Please explain difference in salt sprays
Question:
Edward J. Mathes (emat…@servtech.com) wrote: : Rick Ellis wrote:
: > : > In article <32c708ef.39013…@news.navix.net>, : > >>Can you cite some published studies confirming this? I’m a bit leary of : > >>advise to use a device from someone that profits from selling the device and : > >>for that matter has the ego to name it after himself. : > : It is common practice in medicine and many other professions to name : devices after the "inventor". Many devices are known by their "Name" : rather than there "designation". The Crile clamp or the DeBakey : forcepts, Mayo scissors, Wilson stent, Foley catheter, etc. Actually, Swan and Ganz called it a Pulmonary Artery Flotation Catheter – everybody else dubbed it a Swan-Ganz catheter. Ditto all the rest. — Craig Werner, MD/Ph.D cwer…@dorsai.ORG (Yes, THAT Craig Werner!, formerly – very formerly – wer…@aecom.YU.EDU)
Response:
Edward J. Mathes (emat…@servtech.com) wrote: : Rick Ellis wrote:
: > : It is common practice in medicine and many other professions to name : devices after the "inventor". Many devices are known by their "Name" Some years ago, a Dr. Martinez had a letter published in JAMA in which he described a procedure in which every manuever and every instrument was identified by its’ eponym. It was quite funny after some time. In the end, his comment addressed the proliferation of Eponyms in medicine, particularly in surgery. He then proposed that this phenonemon be dubbed the "Martinez effect." — Craig Werner, MD/Ph.D cwer…@dorsai.ORG (Yes, THAT Craig Werner!, formerly – very formerly – wer…@aecom.YU.EDU)
Response:
Rick Ellis wrote: > In article <32c708ef.39013…@news.navix.net>, > >>Can you cite some published studies confirming this? I’m a bit leary of > >>advise to use a device from someone that profits from selling the device and > >>for that matter has the ego to name it after himself.
AN interesting position to take. Do you have the same misgivings when buying a Curtis Mathes TV, or a Ford for that matter? It is common practice in medicine and many other professions to name devices after the "inventor". Many devices are known by their "Name" rather than there "designation". The Crile clamp or the DeBakey forcepts, Mayo scissors, Wilson stent, Foley catheter, etc. As for profits….why shouldn’t an inventor profit from the invention? I had an interesting experience a few years ago when Percutaneous Gastrostomies were first introduced. I designed a two-lumen tube that could be placed percutaneously (using Seldinger technique…whoops, there I go again, name dropping) and allow simultaneous stomach decompression whilst feeding via the duodenum. I designed it, paid for the first few devices to be manufactured, started the patent process, and, after a few-thousand dollar investment was approached by a big-name catheter company (at the time)for a buy out. Their offer…the Mathes Percutaneous Gastro-duodenal Intubation Kit or 1/10 of 1% of the profits from sales for the first 2 years….the"life" of a product such as mine at that time. Being a bit greedy, I took the $$$ and let them name the tube whatever they wanted. Total return to me…nada, zip, zero. Seems the day after I signed contracts…remember trials haden’t been done yet and the FDA approval process was guestimated to start in a few months time….a different company brought out a similar tube…market advantage was lost and so was my idea. Oh well, fame and fortune must wait I guess. Would I do it again…you betcha! And I’d promote the hell out of it at every possible opportunity. So what I’m a mercenary…so is Bill Gates and and anyone else who seizes the opportunity for a bit of financial independance. — ================================================================= Edward J. Mathes, RPA-C ! "The greatest derangement of the mind Family Practice ! is to believe in something because emat…@servtech.com ! one wishes it" L. Pasteur 1876
Response:
In article <32c708ef.39013…@news.navix.net>, Antique Books <Margie Krick> wrote: >>Can you cite some published studies confirming this? I’m a bit leary of >>advise to use a device from someone that profits from selling the device and >>for that matter has the ego to name it after himself. >Why would you want to state this especially in this fashon, unless you >are jealous or just one of those that like to start trouble. Get along >now!
Jealous? No, I just don’t trust MDs promoting their medical devices for their own profit. Especially when they make statements of "scientific fact" with out backing up what they say. For that matter does this device have FDA approval?
Response:
MSpec56301 wrote: > It should be pointed out here that Murray Grossan is the manufacturer >of the nasal irrigation device for the Water-Pik. So one whould be >aware that what you are reading is an advertisement, not an unbiased >professional opinion.
It’s not as though he’s trying to hide the fact that he’s selling the product, after all, he did name it after himself. That’s about as up front as he can get. Beth C.
Response:
This is writing in a newsgroup, but why should I explaination that. Just as it is obvious what you stated. People can see the difference without someone telling them this. This is an ad or this is not an ad? Like you might be trying to influence something. Hey everybody, this is an ad. I was downtown yesterday and told everybody at the gas station this is commercial and their sign is an ad, but the house next to it is not an ad. That is what it sounds like to me when I see this kind of follow up posting. On 25 Dec 1996 20:26:28 GMT, mspec56…@aol.com (MSpec56301) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It should be pointed out here that Murray Grossan is the manufacturer of >the nasal irrigation device for the Water-Pik. So one whould be aware that >what you are reading is an advertisement, not an unbiased professional >opinion. He certainly stands to gain financially from more people buying >that device. >I’m not saying that it’s not a good device, or that there’s no truth in >what he says, only that people should be aware when what they are reading >is an ad, not an unbiased opinion. His Web page ENT-Consult.com is also >primarily an ad for this device.
Response:
On 25 Dec 1996 08:54:55 GMT, el…@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote: >In article <19961225041600.XAA24…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, >MurrayG508 <murrayg…@aol.com> wrote: >>When you use the Water Pik with the special nasal attatchment you >>pulse the nasal skin which contains millions of cilia or tiny hairs. This >>encourages the cilia to return to normal which is 16 beats per second. >Can you cite some published studies confirming this? I’m a bit leary of >advise to use a device from someone that profits from selling the device and >for that matter has the ego to name it after himself.
Why would you want to state this especially in this fashon, unless you are jealous or just one of those that like to start trouble. Get along now! Sincerely; Margie Http://www.alice.net/rarebooks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The tail of the cat is stepped on, the other end yells. Bernard Jensen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response:
It should be pointed out here that Murray Grossan is the manufacturer of the nasal irrigation device for the Water-Pik. So one whould be aware that what you are reading is an advertisement, not an unbiased professional opinion. He certainly stands to gain financially from more people buying that device. I’m not saying that it’s not a good device, or that there’s no truth in what he says, only that people should be aware when what they are reading is an ad, not an unbiased opinion. His Web page ENT-Consult.com is also primarily an ad for this device.
Response:
I’m wondering what the difference is between OTC saline nasal sprays and the Water Pik attachment? Can someone please explain? Thank you, Dennis Trauffer
Response:
In article <19961225041600.XAA24…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, MurrayG508 <murrayg…@aol.com> wrote: >When you use the Water Pik with the special nasal attatchment you >pulse the nasal skin which contains millions of cilia or tiny hairs. This >encourages the cilia to return to normal which is 16 beats per second.
Can you cite some published studies confirming this? I’m a bit leary of advise to use a device from someone that profits from selling the device and for that matter has the ego to name it after himself.
Response:
Regular saline is good for the nose. All scientific studies have shown this. When you use the Water Pik with the special nasal attatchment you pulse the nasal skin which contains millions of cilia or tiny hairs. This encourages the cilia to return to normal which is 16 beats per second. The pulsation is also very effective in removing thick mucus and crusts. It also encourages circulation to the area. Many of the problems discussed in this group relate to the fact that the cilia, which is the natural defense of the body, have not yet returned to normal. This is why so many people benefit by its use. There are more than 20 medical articles recommending this use in sinusitis, post nasal drip, etc. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, etc recommend this as does Ivker in Sinus Survival Murray Grossan, M.D. articles and information at http://www.ent-consult.com There are other methods that encourage cilia listed there.
Response:
One person had sinus infection for 30 years, using everything on the shelves with only some temporary relief. He tried using salt water in a nose drop bottle (three applications) for three days. His sinus cleared up and has never bothered him since. He uses the salt water every three weeks to keep in check from just the dust and other debris from the everyday air. I have been using a empty nasal bottle filled with salt water for years now and many others that I have told about my experiences. They still thank me for telling them about putting plain salt water in a empty nose drop bottle, even to this day they are still thanking me. I have tried strained herb teas and raw strained lemon juice too. For me, they all work about the same, but for others, they like this herb tea or that. One swears by sage tea and has used it for years. I seen a doctor book talk about cammomile tea for the sinus infections or golden seal for serious infections. I am sure there is more, but I haven’t checked into it because the salt water or camomile tea works fine for me. I ran across a product on a newsgroup that attaches to a water pik called Grossan Sinus Irrigator so I sent off for it. Tried it out and I like it so well, I threw the painful nose drops way away forever. I have had this contraption for a couple weeks now and I still look at the idea as a treasure. This sinus irrigation is nothing new. I have antique doctor books with illustrations and exploitations, directions for using gravity feed simple devices (looks like you can make yourself). I have seen it in the books but haven’t read about that either. One gal has refused to use the salt water, opting to stay with what is available on the shelves. She is in her late seventies and had to check in a hosp. and get it debris dug out of her sinuses thru some sort of operation. This tells me that anyone with a long standing infection may or may not go thru some sort of healing crises along with this kind of remedies. These are my experiences, hope this helps with your decision. Sincerely; Margie Http://www.alice.net/rarebooks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The tail of the cat is stepped on, the other end yells. Bernard Jensen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:24:08 GMT, de…@lakeozark.net wrote: >I’m wondering what the difference is between OTC saline nasal sprays and >the Water Pik attachment? Can someone please explain? >Thank you, >Dennis Trauffer
Response:
Filed under: Nasal irrigation
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.