HBOT Chambers

December 23, 2004

I just wanted to update everyone on the status of the new portable

hyperbaric chambers which will soon be ready for market. At this

time they are in testing and everything is going smoothly with the

FDA part as well as other requirements. No glitches and no problems

so far. If everything goes as scheduled production will begin on or

before Feb. 1. The first production will be for the Beta edition

which will be manufactured according to specs and testing. The

reason for the beta edition is to perfect all documentation of

instructions, ease of use, etc. All participants in the beta

production will be expected to give feedback to the company as well

as help them perfect training requirements, etc. If you would like

to be a participant in the production of the beta edition, please

contact me and I will put you on the list.

The anticipated retail price of the chamber will be $24,900, however

there will be some very special pricing for the beta edition. We

know it will be under $18000 and possibly will be able to offer a

rebate in addition depending on the results of testing, manufacturing

costs, etc. Things are going smoother than we could have hoped for

and the strength and quality of this chamber is very impressing.

Keep in mind, this is a commercial design so the strength and

durability is 10 times stronger than anything else on the market. I

truly believe this chamber will be the future of hyperbarics for

brain injury.

The company name and details will not be announced until we are ready

to announce the actual production. We expect opposition and I think

you can expect to verbal objections to try to keep you from wanting

to purchase this chamber for home use. As many of you probably know

I have already had accusations made towards me on one of the lists,

which, I am certain, was an attempt to slow my participation in the

introduction of this chamber. However, I am very excited about it

and think this is the answer to those needing hbot for brain injury.

We now know that it normally takes more than 40 sessions of HBOT to

accomplish the improvements we hope to see. We know it is safe to do

continuous HBOT in most cases and that, especially with children,

more hbot is needed as they grow and develop to keep up with the

growth changes. This is going to be the only affordable method of

doing it. Although the company cannot and will not advocate the

sharing of this chamber, I can see 2 or 3 families joining forces to

own their own chamber. I am certain the company will have

requirements for those purchasing a chamber and they will have to

stick with those requirements but the possibilities are endless.

This chamber will be set up so those purchasing it for professional

use will be able to use oxygen masks or hoods with it.

If you would like to be on the list for a Beta Chamber, the deadline

is Jan. 15. Please email me with your name, address, phone number

and let me know. My email is rhartsoe@...

You will be given full particulars and we will have the results of

the tests, etc. before expecting anyone to purchase. You will have

full information and disclosure.

Hartsoe

rhartsoe@...

February 23, 2005

And the new portable chambers are the only

> ones that will be approved for 1.5 ATA and for oxygen use. The

risk of

> driving to work tomorrow morning or pumping gasoline into your

> automobile are much higher than crawling into a hbot chamber.

> Hartsoe

>

I communicated with Ignacio Fogel about this and he did not think it

was a good idea (1.5 at home). After all that oxyhealth went through

with the FDA to get 1.25 approved for home use, with a passthrough,

you are telling me the FDA is approving a regular person with an RX

from their doctor for a 1.5 chamber with oxygen in the home?

Is this what you are saying or not?

February 24, 2005

Jill

So if there are these eye problems associated with hyperbaric, why has no one

modified chambers to allow the head to be outside the chamber (I'm assuming no

one has)? This would be a comparatively easy modification to make. A snug

fitting flexible collar around the neck. On-the-shelf technology.

Corny

Re: Hbot chambers

> That may be true in your case but not in most cases.

This is simply due to lack of followup in the industry, particularly

because it is afraid if any negative information came out, it would

be further marginalized.

An email from Deckoff-JOnes to me last weekreported that one

lyme patient who did many treatments developed early cataracts during

that time.

Her tender who does a lot of scuba and is younger, developed an early

cataract in one eye.

There is no " proof " they're related but all you need to do is study

the science of oxidation of the lens etc. Or talk to Giblin. I

did. The lens of the eye is vulnerable to oxidation and cataracts

have been modelled in animals using HBO by Giblin who knows the

most about it of all scientists in the field. The lens gets its

glutathione by diffusion since it has no blood vessels.

The retina, in turn, uses more oxygen than any organ in the body.

Do you even know this about the eye? Have you researched it? Do you

care enough about eye problems in patients to really study it, and

talk to scientists who understand it?

A friend of a lyme acquaintance of mine, who was doing treatments at

Yonkers, had to stop because his vision was worsening.

Kay, a woman in Arizona, said her vision deteriorated after

hyperbaric treatments (tho it improved her health) and never returned

to baseline.

These are just comments from people I personally know and have spoken

with! THere is no reason for them to tell me this. I never told them

I was having eye problems.

And Lance, who is a great advocate of hyperbaric, wears trifocals in

his mid 40's.

It is of particular concern in those over 40 of course, when

presbysopioa usually begins anyway (which is a precursor to cataracts

biologically).

Thus the idea of using it for an hour or day for the rest of your

life is at best naive and at worst careless.

That does not negate the value of hyperbaric. As I said I love my

chamber. But it should be used judiciously.

OxyPLUS is an unmoderated e-ring dealing with oxidative therapies, and other

alternative self-help subjects.

THERE IS NO MEDICAL ADVICE HERE!

This list is the 1st Amendment in action. The things you will find here are

for information and research purposes only. We are people sharing information

we believe in. If you act on ideas found here, you do so at your own risk.

Self-help requires intelligence, common sense, and the ability to take

responsibility for your own actions. By joining the list you agree to hold

yourself FULLY responsible FOR yourself. Do not use any ideas found here

without consulting a medical professional, unless you are a researcher or health

care provider.

You can unsubscribe via e-mail by sending A NEW e-mail to the following

address - NOT TO THE OXYPLUS LIST! -

DO NOT USE REPLY BUTTON & DO NOT PUT THIS IN THE SUBJECT LINE or BODY of the

message! :

oxyplus-unsubscribeegroups<mailto:oxyplus-unsubscribeegroups>

oxyplus-normalonelist<mailto:oxyplus-normalonelist> - switch

your subscription to normal mode.

February 24, 2005

Corny, you can lessen the lipid peroxidation to the lens (which as I

said receives glutathoine by diffusion as it has no blood vessels) by

closing the eyes, thus not getting saturation of the cornea as in a

hood or in a monochamber. You're right goggles would keep out even

more. I don't know how much is absorbed through closed lids but I

guess some because we sleep with eyes closed all night and our eyes

must be getting air anyway. But I don't know how much.

Or even in my chamber I always keep m y eyes closed and there's very

little extra 02 in the chamber as it's venting 50 litres a minute or

something like that and my concentrator doesnt' give 100% 02 either.

You will still get tissue saturation, however, and in clinic chambers

at 2.4 ata that is from my recollection as high as 2000% more. That

is my recollection from when I researched it 4 years ago, in any

case, its astoundingly high and that will go into the plasma and thus

into all the tissues. Perhaps not in equal measure, perhaps bone is

more resistant. Certainly the lens is vulnerable.

Thus my feeling about hbo is I'm a strong proponent of the mild

chambers for most indications. Even for something like gangrene, I

recall the doc in Vancouver who had a big 16-person chamber, had

treated someone whose limb was due for amputation, by giving her 1.5

ata a few times over the course of several days (a few times a day, I

mean). Lower pressures do just fine.

The portable chamber has a good effect on lyme. I know that from my

experience and lymies who have it. It's not a cure but its very

helpful.

There's a big difference btw 200% saturation and 2000%. I think the

portable chambers are relatively benign. I should add that Lance got

over his lyme having built his own home chamber and went to deep

depths. So though he does use portables now, he didn't in the

beginning as they were not available to hiim in 1994.

February 24, 2005

P.S. When I say 12.5 times the oxygen we breathe at room air, I am referring to

what

enters the lungs, not what reaches the tissues, especially poorly vascularized

tissues.

HBOT uses oxygen like a drug. All drugs have the potential for side effects. It

is up to the

practitioner to provide the patient with enough information for informed

consent. Then

the patient should be allowed to choose for him or herself.

P.P.S. The lens is avascular, so it should be at lower risk for toxicity than

other tissues,

unless the process has already begun. O2 has to get into the lens mostly by

diffusion. This

is how extra oxygen given by HBOT reaches all poorly vascularized tissues, but

we are

talking microns, not the thickness of a lens. And as for children developing

cataracts in 40

years, lots of them are going to anyway, from Lyme, from the sun, from may

things other

than HBOT. Animal studies are the way to go to study this and there are some

decent

papers in the literature. Unfortunately most of my library and reference papers

are still in

Mass, so I can't give you citations without doing a bunch of work I'm too tied

up for now.

P.P.P.S. Jill, I understand why this subject is so upsetting for you. It's

painful for all of us to

come to terms with the things that are happening to us that can't be fixed. But

if this were

so common, why aren't we hearing from others besides you. I'm not saying that

you are

the only one, just that it is much more rare than you think and a surprise in 40

years is

unlikely. HBOT has been around a long time.

> >

> > Corny, you can lessen the lipid peroxidation to the lens (which as I

> > said receives glutathoine by diffusion as it has no blood vessels) by

> > closing the eyes, thus not getting saturation of the cornea as in a

> > hood or in a monochamber. You're right goggles would keep out even

> > more. I don't know how much is absorbed through closed lids but I

> > guess some because we sleep with eyes closed all night and our eyes

> > must be getting air anyway. But I don't know how much.

> >

> > Or even in my chamber I always keep m y eyes closed and there's very

> > little extra 02 in the chamber as it's venting 50 litres a minute or

> > something like that and my concentrator doesnt' give 100% 02 either.

> >

> > You will still get tissue saturation, however, and in clinic chambers

> > at 2.4 ata that is from my recollection as high as 2000% more. That

> > is my recollection from when I researched it 4 years ago, in any

> > case, its astoundingly high and that will go into the plasma and thus

> > into all the tissues. Perhaps not in equal measure, perhaps bone is

> > more resistant. Certainly the lens is vulnerable.

> >

> > Thus my feeling about hbo is I'm a strong proponent of the mild

> > chambers for most indications. Even for something like gangrene, I

> > recall the doc in Vancouver who had a big 16-person chamber, had

> > treated someone whose limb was due for amputation, by giving her 1.5

> > ata a few times over the course of several days (a few times a day, I

> > mean). Lower pressures do just fine.

> >

> > The portable chamber has a good effect on lyme. I know that from my

> > experience and lymies who have it. It's not a cure but its very

> > helpful.

> >

> > There's a big difference btw 200% saturation and 2000%. I think the

> > portable chambers are relatively benign. I should add that Lance got

> > over his lyme having built his own home chamber and went to deep

> > depths. So though he does use portables now, he didn't in the

> > beginning as they were not available to hiim in 1994.

February 25, 2005

Or why not goggles that seal well?

ragnar redbeard wrote:

> Jill

> So if there are these eye problems associated with hyperbaric, why has

> no one modified chambers to allow the head to be outside the chamber

> (I'm assuming no one has)? This would be a comparatively easy

> modification to make. A snug fitting flexible collar around the

> neck. On-the-shelf technology.

>

> Corny

> <http://www.nod32.com>

February 25, 2005

> , the subject is not upsetting to me, please don't read me

> wrong. I LOVE my chamber. I have told Lance many times that I owe him

> in perpetuity and I will never get rid of my chamber. It is my most

> prized possession. The eye changes I have do not impair my quality of

> life. I will have to get cataract surgery earlier than I ever would

> have, I suspect, as I had perfect vision before hyperbaric and that

> does not thrill me, but that's small potatoes at this point.

Or you could just use Dr. Schulze's eyewash on a regular basis, and rid

yourself of the cataracts (and most other potential eye problems).

February 25, 2005