Lucky_P
Well-known member
Kyle,
You just go right on with that Vetericyn. It's not gonna hurt anything. Nothing wrong with 'flushing' a wound or a 'pinkeye' eye with it.
I'm just saying it's not 'magic', and the wonderful healing properties folks attribute to it are wishful thinking or make-believe. But, sometimes, perception is reality.
I've had a look at Vetericyn's MSDS(Material Safety Data Sheet). It's composition is, as follows:
96.3% Water
<0.1% Sodium hypochlorite (the active ingredient of chlorine bleach)
<0.1% Hypochlorous acid (formed when you dilute NaOCL(chlorine bleach) in water)
0.3% Sodium sulfate
0.5% Boric acid (commonly used as an eyewash, though typically as a 'dilute' 1.5% solution, which is 3 times stronger than what's in this bottle of liquid solution)
3.0% Sodium Magnesium Fluorosilicate - a dispersing/suspension compound used in the gel formulation.
The 'active ingredients' - sodium hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid are present in exceedingly low concentrations (LESS THAN 1/10 of 1 percent of the solution)- and could conceivably be replicated by merely diluting out simple chlorine bleach(sodium hypochlorite solution) in water - but, wait, the Vetericyn folks generate theirs by passing an electric current through a dilute aqueous solution of NaCL(salt water) - hence it's magical healing properties and greater cost, I guess.
But, you could just dilute 1ml of plain ol' chlorine bleach (standard 5% solution) in 1 liter of water ( I believe I did the math correctly) and get essentially the same thing. But, if you didn't pay $30 for a half-liter, would you IMAGINE that it was working?
Now, as to the 'old-timey remedies', like salt, diesel fuel, etc. - I'm sure some of those animals survived, and probably healed up IN SPITE of what was done to them. Without a 'control group' that got no 'treatment', who knows if time to resolution was shortened or lengthened. Old-timers/granddad knew some things - and some of that knowledge is important, but I doubt they had much knowledge about wound healing or immune responses.
Mastitis treatments probably are OK - but they're not formulated for use in the eye.
You just go right on with that Vetericyn. It's not gonna hurt anything. Nothing wrong with 'flushing' a wound or a 'pinkeye' eye with it.
I'm just saying it's not 'magic', and the wonderful healing properties folks attribute to it are wishful thinking or make-believe. But, sometimes, perception is reality.
I've had a look at Vetericyn's MSDS(Material Safety Data Sheet). It's composition is, as follows:
96.3% Water
<0.1% Sodium hypochlorite (the active ingredient of chlorine bleach)
<0.1% Hypochlorous acid (formed when you dilute NaOCL(chlorine bleach) in water)
0.3% Sodium sulfate
0.5% Boric acid (commonly used as an eyewash, though typically as a 'dilute' 1.5% solution, which is 3 times stronger than what's in this bottle of liquid solution)
3.0% Sodium Magnesium Fluorosilicate - a dispersing/suspension compound used in the gel formulation.
The 'active ingredients' - sodium hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid are present in exceedingly low concentrations (LESS THAN 1/10 of 1 percent of the solution)- and could conceivably be replicated by merely diluting out simple chlorine bleach(sodium hypochlorite solution) in water - but, wait, the Vetericyn folks generate theirs by passing an electric current through a dilute aqueous solution of NaCL(salt water) - hence it's magical healing properties and greater cost, I guess.
But, you could just dilute 1ml of plain ol' chlorine bleach (standard 5% solution) in 1 liter of water ( I believe I did the math correctly) and get essentially the same thing. But, if you didn't pay $30 for a half-liter, would you IMAGINE that it was working?
Now, as to the 'old-timey remedies', like salt, diesel fuel, etc. - I'm sure some of those animals survived, and probably healed up IN SPITE of what was done to them. Without a 'control group' that got no 'treatment', who knows if time to resolution was shortened or lengthened. Old-timers/granddad knew some things - and some of that knowledge is important, but I doubt they had much knowledge about wound healing or immune responses.
Mastitis treatments probably are OK - but they're not formulated for use in the eye.