Discrediting the second source
Oh my god Grockl this is too funny. You California boys sure are intent on promoting nasal irrigation! I had no idea the depth of your stupidity (and apparently that of UCSD. After alll, "Nasal irrigation was originally used at the University of California, San Diego Nasal Dysfunction Clinic after endoscopic sinus surgery"). Grockl you must have been on this team!

So here is the hilarious and somewhat tricky part. I bet Grockl really patted himself on the back for this one. Grockl cited "Clinical Study and Literature Review of Nasal Irrigation" which, guess what, was authored by UCSD physicians. In this study, there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that says pulsatile irrigation is more effective than other irrigation methods EXCEPT in the following reference: "It has also been shown that pulsatile saline delivery is more effective in removing bacteria than delivery via bulb syringe." They then reference a particular study. Guess which one??? -)

"The efficacy of various irrigation solutions in removing slime-producing Staphylococcus." written in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. That's right folks: THE STUDY ABOUT REMOVING BACTERIA FROM IMPLANT SURFACES. Grockl, you tried so hard.

Seeing as how this is obviously irrelevant to nasal irrigation since the nose is not an implant surface, I've removed this source. I'll remove the final one shortly.



Toxicity label: other