly itself. The > additional parts required are for a hose assembly which facilitates > coupling the input side of the air pressure regulator with the > external oxygen supply used to power the nebulizer. > Note: PURCHASE BRASS FITTINGS ONLY, oxygen is the > pre-eminent combustion supporter. > All of these components can be obtained from any > commercial outlet stocking pneumatic system parts. > This hose assembly includes: > One 1/4" Compression X 1/8" Male NPT fitting (this > is very important, for without it you cannot connect the O2 hose to > the air-brush pressure regulator) > One 1/4" Barb X 1/8" NPTF Fitting > One 1/4" X 9/16 RH Oxygen Fitting (will have a barb > fitting on one end and the female coupling on the other) > Approximately 4 feet of any good !/4 I.D. 200+ > PSI air hose. Tell the clerk you are going to use oxygen in the > hose. > Assemble the parts by screwing the Compression > fitting into the 1/4" Barb X 1/8" Male NPT fitting. Do not worry, > only one end of the Compression fitting is compatible with the Barb > fitting. Next, insert the barb end of this fitting assemby into the > air hose. Push the hose on until it is jam against the shoulder of > the fitting. Any small, screw or compression-type clamp may be used > to add security to the hose/fitting end. Next, insert the barb end of > the Oxygen fitting into the remaining hose end and secure with any > satisfactory clamp. Your assembly is now complete. Next, carefully > screw the exposed male end of the Compression fitting into the bottom > of the air-brush pressure regulator. Now connect the small-diameter > air-line between the air-brush assembly and the pressure regulator (it > is fool-proof, as there is nowhere else this tiny hose can connect). > Select the small fluid-supply bottle and fill > approximately 75-80% of capacity with 5-10 ppm Colloidal Silver and > insert the angled tip assembly into the bottom of the air-brush > assembly. You are now ready to connect to your O2 supply and operate. > Obtain a small medical O2 bottle (anywhere around 1/2 > to 1 cubic feet capacity) or any size O2 Arc welding system bottle. > Be sure to have a Two-stage regulator attached to the O2 bottle. Now, > connect the 9/16" Oxygen-fitting to the O2 outlet from the Two-stage > regulator (also foo-proof, as there is nowhere else to connect). Now > SLOWLY open the O2 control knob on the O2 regulator and set the inlet > prssure to your nebulizer assembly to a Maximum of 35 Pounds Per > Square Inch (PSI). Next, screw the AIR-BRUSH air pressure > regulator control knob (the tiny knob on top of the air pressure > regulator) all the way closed.. Now, open the control knob about 2 > and one-half turns. Next, trigger the control botton on the > Air-brush head until you see a fine fog each time you press down on > the > button. The mist is so fine, you may have to hold it against a dark > back ground to see it. You are now ready to go. > Our best results were obtained by the volunteer inserting > the discharge nozzle about 1 inch inside their OPEN mouth and > breathing deep---an long---on each inhalation; holding the breath for > a count of 3 or 4 and then executing a complete exhalation. Ideally, > there should be about 1/4" circular clearance around the air-brush > head (while inside the mouth), as this provides the optimum venturi > action for incorporating air with the O2. In acute circumstances, the > volunteer can close his/her mouth completely around the nozzle and > breathe 100% O2------works great. > Remember NEVER USE PURE OXYGEN NEAR OPEN FLAMES OR > COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS. To do so would make this protocol quite > irrelevant. > Good luck to all, and if you have any questions just post > them and I will try to answer. Sincerely. Brooks Bradley. p.s. > Any serviceable air-brush assembly could be used. However, try to > obtain one that will yield the smallest size particle possible. > > > ***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, youmay 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 > desireable 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 nebuliser > > 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 mucosa-ladened barrier), we had > only limited success. > Assuming you successfully generated a CS x pathogen > interface, I am deeply puzzeled 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 aribrush 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 physcians had openly resigned themselves to his > immediate demise). > The rapid onset of pus and mucosa-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.. > > > > -- > 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] > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** >
