Would another approach be better?

[Guest guest]

> says: He told me the same thing--almost two years ago.

Actions speak louder than words. <

> Darin says: Just a question don't take this wrong. What actions

have you taken to work with these guy's. Have you done anything to

work with them. <

, Darin's comments (though I don't think he necessarily meant

to) have made me think....

I know that your struggle with Medicaid and UHMS and other anti-HBOT

for brain injury naysayers has been extensive and, thus, very

frustrating. I believe if I were in your shoes I might have given up

quite some time ago or simply tried to go it alone rather than trying

to help others along the way. And I don't disagree with your

frequent assertion that if UHMS showed even an inkling of public

support for (or even a willingness to further invesigate, REALLY

investigate) HBOT for brain injuries, it would go a long way toward

making HBOT available to many people who desperately need it.

However, I am really disturbed by the recent rash of very, very

accusatory and downright defaming responses to members of UHMS who've

posted on this list and the HBOTforCP list, or to anyone who seems to

even question any aspect of HBOT for brain injury in any way, shape

or form. While I am certainly not suggesting we all sit back and

keep quiet, I have to wonder why some of these responses must be so

ugly? On the one hand, we rail against UHMS for their lack of

support and (according to some) downright negligence but, really, how

can we ever expect there to be any positive movement in our direction

from individual UHMS members (and that is how positive change starts -

one person at a time) when they are continuously and viciously

attacked at almost every opportunity, both individually and as a

group? It seems to me that we are shooting ourselves in the foot

here with this complete and utter " you're with us or against us "

approach. Isn't it possible to be somewhere in between and, if so,

aren't those exactly the people we want to reach and persuade to our

side? We need to make a choice - if we do not ever wish to achieve

UHMS support and simply want to blame them for preventing us from

achieving our goal, than absolutely, this approach of accusations and

defamation should continue. But why waste the time? Just admit that

the " UHMS boat " has sailed and move on. But if we really feel that

UHMS support in necessary to or beneficial in achieving our goal, it

seems to me that this name calling and nastiness is going to have to

come to an end. While the description may be accurate in some cases,

at some point, we need to stop portraying ourselves as the " victims "

and move on.

Also, I know that everyone who supports HBOT for brain-injury

references the McGill study as having proven that point but the

presence of the control group which, in the end, wasn't a control at

all, gives conventional medicine and groups like the UHMS the

opportunity to question it's efficacy. Of course we all believe the

McGill study supports continued/increased use of HBOT to treat brain

injuries, but we are all also parents and loved ones of brain-injured

people, or providers of HBOT. Do not misunderstand - I hate it when

others imply we are desperate, ill-informed parents - I just think we

need to face the fact that we are viewed as having a bias. Can we

really blame others for questioning whether our interpretation of the

McGill study is truly based in science or simply in our hope that

HBOT will help our loved one? And the same can be said for the

physicians and CHTs amongst us - I might be viewed as a " desperate "

parent but they are viewed as having a financial interest in the

growth of HBOT for brain injury which, in many eyes, automatically

negates their opinions, as well. I know a great deal of time and

money was spent on that study but isn't it possible that a new study

is needed? One whose construction would not cloud the outcome. I

know that there have been positive studies other than McGill and I

know that it seems like we are having to jump through hoops that no

one else needs to but, in the end, is there anything else that will

move this whole debate forward? So, while not all of us care for Dr.

Niezgoda's recent comments and further question whether he was

actually misquoted as he claims, perhaps if he is the man who can

manage to fund another study, we should support him rather than bash

him. The same holds for the member of the UHMS that Darin has spoken

to - if he isn't the parent of a brain-injured child, perhaps

furthering this cause is not his top priority, hence the two years of

inaction. Or perhaps he has tried and failed - as we all know, it

isn't easy to be the minority voice. Perhaps if we somehow " led " him

along the path in the direction of the outcome we would like, we

might have more success. Recruiting one UHMS member at a time might

be a long and painful process but isn't everything that is really

worth doing?

I know that there are those of you who are going to say I am too new

to this issue or too naive to understand or appreciate the struggle

that has proceeded me - and you may be right. I just think that if

the current approach isn't working and is alienating more than

aligning, something else is needed.

Lynn