Re: HBOT and Mercury toxic kids

[Guest guest]

>

> 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

>

I think talking about oxidative stress is useful here, relative

to HBOT.

Being mercury toxic is also a BIG cause of oxidative stress

which is an important reason that mercury toxic children

and adults benefit from supplements.

Moria

[Guest guest]

>

> 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.

Well, doesn't the phase " when supplementation was used "

actually point to the idea that supplementation is NEEDED?

Now, I'm not going to tell you that increased oxidative

stress (from HBOT) is the ONLY reason that they might want

supplementation -- but it seems really likely that they

were, if fact, intentionally addressing oxidative stress.

If I'm correct, what you've said really differs from

" HBOT doesn't cause oxidative stress " .

It's closer to " HBOT does cause oxidative stress, but it

can be effectively mitigated by...... "

Moria

[Guest guest]

> 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, It think your comment here is giving a conclusion that

would be helpful to break into parts a bit.

Pressure alone results in oxygen being distributed in the body

much better. I have forgotten the ATA at which there is an

essential change, but at some level of pressure (a level that

is considered fairly low pressure for HBOT), oxygen is carried

by more aspects of blood and by lymph, and thus actually

reaches many areas where it may not get carried just by red

blood cells (which carry oxygen at " normal " levels of pressure).

I can see it has been far too long since I've talked about this,

I am not remembering half of what I want to say.

Anyway, I expect that you know this, Andy, and that you still

think that pure oxygen, with a mask, at normal pressure,

would " do better " .

I think 5 ATA is enough to greatly increase the efficiency of

oxygen use/distribution. But, I don't remember the number. Ug.

My addition to the conversation, which I hope may be useful for

those trying to understand HBOT (and/or trying to make sense of

what you said) is that HBOT generally refers to using more

oxygen AND being under more pressure. EACH OF THEM results in

more oxygen being available -- and BOTH TOGETHER is much more

effective than either alone.

What kind of mask also matters.

Moria

[Guest guest]

>

> > 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, It think your comment here is giving a conclusion that

> would be helpful to break into parts a bit.

>

> Pressure alone results in oxygen being distributed in the body

> much better. I have forgotten the ATA at which there is an

> essential change, but at some level of pressure (a level that

> is considered fairly low pressure for HBOT), oxygen is carried

> by more aspects of blood and by lymph, and thus actually

> reaches many areas where it may not get carried just by red

> blood cells (which carry oxygen at " normal " levels of pressure).

>

> I can see it has been far too long since I've talked about this,

> I am not remembering half of what I want to say.

>

> Anyway, I expect that you know this, Andy, and that you still

> think that pure oxygen, with a mask, at normal pressure,

> would " do better " .

>

> I think 5 ATA is enough to greatly increase the efficiency of

> oxygen use/distribution. But, I don't remember the number. Ug.

Ummm.... this is the part where the HBOT " used car salesmen " depend on the

scientific illiteracy of most people so as to sell unnecessarily expensive

service.

Do you ever remember hearing about " partial pressure? " Which is to say, the

pressure of the oxygen at ambient pressure is 0.21 ATA, the pressure of the

nitrogen is 0.78 ATA and the pressure of the argon, neon, CO2, etc. is 0.01 ATA?

The TOTAL pressure is 1 ATA of air, which is 0.21 ata of O2 + 0.78 ata of N2 +

0.01 ata of other stuff.

The partial pressure of oxygen is what matters in your discussion here, the

total pressure is irrelevant.

Thus air at 5 ATA is equivalent to pure oxygen at 1 ATA.

The oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells (for those with normal lung and

heart function) gets pretty fully saturated at near ambient conditions - that

is, much above 0.21 ATA of oxygen.

The oxygen carrying capacity of lymph, blood plasma, etc. is a linear function

of pressure. At about 2.5 ATA of oxygen partial pressure in people with normal

circulation and lung function it becomes equal to what the red blood cells are

supposed to be doing.

So if you just put on an oxygen mask at room pressure you increase 'normal'

oxygen distirbution 40%, and in areas having a hard time getting the oxygen from

red blood cells, you increase it far more.

Many people who respond positively to HBOT also respond positively to just

breathing straight oxygen through a mask, which is far easier and cheaper to

arrange. Also one can REALLY get things going by doing exercise while breathing

it through a mask so as to turn up the metabolism while extra oxygen is

available.

> My addition to the conversation, which I hope may be useful for

> those trying to understand HBOT (and/or trying to make sense of

> what you said) is that HBOT generally refers to using more

> oxygen AND being under more pressure. EACH OF THEM results in

> more oxygen being available -- and BOTH TOGETHER is much more

> effective than either alone.

This is not correct and is the part of the sales pitch " HBOT salesmen " may use

that could either be characterized as wilfully and negligently ignorant, or as

fraudulent, depending on whether the salesman has any real technical knowledge.

However without adequate technical knowledge on the part of the listener it is

easy to get drawn into this.

> What kind of mask also matters.

>

> Moria

Andy

www.noamalgam.com

www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

I'd rather discount studies based on their content.

I realize that reviewers will look at other aspects, but the

strongest case is always content, including how conclusions

were drawn.

In the case of HBOT, I expect there is precious little money

from any " independent " source.

Moria

[Guest guest]

===> 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.

----

In my view, this is due to the nature of the study of an open system having a

vast number of independent variables. It's clearly an art form using a

scienfitic methodology.

But, I like your colorful metaphor

===> 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.

----

Perhaps it's the best one can do while dealing with live patient.

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

better and about half temporarily worse.

----

I completely agree with you on this point, based on personal experiences

mentioned in an earlier post.

While heavy metal toxicty may be at the root of several sub, leads to a much

more pervasive and confounding medical problem. We have a great deal left to

learn.

--penumbra

[Guest guest]

Hi Andy,

Well, this is interesting, since I read your comments as

mostly saying what I said.

[i said:]

> > Pressure alone results in oxygen being distributed in the body

> > much better. I have forgotten the ATA at which there is an

> > essential change, but at some level of pressure (a level that

> > is considered fairly low pressure for HBOT), oxygen is carried

> > by more aspects of blood and by lymph, and thus actually

> > reaches many areas where it may not get carried just by red

> > blood cells (which carry oxygen at " normal " levels of pressure).

[You said:]

> The oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells (for those with normal lung

and heart function) gets pretty fully saturated at near ambient conditions -

that is, much above 0.21 ATA of oxygen.

Right, just the red blood cells are carrying oxygen at normal

pressure [ambient conditions].

>

> The oxygen carrying capacity of lymph, blood plasma, etc. is a linear function

of pressure. At about 2.5 ATA of oxygen partial pressure in people with normal

circulation and lung function it becomes equal to what the red blood cells are

supposed to be doing.

Right, like I said, PRESSURE results in oxygen being carried

by additional mechanisms -- ncluding plasma, lymph and

cerebrospinal fluid. (I looked it up, thus I remembered

cerebrospinal fluid).

[you said:]

> So if you just put on an oxygen mask at room pressure you increase 'normal'

oxygen distirbution 40%, and in areas having a hard time getting the oxygen from

red blood cells, you increase it far more.

um, yes, if " normal " means " via red blood cells " .

And the 40% ONLY applies if 100% means 100% of what red blood

cells can do -- so it can also be misleading, depending on how

someone reads numbers.

And, yes, in areas where the red blood cells are not reaching,

you are increasing " normal " distribution a whole nother way,

not comparable to the " 100% " or the " 40% " .

[you said:]

> Many people who respond positively to HBOT also respond positively to just

breathing straight oxygen through a mask, which is far easier and cheaper to

arrange. Also one can REALLY get things going by doing exercise while breathing

it through a mask so as to turn up the metabolism while extra oxygen is

available.

That may be -- anything you would recommend reading that points

to this? Obviously studies of HBOT can't be used to figure

this out. And the specific case of the child who was being

discussed here was use of both pressure and [higher levels of]

oxygen. (People generally say " pure oxygen " even though the

levels used vary, in part depending on type of mask, etc.)

[i said:]

> > My addition to the conversation, which I hope may be useful for

> > those trying to understand HBOT (and/or trying to make sense of

> > what you said) is that HBOT generally refers to using more

> > oxygen AND being under more pressure. EACH OF THEM results in

> > more oxygen being available -- and BOTH TOGETHER is much more

> > effective than either alone.

[you said:]

> This is not correct and is the part of the sales pitch " HBOT salesmen " may use

that could either be characterized as wilfully and negligently ignorant, or as

fraudulent, depending on whether the salesman has any real technical knowledge.

However without adequate technical knowledge on the part of the listener it is

easy to get drawn into this.

And, which part did you think was so deeply misleading?

Perhaps you object to my use of " more effective " since there may

be individuals for whom oxygen would have been effective?

Even if that is true, HBOT (oxygen + pressure) is still a more

effective way to distribute oxygen, and it is extremely likely

that many people who benefit would NOT (similarly) benefit

from oxygen alone.

Which means that I think " more effective " is accurate, even

though I don't mean that every individual will benefit from

HBOT or that HBOT is " more effective " than breathing oxygen

at normal pressure for changing some condition in some person or

for improving all conditions or any other specific thing.

I would guess that for most of the things that HBOT is generally

accepted as useful that there's not adequate information to

say to what degree [normal pressure + oxygen] would help --

and thus (I would guess) that there is no way to quantify

how many of the people who are helped by HBOT that could

have been helped by " just " breathing pure oxygen (without pressure).

I'm sure you have some reason for saying it is " many " who are

helped by HBOT who WOULD have been helped by oxygen w/o pressure.

In most cases people don't use these

therapies in ways that lead to any hope of concluding whether

oxygen at normal pressure would have worked -- the limitations

of life not providing a control group, let alone control

groups for each variable.

Moria

[Guest guest]

> In the case of HBOT, I expect there is precious little money

> from any " independent " source.

This is generally a true statement in all fields of research on everything.

This is why a lot of the 'playing gin rummy with pubmed abstracts' that goes on

is so silly.

This is why there are 2 key things to pay attention to - the people doing the

study (are they generally ethical in reporting as best they can what happened

when you look at the sum total of their work, and are they generally competent

in actually getting the right answer), and whether the study hangs together in

light of generally well known OTHER science that is well enough accepted that

the politics has probably been massaged out of it by now.

Andy

www.noamalgam.com

www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html

[Guest guest]

>

> > In the case of HBOT, I expect there is precious little money

> > from any " independent " source.

>

> This is generally a true statement in all fields of research on everything.

>

> This is why a lot of the 'playing gin rummy with pubmed abstracts' that goes

on is so silly.

>

> This is why there are 2 key things to pay attention to - the people doing the

study (are they generally ethical in reporting as best they can what happened

when you look at the sum total of their work, and are they generally competent

in actually getting the right answer), and whether the study hangs together in

light of generally well known OTHER science that is well enough accepted that

the politics has probably been massaged out of it by now.

In the case of HBOT, Rossignol has probably done some decent first-cut studies.

One of the reasons that I trust them is that though he obviously wanted to show

gains, he couldn't because he listened to his data. The placebo effects were

huge, and that's a big warning sign to me for all parent reported data for ASD

treatments. Still, I'm willing to keep an open mind to see if he (or others)

can find something further on.

There are plenty of positive parent reported effects for HBOT in forums

though... are they all wrong?? I can't say.

By that same standard though, (as you know), it worries me that there aren't any

ALA or ALA+DMSA studies based on your protocol that are close to happening.

[Probably due to the Strupp and Aposhian results.] We seem to have no good

idea of the placebo effects or potential detriments to this approach.

Why we can't find *one* good, capable body and petition/push them to do such a

study is beyond me, and it gives me great pause when people suggest that there's

no value in that ...

I'm no expert, but the latter just doesn't strike me as science.... and I don't

see how it offers a way forward to further improving treatment for our kids and

those that follow.

Also, w/o at least some studies to draw on, you couldn't have pulled together

what you did that seems to be helping many adults and kids with metals issues.

Why then are studies now seen as useless to confirm that what we're doing is

universally good for our kids?

[Guest guest]

The Rossignol's have an autistic child. So, it's very likely they are more

motivated than other medical professionals to illuminate the problem.

--penumbra

[Guest guest]

Hi mildcasedad,

You may be interested to know that there was a study PLANNED

at one time that would have included [something in the general

neighborhood of Andy's protocol -- at least the dose timing]

and [something more like DAN's dose timing]. I don't remember

much else -- but then, I think many of the details were not

really announced, I don't recall how much detail was included...

little bits of it still come back though as I think about it.

This was several years ago -- maybe about 2001 or so??

And the whole thing got scrapped.

best,

Moria

> >

> > > In the case of HBOT, I expect there is precious little money

> > > from any " independent " source.

> >

> > This is generally a true statement in all fields of research on everything.

> >

> > This is why a lot of the 'playing gin rummy with pubmed abstracts' that goes

on is so silly.

> >

> > This is why there are 2 key things to pay attention to - the people doing

the study (are they generally ethical in reporting as best they can what

happened when you look at the sum total of their work, and are they generally

competent in actually getting the right answer), and whether the study hangs

together in light of generally well known OTHER science that is well enough

accepted that the politics has probably been massaged out of it by now.

>

> In the case of HBOT, Rossignol has probably done some decent first-cut

studies. One of the reasons that I trust them is that though he obviously

wanted to show gains, he couldn't because he listened to his data. The placebo

effects were huge, and that's a big warning sign to me for all parent reported

data for ASD treatments. Still, I'm willing to keep an open mind to see if he

(or others) can find something further on.

>

> There are plenty of positive parent reported effects for HBOT in forums

though... are they all wrong?? I can't say.

>

> By that same standard though, (as you know), it worries me that there aren't

any ALA or ALA+DMSA studies based on your protocol that are close to happening.

[Probably due to the Strupp and Aposhian results.] We seem to have no good

idea of the placebo effects or potential detriments to this approach.

>

> Why we can't find *one* good, capable body and petition/push them to do such a

study is beyond me, and it gives me great pause when people suggest that there's

no value in that ...

>

> I'm no expert, but the latter just doesn't strike me as science.... and I

don't see how it offers a way forward to further improving treatment for our

kids and those that follow.

>

> Also, w/o at least some studies to draw on, you couldn't have pulled together

what you did that seems to be helping many adults and kids with metals issues.

Why then are studies now seen as useless to confirm that what we're doing is

universally good for our kids?

>

[Guest guest]

After all these years id like to say, still have a lot of respect for the

veterans for hanging in there. Mostly guys like Andy. Sticking around too,

putting up with trollish behaviors. At best continuing to answer the Q's

regardless of the validity of the confrontation. I'm forever grateful in what he

has said, warned and cautioned against. …….. Mostly correcting the dangerous

advice etc…

I think we are all grateful to be able to come at least to this forum and hear

constructive debates. (Possibly hear the other side to a story.) IMO Topics

like this we can always learn from In fact if it's done with respect in all

honesty. Again .If it wasn't for this group (which taught me to become an

independent thinker) … IM not sure where kiddo would be today.

Anyway for many years I have relied not only on some of the info of these groups

but also much of parental testimony. But today I'm not sure of that. Guess we

still have to separate the " wheat " from the " chaff " as with all info. Now we

need more to use more discernment. In EVERYTHING we read. On these groups Either

that is the pattern lately of finally my eyes have been opened after reading

diligently for over 8 years.

Today id say. Don't believe every thing you READ /hear and mostly posted on

these boards. HALF of it is NOT true the other half MAY be true. But that you

CANT validate either can ya? So where does that leave us all? Just like the 50%

who do not get better and get worse, as there is no merit in with that statement

either. So where does that leave us again ? Maybe another thread like this one

that was prob was a set up from the get go . Who knows these are all old

arguments aren't they. Let me know when you have the " real " answer.

Did ya ever notice the parents who comment about all the negative effects and

all the regressions are in fact ones who have never done the therapy? Did ya

ever notice lots of parents who desperately need help for a friend leads to some

crazy thread like this one?

Bottom line. Some of the stuff is true some of the stuff is the farthest from

the truth. Some of the parents are real parents with autistic children But some

posts are from a psychotic individual that has nothing other to do than make you

read all their garbage, cause division, debunk biomed and keep the same old

controversial subjects flamed kindled.

IMO do your research make and educated choice but The ONLY way you know what is

true or not is to see it with your own eyes.

My Best

Kenny V

Father to

Recovering from Autism

> >

> >

> > ----- 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.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Moria,

As a diver, I can confirm that what Andy says is considered true from an

_oxygen_ _delivery_ standpoint....

[Trying to keep this simple.... Partial Pressure is not the same thing as the

atmospheric pressure that the hbot tanks provide, but rather the pressures of

the different components of a gas (e.g. air) in a liquid (i.e. blood) at the

local level, esp. when under water/pressure for divers. What Andy's talking is

what physicists and divers call Dalton's law..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton%27s_law_of_partial_pressure and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_physics#Laws_of_physics_for_diving

In brief ... " Dalton's law - in mixtures of breathing gases the concentration of

the individual components of the gas mix is measured by partial pressure[2].

Partial pressure is a useful measure for expressing limits for avoiding nitrogen

narcosis and oxygen toxicity. " The latter happens when too much oxygen is being

delivered... that's what all that is really about.]

You _can_ get the same oxygen delivery effects as HBOT from breathing a

different mix of gas (at 1 ATM == sea-level with no HBOT tank) with more oxygen

in it than the 21% that air has and for a few hours (in adults). Even higher

oxygen percentages are pretty safe.

Getting tanks with air or different gas mixes is likely a bit trickier than

getting an HBOT chamber, and that's my guess as to why that isn't being done

more. Dive shops aren't even supposed to give you compressed air w/o seeing

your diving license, and more certification is required for higher oxygen mixes.

Medical oxygen delivery companies might be of more help, but I'd guess they're

similarly restricted (but might bend the rules or not be as strict in

checking??). [it's also possible mix oxygen gases yourself but that takes a bit

of work, knowledge, and lots of safety.]

Hyperbaric chambers were normally used to help get the gas bubbles out of divers

by using the pressure to shrink them if possible (after pretty serious

accidents), and nothing more....

Of course, the other thing that hyperbaric chambers do that a simple tank and

(diving) regulator won't is provide more atmospheric pressure that compresses

body parts (just like a cat sitting on your stomach). Offhand, I can't see the

brain being as influenced by pressure since it's encased in the skull, but the

rest of the body doesn't have that.

Most of what I see being talked about by Neubrander, Rossignol, etc are the

positive effects of _oxygen_ using HBOT. Though the effects of oxygen on the

body are much better understood that those of _pressure_, it is possible that

the pressure is also helping in ways that aren't as well known. To my current

understanding, benefits from pressure rather than oxygen content are probably

more conjecture at this point.

When we considered HBOT, we didn't see many effects that chelation/biomed

improvement wouldn't probably address eventually, and many reports of HBOT

effects seemed to be temporary ones to us.

Still there are plenty of reports from forums and friends that suggest benefits

and are hard to dismiss. [You only hope that those aren't the strong placebo

affects seen by Rossignol in his HBOT studies, but that's true of every ASD

treatment and nearly all of our " research " is just based on parent reports which

aren't fully reliable.]

I have an pretty open mind about HBOT, but given the above it hasn't made it to

the top of our list according to our own cost/benefit analysis.

Your mileage may vary.

Best wishes.

>

> Hi Andy,

>

> Well, this is interesting, since I read your comments as

> mostly saying what I said.

>

> [i said:]

> > > Pressure alone results in oxygen being distributed in the body

> > > much better. I have forgotten the ATA at which there is an

> > > essential change, but at some level of pressure (a level that

> > > is considered fairly low pressure for HBOT), oxygen is carried

> > > by more aspects of blood and by lymph, and thus actually

> > > reaches many areas where it may not get carried just by red

> > > blood cells (which carry oxygen at " normal " levels of pressure).

>

> [You said:]

> > The oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells (for those with normal lung

and heart function) gets pretty fully saturated at near ambient conditions -

that is, much above 0.21 ATA of oxygen.

>

> Right, just the red blood cells are carrying oxygen at normal

> pressure [ambient conditions].

>

> >

> > The oxygen carrying capacity of lymph, blood plasma, etc. is a linear

function of pressure. At about 2.5 ATA of oxygen partial pressure in people

with normal circulation and lung function it becomes equal to what the red blood

cells are supposed to be doing.

>

> Right, like I said, PRESSURE results in oxygen being carried

> by additional mechanisms -- ncluding plasma, lymph and

> cerebrospinal fluid. (I looked it up, thus I remembered

> cerebrospinal fluid).

>

> [you said:]

> > So if you just put on an oxygen mask at room pressure you increase 'normal'

oxygen distirbution 40%, and in areas having a hard time getting the oxygen from

red blood cells, you increase it far more.

>

>

> um, yes, if " normal " means " via red blood cells " .

> And the 40% ONLY applies if 100% means 100% of what red blood

> cells can do -- so it can also be misleading, depending on how

> someone reads numbers.

> And, yes, in areas where the red blood cells are not reaching,

> you are increasing " normal " distribution a whole nother way,

> not comparable to the " 100% " or the " 40% " .

>

> [you said:]

> > Many people who respond positively to HBOT also respond positively to just

breathing straight oxygen through a mask, which is far easier and cheaper to

arrange. Also one can REALLY get things going by doing exercise while breathing

it through a mask so as to turn up the metabolism while extra oxygen is

available.

>

> That may be -- anything you would recommend reading that points

> to this? Obviously studies of HBOT can't be used to figure

> this out. And the specific case of the child who was being

> discussed here was use of both pressure and [higher levels of]

> oxygen. (People generally say " pure oxygen " even though the

> levels used vary, in part depending on type of mask, etc.)

>

> [i said:]

> > > My addition to the conversation, which I hope may be useful for

> > > those trying to understand HBOT (and/or trying to make sense of

> > > what you said) is that HBOT generally refers to using more

> > > oxygen AND being under more pressure. EACH OF THEM results in

> > > more oxygen being available -- and BOTH TOGETHER is much more

> > > effective than either alone.

>

> [you said:]

> > This is not correct and is the part of the sales pitch " HBOT salesmen " may

use that could either be characterized as wilfully and negligently ignorant, or

as fraudulent, depending on whether the salesman has any real technical

knowledge. However without adequate technical knowledge on the part of the

listener it is easy to get drawn into this.

>

> And, which part did you think was so deeply misleading?

>

> Perhaps you object to my use of " more effective " since there may

> be individuals for whom oxygen would have been effective?

> Even if that is true, HBOT (oxygen + pressure) is still a more

> effective way to distribute oxygen, and it is extremely likely

> that many people who benefit would NOT (similarly) benefit

> from oxygen alone.

>

> Which means that I think " more effective " is accurate, even

> though I don't mean that every individual will benefit from

> HBOT or that HBOT is " more effective " than breathing oxygen

> at normal pressure for changing some condition in some person or

> for improving all conditions or any other specific thing.

>

> I would guess that for most of the things that HBOT is generally

> accepted as useful that there's not adequate information to

> say to what degree [normal pressure + oxygen] would help --

> and thus (I would guess) that there is no way to quantify

> how many of the people who are helped by HBOT that could

> have been helped by " just " breathing pure oxygen (without pressure).

>

> I'm sure you have some reason for saying it is " many " who are

> helped by HBOT who WOULD have been helped by oxygen w/o pressure.

>

> In most cases people don't use these

> therapies in ways that lead to any hope of concluding whether

> oxygen at normal pressure would have worked -- the limitations

> of life not providing a control group, let alone control

> groups for each variable.

>

> Moria

>

[Guest guest]

=====> After all these years id like to say, still have a lot of respect for the

veterans for hanging in there. Mostly guys like Andy. Sticking around too,

putting up with trollish behaviors. At best continuing to answer the Q's

regardless of the validity of the confrontation. I'm forever grateful in what he

has said, warned and cautioned against. …….. Mostly correcting the dangerous

advice etc…

I have only been on health groups since starting my child on Valtrex in

Oct 08. But, since that time I have observed parents report vast improvements

in their children, and, then they're gone. You make an excellent point; the

selfless giving starts after you or your child no longer needs the help.

Back on the topic of HBOT...I spoke on the phone with a parent who's child was

treated at the same clinic as mine (after this debate). The child had a grand

mal seizure at 20 treatments and required hospitalization - the little child

even broke a tooth.

--penumbra

[Guest guest]

Yup right about the same time the troll activity became threefold … Funny just

about the same time OSR made its announcement. Don't be surprised anything good

people always want to put down and discredit

Yea be careful don't always believe what ya read on these boards especially with

all the Hbot rumors and the competition for the freestanding clinics with all

the soft sided chamber market

My

Best Kenny V

> =====> After all these years id like to say, still have a lot of

respect for the veterans for hanging in there. Mostly guys like Andy. Sticking

around too, putting up with trollish behaviors. At best continuing to answer the

Q's regardless of the validity of the confrontation. I'm forever grateful in

what he has said, warned and cautioned against. …….. Mostly correcting the

dangerous advice etc…

>

> I have only been on health groups since starting my child on Valtrex in

Oct 08. But, since that time I have observed parents report vast improvements

in their children, and, then they're gone. You make an excellent point; the

selfless giving starts after you or your child no longer needs the help.

>

> Back on the topic of HBOT...I spoke on the phone with a parent who's child was

treated at the same clinic as mine (after this debate). The child had a grand

mal seizure at 20 treatments and required hospitalization - the little child

even broke a tooth.

>

> --penumbra

>

[Guest guest]

If anyone is interested. Here is the latest published Research article

Hyperbaric treatment for children with autism: a multicenter, randomized,

double-blind, controlled trial

Don't rem if this board accepts links but here goes

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/9/21

> >

> > Hi Andy,

> >

> > Well, this is interesting, since I read your comments as

> > mostly saying what I said.

> >

> > [i said:]

> > > > Pressure alone results in oxygen being distributed in the body

> > > > much better. I have forgotten the ATA at which there is an

> > > > essential change, but at some level of pressure (a level that

> > > > is considered fairly low pressure for HBOT), oxygen is carried

> > > > by more aspects of blood and by lymph, and thus actually

> > > > reaches many areas where it may not get carried just by red

> > > > blood cells (which carry oxygen at " normal " levels of pressure).

> >

> > [You said:]

> > > The oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells (for those with normal

lung and heart function) gets pretty fully saturated at near ambient conditions

- that is, much above 0.21 ATA of oxygen.

> >

> > Right, just the red blood cells are carrying oxygen at normal

> > pressure [ambient conditions].

> >

> > >

> > > The oxygen carrying capacity of lymph, blood plasma, etc. is a linear

function of pressure. At about 2.5 ATA of oxygen partial pressure in people

with normal circulation and lung function it becomes equal to what the red blood

cells are supposed to be doing.

> >

> > Right, like I said, PRESSURE results in oxygen being carried

> > by additional mechanisms -- ncluding plasma, lymph and

> > cerebrospinal fluid. (I looked it up, thus I remembered

> > cerebrospinal fluid).

> >

> > [you said:]

> > > So if you just put on an oxygen mask at room pressure you increase

'normal' oxygen distirbution 40%, and in areas having a hard time getting the

oxygen from red blood cells, you increase it far more.

> >

> >

> > um, yes, if " normal " means " via red blood cells " .

> > And the 40% ONLY applies if 100% means 100% of what red blood

> > cells can do -- so it can also be misleading, depending on how

> > someone reads numbers.

> > And, yes, in areas where the red blood cells are not reaching,

> > you are increasing " normal " distribution a whole nother way,

> > not comparable to the " 100% " or the " 40% " .

> >

> > [you said:]

> > > Many people who respond positively to HBOT also respond positively to just

breathing straight oxygen through a mask, which is far easier and cheaper to

arrange. Also one can REALLY get things going by doing exercise while breathing

it through a mask so as to turn up the metabolism while extra oxygen is

available.

> >

> > That may be -- anything you would recommend reading that points

> > to this? Obviously studies of HBOT can't be used to figure

> > this out. And the specific case of the child who was being

> > discussed here was use of both pressure and [higher levels of]

> > oxygen. (People generally say " pure oxygen " even though the

> > levels used vary, in part depending on type of mask, etc.)

> >

> > [i said:]

> > > > My addition to the conversation, which I hope may be useful for

> > > > those trying to understand HBOT (and/or trying to make sense of

> > > > what you said) is that HBOT generally refers to using more

> > > > oxygen AND being under more pressure. EACH OF THEM results in

> > > > more oxygen being available -- and BOTH TOGETHER is much more

> > > > effective than either alone.

> >

> > [you said:]

> > > This is not correct and is the part of the sales pitch " HBOT salesmen " may

use that could either be characterized as wilfully and negligently ignorant, or

as fraudulent, depending on whether the salesman has any real technical

knowledge. However without adequate technical knowledge on the part of the

listener it is easy to get drawn into this.

> >

> > And, which part did you think was so deeply misleading?

> >

> > Perhaps you object to my use of " more effective " since there may

> > be individuals for whom oxygen would have been effective?

> > Even if that is true, HBOT (oxygen + pressure) is still a more

> > effective way to distribute oxygen, and it is extremely likely

> > that many people who benefit would NOT (similarly) benefit

> > from oxygen alone.

> >

> > Which means that I think " more effective " is accurate, even

> > though I don't mean that every individual will benefit from

> > HBOT or that HBOT is " more effective " than breathing oxygen

> > at normal pressure for changing some condition in some person or

> > for improving all conditions or any other specific thing.

> >

> > I would guess that for most of the things that HBOT is generally

> > accepted as useful that there's not adequate information to

> > say to what degree [normal pressure + oxygen] would help --

> > and thus (I would guess) that there is no way to quantify

> > how many of the people who are helped by HBOT that could

> > have been helped by " just " breathing pure oxygen (without pressure).

> >

> > I'm sure you have some reason for saying it is " many " who are

> > helped by HBOT who WOULD have been helped by oxygen w/o pressure.

> >

> > In most cases people don't use these

> > therapies in ways that lead to any hope of concluding whether

> > oxygen at normal pressure would have worked -- the limitations

> > of life not providing a control group, let alone control

> > groups for each variable.

> >

> > Moria

> >

>