Jump to:

Allergies and Asthma

It all started because of ear infections

My wife is trained as a special education teacher; she teaches children who are not able to learn in the normal classroom. She knows that something bad happens when children, especially before age two, have recurrent ear infections. She knows this because when she asked her class, "Who has had tubes put in their ears?" everyone raised their hand. Tubes are inserted into the ear drum in children with recurring ear infections in the attempt to reduce the fluid, that tries to wash out all of these infections, from the middle ear. This procedure sometimes helps to reduce the frequency of infections, but it is designed to help with hearing.  Language, a critical part early learning, is built by auditory input during the first two years of life, the same period when ear infections are most common. If this input is dampened by infection or fluid in the middle ear during this important period it takes persistent and determined effort on the part of parents and teachers to overcome the deficit. Luotonen has demonstrated that even when properly treated recurrent otitis during the first two years results in significant impairment in reading ability up to the age of nine. Bennett followed children longer and showed significant learning and social problems extending up to age eighteen.  As physicians we tend to ignore this problem of fluid in the middle ear; if there is no infection the fluid eventually does go away. In the meantime it contributes substantially to the population of children in our Special Education programs and to the expense that goes along with them. This educational expense is not even considered into figures showing the costs of ear infections, but ear infections are one of the most common cause of Special Education services. And they are preventable. My wife wouldn't let me ignore it.   

When my granddaughter was put in a day care at 5 months of age so that her mother could return to teaching she promptly started getting ear infections –  four ear infections in the next five months.  The sense of urgency with which Jerry, my wife, said, "You’re a doctor, DO SOMETHING!" coincided with my reading about Uhari’s gum study and provided the necessity that fosters invention. Uhari said the effect of the xylitol was on the bacteria and Heather was too young to chew gum so I got some xylitol and put in it a bottle of saline. I also thought it prudent to put it where the bacteria lived. Mom and dad and day care workers sprayed her nose with one spray in each side  every diaper change and the ear infections went away until they hired a new helper at day care that didn’t know about the nose washing. She got and ear ache with that, but it responded to resuming the regular washing. This is Heather.

And how it grew

Three months later Heather’s dad suggested that I get the spray patented, which I did. I also went to the FDA and told them I had a way to wash the nose. They said, "We don’t have a category for nose wash. What does that do?" When I explained the benefits they said it was a drug. There is no economical way that a common safe food substance can be a drug so this is only a way to wash your nose. If washing your hands is effective in reducing communicable diseases, washing the nose is more effective.

About a year later the local paper ran a story about Heather’s ear infections. As a result I had a lot of parents come with their children from all over the state and some from other states. Their concerned grandparents, living in our town, told their children about Heather and how cleaning her nose stopped her ear infections. I saw these children one time so it can’t be considered a proper scientific study. About a year later I was able to contact ten of these families. Prior to washing their noses the parents of these children reported an average of 0.86 ear infections a month over the previous 5 months. Over an average of 11 months of washing the nose the incidence dropped to 0.06 – a 93% decrease. In addition, of the seven ear infections that did occur, 3 were in one child and 3 occurred when use of the spray lapsed for a period of time. The way to treat ear infections is to prevent them and the way to prevent them is to wash the nose regularly.

The second child I used this on was John Michael. His mother was also a special education teacher. John Michael had already had two sets of ventilation tubes. After the second set came out the eardrum did not heal so he needed surgery to correct that. And he still had the condition called chronic suppurative otitis media, which is persistent fluid in the middle ear not associated with infection. This is the type of problem that eventually goes away as the child gets older. John took longer and kept having problems. There is no treatment for this except waiting or putting in another set of tubes. There is some indication now that tubes do not really help the hearing and language problems that accompany this fluid. John’s mother was vigorous in spraying his nose. Three days later he gagged and vomited a huge amount of mucus and  was better from that time on. The volume on the TV went down, he was better at discriminating phonemes and the dark areas under his eyes went away. And two weeks later his tympanogram was normal. This is a picture of John Michael after he began spraying his nose.

Sinus infections are similar to ear infections


Both Jerry and I used to have re-occurring sinus infections. I have used saline off and on for the past twenty years and found it to reduce the frequency of my infections a little. I began washing my nose with the xylitol and I had Jerry use saline. We were away at a conference when she got her last sinus infection. Now she is using the xylitol spray in her nose too and we have both been free of any further sinus infections – four years and counting. Another person got relief with the xylitol spray. After several surgeries to treat her sinus problems she began washing her nose regularly. She had a cleansing episode like John Michael that led to immediate relief. She thinks it is a miracle.

There have been several people with severe sinus disease who have told me that using this spray didn’t help. These people have usually had several operations and been on numerous broad-spectrum antibiotics. I have cultured lots of Staph and some fungal infections from these people. The best advice for this type of person is to use hyperosmolar xylitol spray several times a day to try to help with the washing, be liberal in culturing when the area gets irritated, and try to stay away from the broad spectrum antibiotics that kill everything and let fungal infections begin. Grapefruit seed extract, now used as a preservative for this spray, is effective against both staph and fungi. So is colloidal silver. Both of these are available in spray form that can be used to treat these particular nasal problems. Once treated and removed, using xylitol spray should keep your nose clean. 


The first person I used this on with allergies was my grandson Joe. He was allergic to grandmother’s cat and they were due for a visit. My daughter called and asked what to do. I gave her all of the normal things to do to try to avoid exposure: shampoo the carpets, keep the cat outside, reserve a close motel room in case, and stock up on antihistamines. And I sent her a bottle of the spray. She used it about every four hours and Joe had no problems except when he first woke up after a night’s rest when mom noticed some swelling around the eyes. This was gone about 30 minutes after the first spray. Dad took the kids back for another visit several months later and was there for about four hours when Joe's face started swelling. He called my daughter and asked her to "Fedex the spray." After a night elsewhere they were able to resume the visit with regular use of the spray. Joe, like many other children with allergies, has developed asthma and has an inhaler at home for bronchodilator treatments. He has begun washing his nose regularly and finds that three times a day, with more on occasion when he gets challenged, is enough to keep him clear. It was also enough to eliminate problems with grandma’s cat during a recent visit. This is a picture of Joe. 


Allergies and our response to them are most of the time treated as if they were not important. We seldom think twice about taking an antihistamine or using a nasal steroid. Margie Profet is a biologist who thinks differently. She points out that many allergens are structurally similar to toxins and that, as we repeatedly point out in this site, the runny nose is a defense. It is trying to wash the toxin/allergen from the nose. While our food supply and environment is probably safer and freer from toxins than it was for our ancestors we still feel that honoring our body's defenses is the best policy. The section on evolutionary medicine has more on the difference between defenses, that help our bodies deal with our environment, and other symptoms that are safer to treat. 

Allergens also come in different sizes and shapes. some of them are smaller and more soluble. They are able to get into our system faster. Others like the cat dander that gave Joe his problem are less soluble. Joe was able to control his allergies by washing his nose every four hours. My son, who is allergic to some grasses needs to carry his bottle with him when he is outside in the fields and wash his nose every hour. For people like him who can't otherwise avoid their allergen desensitization is probably the best option. For parents with infants who are interested in preventing problems early exposure to a farm environment is significantly associated with less allergy and asthma.

Becka was the first person with asthma to wash her nose. She is Jerry’s cousin’s daughter. It helps to have lots of family when something like this comes along. Becka’s mother heard about Heather and wanted some of the spray for her son who had lots of ear problems. When I described what it does she asked if it would help Becka too. I knew it wouldn’t hurt. Becka was on five different medications for her asthma, she was getting a shot from her doctor weekly, and she was in the ER about every 6 weeks. Mom sprayed her nose regularly three times a day. About a week later Becka had an episode of cleansing, like John Michael, where she got rid of all the mucus in her nose. The next week she did not have any trouble with her asthma and a week later mom took her off all of her asthma medication. Six months later she was active playing basketball and doing gymnastics without any trace of her asthma. A year and a half later Becka had another asthma attack while she was visiting family in Phoenix. She had stopped washing her nose regularly some time before. I suspect that Becka will have to repeat her earlier experience again and use it  more regularly if she wants her nose to stay clean and not trigger her asthma.

After my experience with Becka I used it on other asthmatic patients. One of the first was an 11-year old boy, with no prior history of asthma, who came to my office wheezing with a peak flow of 150. Peak flow measures how much air a person can force out and gives a rough idea of the openness of the airway. His peak flow improved with bronchodilator therapy, so I gave him a prescription for albuterol and a bottle of the spray and told him to spray his nose regularly for a few days. He took the bottle to the school nurse and every class break he would spray his nose. He did not get the albuterol. His peak flow on the next three days went from the 150 to 250, to 350, and to 450, which was normal for his size.

Cora is my last example. Cora has had diabetes and asthma for about twenty years, long enough for her airway to get remodeled so that it is always narrower than normal. She has been on multiple medications for her asthma, including steroids that makes her diabetes harder to manage.  She began using the spray regularly about a year ago and has not had an asthma attack since. She is not taking any of her asthma medications. Her peak flow remained at 150 to 200 for about 6 months, but was 350 after a year of regular use of the spray.

What is asthma?

Most people know asthma as not being able to breathe. This suffocating feeling is caused by the muscles that surround our bronchial tubes. Something happens to stimulate these muscles and when they get irritated they constrict and close down our airway. We know several several things from our scientific and clinical studies with asthma.

  • It is caused by the immune system.

  • The major mechanism is through the nasal-bronchial reflex where irritants in the back of the nose lead to the broncho-constriction we know as asthma.

  • People raised in rural environments have less problems with allergies and asthma than do urban people.

  • As discussed in the section on "Increases" people in eastern bloc countries have less asthma.

Medical researchers have analyzed the mechanism behind the nasal-bronchial reflex and developed a variety of drugs that modifies this reflex. We have bronchodilators that reverse the broncho-constriction. We have leukotriene antagonists and inhibitors that interfere with a part of this reflex, and steroids that turn much of it off. And when someone is having an asthma attack we need to use these drugs.

But let's take a step back and look at what we know about asthma and the immune system. The following is not generally known or even considered by the medical profession. They are still focusing on how the broncho-constriction is triggered and how to turn it off. Once we see that cleaning the nose addresses the source of asthma the following conclusions become common sense. First of all the immune system is designed to keep us healthy, and while it can occasionally kill us (further discussed in the section on evolutionary medicine and oral rehydration), it does this primarily to protect us from what it considers a greater evil.  Reflexes in the body are generally there to protect us. Our pupillary reflex closes the eye and protects it from too much light and our gag reflex protects us from aspirating food. The nasal-bronchial reflex that triggers asthma protects our lungs from the pollutants in our nose. Consider that the triggers for asthma are chronic infections in the sinuses as well as allergies and viral respiratory infections, all of which may be considered significant dangers by our immune system. This can be especially so when we live in a clean urban environment and have not been exposed to the normal bacteria, pollens and molds that are prevalent in rural and farming environments. A naive immune system that has not been prioritized by such noxious exposure is more likely to consider allergens or irritants of lesser significance to be real dangers. If such an immune system is unable to get rid of nasal irritants by washing them out then at least the nasal-bronchial reflex allows it to protect the lungs from what it considers a real danger. And that, I believe, is what happens with asthma. And that is why washing the nose is such an effective means of preventing asthma. It addresses the source of the problem. The medical examiner of Dade County, Florida did a series of autopsies on people who had been observed drowning (they were not killed elsewhere and dumped in the water). About 20% of these people had dry lungs; the water in their nose prompted such a profound laryngeal and broncho spasm that they could not breathe in the water. They died of asthma that actually prevented them from aspirating the water into their lungs and drowning in the normal sense of the word. 

I recently attended a conference entitled Rethinking the Pathogenesis of Asthma (Keystone Symposium, Feb. 2002, Santa Fe, NM) where I presented some of these ideas. One of the speakers was Stephen Holgate, one of the world's authorities on the origins of asthma. He pointed out in his presentation that we have gone for thirty years with no new treatment for asthma, that it is caused by injury to the airway, and that what we need is a way to protect the airway from this injury. That, I told him later, was what regularly washing your nose does.

How to use the spray

   This is reiteration but it is important. For people who are not familiar with spraying the nose the best reminder is ‘When you spray your nose look at your toes. I like to use two sprays in each nostril and aim one back the nose – aiming at the back of your head, and one more directed upward – aimed at the top of the head. For most people doing this twice a day is sufficient to keep the nose clean. If it gets challenged you can use more, even every hour, without any problems. Using this spray every hour, 24 hours a day, in both nostrils, will deliver about half a plums worth of xylitol. Babies are best treated in the same fashion. Infants and children that go to day care should use it more frequently, because they get a lot more contamination.

    The most important thing to remember about using this spray is to do it regularly. By far the biggest problem I have seen is that people will use it for a while and then stop. Soon they are back with the same problems they had before. The children in Belize had to chew the gum every day for two years. It takes lots of talking to negotiate with bacteria and it is best done on a regular basis when there are not too many of them. Keep the spray in a place where it is handy – on the kitchen table, the water cooler, by the bathroom sink where you brush your teeth. Get more than one bottle and keep one in your purse or pocket, in the car and at work. Make the simple task of washing your nose a regular habit.

Problems with the spray

    A few people who use this say it burns. This is more likely if you get a stream instead of a spray. Make sure you get a spray when you squeeze the bottle. If you tilt your head back to spray you will get a stream of water go down your nose – not recommended. Another reason for this burning sensation seems to be related to sores in the nose that are associated with Staph infections. If you have persisting problems ask your doctor to do a culture of your nose and treat the problem. The best and least expensive way I have seen to treat Staph is to put some "Bactroban" in a bottle of saline nasal spray and use it as described above. Five grams dissolves in a bottle of "Ocean". You will need to see your doctor for this treatment. Alternatives available at your health food store are sprays with either colloidal silver or grapefruit seed extract, both of which kill most of the offending bacteria. The problem is both these sprays and the antibiotic kill good bacteria as well as the problem ones so when you finish four or five days of treatment make sure that you regularly wash your nose to insure that only good bacteria return.

Return to HOME            Continue reading about How the Nose Cleans itself


BMJ 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1180-4

xylitol chewing gum in prevention of acute otitis media: double blind randomised trial.

Uhari M, Kontiokari T, Koskela M, Niemela M.

Department of Paediatrics, University of Oulu, Finland.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether xylitol, which reduces the growth of Streptococcus pneumoniae, might have clinical importance in the prevention of acute otitis media. DESIGN: A double blind randomised trial with xylitol administered in chewing gum. SETTING: Eleven day care nurseries in the city of Oulu. Most of the children had had problems with recurrent acute otitis media. SUBJECTS: 306 day care children: 149 children in the sucrose group (76 boys; mean (SD) age 4.9 (1.5) years) and 157 in the xylitol group (80 boys; 5.0 (1.4) years). INTERVENTION: Either xylitol (8.4 g a day) or sucrose (control) chewing gum for two months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The occurrence of acute otitis media and antimicrobial treatment received during the intervention and nasopharyngeal carriage of S pneumoniae. RESULTS: During the two month monitoring period at least one event of acute otitis media was experienced by 31/149 (20.8%) children who received sucrose compared with 19/157 (12.1%) of those receiving chewing gum containing xylitol (difference 8.7%; 95% confidence interval 0.4% to 17.0%; P = 0.04). Significantly fewer antimicrobials were prescribed among those receiving xylitol: 29/157 (18.5%) children had at least one period of treatment versus 43/149 (28.9%) (difference 10.4%; 0.9% to 19.9%; P = 0.032). The carriage rate of S pneumoniae varied from 17.4% to 28.2% with no difference between the groups. Two children in the xylitol group experienced diarrhoea, but no other adverse effects were noted among the xylitol users. CONCLUSION: xylitol seems to have a preventive effect against acute otitis media.
Pediatrics 2000 Sep;106(3):E42

The effect of ventilation tubes on language development in infants with otitis media with effusion: A randomized trial.

Rovers MM, Straatman H, Ingels K, van der Wilt GJ, van den Broek P, Zielhuis GA

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Saint Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of ventilation tubes on the language development in infants with persistent otitis media with effusion (OME). All existing studies addressed children 3 years of age or older. Currently, OME is detected and treated with ventilation tubes at a younger age. Because of the critical relationship between age, hearing, and language development, we conducted a study of the effects of ventilation tubes on language development in infants 1 to 2 years old with persistent OME. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (embedded in a cohort) with 2 treatment arms: 1) treatment with ventilation tubes (VT group; n = 93); or 2) with a period of watchful waiting (WW group; n = 94). Hearing loss and expressive and comprehensive language were assessed every 6 months, while tympanometry and otoscopy were performed every 3 months. Other factors with potential influence on language development were also included: adenoidectomy, hospital, attending day care, sex, age at randomization, educational level of the mother, upper respiratory infections, and the native country of the parents and older siblings. The trial was designed to allow for the detection of a mean difference in language development of 3 months or more between children allocated to the VT and WW groups. RESULTS: No relevant differences were found in expressive or comprehensive language between the 2 groups after adjustment for educational level of the mother, IQ of the child, and differences at baseline. A principal component analysis showed that in the VT group, the children with frequent complaints improved 1.6 months more in comprehensive language than those with no or some complaints. The children with favorable language stimulation, however, did not improve more than the children with less favorable stimulation. No differences were found for expressive language among the various clusters. The probability to improve >3 months in comprehensive language was.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]:.29-.68) for children with highly educated mothers versus.09 (95% CI:.02-.30) for children whose mothers had a low educational level. In the WW group, these changes were.30 (95% CI:.14-.53) and.14 (95% CI:.04-.35), respectively. The probability to improve >4 months in expressive language was.52 (95% CI:.32-.71) for children with highly educated mothers versus.06 (95% CI:.01-.31) for children whose mothers had a low educational level. In the WW group these changes were.42 (95% CI:.23-.64) and.11 (95% CI:.03-.35), respectively. In addition, there were delays in expressive language in both groups compared with their age expected values. The comprehensive language of the children who were effusion-free during the follow-up (n = 54) improved 1.5 months (95% CI: -.2-3.2) more than that of the children who had persistent effusion during the entire follow-up (n = 28). No differences were found for expressive language development. Disregarding the intervention contrast, improvements in hearing seemed to be related to improvements in language development, especially in verbal comprehension. DISCUSSION: In this study, we used the Reynell, Schlichting, and Lexi tests to study the relation between early persistent OME and language development. These tests are directly related to normal language, widely accepted, and validated. It cannot be ruled out that more specific measures such as auditory perception tests would have produced more differences between groups, but the focus was on general language development. A total of 10 children in the WW group received treatment with ventilation tubes during follow-up. A further 11 children dropped out during the trial. A sensitivity analysis with the 10 children who received ventilation tubes did not change the results, and baseline differences were not found between the 11 children who dropped out and those who completed the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In the total group of infants with persistent OME, ventilation tubes did not have any incremental effect on language development. Beneficial effect of treatment in individual patients or subgroups of patients can however not be excluded. 


Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996 Oct;15(10):854-8

Recurrent otitis media during infancy and linguistic skills at the age of nine years.
Luotonen M, Uhari M, Aitola L, Lukkaroinen AM, Luotonen J, Uhari M, Korkeamaki RL

Department of Phoniatrics (ENT Clinic), University of Oulu, Finland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of early recurrent otitis media on linguistic development in children. We especially wanted to determine the possible significant consequences of early recurrent otitis media at school age. METHODS: We collected data retrospectively on recurrent otitis media episodes from the parents of 394 children in 18 school classes selected at random in a middle-sized city in Finland. Auditory comprehension was tested with a subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability, picture vocabulary with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (revised test version), morphologic competence with a Finnish Morphological Test and reading comprehension with a test designed for this purpose. RESULTS: Children with more than four otitis episodes before the age of 3 years performed less well in the reading comprehension test (P = 0.01 to 0.02) than children with fewer otitis media episodes. Multiple regression analysis adjusted for the confounding variables showed early otitis media to be associated with impaired reading comprehension test scores (regression coefficient -0.1245, 95% confidence interval -0.2245 to -0.0245, P = 0.01), which also correlated significantly with the teachers' evaluation of the student's reading comprehension (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.5, P < 0.01). Otitis episodes after the age of 3 years were not associated with abnormal test results. CONCLUSION: Middle ear disease in infancy had a significant adverse effect on reading comprehension as late as 9 years of age, even among children whose acute episodes were effectively treated.
Arch Dis Child 2001 Aug;85(2):91-5
Behaviour and developmental effects of otitis media with effusion into the teens.

Bennett KE, Haggard MP, Silva PA, Stewart IA.

MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University Park, Nottingham, UK.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether behavioural or cognitive sequelae of otitis media with effusion (OME) continue into late childhood and the early teens (11-18 years). SETTING: Data from a large multipurpose birth cohort study: the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. PARTICIPANTS: Around 1000 children from the study. The main independent variable of interest was otological status of the child up to age 9. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parent and teacher rated behaviour problems, including antisocial, neurotic, hyperactive, and inattentive behaviours, and tests of academic achievement including intelligence quotient (IQ), reading, and spelling were available in a high proportion of the cohort at ages 11 to 18 years. RESULTS: After adjustments for covariates such as socioeconomic status, hyperactive and inattentive behaviour problems were evident as late as 15 years, and lower IQ associated with OME remained significant to 13 years. The largest effects were observed for deficits in reading ability between 11 and 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: No previous study considering behaviour problems as an outcome has followed children long enough to determine whether some of the early sequelae of OME are still present in the early to late teens. Some developmental sequelae of OME, particularly deficits in reading ability, can persist into late childhood and the early teens.
Q Rev Biol 1991 Mar;66(1):23-62

The function of allergy: immunological defense against toxins.

Profet M.

Division of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkely 94720.

This paper proposes that the mammalian immune response known as "allergy" evolved as a last line of defense against the extensive array of toxic substances that exist in the environment in the form of secondary plant compounds and venoms. Whereas nonimmunological defenses typically can target only classes of toxins, the immune system is uniquely capable of the fine-tuning required to target selectively the specific molecular configurations of individual toxins. Toxic substances are commonly allergenic. The pharmacological chemicals released by the body's mast cells during an IgE antibody-mediated allergic response typically cause vomiting diarrhea, coughing, tearing, sneezing, or scratching, which help to expel from the body the toxic substance that triggered the response; individuals frequently develop aversions to substances that have triggered such responses. A strong allergic response often includes a decrease in blood pressure, which slows the rate at which toxins circulate to target organs. The immune system identifies as toxic the following kinds of substances: (1) those low-molecular-weight substances that bind covalently to serum proteins (e.g., many plant toxins); (2) nontoxic proteins that act as carriers of toxins with low molecular weights (e.g., plant proteins associated with plant toxins); (3) specific substances of high molecular weight that harmed individuals in ancestral mammalian populations for a span of time that was significant from the standpoint of natural selection (e.g., the toxic proteins of bee venom. Substances that bind covalently to serum proteins generally are acutely toxic, and because many of these substances also bind covalently to the DNA of target cells, they are potentially mutagenic and carcinogenic as well. Thus, by protecting against acute toxicity, allergy may also defend against mutagens and carcinogens. The toxic hypothesis explains the main phenomena of allergy; why IgE-mediated allergies usually occur within minutes of exposure to an allergen and why they are often so severe; why the manifestations of allergy include vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, scratching, tearing, and a drop in blood pressure; why covalent binding of low-molecular-weight substances to serum proteins frequently causes allergy; why allergies occur to many foods, pollens, venoms, metals, and drugs; why allergic cross-reactivity occurs to foods and pollen from unrelated botanical families; why allergy appears to be so capricious and variable; and why allergy is more prevalent in industrial societies than it is in foraging societies. This hypothesis also has implications for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of allergy.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1985 Dec;6(4):301-4

An assessment of lung weights in drowning cases. The Metro Dade County experience from 1978 to 1982.

Copeland AR.

The lung weights in known cases of drownings, both fresh and salt water, were studied in 220 cases over the past 5 years. Statistical comparison was performed with both a natural disease and a "normal" population. The frequency of "dry lungs" in drowning was also noted.

The spray described in these pages is not a drug. This means that the people manufacturing this spray cannot advertise what the spray does to prevent disease and illness. The spray only helps to clean your nose. The benefits come from a clean nose. The only way people will learn about this practical and sensible way to help the immune system wash pollutants from the back of the nose is by interested people, like you, sharing this information.

If you have family or friends with any of these problems, they may benefit greatly from your sharing this information with them.

Links in the other sections, referring to a person or study, will take you to a Medline summary, from the National Library of Medicine, of the article in question.

This spray is protected by United States and international patents. While careful reading of these pages will tell you how to mix this spray yourself we request that you do not sell such spray on the open market. Such sales would be prohibited by the above mentioned patents.

Disclaimer: All material provided in this web site is provided for educational purposes in the hope of improving our general health. Access of this web site does not create a doctor-patient relationship nor should the information contained on this web site be considered specific medical advice with respect to a specific patient and/or a specific condition. Copy sections of this page and discuss them with your physician to see if they apply to your own symptoms or medical condition.

Dr. Jones specifically disclaims any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, that is or may be incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of use or application of any of the information provided on this web site.

A. H. 'Lon' Jones D.O.
812 West 8th St. Suite 2A
Plainview, Texas 79072
Phone (806) 291-0700
Fax (806) 293-8229