SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

palerider · Post by **palerider** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:05 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:04 am
But I'm not sure how pointing out to some users with pink slime in their resevoir that it's actually bacteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens) is an opinion?

It's also not news, it's been discussed multiple times, as you'd know if you searched for it on the forum.

chunkyfrog · Post by **chunkyfrog** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:11 pm

"Superceded"---one of my favorite words.
Too bad so many people don't know what it means . . .

palerider · Post by **palerider** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:15 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:26 pm
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)

it's been posted repeatedly, are you unable to go back through the posts here?

Should I point out your incompetence or lazyness in that matter? would that be a personal attack?

palerider · Post by **palerider** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:16 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:11 pm
"Superceded"---one of my favorite words.
Too bad so many people don't know what it means . . .

There's mounting evidence that some people don't know a lot of things.

ChicagoGranny · Post by **ChicagoGranny** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:44 pm

The official spelling is supersede. This verb means to replace or substitute something for something else. It is a transitive verb that is used with an object.

Supersede comes from French, and then Latin before that. In both languages it is spelled with an s. However, the misspelling supercede has been recorded for multiple centuries. Because of the pervasive use of this error, supercede is listed in most dictionaries. These entries simply refer the user to the correct spelling. It is interesting to note that the error has never been adopted as an accepted alternative, which is the case with some other widespread errors.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/supersede-or-supercede/

chunkyfrog · Post by **chunkyfrog** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:49 pm

Thank you granny.
Your contribution is as welcome as . . .

jnk... · Post by **jnk...** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:55 pm

Lucyhere wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:11 am
Okay... so it's bacteria. Use a little soap, vinegar and warm water and it's gone. I reread the link you posted. Last paragraph says, "may" get rid of bacteria. I'll stick to the above. Must get out in the sunshine or I "may" get bacteria in the brain. Have a nice day everyone.

My favorite post in this thread. Says it all. And I mean that 100%!

ChicagoGranny · Post by **ChicagoGranny** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:57 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:49 pm
Thank you granny.
Your contribution is as welcome as . . .

Goofproof · Post by **Goofproof** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:01 pm

Good then Pluto is still a planet. What is taught as facts are only facts, until someone comes along and changes them to suit themselves. The bad thing both sides are paid, and probably still wrong. Jim

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:24 pm

palerider wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:02 pm

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.

Okay... so here are the articles you posted:

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5611769/
That's a 2017 retrospective study. 137 patients were swabed for infection. No significant difference was seen in the prevalence of rhinosinusitis, lower respiratory tract infections and hospital admissions for pneumonia between CPAP and non-CPAP treated patients.

The conclusion is that

Despite poor sanitation & cleaning patterns, the negligible association with increasing respiratory tract infection rates further re-affirms the safety of CPAP and humidifier use.

So I'd first say that 137 patients is not a great sample size. I do think its a reassurance that probably for most people, incomplete cleaning procedures don't cause issues. But again absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. The study does not contradict the study I linked that says bacteria can enter the tubing and lungs. Just that a subset of people they tested had no infections. I don't think anyone in that group had a humidifier infested with Serratia marcescens.

2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716664/
This is the 2013 study I assume you are referring to. It's a Prospective cohort study. 72 patients were surveyed. It's not as well done as the previous study you linked. In their conclusion they note:

Likely, the reason that our patients did not develop clinically significant disease is multifactorial and can in part probably be related to our study design and its limitations.

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16236866
This is the 2005 study that is referenced in the article I linked. It's testing radiation getting from the reservoir into the tubing (and some people here complain about my things not being relevant!). The issue the scientists from my article had with it was that

Given that only 28% of the label was detectable in the control run, the limit of detection of the assay cannot be greater than 28-fold or less than 2 orders of magnitude

So basically the control run of that test could only detect 28%... so the likelihood of testing for even smaller amounts of radiation was unlikely. Hence it's not a good indicator of whether bacteria can make it down the tubes or not.

...

Long story short... the articles you linked provide some evidence that some groups of people are okay without cleaning their CPAP all that frequently. I never contested that point anyhow. None of them, except the last from 2005, attempt to show that bacteria cannot make it out of the reservoir. And that study was contradicted in the study I posted (with actual bacteria being used, instead of radiation).

I guess you can keep calling me ignorant... but I talked about each article in detail here. You or anyone else can come to their own conclusions. For me the evidence leads to the conclusion that most people will be fine, but it's possible bacteria can get into your lungs from an infested reservoir. Do with that info what you will... but telling people they are fine if they don't care about cleaning and sanitizing isn't supported by the science in my view.

Another thing... science doesn't simply work where one study done in 2013 supersedes another done in 2005. The real world is too complex for that. Studies need to be replicated... they need to explore different avenues, and they'll often contradict. Science requires consensus.

And I'm pretty sure the current science and medical professional consensus is TO CLEAN YOUR EQUIPMENT.

HoseCrusher · Post by **HoseCrusher** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:51 pm

This is an interesting discussion...

The only way to get pathogens from the humidifier water to the mask is to aerosolize it. In theory the humidifier only evaporates the water and anything in the humidifier won't make it further upstream.

However, I have demonstrated that with a few CPAP machines aerosolization is possible. I agree that if you never have a large leak it the threat is greatly reduced and if you use lower pressures and only fill the humidifier tank to half full the risk is lowered.

I use distilled water with non iodized salt added to it. I have only tested this with the S8, S9 and Autoset A10 so it may not apply to other models. I test at a pressure of 12 which is what I use and other pressures may not apply.

Using sensitive equipment I see salt ions in the vapor from all these machines. The real question for me is if the small amount of salt ions has any possibility of being therapeutic.

As a result of my testing I would never put water from the storm water ditch in my humidifier...

Can we survive without using the SoClean? Of course we can.

The bigger question is if we should ever clean our equipment and I will let your conscience be your guide to this.

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:57 pm

HoseCrusher wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:51 pm
This is an interesting discussion...

The only way to get pathogens from the humidifier water to the mask is to aerosolize it. In theory the humidifier only evaporates the water and anything in the humidifier won't make it further upstream.

However, I have demonstrated that with a few CPAP machines aerosolization is possible. I agree that if you never have a large leak it the threat is greatly reduced and if you use lower pressures and only fill the humidifier tank to half full the risk is lowered.

I use distilled water with non iodized salt added to it. I have only tested this with the S8, S9 and Autoset A10 so it may not apply to other models. I test at a pressure of 12 which is what I use and other pressures may not apply.

Using sensitive equipment I see salt ions in the vapor from all these machines. The real question for me is if the small amount of salt ions has any possibility of being therapeutic.

As a result of my testing I would never put water from the storm water ditch in my humidifier...

Can we survive without using the SoClean? Of course we can.

The bigger question is if we should ever clean our equipment and I will let your conscience be your guide to this.

Another possibility is that the bacteria, if forming a biofilm on the tops and sides of the reservoir, might make it easier to aerosolize. I know my reservoir usually looks pretty foggy in there come the morning. The pathogens don’t need to be carried out of the water in that case at all.

palerider · Post by **palerider** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:08 pm

ChicagoGranny wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:44 pm

The official spelling is supersede. This verb means to replace or substitute something for something else. It is a transitive verb that is used with an object.

Supersede comes from French, and then Latin before that. In both languages it is spelled with an s. However, the misspelling supercede has been recorded for multiple centuries. Because of the pervasive use of this error, supercede is listed in most dictionaries. These entries simply refer the user to the correct spelling. It is interesting to note that the error has never been adopted as an accepted alternative, which is the case with some other widespread errors.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/supersede-or-supercede/

Ah... well..

Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error. -- https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/supercede

palerider · Post by **palerider** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:15 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:24 pm
And that study was contradicted in the study I posted (with actual bacteria being used, instead of radiation).

I do believe that jnk... has already adequately dealt with the credibility of your study, perhaps you can find something that's more credible to base your point of view on.

Righteous · Post by **Righteous** » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:24 pm

palerider wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:15 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:24 pm
And that study was contradicted in the study I posted (with actual bacteria being used, instead of radiation).
I do believe that jnk... has already adequately dealt with the credibility of your study, perhaps you can find something that's more credible to base your point of view on.

Can you tell me again with some details and facts why your studies are more credible than my study? I outlined, with some detailed analysis, my thoughts on the studies you posted. Please feel free to do the same. Frankly jnk pulled some words out of the study. I could do exactly the same with your studies pulling out lots of maybe and might words. But he also didn’t understand why I posted it, thinking I was doing it to support soclean, which I’m not.

So please post some detailed scientific analysis of why it’s not credible, so people here will know you are not just full of hot air.

SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Am I a largemouth bass??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??

Re: SoClean 2: Am I a sucker??