Re: HBOT and Mercury toxic kids

March 29, 2009

Elena,

Cutler says that it's contra-indicated for mercury-poisoned individuals because

of oxydative stress. Mercury & other metals are oxidation catalysts and their

abilities in this area are amplified in the presence of increased oxygen, which

HBOT supplies.

So kids who are mercury-toxic should not be supplied with oxygen in the way that

HBOT works. According to Cutler, breathing 100% oxygen is safe for mercury-toxic

folks as is using perfusion enhancers like hydergine or piracetam (they don't

work in the same way as HBOT).

HBOT is good for some kids, bad for others. You want to make sure it's good for

your child before doing it.

Here are some useful posts:

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/108795.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/43295.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/6974.html

HTH

>

> Can someone explain to me why HBOT should not be used with Mercury-toxic

> children?

March 29, 2009

All,

This is getting confusing.Most of the literature that I have read shows that

HBOT can be beneficial for our children, given that chelation has began prior to

starting HBOT. Our child is doing AC protocol and we are on our 12th round . By

June of this year we will have done 30 rounds and it is then that we are

considering going to Australia for some intensive HBOT.

Thanks

Joanna

>

> Can someone explain to me why HBOT should not be used with Mercury-toxic

> children?

>

> --

> Elena

> Proud Mom of Zachary

>

> http://www.faitheforzachary.blogspot.com

>

> " Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in

> knowing you did your best to become the best that you are capable of

> becoming. "

> R. Wooden, Head Basketball Coach, Emeritus, UCLA (1948-1975)

>

March 29, 2009

Hi Joanna, are you in NZ if so why wouldn¹t you do the HBOT in NZ

Regards

On 30/3/09 9:14 AM, " nicolijoanna " <nicolijoanna@...> wrote:

>

> All,

> This is getting confusing.Most of the literature that I have read shows that

> HBOT can be beneficial for our children, given that chelation has began prior

> to starting HBOT. Our child is doing AC protocol and we are on our 12th round

> . By June of this year we will have done 30 rounds and it is then that we are

> considering going to Australia for some intensive HBOT.

>

> Thanks

> Joanna

>

>> >

>> > Can someone explain to me why HBOT should not be used with Mercury-toxic

>> > children?

>> >

>> > --

>> > Elena

>> > Proud Mom of Zachary

>> >

>> > http://www.faitheforzachary.blogspot.com

>> >

>> > " Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in

>> > knowing you did your best to become the best that you are capable of

>> > becoming. "

>> > R. Wooden, Head Basketball Coach, Emeritus, UCLA (1948-1975)

>> >

March 29, 2009

----- Original Message -----

From: nicolijoanna

All,

This is getting confusing.Most of the literature that I have read shows that

HBOT can be beneficial for our children, given that chelation has began prior to

starting HBOT.

===>Likely you are reading literature put out by the people who have the HBOT

centers/chambers or a vested interest in them. I just saw a new study but,

again, the HBOT center supported the study, which is clearly a conflict of

interest and the interest is so direct as to make the study invalid.

Our child is doing AC protocol and we are on our 12th round . By June of this

year we will have done 30 rounds and it is then that we are considering going to

Australia for some intensive HBOT.

Thanks

Joanna

>

> Can someone explain to me why HBOT should not be used with Mercury-toxic

> children?

>

> --

> Elena

> Proud Mom of Zachary

>

> http://www.faitheforzachary.blogspot.com

>

> " Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in

> knowing you did your best to become the best that you are capable of

> becoming. "

> R. Wooden, Head Basketball Coach, Emeritus, UCLA (1948-1975)

>

March 29, 2009

> All,

> This is getting confusing.

um, well, yes. It IS confusing. Just like chelation is

confusing. HBOT is unknown to most people. Then you want

to try to see how the 2 work together. You are going to have

lost most people long ago -- and even those who are still with

you are going to have wildly divergent opinions and experiences.

None of which means you shouldn't say " this is confusing " .

But, I think it is gonna be that way.

> Most of the literature that I have read shows that HBOT can be beneficial for

our children, given that chelation has began prior to starting HBOT.

>

> ===>Likely you are reading literature put out by the people who have the

HBOT centers/chambers or a vested interest in them.

Not necessarily. True, some is written by chamber operators,

and companies that sell soft-sided chambers, etc.

But, just like chelation, there's also quite a bit of writing

that is by parents and others who have used HBOT.

And some of the chamber operators are also parents or others

who have their own use of HBOT that has prompted them to get

into the business. So, it is not always quite as simple as

" they have something to sell because they are motivated to

make money " .

> I just saw a new study but, again, the HBOT center supported the study, which

is clearly a conflict of interest and the interest is so direct as to make the

study invalid.

Does this logic also apply to pharmaceutical companies that

are studying the latest blood-pressure medications and

anxiety meds and the like?

I'm not saying that self-interest makes for objectivity, just

that I hope you apply this logic to everything if you think

it makes the study invalid. And I'm CERTAINLY not endorsing

blood-pressure meds.

Going back to the original question, I don't have a clear

opinion, but I do think I (somewhat) understand both how HBOT

works, and why Andy thinks it is risky. I used to follow

HBOT lists, but haven't for the last few years.

(I have no children, and have chelated mySELF using ALA

for about 1.5 years, and I've also used a mild HBOT chamber....)

(I also use ozone, if you'd like one more factor to add to

the mix.)

best,

Moria

March 30, 2009

It can be confusing Joanna. My son has benefitted from HBOT and we still

continue to chelate him. I meet lots of kids in the HBOT chambers, many of them

not chelated at all, and many of them benefit quite a bit from what their

parents report. At the first chamber where we dove, the first ASD kid they ever

chelated recovered completely--it made the news--and his parents didn't do

anything else at all for him biomedically.

I talk to many people with MS (we dive at an MS centre). The great majority of

them see benefits, some of them see enormous benefits, yet many of them I would

assume are mercury toxic.

For us, HBOT means my son sleeps well at night and has regular bowel movements.

Those two things are very important to good health. I'm sure he has other

benefits as well, but we cannot speak and so many of those benefits are a bit

unclear. I always quiz MS patients about how they feel because of HBOT (most

are only doing HBOT so the relationship is pretty clear, unlike in ASD where

we're often doing more than one thing at a time). They talk about much improved

sleep and bowels, much reduced pain, improved clarity of thought, improved

energy levels, and improved mobility. None of the people I've spoken to with

MS do other interventions that we might assume would get to the root of the

problem, but HBOT helps alleviate/slow down many of the symptoms they suffer

from.

For my son, I use extra antioxidants while we're diving. We chelate as much as

possible while we dive. We've only seen good things--albeit nothing even close

to a miracle as some kids seem to experience. I've talked to very, very few

people who've seen nothing good or even something bad, but no intervention is

for everyone/is completely risk-free.

Anita

>

> All,

> This is getting confusing.Most of the literature that I have read shows that

HBOT can be beneficial for our children, given that chelation has began prior to

starting HBOT. Our child is doing AC protocol and we are on our 12th round . By

June of this year we will have done 30 rounds and it is then that we are

considering going to Australia for some intensive HBOT.

>

> Thanks

> Joanna

>

March 30, 2009

----- Original Message -----

From: Anita

For my son, I use extra antioxidants while we're diving. We chelate as much as

possible while we dive. We've only seen good things--albeit nothing even close

to a miracle as some kids seem to experience. I've talked to very, very few

people who've seen nothing good or even something bad, but no intervention is

for everyone/is completely risk-free.

===>I'll admit that the figure for negative reactions is low, but I've talked

to/read posts from maybe 10 parents that have reported; seizures (one where not

only were they not present before, but seizures that come back everytime the

parent tries to pick back up with chelation, reported on this board), and

negative behavior symptoms (two where the child started screaming and banging

their heads, new symptoms) from HBOT. I don't read that these kids lacked

adequate antioxidant support.

>

> All,

> This is getting confusing.Most of the literature that I have read shows that

HBOT can be beneficial for our children, given that chelation has began prior to

starting HBOT. Our child is doing AC protocol and we are on our 12th round . By

June of this year we will have done 30 rounds and it is then that we are

considering going to Australia for some intensive HBOT.

>

> Thanks

> Joanna

>

March 30, 2009

Hi ,

> Does this logic also apply to pharmaceutical companies that

> are studying the latest blood-pressure medications and

> anxiety meds and the like?

> I'm not saying that self-interest makes for objectivity, just

> that I hope you apply this logic to everything if you think

> it makes the study invalid. And I'm CERTAINLY not endorsing

> blood-pressure meds.

>

> ===>Yes, Moira, thinking you know that I would apply the same logic.

Nope, I was asking. And still a bit dazed. I think that " self

interested parties " doing the study is the rule, not the exception,

though I'd admit it is not something I've looked into. So,

well, it would invalidate a lot of western medical practice if

one throws that out?? Also, since everything (research and otherwise)

is funded by whoever is willing to pay, there is not going to be

good research that is " impartial " in the way you are wanting

any time soon. Am I missing something here?

> I saw a review of this latest study where the author said " such a direct

relationship was so unusual as to be almost unprecedented. "

Well, since I've commented I suppose I should go read the review.

I can't imagine that the reviewer is correct -- again, what about

drugs and every other kind of medical device and procedure?

What about all the industries that fund food/nutrition research?

I can only think the author is either exaggerating of misinformed?

If I really stretch it, I can imagine the author means that

sometimes the self-interest is obscured by having some kind of

" middleman " that makes the relationship slightly harder to find??

> I don't endorse medication or any protocol/treatment where the parties who

have a vested interest in making monies, are direct participants, it's not

ethical and taints the study to the point where it is invalid.

Well, I don't generally go around recommending allopathic medicine,

but that's because it doesn't need any help getting clients.

If it came down to it, I would not write off (or otherwise

un-endorse) drug studies because they are funded by pharmaceutical

companies. I don't think that invalidates them, at least not in

the world as it stands today. I can see where it is less than

ideal -- but that level of ideal looks imaginary to me, for now.

> The point here is not whether *anyone* who was mercury toxic has seen

benefits from HBOT, as there are those who improve with a variety of

interventions, the point is whether HBOT is safe for mercury toxic people and

therefore, recommended.

Well, that's one point. I'd say effectiveness and safety are both

issues (and I'm not saying they are the only issues). Studies

often/usually look at both effectiveness and safety.

> Some have benefited, others have not and at this time there is no clear way

to discern which child will or won't, so therefore it is not recommended.

I hope what you mean is " some have been harmed and some have not,

and there is no way to tell which child will or won't, so

therefore it is not recommended " .

If what you mean is what you said, that some " may not be helped " ,

that's a very different proposition. Then one is only risking

their time and money and effort and sweat.

You did say that you think the issue is " safety " , so I think you

do believe there is harm.....

I think there are (anecdotal) stories of kids who are

helped by HBOT and also some who are harmed.

As someone else just pointed out, it can also be hard to sort out

what is cause/effect when there's more than one variable involved.

(And when did life ever really have just ONE variable?)

I think some HBOT centers are more into supplements

(e.g. anti-oxidants) than others are. If you and I had an

unlimited research budget, I think having studies of HBOT with

intense nutritional intervention first and during would be

worth doing.

I'd say the main feature of " looking for results " of EITHER

chelation or HBOT (or both) is that the results are extremely

difficult and time consuming to find. At least when I was last

following HBOT, even anecdotal results were few and very far between.

Inadequate information, inadequate research, much more work,

and, as the original writer (whose name I don't know just now)

said -- confusion.

best,

Moria

March 30, 2009

My DAN doctor says you should do HBOT after chelation. Her take on it is that

chelation causes oxidative stress and that the HBOT repairs that stress.

I am guessing that for us after chelation we won't really need it.

TJ

________________________________

From: moriamerri <moriam@...>

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:21:13 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: HBOT and Mercury toxic kids

> All,

> This is getting confusing.

um, well, yes. It IS confusing. Just like chelation is

confusing. HBOT is unknown to most people. Then you want

to try to see how the 2 work together. You are going to have

lost most people long ago -- and even those who are still with

you are going to have wildly divergent opinions and experiences.

None of which means you shouldn't say " this is confusing " .

But, I think it is gonna be that way.

> Most of the literature that I have read shows that HBOT can be beneficial for

our children, given that chelation has began prior to starting HBOT.

>

> ===>Likely you are reading literature put out by the people who have the HBOT

centers/chambers or a vested interest in them.

Not necessarily. True, some is written by chamber operators,

and companies that sell soft-sided chambers, etc.

But, just like chelation, there's also quite a bit of writing

that is by parents and others who have used HBOT.

And some of the chamber operators are also parents or others

who have their own use of HBOT that has prompted them to get

into the business. So, it is not always quite as simple as

" they have something to sell because they are motivated to

make money " .

> I just saw a new study but, again, the HBOT center supported the study, which

is clearly a conflict of interest and the interest is so direct as to make the

study invalid.

Does this logic also apply to pharmaceutical companies that

are studying the latest blood-pressure medications and

anxiety meds and the like?

I'm not saying that self-interest makes for objectivity, just

that I hope you apply this logic to everything if you think

it makes the study invalid. And I'm CERTAINLY not endorsing

blood-pressure meds.

Going back to the original question, I don't have a clear

opinion, but I do think I (somewhat) understand both how HBOT

works, and why Andy thinks it is risky. I used to follow

HBOT lists, but haven't for the last few years.

(I have no children, and have chelated mySELF using ALA

for about 1.5 years, and I've also used a mild HBOT chamber....)

(I also use ozone, if you'd like one more factor to add to

the mix.)

best,

Moria

March 30, 2009

----- Original Message -----

From: moriamerri

===>Yes, I'm saying that some were harmed. I deleted this review that I read

from an independent psychology researcher, but I may be able to get it back or

ask for it again, I'll try. If I am remembering correctly what was remarkable

about the study was not that there was a direct relationship, but that they

failed to bring in an independent participant, like a University, into the

study.

And the review of the study was independent unlike the study, so if we're

going to discount somebody, it doesn't make any logical sense to discount the

independent review.

Hi ,

> Does this logic also apply to pharmaceutical companies that

> are studying the latest blood-pressure medications and

> anxiety meds and the like?

> I'm not saying that self-interest makes for objectivity, just

> that I hope you apply this logic to everything if you think

> it makes the study invalid. And I'm CERTAINLY not endorsing

> blood-pressure meds.

>

> ===>Yes, Moira, thinking you know that I would apply the same logic.

Nope, I was asking. And still a bit dazed. I think that " self

interested parties " doing the study is the rule, not the exception,

though I'd admit it is not something I've looked into. So,

well, it would invalidate a lot of western medical practice if

one throws that out?? Also, since everything (research and otherwise)

is funded by whoever is willing to pay, there is not going to be

good research that is " impartial " in the way you are wanting

any time soon. Am I missing something here?

> I saw a review of this latest study where the author said " such a direct

relationship was so unusual as to be almost unprecedented. "

Well, since I've commented I suppose I should go read the review.

I can't imagine that the reviewer is correct -- again, what about

drugs and every other kind of medical device and procedure?

What about all the industries that fund food/nutrition research?

I can only think the author is either exaggerating of misinformed?

If I really stretch it, I can imagine the author means that

sometimes the self-interest is obscured by having some kind of

" middleman " that makes the relationship slightly harder to find??

> I don't endorse medication or any protocol/treatment where the parties who

have a vested interest in making monies, are direct participants, it's not

ethical and taints the study to the point where it is invalid.

Well, I don't generally go around recommending allopathic medicine,

but that's because it doesn't need any help getting clients.

If it came down to it, I would not write off (or otherwise

un-endorse) drug studies because they are funded by pharmaceutical

companies. I don't think that invalidates them, at least not in

the world as it stands today. I can see where it is less than

ideal -- but that level of ideal looks imaginary to me, for now.

> The point here is not whether *anyone* who was mercury toxic has seen

benefits from HBOT, as there are those who improve with a variety of

interventions, the point is whether HBOT is safe for mercury toxic people and

therefore, recommended.

Well, that's one point. I'd say effectiveness and safety are both

issues (and I'm not saying they are the only issues). Studies

often/usually look at both effectiveness and safety.

> Some have benefited, others have not and at this time there is no clear way

to discern which child will or won't, so therefore it is not recommended.

I hope what you mean is " some have been harmed and some have not,

and there is no way to tell which child will or won't, so

therefore it is not recommended " .

If what you mean is what you said, that some " may not be helped " ,

that's a very different proposition. Then one is only risking

their time and money and effort and sweat.

You did say that you think the issue is " safety " , so I think you

do believe there is harm.....

I think there are (anecdotal) stories of kids who are

helped by HBOT and also some who are harmed.

As someone else just pointed out, it can also be hard to sort out

what is cause/effect when there's more than one variable involved.

(And when did life ever really have just ONE variable?)

I think some HBOT centers are more into supplements

(e.g. anti-oxidants) than others are. If you and I had an

unlimited research budget, I think having studies of HBOT with

intense nutritional intervention first and during would be

worth doing.

I'd say the main feature of " looking for results " of EITHER

chelation or HBOT (or both) is that the results are extremely

difficult and time consuming to find. At least when I was last

following HBOT, even anecdotal results were few and very far between.

Inadequate information, inadequate research, much more work,

and, as the original writer (whose name I don't know just now)

said -- confusion.

best,

Moria

March 30, 2009

>

> My DAN doctor says you should do HBOT after chelation. Her take on it is that

chelation causes oxidative stress and that the HBOT repairs that stress.

> I am guessing that for us after chelation we won't really need it.

HBOT causes oxidative stress, it does not correct it. THIs is almost by

definition, after all OXYGEN causes oxidative stress, and HBOT gives you more

OXYGEN....

If you chelate properly and the problem was toxicity then you won't need HBOT.

Andy

March 30, 2009

This thread is very interesting to me. I have no firsthand experience with HBOT.

Nearly a year ago, I couldn't get my DD into the chamber. Now, I can't afford

it.

Here's a link to an Autism One Podcast from 2006. It's Dr Megson speaking on a

number of subjects. I'm paraphrasing here, but towards the end, she mentions

HBOT and the benefits of moving gradually to a hard chamber and the risk of

inducing seizures in children who aren't ready " nutritionally " . She said that it

was due to increasing the oxidative stress. She says that she has used HBOT in a

coupleof children who were ready and that they came out talking after the first

session.

http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/2790034

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Anita

>

> For my son, I use extra antioxidants while we're diving. We chelate as much

as possible while we dive. We've only seen good things--albeit nothing even

close to a miracle as some kids seem to experience. I've talked to very, very

few people who've seen nothing good or even something bad, but no intervention

is for everyone/is completely risk-free.

>

> ===>I'll admit that the figure for negative reactions is low, but I've

talked to/read posts from maybe 10 parents that have reported; seizures (one

where not only were they not present before, but seizures that come back

everytime the parent tries to pick back up with chelation, reported on this

board), and negative behavior symptoms (two where the child started screaming

and banging their heads, new symptoms) from HBOT. I don't read that these kids

lacked adequate antioxidant support.

>

March 30, 2009

I am writing to share my experience with HBOT. We did 120 hours of hard chamber

hyperbaric oxygen (no masks or hoods were used).

Before HBOT, my 5yo son had chronic constipation, a bad yeast overgrowth problem

(waking up in the night, silly goofy behavior, staring at lights, hyperactivity,

etc), hypotonia, a possible mito dysfunction, dark circles, bloating,

malabsorption of foods, eye squinting, eye poking behaviors, and so forth.

(http://tinyurl.com/MedicalHistory-Will)

Sixth months and 120 hours of HBOT treatments " later " , there were social gains

(able to play catch, excited to see me when I came home and running to the

window, instead of sitting in corner in a fog), squinting was gone, dark circles

were gone, bloating was gone, pooping was *completely normal (devoid of food

particles, supplements, and on a regular schedule), muscle strength was

_incredible_, and, muscle tone went from blubber to athletic. Gone were the

silly, yeasty, " drunken " behaviors, and, he was _finally_ sleeping all night --

and so was I, until AC chelation . Lastly, a hair metal analysis given

immediately after the 120 hours showed evidence of metal excretion (Sorry, I

don't have a " before " hair test for comparision).

(http://tinyurl.com/Will-Chelation#Baseline_Hair_Analysis)

Unfortunately, we also got a terrible case of motor tics, which were gone before

HBOT. This motor tics worsened with each set of 40 hours. It became evident

to us, much later, that HBOT was feeding stretococcus - an aerobic bacteria.

After 20 days on an antibiotic for strep, all motor tics are gone, and the " HBOT

exacerbated " OCD was dramatically reduced.

With respect to the comment about seizures, another little boy my son's age

started who was also at this clinic, also receive treatments at higher pressures

when his father learned we were at 2.0 ATA (66 feet below sea level). This

child started having seizures, either in the chamber, or immediately after the

dive.

In summary, it's like most therapies, in that you have to see how your child

responds.

--penumbra

March 30, 2009

Andy,

I respectfully disagree. There is sufficient clinical evidence to show that

HBOT has no effect on oxidative stress.

(http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/7/36/abstract)

Dan also performed animal studies at 4.0 ATA and found that markers for

oxidative stress were unchanged when supplementation was used. This was an edge

condition that puts the whole oxidative stress debate to bed for me, personally.

===> HBOT causes oxidative stress, it does not correct it. THIs is almost by

definition, after all OXYGEN causes oxidative stress, and HBOT gives you more

OXYGEN....

March 30, 2009

I think Dr. Megson is a jewel. Bless her heart for taking on this incredibly

challenging disease, and, for being a public voice of reason to for the children

who are metaphorically cast into a leprosy colony by mainstream medicine.

However, I'm very skeptitical about Megson's understanding of what might be

inducing seizures in these cases. My speculation is that the increased

pressures mobilize toxins into the blood stream, and, that these toxins are

responsible for the seizure inducing - not the O2. Her labels of " nutritionally

ready " are soft and fuzzy, and, show what most scientists say is a confounding

medical problem. Were markers for oxidative stress measured before and after

these therapies? No one has the time, staff, or federal funding to do this type

of analysis, so these questions remain open.

Just like my post, it's all speculation.

--penumbra

March 30, 2009

I realize that people who like to play gin rummy with pubmed abstracts can find

one on any side of any issue. This fact alone makes it clear many of them are

not correct.

Oxygen toxicity, which is mediated by increased oxidative stress, is what you

get when you get too much HBOT (or go too deep for too long in scuba diving or a

caisson, this is not new stuff).

I am familiar with Dr. ' work, I do not believe any numbers about thiol

species levels that come out of her lab. Even if they are accurate, GSSG is not

the right measure of oxidative stress except while it is happening - unless

blood was drawn in the HBOT chamber, this result is meaningless even if I

accepted the measurement as accurate.

Actual facts are that HBOT makes about half of autistic kids temporarily better

and about half temporarily worse.

Andy

>

> Andy,

>

> I respectfully disagree. There is sufficient clinical evidence to show that

HBOT has no effect on oxidative stress.

> (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/7/36/abstract)

>

> Dan also performed animal studies at 4.0 ATA and found that markers for

oxidative stress were unchanged when supplementation was used. This was an edge

condition that puts the whole oxidative stress debate to bed for me, personally.

>

> ===> HBOT causes oxidative stress, it does not correct it. THIs is almost by

definition, after all OXYGEN causes oxidative stress, and HBOT gives you more

OXYGEN....

>

March 30, 2009

>

> I am writing to share my experience with HBOT. We did 120 hours of hard

chamber hyperbaric oxygen (no masks or hoods were used).

Unless they filled the chamber with pure oxygen, you can do better at room

pressure with a mask than you can in an air filled chamber at less than 5 ATA.

Andy

>

> Before HBOT, my 5yo son had chronic constipation, a bad yeast overgrowth

problem (waking up in the night, silly goofy behavior, staring at lights,

hyperactivity, etc), hypotonia, a possible mito dysfunction, dark circles,

bloating, malabsorption of foods, eye squinting, eye poking behaviors, and so

forth. (http://tinyurl.com/MedicalHistory-Will)

>

> Sixth months and 120 hours of HBOT treatments " later " , there were social gains