General Carpet Cleaning

[Vacuum Facts]

You should bother to read the papers, not just the title... jesus... All my videos are based either on published science or textbook science anyone worthy of attention can learn.

 

[herbicide]

You should bother to read the papers, not just the title... jesus... All my videos are based either on published science or textbook science anyone worthy of attention can learn.

By titles, you mean the abstract and conclusions of the very “papers” you linked?

Posting valid links here and referencing them in your videos doesn’t automatically make your claims and conclusions valid.

Can you point to where what I post is incorrect? Specifically where you can justify your specific claims. Not just the links themselves, because as I originally posted they sure seem to provide information counter to what you are claiming.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Why, just why, are you VacuumFacts still referencing that same post. We have all read it, no need to reference it a million times.

 

[cheesewonton]

Why, just why, are you VacuumFacts still referencing that same post. We have all read it, no need to reference it a million times.

The links he posts don't even support his claims. We have all read them by now and can see this with our own eyes.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Exactly.

 

[herbicide]

The links he posts don't even support his claims. We have all read them by now and can see this with our own eyes.

Is he going for the ol' "repeated lies become truth" tactic, or maybe just throwing so much bollocks (bull stink) at the wall, hoping some of it sticks?

 

[centralsweeper63]

Ha, good point.

 

[herbicide]

In this particular case I was genuinely curious on the effectiveness of these 'microsponges,' I thought/hoped I could genuinely learn something from his links.

I was disappointed.

 

[cheesewonton]

Is he going for the ol' "repeated lies become truth" tactic, or maybe just throwing so much bollocks (bull stink) at the wall, hoping some of it sticks?

Bollocks are UK slang for the nut sack

 

[centralsweeper63]

I wouldn't get my hopes up with him.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

By titles, you mean the abstract and conclusions of the very “papers” you linked?

Need I say more. There's also the middle bit that constitutes the majority of the scientific sources and bulk of the data from which the earlier summary statements made derived. No wonder you're perpetually at odds with reality the best of us can easily see after an accurate and careful fact-check. But my contributions here are for a wider audience than you, though. I'm only responding to this for record, given it provides us with great amusement.

 

[herbicide]

Need I say more. There's also the middle bit that constitutes the majority of the scientific sources and bulk of the data from which the earlier summary statements made derived. No wonder you're perpetually at odds with reality the best of us can easily see after an accurate and careful fact-check. But my contributions here are for a wider audience than you, though. I'm only responding to this for record, given it provides us with great amusement.

Yes you need to say more. I am directly calling you out. Point specifically to what supports your claims. I pointed specifically in each of those links the items that do not support your claims.

Until you are willing (and able) to do so, you are promoting falsities. Perhaps by malice, perhaps by misunderstanding.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Yes you need to say more. I am directly calling you out. Point specifically to what supports your claims. I pointed specifically in each of those links the items that do not support your claims.

Until you are willing (and able) to do so, you are promoting falsities. Perhaps by malice, perhaps by misunderstanding.

That’s because you didn’t read them properly. Even a child could have managed that. It was always already all there for you. Firstly, you denied evidence existed after begging for it, despite it already being provided, repeatedly. You were shown to be totally wrong, rather embarrassingly. Then you repeatedly failed to read the evidence properly and carefully and instead provided a contrarian, denialist response, not consistent with a respectable mind. Troll-like behaviour evades the responsibility of justifying a position with evidence and instead provides nothing of value that’s supported, whilst suggesting the burden of proof lies with others to support a contrarian response. This kind of behaviour is not expected from an adult worthy of being respected.

For our amusement, and to provide a future referenceable source, the last remnants of any respectability you might have caried to the best of us here are destroyed below.



My claim: Hot water extraction is very effective at cleaning the surface, but considerably less effective deeper in the pile, leaving behind a lot of allergens at depth

Evidence: The paper in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology linked to earlier (“Reduction of Domestic Allergen Levels in Carpets and Soft Furnishings in US Homes Using a Proprietary Hot Water Extraction Cleaning Process”) empirically observed that after water extraction cleaning, SURFACE allergens in carpets were reduced by 91–97% (depending on allergen type). Airborne dirt particle after extraction cleaning caused by room disturbances (normal living) were reduced by 37–78% depending on carpet type. However, >71% of allergens were found remaining in the base of the carpet after hot water extraction. They thus concluded hot water extraction cleaning had a greater effect on allergen levels in the upper layers than on base layer levels. Contrast this now with my original claim, that, like every other claim I make, is based on evidence found in literature or textbooks that anyone worthy of attention can fact-check.



My claim: Wet extraction is no better than simply dry vacuuming at removing allergens

Evidence: This study in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene linked to earlier (“Influence of Wear, Pile Height, and Cleaning Method on Removal of Mite Allergen from Carpet”) found that both wet and dry vacuuming were reasonably effective at removing allergens in carpet. Only minor differences in allergen (not visible surface sticky dirt) removal were found between wet (extraction) and dry (vacuuming) cleaning methods. Specifically, they showed, within 95% confidence intervals, that after dry extraction (vacuuming) ~11–17 µg/m2 of allergen remained, and ~12–14 µg/m2 remained after wet extraction. Again, contrast this now with my original claim, and let me know whether you’ve changed your…mind.



My claim: Growth of microbiological nasties increases at depth in pile over time once wetted by such cleaning methods, leaving it worse than before it was wet cleaned.

Evidence: This study in the Journal of Experimental & Applied Acarology that I linked to earlier (“Effectiveness of Vacuum Cleaning and Wet Cleaning in Reducing House-Dust Mites, Fungi and Mite Allergen in a Cotton Carpet: A Case Study”) performed several vacuuming sessions over a few days using a Hoover bagged vacuum cleaner. The purpose was to evaluate the effects of wet cleaning and regular, thorough carpet vacuum cleaning on a) fungal spore numbers, b) the number of arthropods living in house dust, and c) on the presence of mite allergen. It was observed that each dry vacuuming session reduced concentrations of dust collected each time—as expected from a first order system. Amongst many other interesting observations, after wet cleaning with extraction, the number of mites and mite eggs was found to have increased, even though the mite allergens were decreased. It was concluded that the increase in humidity within the pile at depth from the water-based cleaning method produced a climate that rapidly hatched more mites and later worsened the problems than if wet cleaning hadn’t occurred. Again, contrast this now with my original claim, and let me know whether you still think I’m “promoting falsities…Perhaps by malice, perhaps by misunderstanding” in your words, or whether you might be totally incorrect, as I’ve consistently said and now shown beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is additional evidence to support this claim too. I didn’t link to it, because I assumed those worthy of respect would have had the IQ to independently search for themselves if they cared to the extent to attack me here and command a defensive response. This more recent 2020 empirical and modelling study found even short periods above ~80% RH after water-based carpet cleaning can sustain fungal growth in carpet dust.



My claim: Microsponges are very effective at reducing microbiological growth and mites at depth

Evidence: This study in the journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology that I linked to earlier (“Chemical treatment of carpets to reduce allergen: Comparison of the effects of tannic acid and other treatments on proteins derived from dust mites and cats”) evaluated the efficacy of various chemistries, including use of microsponges, on mite and cat allergens in carpet. They found that relative to not using microsponges, the reduction in the concentration of allergens in carpets increased from 56% to 65% from week 2 to week 8 after application, showing continuous and weeks-long lasting benefits—in contrast to the worsening conditions caused by the humid environment left by wet cleaning. They do state that these numbers are likely not reflective of true allergen levels due to the method used to measure them; however, they are only slightly lower than values measured independently in other studies I also referenced in my previous comment in the international conferences on Indoor Air Quality and the Environment. These studies are available, but you’ll have to consult academic databases / libraries for the published conference proceedings, since they’re not on the internet, and I cannot share due to copyright. They indicate just a single use of microsponges reduced dust mites by 78%, cat allergens (dander, hair and saliva) by 85%, dust mite allergens by 75%, and mould spores by 85% to 94% even in humid environments associated with temperate climates. My other claims associated with low resoiling rates derived from one of the videos linked to earlier, which while not a scientific study, is fairly convincing in light of the scientific evidence already available and outlined above.

 

[herbicide]

@Vacuum Facts Your responses are nothing but strawman arguments. ie the ol' bait and switch tactic here...

This was what I was responding to. This claim right here you made below, you know, the one I RESPONDED to:

It's very easy to demonstrate the superiority of microsponges over other techniques for real-world domestic usage.

I am disputing THAT claim. You have still posted NOTHING besides your own claims that backs that up. Newsflash: None of those studies and links that YOU provided in response addresses that.

Where is this "smoking gun evidence?" Spare us from more circular links to the own nonsense propaganda that is being questioned in the first place. Show the evidence directly if you have it. Share the link and notate the exact positions of said evidence. Your claims do not count as the evidence, because that is what is being questioned in the first place.

 

[herbicide]

Here is another one that you could clearly "prove me wrong" if I am, but you chose to throw around veiled insults instead, because I would wager that you cannot "prove me wrong:"

Contrasting this with your earlier silly tirade reveals you simply didn’t read properly anything you were given. You’ve therefore showed total confusion about what each study showed, as evidenced by your absurd statements like “1. Nowhere in that abstract does it make any such claim.”—it clearly does in the actual paper, beyond the front and back cover, as I said.

Where is the paper that you reference? The link is only to the abstract, which is all you provide in the link; the actual paper is not available to us in the general public... Provide an accessible link to the paper, because the abstract (the information in the link...) makes no such claims that you do.

Until then, you're just making up your own "evidence" to meet your narrative(s).

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I'm not feeding trolls anymore. There's enough evidence here for people to see all they need.

 

[herbicide]

I'm not feeding trolls anymore. There's enough evidence here for people to see all they need.

Would hate to see you starve.

Much as I had assumed, you can't provide receipts for your claims.

 

[cheesewonton]

@Vacuum Facts Your responses are nothing but strawman arguments. ie the ol' bait and switch tactic here...

This was what I was responding to. This claim right here you made below, you know, the one I RESPONDED to:

I am disputing THAT claim. You have still posted NOTHING besides your own claims that backs that up. Newsflash: None of those studies and links that YOU provided in response addresses that.

Where is this "smoking gun evidence?" Spare us from more circular links to the own nonsense propaganda that is being questioned in the first place. Show the evidence directly if you have it. Share the link and notate the exact positions of said evidence. Your claims do not count as the evidence, because that is what is being questioned in the first place.

That is a fact. I read the links. None of the links V-F claims proves his point actually support his claims. And the one link with measured results for cleaning carpets with hot water extraction shows better results than any chemical cleaning method. I spent a career in a data driven RDT&E world at a major weapons lab. I think I know how to read a scientific paper and understand the results. It is probably beneficial to use some of the dry chemical "cleaners" in between periodic ( every 18 months to two years ) hot water extraction cleanings. That is what the results show. It is not a case of the dry cleaners including microsponges do nothing but they are a complement to and not a substitute for periodic hot water extraction cleaning.

 

[cheesewonton]

Would hate to see you starve.

Much as I had assumed, you can't provide receipts for your claims.

Nope. Just mountains of bovine excrement.

 

[huskyvacs]

This is what he does. Back him into a corner, he will hammer a hole in the wall and run away. He can't explain himself because his entire life hinges on you accepting his claims at face value and believing them. When you keep pressing him, he can't explain his claims anymore and he knows it, so he just runs away. His other tactic is to just wear you down with the most gibberish nonsense you ever saw until you just give up. This is why his paper trail on the internet is about 30 something pages long of websites he's burned through and communities that booted him.

And all this effort just to get into the boots of Sir James Dyson of all people.

 

[herbicide]

The paper is available to you. You just didn't bother to look it up and get it. (It's not free.)

Yeah, the abstract is available for free and it says enough.

-Do you really expect us to believe their abstract (ahem, summary) is going to vary from the contents of the paper?
-Do you honestly expect people to pay to go down your rabbit holes, when there is plenty of evidence existing stating your claims are bunk? Well of course you don't so you can continue to hide behind something. (summary since you don't seem to understand what that means) and that summary has no such

No, you just don't look at the evidence, as clearly illustrated many times to our amusement.

What more needs to be said? I went point by point to your "evidence" and could not find one thing to support your claims. In fact, much of the evidence your links provided was counter to your own claims! I don't know what to tell you if you disagree, its all right there in that previous post.

No, it's pretty clear to any sensible reader that my responses discredited your vague charge

By vague you mean very specific and direct. And the only thing that there is to be discredited is your claims.

You clearly didn't even click the link. It linked to a playlist of external sources that showed evidence of this (that I'm sure you'll just auto-dismiss them, amusingly).

You mean other demonstrations? Yes I did "click" it. I don't need to be shown that something works. I know it "works." The question is if it is better than extraction. You claim it is. You have presented zero actual convincing evidence that it does even in your own demonstrations.

Now... I see you completely ignore the specific use case I mention of course, because mere mention of it completely destroys your narrative. (removing wet stains)

No, but I did say previously (not that you read it) in reference to that external video (that you also didn't watch): "while not a scientific study, is fairly convincing in light of the scientific evidence already available and outlined above."

That is an entirely subjective statement. I thought you were only interested in 'objective, fact based' information

What's amusing is that you were purposefully very vague about what you were referring to, despite request and every opportunity to be clear. Yet, later, after my claims were evidenced, you cherrypick the one claim not explicitly treated. This shows you implicitly agree with the others, but bizarrely, decide to contradict yourself by virtue of taking that one remaining claim and use it to support your charge of me “promoting falsities…Perhaps by malice, perhaps by misunderstanding”.

I cherry picked that one because it is a golden opportunity for you to redeem yourself. You did not, you can't provide the paper, if you really want to stand behind the evidence in it you should pay for it and post a reference here for all to see.

The rest all stand on their own per the original post. You don't even try to challenge them, only go on another long diatribe.

.., and are superior at depth by virtue of reducing allergens over time rather than increasing them. If you can't see why my statement you take issue with is supported by a range of evidences, then I'm not able to help you further. The rest of us reading understand.

Where is this purported evidence? Again the links you provide state no such conclusions. That conclusion is your own, but you've provide no such evidence to support it.

This guy wants everything handed to him on a plate so he can auto-reject it. Thought about looking up the full paper yourself and reading it, or can you not be bothered so you feel you can claim evidence doesn't even exist. Hilarious.

You are right. I want your bull excrement claims to be backed up with evidence if they are to be believed.

 

[centralsweeper63]

What a petty fight. Why, VacuumFacts, are you still trying to link to the same annoying post.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Yeah, the abstract is available for free and it says enough.

-Do you really expect us to believe their abstract (ahem, summary) is going to vary from the contents of the paper?
-Do you honestly expect people to pay to go down your rabbit holes, when there is plenty of evidence existing stating your claims are bunk? Well of course you don't so you can continue to hide behind something. (summary since you don't seem to understand what that means) and that summary has no such

What more needs to be said? I went point by point to your "evidence" and could not find one thing to support your claims. In fact, much of the evidence your links provided was counter to your own claims!

This is all I needed to expose those that don't correctly read what's given, dismiss evidence by their own admission, and then claim it doesn't exist. This exposé of serious deficiency is now complete to me. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

You should also know that it has been brought to my attention (and by those who don't always agree with me) that this forum is considered toxic and repellant now as a direct result of how a few loud voices have responded to my posts in the last few threads, not because of my contributions, which is quite affirming. Sadly, lurkers and some contributors are not sticking around. Not so good for the platform, but you've only yourselves to blame.

 

[cheesewonton]

This is all I needed to expose those that don't correctly read what's given, dismiss evidence by their own admission, and then claim it doesn't exist. This exposé of serious deficiency is now complete to me. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

You should also know that it has been brought to my attention (and by those who don't always agree with me) that this forum is considered toxic and repellant now as a direct result of how a few loud voices have responded to my posts in the last few threads, not because of my contributions, which is quite affirming. Sadly, lurkers and some contributors are not sticking around. Not so good for the platform, but you've only yourselves to blame.

You don't even read your own sources carefully. We read them and find that the claims you make are not supported by the information in the sources you provide. If you find us toxic then just go. No one is forcing you to post here. We will all be happier if you go.

 

[herbicide]

This is all I needed to expose those that don't correctly read what's given, dismiss evidence by their own admission, and then claim it doesn't exist. This exposé of serious deficiency is now complete to me. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

You should also know that it has been brought to my attention (and by those who don't always agree with me) that this forum is considered toxic and repellant now as a direct result of how a few loud voices have responded to my posts in the last few threads, not because of my contributions, which is quite affirming. Sadly, lurkers and some contributors are not sticking around. Not so good for the platform, but you've only yourselves to blame.

It sure seems like you’re trying to expose yourself. You are flat out claiming things that are different than the materials that you post.

The only thing that’s toxic here is you

 

[centralsweeper63]

I wonder if this is why he has potentially been banned.