Do you use Pulmozyme?

C

cf4life

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

PARI doesn't allow med to escape... therefore you get more of the med in the lungs. This applies to HTS too. That's what I would use.



But for my HTS, I use my eFlow</end quote></div>


Do you not use the eflow for your pulmozyme?
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
No I use the eFlow for my pulmozyme as well. I use it for all my meds.

You asked me what I use for HTS, so I said eFlow <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

I figured you didn't have an eFlow, and you asked me what I would use for HTS, so that's why I replied PARI.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
No I use the eFlow for my pulmozyme as well. I use it for all my meds.

You asked me what I use for HTS, so I said eFlow <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

I figured you didn't have an eFlow, and you asked me what I would use for HTS, so that's why I replied PARI.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
No I use the eFlow for my pulmozyme as well. I use it for all my meds.

You asked me what I use for HTS, so I said eFlow <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

I figured you didn't have an eFlow, and you asked me what I would use for HTS, so that's why I replied PARI.
 
L

ladybug

New member
This is interesting, and I agree with their results. However, should we be a bit skeptical as this is posted on Pari.com? I just wonder sometimes if such studies could be skewed toward what drug manufacturers want us to see/believe in order to sell their product. Yes, I know it was done by doctors that probably don't work or have a vested interest in Pari, but I do get a bit nervous reading something posted on their website (sorry, but we had to be very analytical when looking at studies when I was studying for my BA, so I'm used to picking apart studies and statsitical analysis stuff and have learned to be a bit of a skeptic). Perhaps if it was published in the JAMA or another publication or something I wouldn't question it as much. Just my opinion though. I certainly do agree with what they're saying, however about the sidestream. I've thought of that myself when used it in the past. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> (AND, I'm actually going to send this article to the RT who has me use the sidestream... will be something for him to consider as well.)
 
L

ladybug

New member
This is interesting, and I agree with their results. However, should we be a bit skeptical as this is posted on Pari.com? I just wonder sometimes if such studies could be skewed toward what drug manufacturers want us to see/believe in order to sell their product. Yes, I know it was done by doctors that probably don't work or have a vested interest in Pari, but I do get a bit nervous reading something posted on their website (sorry, but we had to be very analytical when looking at studies when I was studying for my BA, so I'm used to picking apart studies and statsitical analysis stuff and have learned to be a bit of a skeptic). Perhaps if it was published in the JAMA or another publication or something I wouldn't question it as much. Just my opinion though. I certainly do agree with what they're saying, however about the sidestream. I've thought of that myself when used it in the past. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> (AND, I'm actually going to send this article to the RT who has me use the sidestream... will be something for him to consider as well.)
 
L

ladybug

New member
This is interesting, and I agree with their results. However, should we be a bit skeptical as this is posted on Pari.com? I just wonder sometimes if such studies could be skewed toward what drug manufacturers want us to see/believe in order to sell their product. Yes, I know it was done by doctors that probably don't work or have a vested interest in Pari, but I do get a bit nervous reading something posted on their website (sorry, but we had to be very analytical when looking at studies when I was studying for my BA, so I'm used to picking apart studies and statsitical analysis stuff and have learned to be a bit of a skeptic). Perhaps if it was published in the JAMA or another publication or something I wouldn't question it as much. Just my opinion though. I certainly do agree with what they're saying, however about the sidestream. I've thought of that myself when used it in the past. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> (AND, I'm actually going to send this article to the RT who has me use the sidestream... will be something for him to consider as well.)
 
C

catboogie

New member
i agree, sonya, a little healthy skepticism might be in order here.

the sad thing is, though, that no one like the CFF would ever take the time/money to do these studies, so we're stuck with these over having none at all.
 
C

catboogie

New member
i agree, sonya, a little healthy skepticism might be in order here.

the sad thing is, though, that no one like the CFF would ever take the time/money to do these studies, so we're stuck with these over having none at all.
 
C

catboogie

New member
i agree, sonya, a little healthy skepticism might be in order here.

the sad thing is, though, that no one like the CFF would ever take the time/money to do these studies, so we're stuck with these over having none at all.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Absolutely.

But guess what - all the medications that you take right now - all of those studies were funded by the <b> MANUFACTURER </b>.

So if you're skeptical, which I understand, then perhaps you shouldn't believe the efficacy and tolerability sudies of TOBI, Pulmozyme, albuterol, advair, prilosec/nexium, zyrtec/allergra, singulair... the list goes on and on

The bottomline is that these clinical studies are expensive to fund. And the only people who are going to fund them are the people who would get a return on investment for puting up the money.

But the study makes sense - you have one neb where med is wasted coming out of the "T" and another neb where meds can't escape unless you breath and then the med goes into your lungs - nothing being wasted.

Your skepticism is healthy. But you must put it into context
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Absolutely.

But guess what - all the medications that you take right now - all of those studies were funded by the <b> MANUFACTURER </b>.

So if you're skeptical, which I understand, then perhaps you shouldn't believe the efficacy and tolerability sudies of TOBI, Pulmozyme, albuterol, advair, prilosec/nexium, zyrtec/allergra, singulair... the list goes on and on

The bottomline is that these clinical studies are expensive to fund. And the only people who are going to fund them are the people who would get a return on investment for puting up the money.

But the study makes sense - you have one neb where med is wasted coming out of the "T" and another neb where meds can't escape unless you breath and then the med goes into your lungs - nothing being wasted.

Your skepticism is healthy. But you must put it into context
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Absolutely.

But guess what - all the medications that you take right now - all of those studies were funded by the <b> MANUFACTURER </b>.

So if you're skeptical, which I understand, then perhaps you shouldn't believe the efficacy and tolerability sudies of TOBI, Pulmozyme, albuterol, advair, prilosec/nexium, zyrtec/allergra, singulair... the list goes on and on

The bottomline is that these clinical studies are expensive to fund. And the only people who are going to fund them are the people who would get a return on investment for puting up the money.

But the study makes sense - you have one neb where med is wasted coming out of the "T" and another neb where meds can't escape unless you breath and then the med goes into your lungs - nothing being wasted.

Your skepticism is healthy. But you must put it into context
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top