Re: ozone concentrations

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I don't know if there is any point in answering your

reply, since you seem to have missed most of things

I have said, but I will try one more time.

The market for ozone generators mostly consists of people who

are sick, many terminally so, and who are technically

unsophisticated. You may not agree for yourself, but I am

in this business for 11 years, and I have talked to thousands

of people, and I KNOW this to be true.

Therefore, it is important that equipment be simple and

foolproof, and above all, SAFE, no matter what operator errors

are made.

To fulfill these requirements, we:

1) Have one standard accessories kit and one standard asthma

kit, that come with every generator, so there are no choices

to be made, by customers who have no idea what they need

2) Do not put concentration attenuators on our generators,

although we are perfectly capable of doing so, as we did for

a number of doctors after our 1994 world symposium.

3) Manufacture generators that cannot exceed 80 ug/ml, which was established

as the safe limit for internal use of ozone by Dr. Greenburg's research in

Germany ten years ago.

The first rule of medicine is DO NO HARM.

Generators that can put out 120 - 150 ug/ml of ozone potentially

violate this rule, as errors in setting the attenuator can result

in damage to tissue. This is irresponsibility on the part of the

manufacturers, and a disregarding of client safety.

The number of questions I receive about setting of the attenuator

on corona discharge machines proves that people do NOT know where

they need to be, and the potential for harm DOES exist with these

super-powerful corona generators.

Regardless of your attitude, MORE IS NOT BETTER where concentration

is involved. Immune suppression begins after 65 ug/ml with internal

use. This is not desirable.

And external use, and water and oil production, DO NOT need these

concentrations either. They work perfectly well at 50 ug/ml.

Best of health!

Dr. Saul Pressman, DCh, LTOH

http://www.plasmafire.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: oxyplus

To: oxyplus

Subject: Re: ozone and HBOT questions (purchase info, comparison

of the 2.)

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:27:27 -0700

Saul, thanks for responding.

>Dear , You say that Plasmafire generators have limited

>output and lack control of concentration. Those are not

>necessarily drawbacks for the consumer market.

For the more discerning consumer they are.

>At least once a month I get an email from people with a corona

>discharge generator wondering what setting to put it on for a

>particular protocol. This confusion can lead to problems.

I am sure you run into the same kind of beginner questions

with your cold plasma units about where to set the flow rate.

>And secondly, no matter what, our Plasmafire generators always

>deliver a safe level of ozone, within the therapeutic window

>(20 - 70 ug/ml).

I believe the window for maximum therapeutic benefit goes

closer to 80 gamma.

>The latest generators from Ozone Services provide a

>whopping 154 ug/ml (154 gamma) and Longevity's are

>at 120 ug/ml (120 gamma) which are completely unsafe

>levels for the general public to have (not to mention being

>hugely immune suppressive),

So are direct iv injections if not done correctly. According

to some, this is the case no matter how carefully they are

done.

>When so many people have trouble understanding where

>to set the output level.

I would tend to think that people who buy medical ozone

generators are people who can think for themselves and

who are ready and able to take responsibility for their own

health. With regards to those few for whom this is not

possible, I still prefer they not dictate my choices.

>In my opinion it is irresponsible to be selling these

>generators to the public.

The same argument is being used in support of banning various

supplements and alternative therapies.

>They are playing on the American penchant for 'more is better'

>but forgetting that with ozone, that is NOT true.

I doubt this is what is happening. For ozonating water and oils

higher concentrations are only practical and beneficial. The same

goes for bagging and funneling and my guess saunas as well.

Your models also lack the ability to set the ozone output directly.

Without this function it is not possible to have higher concentrations

at faster flow rates (or lower at slower) which can be an advantage

in several ways. I have been told it also allows for more accurate

dosing.

>These overly-powerful generators belong in laboratories and the

>hands of doctors, not people in their own homes.

Yet, I am sure you agree our health is something that should

be re-claimed through self-empowerment and that it is best not

surrendered to experts and specialists.

_________________________________________________________________

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Hello Saul,

> 2) Do not put concentration attenuators on our generators,

> although we are perfectly capable of doing so, as we did for

> a number of doctors after our 1994 world symposium.

Could you kindly comment further on why you do not use

attenuators? What is the disadvantage of them?

thanks,

Moria

[Guest guest]

Dear Moria,

A variac (variable AC controller) costs about $100, which

is a significant portion of the cost of all parts. Therefore,

adding it to the generator would increase the price. I saw

no reason to do this over the last 11 years, and see none now.

A further cost would be the time that it would take to do an

extensive calibration sheet, rather than just the 6 tests we

do now. Testing at the low flow rates is a very time-consuming

job, because of the long path length inherent in cold plasma generators.

That means that it takes a long time for 'new'

ozone to get from one end of the generator to the other, so

that the tester can register it. In the meantime you have to

wait.

If people want it, and are willing to pay more, we could always

add it. It has been our experience that people do not see any

benefit, and merely find it confusing to have to look up 'where

the knob should be' every time they go to use their generator.

I know this has been the case with competitor generators,

because this has been one of the most frequently asked questions

on my ozonetherapy list.

So the trade-off: small benefit for potential confusion.

I vote for simplicity and lower cost.

The unstated question underlying this whole issue is this:

Why are corona discharge manufacturers pushing the output of

their generators so high now that they are risking the health

of their clients? (concentrations above 70 ug/ml are known to

be immune suppressive).

The answer is: they are trying to match the concentration at

1/2 l/m that we can achieve with our long path cold plasma

generators. With our Tesla cold plasma design, we have a 56 "

path length in our Alpha generator. This enables us to

have an output concnetration at 1/2 l/m that is 40ug/ml, which

is ideal for the ozone sauna, the most powerful healing tool ever devised.

And still, the maximum output at 1/32 l/m is at a safe 65 ug/ml.

Corona discharge generators typically have a 5 " tube. With a tube

that short, the current has to be high to change oxygen into ozone.

To get 40 ug/ml concentration of ozone from such a short tube, they need to

crank up the current even higher. This results in extemely

high concentrations at the low flow rates, which is where they get

into potential problems. So they need to have an attenuator to turn down the

current to avoid excessive concentrations.

Also, the higher the current, the more susceptibility to burnout. We are

seeing increasing numbers of corona discharge generators coming

to us for trade-in that are burnt out. This is non-warranty, and the

people are left with a bad taste in their mouth when their manufacturer

will do nothing for them.

Best of Health!

Dr. Saul Pressman, DCh, LTOH

http://www.plasmafire.com

--------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: oxyplus

To: oxyplus

Subject: Re: ozone concentrations

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:14:21 -0000

Hello Saul,

> 2) Do not put concentration attenuators on our generators,

> although we are perfectly capable of doing so, as we did for

> a number of doctors after our 1994 world symposium.

Could you kindly comment further on why you do not use

attenuators? What is the disadvantage of them?

thanks,

Moria

_________________________________________________________________

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Saul:

>I don't know if there is any point in answering your reply,

Of course you do. We are learning and growing together.

Saul:

>since you seem to have missed most of things I have said,

>but I will try one more time.

I know I am not alone in appreciating all the work and effort

you have put into sharing of your extensive experience with

ozone therapies over the years, but please respect my

right to ask questions and have a perspective that might

be a little different than yours.

Saul:

>The market for ozone generators mostly consists of people

>who are sick, many terminally so, and who are technically

>unsophisticated.

Are you implying that the technically challenged get sick

more often? Hardly being what you would call technically

sophisticated myself, this would be of a concern to me. ;-)

Saul:

>You may not agree for yourself,

Exactly. As an end user some of my concerns are

different than those of a manufacturer like yourself.

..

Saul:

>but I am in this business for 11 years, and I have talked

>to thousands of people, and I KNOW this to be true.

>Therefore, it is important that equipment be simple and

>foolproof, and above all, SAFE, no matter what operator

>errors are made.

I do respect your concerns but I cannot help but wonder

what we are actually talking about? Do we know,

approximately, how many people have been hurt by

operator errors over the years and exactly what kind of harm

has occurred?

Saul:

>fulfill these requirements, we:

>1) Have one standard accessories kit and one standard asthma

>kit, that come with every generator, so there are no choices

>to be made, by customers who have no idea what they need

>2) Do not put concentration attenuators on our generators,

>although we are perfectly capable of doing so, as we did for

>a number of doctors after our 1994 world symposium.

>3) Manufacture generators that cannot exceed 80 ug/ml, which

>was established as the safe limit for internal use of ozone by

>Dr. Greenburg's research in Germany ten years ago.

I do not think that anybody is advocating exceeding 80 gamma.

for internal applications. Still, I would think that potential

overdosing could be an issue at almost any concentration or

application.

Saul:

>The first rule of medicine is DO NO HARM.

>Generators that can put out 120 - 150 ug/ml of ozone potentially

>violate this rule, as errors in setting the attenuator can result

>in damage to tissue. This is irresponsibility on the part of the

>manufacturers, and a disregarding of client safety.

Naturally, the risk of damage increases the higher the concentration.

I do not think that anyone disputes this, not even the manufacturers

of these units, yet, I would be curious to hear their response

to the issues that you have raised. For the sake of balance I will

add that I would be surprised if they were not equally concerned

about safety but maybe just disagreed with you. The issue of direct

iv injections that I touched upon in my previous email could be a

case in point.

Saul:

>The number of questions I receive about setting of the

>attenuator on corona discharge machines proves that

>people do NOT know where they need to be, and the

>potential for harm DOES exist with these super-powerful

>corona generators.

There is obviously a need for more education and certainly

there is a potential for harm. The question is how much

is risked and how much is gained with the higher concentration

units that your competition is putting out.

Saul:

>Regardless of your attitude,

Difference of opinion maybe, but hopefully no attitude.

Saul:

>MORE IS NOT BETTER where concentration is involved.

>Immune suppression begins after 65 ug/ml with internal use.

>This is not desirable.

I believe that Bocci's figure is closer to 80 gamma for maximum

immune enhancement before immune suppression kicks in.

Saul:

>And external use, and water and oil production, DO NOT need

>these concentrations either. They work perfectly well at 50 ug/ml.

If you mean " do not need " as in " is possible without " or as in

" getting by " my guess is that you are probably right in most

instances.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I am glad that you are learning in this exchange.

You wrote:

" Are you implying that the technically challenged get sick

more often? "

Of course not. I am saying that sick people have a hard time

understanding compicated things. People with systemic candidiasis

and brain fog have the hardest time. Even face to face, I have had

many of these unfortunate souls not be able to understand the sequence:

1) turn on the tank valve

2) set the regulator to 1/32 l/m

3) attach and insert the catheter

4) turn on the generator

Seems simple. But not with brain fog.

Now throw in another instruction: " Set the indicator dial to 5 " .

If they miss that one, and have it on " 10 " , then they are now insufflating

at 150 ug/ml!

There were three cases of colon perforation in Vancouver in the

mid-90s caused by high concentrations and the 'more is better'

attitude. These necessitated bowel resectioning, which is major

surgery. Bad news.

So this is not an area where laissez-faire attitudes should be

tolerated. This is not a question of different persepctive.

First do NO harm.

You wrote:

" I do not think that anybody is advocating exceeding 80 gamma.

for internal applications. "

Advocating is not the issue. INADVERTENTLY administering is the

concern.

You wrote:

" I would think that potential overdosing could be an issue at almost any

concentration or application. "

You are dead wrong here. It is high concentration that produces the

risk, not length of time.

You wrote:

" Naturally, the risk of damage increases the higher the concentration. "

So you see my point.

You wrote:

" ...certainly there is a potential for harm. The question is how

much is risked and how much is gained with the higher concentration... "

The answer is: more is risked than is necessary and nothing is gained.

Ozone therapy has done very nicely for 125 years without superpower

generators.

YOU may want a generator that produces 500 ug/ml. That is your

prerogative. However, it would the height of folly for a manufacturer

to sell that machine to the general public.

There is no government regulation of the strength of ozone generators

offered to the public, generally labelled as water purifiers. But watch how

quickly the 'guardians of the public' get on the " banned " wagon and slam

through legislation if they hear of just one person perforating their colon

with a high output machine. This is like poking the tiger.

It is stupid and there is no need for it.

You wrote:

" I believe that Bocci's figure is closer to 80 gamma for maximum

immune enhancement before immune suppression kicks in. "

You believe wrong. Get a copy of Rilling and Viebahn's " The Use of Ozone in

Medicine " which publishes Bocci's chart on the production of

gamma interferon in the body, one of the best immune system markers.

It rises from 20 ug/ml, up until the peak of the graph at 55 ug/ml

and it falls off sharply beyond that.

From " The Story of Ozone: " Dr. Greenberg, formerly of the Kief Clinic, has

shown, in vitro, that at concentrations of 90 ug/ml there was crimping of

red blood cells which was definitely harmful. Experiments by F. Sweet et al,

have shown inhibition of growth in healthy cells at concentrations above 70

ug/ml. "

That is far, far below 120 or 150 ug/ml !!!

Best of Health!

Dr. Saul Pressman, DCh, LTOH

http://www.plasmafire.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: oxyplus

To: oxyplus

Subject: Re: ozone concentrations

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:17:31 -0700

Saul:

>I don't know if there is any point in answering your reply,

Of course you do. We are learning and growing together.

Saul:

>since you seem to have missed most of things I have said,

>but I will try one more time.

I know I am not alone in appreciating all the work and effort

you have put into sharing of your extensive experience with

ozone therapies over the years, but please respect my

right to ask questions and have a perspective that might

be a little different than yours.

Saul:

>The market for ozone generators mostly consists of people

>who are sick, many terminally so, and who are technically

>unsophisticated.

Are you implying that the technically challenged get sick

more often? Hardly being what you would call technically

sophisticated myself, this would be of a concern to me. ;-)

Saul:

>You may not agree for yourself,

Exactly. As an end user some of my concerns are

different than those of a manufacturer like yourself.

..

Saul:

>but I am in this business for 11 years, and I have talked

>to thousands of people, and I KNOW this to be true.

>Therefore, it is important that equipment be simple and

>foolproof, and above all, SAFE, no matter what operator

>errors are made.

I do respect your concerns but I cannot help but wonder

what we are actually talking about? Do we know,

approximately, how many people have been hurt by

operator errors over the years and exactly what kind of harm

has occurred?

Saul:

>fulfill these requirements, we:

>1) Have one standard accessories kit and one standard asthma

>kit, that come with every generator, so there are no choices

>to be made, by customers who have no idea what they need

>2) Do not put concentration attenuators on our generators,

>although we are perfectly capable of doing so, as we did for

>a number of doctors after our 1994 world symposium.

>3) Manufacture generators that cannot exceed 80 ug/ml, which

>was established as the safe limit for internal use of ozone by

>Dr. Greenburg's research in Germany ten years ago.

I do not think that anybody is advocating exceeding 80 gamma.

for internal applications. Still, I would think that potential

overdosing could be an issue at almost any concentration or

application.

Saul:

>The first rule of medicine is DO NO HARM.

>Generators that can put out 120 - 150 ug/ml of ozone potentially

>violate this rule, as errors in setting the attenuator can result

>in damage to tissue. This is irresponsibility on the part of the

>manufacturers, and a disregarding of client safety.

Naturally, the risk of damage increases the higher the concentration.

I do not think that anyone disputes this, not even the manufacturers

of these units, yet, I would be curious to hear their response

to the issues that you have raised. For the sake of balance I will

add that I would be surprised if they were not equally concerned

about safety but maybe just disagreed with you. The issue of direct

iv injections that I touched upon in my previous email could be a

case in point.

Saul:

>The number of questions I receive about setting of the

>attenuator on corona discharge machines proves that

>people do NOT know where they need to be, and the

>potential for harm DOES exist with these super-powerful

>corona generators.

There is obviously a need for more education and certainly

there is a potential for harm. The question is how much

is risked and how much is gained with the higher concentration

units that your competition is putting out.

Saul:

>Regardless of your attitude,

Difference of opinion maybe, but hopefully no attitude.

Saul:

>MORE IS NOT BETTER where concentration is involved.

>Immune suppression begins after 65 ug/ml with internal use.

>This is not desirable.

I believe that Bocci's figure is closer to 80 gamma for maximum

immune enhancement before immune suppression kicks in.

Saul:

>And external use, and water and oil production, DO NOT need

>these concentrations either. They work perfectly well at 50 ug/ml.

If you mean " do not need " as in " is possible without " or as in

" getting by " my guess is that you are probably right in most

instances.

_________________________________________________________________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

Thanks and Saul and and Fred. This has been a very educational

discussion for me. I am learning alot and enjoying it.

Donna

Re: Re: ozone concentrations

I'd like to share my experience here. I consider myself an above average

intelligent person based on numerous tests. Not only that, but I'm a fairly

technical type. I just purchased a medical grade ozone generator (although a

cheapy) to do therapy with. My generator has four concentration settings. I have

been having some rather annoying neurological symptoms for the past 5 years that

definitely impair my cognitive function. One of the things stated in the manual

is to make sure the oxygen is turned on before the generator. Pretty simple huh?

Well, twice I have forgotten to do this. Luckily I caught it fairly quickly or I

may have burned the generator out. Also, I have set the ozone concentration to

the wrong setting a few times. Luckily, that happened when I was ozonating water

so no harm done. But had I been doing rectal or ear insufflations I apparently

could have done some damage. After reading the charts for ozone concentration

and oxygen flow rate for different therapies, I realized that the multiple

settings were really not necessary and were I to buy another generator I

wouldn't spend the extra money on an adjustable generator as long as it fell

within acceptable concentrations. Plus I like the safety feature. My $.02

[Guest guest]

Saul:

>Dear , I am glad that you are learning in

>this exchange.

I hope I am not the only one.

:

>> " Are you implying that the technically challenged

>>get sick more often? "

Saul:

>Of course not.

I am relieved.

Saul:

>I am saying that sick people have a hard time

>understanding compicated things.

Are you ok, Saul? ;-)

Saul:

>People with systemic candidiasis and brain fog have

>the hardest time. Even face to face, I have had many

>of these unfortunate souls not be able to understand

>the sequence: Seems simple. But not with brain fog.

>Now throw in another instruction: " Set the indicator

>dial to 5 " .If they miss that one, and have it on " 10 " ,

>then they are now insufflating at 150 ug/ml!

Clearly, people who function so poorly need to be

carefully monitored.

Saul:

>There were three cases of colon perforation in Vancouver

>in the mid-90s caused by high concentrations and the '

>more is better' attitude. These necessitated bowel

>resectioning, which is major surgery. Bad news.

That is terrible.

Saul:

>So this is not an area where laissez-faire attitudes

>should be tolerated.

I do not see the issue as clean-cut.

Saul:

>This is not a question of different persepctive.

>First do NO harm.

I disagree. Almost anything " good " is dose dependent

and can be " bad " or dangerous if applied incorrectly.

I would not want any limitation or legislation that would

limit my access because accidents or misuse happen.

:

>> " I would think that potential overdosing could be an issue

>>at almost any concentration or application. "

Saul:

>You are dead wrong here. It is high concentration that

>produces the risk, not length of time.

I am trying to understand. For internal applications are

you saying it is not possible to cause any immune

suppression or damage as long as you stay under 70

or 80 gamma?

>> " Naturally, the risk of damage increases the higher the

>>concentration. "

Saul:

>So you see my point.

Of course.

:

>> " ...certainly there is a potential for harm. The question is

>>how much is risked and how much is gained with the

>>higher concentration... "

Saul:

>The answer is: more is risked than is necessary and

>nothing is gained.

When it comes to external applications I am not convinced.

Saul:

>Ozone therapy has done very nicely for 125 years without

>superpower generators.

Interesting. Limitations in technology might have played

a part in this.

Saul:

>YOU may want a generator that produces 500 ug/ml. That is

>your prerogative.

I will be first in line. ;-)

Saul:

>However, it would the height of folly for a manufacturer to

>sell that machine to the general public.

Even though I do not necessarily agree, you do argue

convincingly for this position.

Saul:

>There is no government regulation of the strength of

>ozone generators offered to the public, generally labelled

>as water purifiers. But watch how quickly the 'guardians

>of the public' get on the " banned " wagon and slam through

>legislation if they hear of just one person perforating their

>colon with a high output machine. This is like poking the

>tiger. It is stupid and there is no need for it.

A valid concern.

:

>> " I believe that Bocci's figure is closer to 80 gamma for

>>maximum immune enhancement before immune

>>suppression kicks in. "

Saul:

>You believe wrong. Get a copy of Rilling and Viebahn's

> " The Use of Ozone in Medicine " which publishes Bocci's

>chart on the production of gamma interferon in the body,

>one of the best immune system markers.

>It rises from 20 ug/ml, up until the peak of the graph

>at 55 ug/ml and it falls off sharply beyond that.

I just looked up a paper that Bocci published in 1994

where he finds that the overall level of beneficial cytokines

increase up to 78 gamma (78ug/ml). I am assuming

this information can be found as well in Bocci's book:

" Oxygen-Ozone Therapy: A critical Evaluation " .

Saul:

>From " The Story of Ozone: " Dr. Greenberg, formerly of the

>Kief Clinic, has shown, in vitro, that at concentrations of

>90 ug/ml there was crimping of red blood cells which was

>definitely harmful.

On this Greenberg is in line with Bocci's findings.

Saul:

>Experiments by F. Sweet et al, have shown inhibition of

>growth in healthy cells at concentrations above 70 ug/ml. "

Not to split hairs but Bocci has found this to happen at

78 gamma and as it appears, Greenberg at 80 gamma.

..

Saul:

>That is far, far below 120 or 150 ug/ml !!!

Yes, anybody doing ozone internally should take note of this.

[Guest guest]

Brandt <nourish@i...> wrote:

> Saul:

> >I am saying that sick people have a hard time

> >understanding compicated things.

>

> Are you ok, Saul? ;-)

Smiley or not, your insulting Saul does not help matters.

> Saul:

> >People with systemic candidiasis and brain fog have

> >the hardest time. Even face to face, I have had many

> >of these unfortunate souls not be able to understand

> >the sequence: Seems simple. But not with brain fog.

> >Now throw in another instruction: " Set the indicator

> >dial to 5 " .If they miss that one, and have it on " 10 " ,

> >then they are now insufflating at 150 ug/ml!

>

> Clearly, people who function so poorly need to be

> carefully monitored.

Who is to do this 'careful monitoring'?

I see two choices for people who have health problems

that conventional medicine cannot cure:

1) let these people self-treat using alternative medicine

(and make it as safe as possible for them to do so)

2) prevent them from self-treating, and let them suffer and die

> Saul:

> >This is not a question of different persepctive.

> >First do NO harm.

>

> I disagree. Almost anything " good " is dose dependent

> and can be " bad " or dangerous if applied incorrectly.

Try to keep in mind that in today's litigious climate,

if someone hurts themselves using one of Saul's generators,

then Saul, as the manufacturer, could get sued.

It is quite easy for you to disagree with " first do no harm "

since it is *not* your livelihood and life savings on the line.

> I would not want any limitation or legislation that would

> limit my access because accidents or misuse happen.

Your wants are irrelevant. The government will do whatever it wants.

Try to understand Saul's side of this - if the government

decides to step in and legislate, Saul loses his livelihood.

Whereas you keep on using your ozone generator, unaffected

by whatever the government is doing to the manufacturers.

Unaffected, of course, until your ozone generator breaks,

and you can't buy a replacement.

[Guest guest]

Hello and Saul and others,

<Saul said:>

> >Dear , I am glad that you are learning in

> >this exchange.

< said:>

> I hope I am not the only one.

no you aren't! :] I'm learning too!

<Saul said:>

> Saul:

> >This is not a question of different persepctive.

> >First do NO harm.

> Saul:

> >YOU may want a generator that produces 500 ug/ml. That is

> >your prerogative.

>

> I will be first in line. ;-)

I think I started this thread, and at this point I thought

I'd give my 2 cents, to say that I would personally prefer

the " more foolproof " method unless the amount of time/inconvenience

for " external " uses is a LOT more (which I don't know).

I'm clumsy enough and forgetful enough to appreciate safety

factors, big time. I don't think " smart " or even

" sophisticated " come into it, for me. I guess I'm saying

I tend to share Saul's assessment on this particular issue.

Not that that means others have to have the same assessment

IMO.

> Saul:

> >There is no government regulation of the strength of

> >ozone generators offered to the public, generally labelled

> >as water purifiers. But watch how quickly the 'guardians

> >of the public' get on the " banned " wagon and slam through

> >legislation if they hear of just one person perforating their

> >colon with a high output machine. This is like poking the

> >tiger. It is stupid and there is no need for it.

>

:

> A valid concern.

well, I don't know if this is a good correlary, or even

interesting, but on another list, I am participating in a

discussion of home-build HBOT (mild) chambers. I have written

in many questions about how to build one, and about safety.

Some people seem to find the whole idea pretty horrific.

Several concerns have been raised, one of them being

that if someone gets hurt, the whole movement/treatment-method

may get " set back " as a result. Probably quite possible,

but it doesn't really convince me to stop considering that making

an HBOT chamber is A VALID OPTION, a possibility.

Considering it as a valid option is also leading me to think

with responsibility about what the risks are from a practical

point of view, and I believe this is also helping me to

understand the risks of HBOT ***in general***. I'm also

learning how the risks are (and are not) addressed by the

commercially available HBOT mild chambers ( " portables " ).

The discussion here is also certainly instructive regarding risks

and trade-offs. Thanks to all parties.

best,

Moria

[Guest guest]

Dear Fred,

You wrote:

" you keep on using your ozone generator, unaffected

by whatever the government is doing to the manufacturers.

Unaffected, of course, until your ozone generator breaks,

and you can't buy a replacement. "

This is a salient point. Let us not forget that the US government has jailed

every medical ozone generator manufacturer it could get its hands on. The

most recent was Ken Thiefault in Florida who got 20 years. His wife got 9

years for sewing the ozone sauna bags. So manufacturers are rightly looking

over their shoulders.

Every month I get at least one call from a person with a burned out

unit that is seeking repairs because their manufacturer has gone out

of business. We do what we can, but we are hampered by the fact that

the tube designs are proprietary and almost impossible to duplicate

without great expense.

One of the promises I made when I went into this business was that I would

honor the warranty as long as I drew breath. And I will train my

children to know what I know so that the warranty can survive me, because

the Lifetime warranty is for the machine, not the owner. If they sell it to

strangers, or will it to relatives, the warranty lives on. That policy is

possible because of the work done on the original design by Nikola Tesla 100

years ago, when he invented an inherently

stable cold plasma electrostatic generator. He did not patent it, so it

would be available for the benefit of mankind.

However, this meant that the idea was lost over time, and submerged under

the weight of FDA persecution of ozone doctors in the 1930s and 1940s,

following the AMA campaign to push out all the electrotherapies in favor of

more profitable drugs.

It was not until December of 1992, when my partner at that time and I were

shown this invention, that we were able to come up with a modernized

version, using pure oxygen as feed gas, and once again provide the public

with the benefit of Tesla's marvelous invention.

Coupled with Dr. Harvey Kellogg's technique of ozone in a personal

steam sauna, these complemenatry modalities have saved thousands of lives in

the last decade, and in the century to come, will save millions more.

Best of Health!

Dr. Saul Pressman, DCh, LTOH

http://www.plasmafire.com

_________________________________________________________________

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

How do you know when one of these generators is going bad. Obviously, when

it is broken, it does not produce ozone, but is there a way to tell if it is

going bad.? Thanks.

Flynn

1447 Peachtree St. NE

Suite 414

Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Tao400@...

Re: Re: ozone concentrations

> Dear Fred,

>

> You wrote:

> " you keep on using your ozone generator, unaffected

> by whatever the government is doing to the manufacturers.

> Unaffected, of course, until your ozone generator breaks,

> and you can't buy a replacement. "

>

> This is a salient point. Let us not forget that the US government has

jailed

> every medical ozone generator manufacturer it could get its hands on. The

> most recent was Ken Thiefault in Florida who got 20 years. His wife got 9

> years for sewing the ozone sauna bags. So manufacturers are rightly

looking

> over their shoulders.

>

> Every month I get at least one call from a person with a burned out

> unit that is seeking repairs because their manufacturer has gone out

> of business. We do what we can, but we are hampered by the fact that

> the tube designs are proprietary and almost impossible to duplicate

> without great expense.

>

> One of the promises I made when I went into this business was that I would

> honor the warranty as long as I drew breath. And I will train my

> children to know what I know so that the warranty can survive me, because

> the Lifetime warranty is for the machine, not the owner. If they sell it

to

> strangers, or will it to relatives, the warranty lives on. That policy is

> possible because of the work done on the original design by Nikola Tesla

100

> years ago, when he invented an inherently

> stable cold plasma electrostatic generator. He did not patent it, so it

> would be available for the benefit of mankind.

>

> However, this meant that the idea was lost over time, and submerged under

> the weight of FDA persecution of ozone doctors in the 1930s and 1940s,

> following the AMA campaign to push out all the electrotherapies in favor

of

> more profitable drugs.

>

> It was not until December of 1992, when my partner at that time and I were

> shown this invention, that we were able to come up with a modernized

> version, using pure oxygen as feed gas, and once again provide the public

> with the benefit of Tesla's marvelous invention.

> Coupled with Dr. Harvey Kellogg's technique of ozone in a personal

> steam sauna, these complemenatry modalities have saved thousands of lives

in

> the last decade, and in the century to come, will save millions more.

>

> Best of Health!

> Dr. Saul Pressman, DCh, LTOH

> http://www.plasmafire.com

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>

>

>

> OxyPLUS is an unmoderated e-ring dealing with oxidative therapies, and

other alternative self-help subjects.

>

> THERE IS NO MEDICAL ADVICE HERE!

>

> This list is the 1st Amendment in action. The things you will find here

are for information and research purposes only. We are people sharing

information we believe in. If you act on ideas found here, you do so at your

own risk. Self-help requires intelligence, common sense, and the ability to

take responsibility for your own actions. By joining the list you agree to

hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR yourself. Do not use any ideas found

here without consulting a medical professional, unless you are a researcher

or health care provider.

>

> You can unsubscribe via e-mail by sending A NEW e-mail to the following

address - NOT TO THE OXYPLUS LIST! -

> DO NOT USE REPLY BUTTON & DO NOT PUT THIS IN THE SUBJECT LINE or BODY of

the message! :

>

> oxyplus-unsubscribeegroups

>

> oxyplus-normalonelist - switch your subscription to normal mode.

>

>