Re: coconut oil a poor choice for ozonation

[Guest guest]

Lew, while a few of the unsaturated fats form ozonides, the saturated fats do

not. The " best oils " for ozonation include olive, safflower, sunflower, peanut;

all have been selected for the high oleic acid content.

all good,

Duncan

> >>>>

> >>>> Long as you understand that oil swishing doesn't pull anything through

> >>>> the

> >>>> buccal >membrane as Fife has clarified a couple of times, you're good

> >>>> to

> >>>> go.

> >>>

> >>> You're granting me your permission? How magnanimous of you :-)

> >>>

> >>> quoting Duncan:

> >>>> The buccal membrane prevents the oil from going into tissues and

> >>>> attaching

> >>>> to toxins in >blood, AND/OR the tissues, AND/OR the lymph.

> >>>

> >>> As I understand it Duncan, the buccal murcosa is the lining of the

> >>> cheeks

> >>> and the back of the lips. But what of the sublingual murcosa (the tongue

> >>> and

> >>> floor of the mouth) which is relatively permeable and able to absorb

> >>> bioavailables. These, along with the nasal cavaties have a direct route

> >>> to

> >>> the lymph:

> >>> http://www.bartleby.com/107/177.html

> >>>

> >>> Didn't Lew just say that >> " The rationale of Oil pulling is the

> >>> lymphatic

> >>> drainage : the

> >>>>> anatomical oro-nasal connection " ?

> >>>

> >>> And here is a study regarding the difference in absorbability between

> >>> the

> >>> buccal and sublingual mercosa:

> >>> http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=986942

> >>>

> >>> The sublingual route has received far more attention than has the buccal

> >>> route. The sublingual mucosa includes the membrane of the ventral

> >>> surface

> >>> of

> >>> the tongue and the floor of the mouth whereas the buccal mucosa

> >>> constitutes

> >>> the lining of the cheek. The sublingual mucosa is relatively permeable,

> >>> thus

> >>> giving rapid absorption and acceptable bioavailabilities of many drugs.

> >>> Further, the sublingual mucosa is convenient, accessible, and generally

> >>> well

> >>> accepted. This route has been investigated clinically for the delivery

> >>> of

> >>> a

> >>> substantial number of drugs. It is the preferred route for

> >>> administration

> >>> of

> >>> nitroglycerin and is also used for buprenorphine and nifedipine. D.

> >>>

> >>> &

> >>> J. , 81 J. Pharmaceutical Sci. 1 (1992).

> >>>

> >>> The buccal mucosa is less permeable than the sublingual mucosa. The

> >>> rapid

> >>> absorption and high bioavailabilities seen with sublingual

> >>> administration

> >>> of

> >>> drugs is not generally provided to the same extent by the buccal mucosa.

> >>> D.

> >>> & J. , 81 J. Pharmaceutical Sci. (1992) at 2. The

> >>> permeability of the oral mucosae is probably related to the physical

> >>> characteristics of the tissues. The sublingual mucosa is thinner than

> >>> the

> >>> buccal mucosa, thus permeability is greater for the sublingual tissue.

> >>> The

> >>> palatal mucosa is intermediate in thickness, but is keratinized whereas

> >>> the

> >>> other two tissues are not, thus lessening its permeability.

> >>>

> >>> The ability of molecules to permeate through the oral mucosa appears to

> >>> be

> >>> related to molecular size, lipid solubility, and ionization. Small

> >>> molecules, less than about 100 daltons, appear to cross the mucosa

> >>> rapidly.

> >>> As molecular size increases, however, permeability decreases rapidly.

> >>> Lipid-soluble compounds are more permeable through the mucosa than are

> >>> non-lipid-soluble molecules. . . .

> >>>

> >>> Substances that facilitate the transport of solutes across biological

> >>> membranes, penetration enhancers, are well known in the art for

> >>> administering drugs. V. Lee et al., 8 Critical Reviews in Therapeutic

> >>> Drug

> >>> r Systems 91 (1991) [hereinafter " Critical Reviews " ]. Penetration

> >>> enhancers may be categorized as chelators (e.g., EDTA, citric acid,

> >>> salicylates), surfactants (e.g., sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)),

> >>> non-surfactants (e.g., unsaturated cyclic ureas), bile salts (e.g.,

> >>> sodium

> >>> deoxycholate, sodium tauro-cholate), and FATTY ACIDS (e.g., oleic acid,

> >>> acylcarnitines, mono- and diglycerides).

> >>>

> >>> quoting Duncan:

> >>>> snip<

> >>>> > Although there is more manipulation of the surrounding tissues with

> >>>> > mouth than >using a waterpik, with regard to the amount of pressure

> >>>> > from

> >>>> > oil swishing the mouth can >only exert about .3 to .5 of a pound

> >>>> > pressure, while the waterpik has an operating >pressure of about

> >>>> > 60-90

> >>>> > psi, so the waterpik has a decided edge below the gumline in >dental

> >>>> > hygeine, as several members on this and the electroherbalism list

> >>>> > pointed out.

> >>>

> >>> Duncan, I reviewed that thread and no one - except for you - said that

> >>> the

> >>> waterpik worked better for them than oil pulling. In fact I don't think

> >>> those talking about the various water piks, flossing, and toothpaste had

> >>> ever even tried it. The one who had tried it recommended it to the one

> >>> who

> >>> asked about it. And how do you account for those (myself included) who

> >>> used

> >>> a water pik but received no reversal of a systemic problem until after

> >>> starting oil pulling? If there's a waterpik cure I haven't heard of it.

> >>> Did you miss this part of the testimonial I referenced? :

> >>>

> >>> quote: " a friend handed me a piece of paper describing an oil therapy

> >>> from

> >>> Dr. F. Karach. I decided to try it since nothing else had worked for me

> >>> thus far. Each morning before breakfast, I took one tablespoon of

> >>> sunflower

> >>> oil and slowly swished it in my mouth for fifteen to twenty minutes. I

> >>> repeated the procedure each night before going to bed. After

> >>> spitting out the oil, I found it helpful to use my Water Pik to

> >>> thoroughly

> >>> cleanse the tongue and gums. "

> >>>

> >>> This was the person who had been having liver pains for 15 months. The

> >>> pains

> >>> stopped after 3 days of oil pulling.

> >>>

> >>> Yes, the waterpik is quite useful to remove the oil after oil pulling.

> >>> And

> >>> I'm sure it's useful as a cleaning tool as well. However, I really

> >>> haven't

> >>> needed mine since oil pulling. It has been sitting under my sink

> >>> gathering

> >>> dust for years. Rinsing and brushing are all I need to remove the oil.

> >>> Rinsing and flossing are good too - after eating.

> >>>

> >>> Dee

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >

>