Re: MHT verses HBOT and O2 Toxicity

[Guest guest]

Dr. Fojgel,

Thank you for further details on my previous email.

Note that in my email, I was quickly responding to a question and was

pointing out " low pressure " used for (my father's) brain injuries as

opposed to " high pressures " used for wounds.

To add a note to your correctly detailed comments on Dr. Kazantseva further

specified that her research demonstrated (in her second paper) that MHT

requires picogenol and CoQ10 for improved results. She even details some

of the biochemical changes in the " impaired energy metabolism " . She was

very adamant regarding the four variables: pressure, time, picogenol and

CoQ10. Note that the study included 1.1 with CoQ10 and Pic., but the 1.2

group did not include the CoQ10 and Pic. we could speculate from there....

(For (other readers) more information, contact www.bestpub.com to purchase

the Proceedings of he 2nd Int'l Symposium on Hyperbaric Oxygenation for the

CP and Injured child (july, 2002).) Pages: 197 and 199.

Therefore, we have much to learn about the mechanism of HBOT's effects on

brain injuries. Regardless, we know that as a crude tool, it works. The

question then becomes how to optimize the treatments for each patient.

Regarding your points on " oxygen toxicity " I believe we are all debating

some semantics from Dr. K's 1.05-1.1-1.2 to Dr. Harch's 1.5 to McGill's

1.75; I believe everyone recognizes not just the diminishing returns, but

also the adverse effects of too much oxygen.

As you point out " Pure water can kill you " . Dr.Harch's simple point is

that more HBOT is not necessarily better. I think we all agree on that same

issue with oxygen.

On a personal note, I would love to confirm Dr. K's research on MHT and its

effects on impaired energy metabolism. It would open up an entirely new

vista and opportunity for helping our kids. (I would also love to hear Dr.

comments on her findings, he is usually very insightful.)

Thanks for your comments!

Best wishes!

Ed Nemeth

At 01:13 AM 7/3/2002 -0300, you wrote:

>This discussion may rather belong to " HBOprofessionals " , but as it popped

>up here,

>and as I think of parts of it as intrinsically political, well...

>

>Dear Mr. Nemeth,

>Dr. N. Kazantzeva and her colleagues have established 1.1 ATA as their

>limit for MHT

>(from as low as 1.05 ATA)

>NB that she talked about 30% oxygen, not 100%, and for about 15-20 minutes...

> 1.2 was to be called HB treatment, if memory serves me well (40%, and

> only 3-4 sessions).

>1.5, 100% oxygen for 60 minutes was called HyperBaric Oxygenation,

>and was not indicated for neurological conditions, in her unique rationale.

>1.3 ATA lies outside the MHT category,

>given the eventual disregulative effects of that pressure/concentration in

>some

>(ALL, she said) neurological patients.

>She was very positive and enfatic about that (in Russian, unfortunately),

>as you may remember.

>

>Dr. Harch is correct in his perception of the need for individualized

>treatments,

>so 1.5 ATA of 100% oxygen for one hour cannot be taken to the letter.

>Naturally, in individualized treatments there are no fixed protocols, but

>indicative ones.

>Objective parameters have not been established in the West, yet,

>so we could say that it still remains -almost entirely- a matter of

>clinical experience and perhaps,

>of SPECT results.

>Not as to preclude treatment as absolutely as most of our opponents

>maintain, though.

>Experience is critical for the best outcome.

>

> " Dosis fiat venenum " (Dose makes it a poison) was said by Paracelsus some

>400+ years.

>Pure water can kill you, in the proper amount, but nowhere it is

>called toxic.

>Cardiac patients need diuretics to get rid of excessive water, to

>avoid heart failure,

>and even then, you do not call water a poison.

>Unfortunately, the colleague´s assertions about a purported oxygen toxicity

>in this context cannot be sustained,

>as the inocent substance is thus unjustly blamed.

>CNS toxicity has been diagnosed in technical divers, and in hyperbaric

>patients,

>under certain circumstances.

>Pulmonary toxicity has been seen in higher oxygen concentrations

>for extreme treatment periods, both in normobaric and hyperbaric patients.

>In most cases, pressure, concentration and muscular and cardiac work

>were far from normal/basal.

>Tables and empiric limits have been agreed upon for " normal " people.

>Therefore, the exquisite effects of oxygen in some brain injured patients

>should be termed otherwise,

> " oxygen toxicity " being a misnomer in this case.

>Same substance, but a disparate substrate...

>Oxygen sensibility, perhaps?

>Best regards,

>and my respects for the

>distinguished and experienced colleague,

>our President.

>Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

>Buenos Aires, Argentina.

>

>PS: This was already argued -in Boca and elsewhere-, but to no avail, it

>seems.

>While Dr. Harch´s paper ( " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain

>Injury " )

>appears to be scientifically unobjectionable and quite comprehensive,

>I remained unconvinced of the convenience of dubbing the effect in

>question as " oxygen toxicity " ,

>without any gradation or a suitable modifier.

>The definition of the adjective does not fit the necessary and curative

>substance

>http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/toxic.html

>Furthermore, it may lead to confusion with " oxygen toxic products -or

>metabolites- " ,

>one of the mechanisms of action of our method..

>

>

>

>Ed Nemeth wrote:

>

> > For my Dad, I believe it was 1.5.

> >

> > If you remember the Russian physician at the SYmposium last summer (Natalia

> > Kazantseva): she spoke of " Minimized Hyperbaric Treatment " (MHT) at 1.1 to

> > 1.2.....

> >

> > I suppose you could view 1.3 similarly.

> >

> > It seems like Dr. Harch is correct in his assertions about O2 toxicity and

> > the need for individualized treatments.

> >

> > Best wishes for you and Bill!

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> >

> > Ed

> >

> > At 05:50 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> > >Ed - If I may ask, what was the " low " pressure that your Dad was treated

> > >at? I am very interested in this, as we have noticed with last hbot

> for Bill

> > >that l.3 to l.4 produced the best results we have ever seen in

> Bill. And, NO

> > >SETBACKS,

> > >

> > >Thanks,

> > >

> > >e

> > >

> > >_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.

> > >

> > >Free downloads of nearly 50 pdf files on HBOT efficacy

> > >medicaid/files/

> > >

> > >Download your state EPSDT program here

> > >http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/stateplan/Map.asp by doing a search on the

> > >word " ameliorate " . State Medicaid websites

> > >http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/RelSites_Oth_States.asp . State Medicaid waiver

> > >programs: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/1029/medicaid.html

> > >

> > >Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) can save billions of dollars and millions

> > >of heartaches. Subscribe to this discussion group by sending an email now

> > >to mailto:medicaid-subscribe

> > >

> > >Click here to unsubscribe

> > >mailto:medicaid-unsubscribe .

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Nemeth,

it was my intention to help in clarifying some not so minor details, not to

annoy.

-1.3 ATA cannot be viewed similarly to MHT, as you suggested.

-1.2 ATA regimen doesn´t include pycnogenol and CoQ10 because Dr. NK´s group

considers this pressure deleterious of laboratory data dynamics,

and a stabilizer of the neurological deficit, as it activates lipid

peroxidation mechanisms.

In short, they consider anything over 1.1 ATA, 30% O2 for 15-20 minutes as

iatrogenic.

-Four variables?...O2 concentration makes it five, and amount of sessions, six.

Anyway, as few people agree with this approach,

and until we acknowledge the importance of their parameters,

it remains arguable.

-Regarding protocols:

I am not presently sure of the convenience of adscribing them to the persons and

institutions you mention.

Dr. Harch seem to have abjured the 1.5 ATA protocol, attributed to him.

" The ideal protocol is indeterminate....

oxygen toxicity at 15.ATA and 1.75 ATA in chronic neurologically injured

patients is a certainty " . etc..

" The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain Injury " , in the mentioned

Proceedings of the 2nd. International Symposium.

By the way, 1.5 ATA was introduced by Holbach, Caroli, and Wassmann,

some 25 years ago, in Germany, and brought to the US by Dr. Neubauer, if memory

serves me well.

Holbach, KH, Caroli A. Wassmann H. " Cerebral energy metabolism in patients with

brain lesions of normo- and hyperbaric oxygen pressures. J Neurol.

1977;217:17-30.

-Dr. Kazantseva wrote the Manual for Physicians, and many other papers, with Dr.

E.I.Gusev, a famed neurologist.

As he is the first author, pehaps the MHT protocol may be properly called

Gusev-Kazantseva´s,

although she is the sole owner of the patents.

-The McGill´s study was, by all indicators, geared to discredit HBO, so no such

protocol should be considered.

" More is not necessarily better " may be a complex assertion.

How much is " too much " ?

The answer is not simple, as it is clearly variable from patient to patient,

but the initial 1.5 ATA protocol is still universally advised...

Although Dr. Harch denies the difference in tissue reactions to injury of the

brain ( " false " , he says),

he may agree that some pathologic events are severely crippling to brain tissue,

and that while other

microvessels have wider fenestrations(openings) than the blood-brain barrier,

nowhere in the body there is a similar reaction.

This tightly-knit barrier is instrumental in an exquisite, and active

selectivity and regulation,

that is undermined by the acute and chronic events under consideration.

Oxygen may repair those injury-induced abnormal " holes " ,

but if it is initially given in excessive doses,

as O2 traverses the impaired barrier massively,

it proves exhorbitantly deleterious to the cerebral tissues.

No such thing happens so clearly in other bodily tissues.

No other organ with a regulative failure is so sensitive to oxygen.

The brain is different,

because of its special tissue matrix, its low-tolerance regulation mechanisms,

and its exclusive barrier.

The injured brain is more so.

We should strive to thow more light on its physiopathology,

biological effects of lipid peroxidations,

the effect of heme-iron (extravasated blood) in the autocatalytic spread of

peroxidation, etc.

In the meantime there, is no better counsellor than experience.

Regarding toxicity,

I believe that putting the stress in the altered sensitivity brought about by

the neural injury

may more conducive to advances in the field.

Oxygen has been illegitimately classified as a drug, but it is not a drug,

and not a toxic substance, either:

no Lethal Concentration 50, no Toxic Concentration, no Threshold Limit Value,

have been established.

The danger of adverse effect of the substance is mostly determined by how it is

used, not by the inherent toxicity(?) of the gas itself.

This means that if excessively or wrongly applied, it may harm,

as we all know.

Best regards.

Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ed Nemeth wrote:

> Dr. Fojgel,

>

> Thank you for further details on my previous email.

>

> Note that in my email, I was quickly responding to a question and was

> pointing out " low pressure " used for (my father's) brain injuries as

> opposed to " high pressures " used for wounds.

>

> To add a note to your correctly detailed comments on Dr. Kazantseva further

> specified that her research demonstrated (in her second paper) that MHT

> requires picogenol and CoQ10 for improved results. She even details some

> of the biochemical changes in the " impaired energy metabolism " . She was

> very adamant regarding the four variables: pressure, time, picogenol and

> CoQ10. Note that the study included 1.1 with CoQ10 and Pic., but the 1.2

> group did not include the CoQ10 and Pic. we could speculate from there....

>

> (For (other readers) more information, contact www.bestpub.com to purchase

> the Proceedings of he 2nd Int'l Symposium on Hyperbaric Oxygenation for the

> CP and Injured child (july, 2002).) Pages: 197 and 199.

>

> Therefore, we have much to learn about the mechanism of HBOT's effects on

> brain injuries. Regardless, we know that as a crude tool, it works. The

> question then becomes how to optimize the treatments for each patient.

>

> Regarding your points on " oxygen toxicity " I believe we are all debating

> some semantics from Dr. K's 1.05-1.1-1.2 to Dr. Harch's 1.5 to McGill's

> 1.75; I believe everyone recognizes not just the diminishing returns, but

> also the adverse effects of too much oxygen.

>

> As you point out " Pure water can kill you " . Dr.Harch's simple point is

> that more HBOT is not necessarily better. I think we all agree on that same

> issue with oxygen.

>

> On a personal note, I would love to confirm Dr. K's research on MHT and its

> effects on impaired energy metabolism. It would open up an entirely new

> vista and opportunity for helping our kids. (I would also love to hear Dr.

> comments on her findings, he is usually very insightful.)

>

> Thanks for your comments!

>

> Best wishes!

>

> Ed Nemeth

>

> At 01:13 AM 7/3/2002 -0300, you wrote:

> >This discussion may rather belong to " HBOprofessionals " , but as it popped

> >up here,

> >and as I think of parts of it as intrinsically political, well...

> >

> >Dear Mr. Nemeth,

> >Dr. N. Kazantzeva and her colleagues have established 1.1 ATA as their

> >limit for MHT

> >(from as low as 1.05 ATA)

> >NB that she talked about 30% oxygen, not 100%, and for about 15-20 minutes...

> > 1.2 was to be called HB treatment, if memory serves me well (40%, and

> > only 3-4 sessions).

> >1.5, 100% oxygen for 60 minutes was called HyperBaric Oxygenation,

> >and was not indicated for neurological conditions, in her unique rationale.

> >1.3 ATA lies outside the MHT category,

> >given the eventual disregulative effects of that pressure/concentration in

> >some

> >(ALL, she said) neurological patients.

> >She was very positive and enfatic about that (in Russian, unfortunately),

> >as you may remember.

> >

> >Dr. Harch is correct in his perception of the need for individualized

> >treatments,

> >so 1.5 ATA of 100% oxygen for one hour cannot be taken to the letter.

> >Naturally, in individualized treatments there are no fixed protocols, but

> >indicative ones.

> >Objective parameters have not been established in the West, yet,

> >so we could say that it still remains -almost entirely- a matter of

> >clinical experience and perhaps,

> >of SPECT results.

> >Not as to preclude treatment as absolutely as most of our opponents

> >maintain, though.

> >Experience is critical for the best outcome.

> >

> > " Dosis fiat venenum " (Dose makes it a poison) was said by Paracelsus some

> >400+ years.

> >Pure water can kill you, in the proper amount, but nowhere it is

> >called toxic.

> >Cardiac patients need diuretics to get rid of excessive water, to

> >avoid heart failure,

> >and even then, you do not call water a poison.

> >Unfortunately, the colleague´s assertions about a purported oxygen toxicity

> >in this context cannot be sustained,

> >as the inocent substance is thus unjustly blamed.

> >CNS toxicity has been diagnosed in technical divers, and in hyperbaric

> >patients,

> >under certain circumstances.

> >Pulmonary toxicity has been seen in higher oxygen concentrations

> >for extreme treatment periods, both in normobaric and hyperbaric patients.

> >In most cases, pressure, concentration and muscular and cardiac work

> >were far from normal/basal.

> >Tables and empiric limits have been agreed upon for " normal " people.

> >Therefore, the exquisite effects of oxygen in some brain injured patients

> >should be termed otherwise,

> > " oxygen toxicity " being a misnomer in this case.

> >Same substance, but a disparate substrate...

> >Oxygen sensibility, perhaps?

> >Best regards,

> >and my respects for the

> >distinguished and experienced colleague,

> >our President.

> >Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

> >Buenos Aires, Argentina.

> >

> >PS: This was already argued -in Boca and elsewhere-, but to no avail, it

> >seems.

> >While Dr. Harch´s paper ( " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain

> >Injury " )

> >appears to be scientifically unobjectionable and quite comprehensive,

> >I remained unconvinced of the convenience of dubbing the effect in

> >question as " oxygen toxicity " ,

> >without any gradation or a suitable modifier.

> >The definition of the adjective does not fit the necessary and curative

> >substance

> >http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/toxic.html

> >Furthermore, it may lead to confusion with " oxygen toxic products -or

> >metabolites- " ,

> >one of the mechanisms of action of our method..

> >

> >

> >

> >Ed Nemeth wrote:

> >

> > > For my Dad, I believe it was 1.5.

> > >

> > > If you remember the Russian physician at the SYmposium last summer

(Natalia

> > > Kazantseva): she spoke of " Minimized Hyperbaric Treatment " (MHT) at 1.1

to

> > > 1.2.....

> > >

> > > I suppose you could view 1.3 similarly.

> > >

> > > It seems like Dr. Harch is correct in his assertions about O2 toxicity and

> > > the need for individualized treatments.

> > >

> > > Best wishes for you and Bill!

> > >

> > > Warm Regards,

> > >

> > > Ed

> > >

> > > At 05:50 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> > > >Ed - If I may ask, what was the " low " pressure that your Dad was

treated

> > > >at? I am very interested in this, as we have noticed with last hbot

> > for Bill

> > > >that l.3 to l.4 produced the best results we have ever seen in

> > Bill. And, NO

> > > >SETBACKS,

> > > >

> > > >Thanks,

> > > >

> > > >e

[Guest guest]

Dr. Fojgel,

Thank you for further info. and comments. First, of all, you are not

" annoying " . As parents, we have no ego's to protect, only injured

children! We are all just searching for the " best and optimal " care for

our children! We don't care if it comes from you, or in the form of a

pill, or from the planet Mars. All we want to do is care for our children!

Perhaps, you could quickly outline what you would believe to be the optimal

medical approach to caring for a brain injured child, (and / or adult),

including all aspects of care (HBOT, vitamins/supplements/pharmaceuticals,

physical therapies, etc.

Many of us parents can read and understand much of this information, but in

all honesty, we are just acting as physicians because our doctors will not

support our kids. All we really want to do is provide the best opportunity

to caring for our kids who have been caste away by US medicine, and the US

Ins/HMO's, etc. This, of course is acerbated by the issues you have noted

(McGIll, etc, as well as our country specific issues)

Therefore, I am asking you to provide an easily and clearly understandable

approach to treating our children.

Also, I have searched extensively for Holbach, KH, Caroli A. Wassmann H.

" Cerebral energy metabolism in patients with brain lesions of normo- and

hyperbaric oxygen pressures. J Neurol. 1977;217:17-30. and could not find

it anywhere.

Thanks!

And, always, Best Wishes!

Ed Nemeth

At 01:21 AM 7/4/2002 -0300, you wrote:

>Dear Mr. Nemeth,

>it was my intention to help in clarifying some not so minor details, not

>to annoy.

>-1.3 ATA cannot be viewed similarly to MHT, as you suggested.

>-1.2 ATA regimen doesn´t include pycnogenol and CoQ10 because Dr. NK´s group

>considers this pressure deleterious of laboratory data dynamics,

>and a stabilizer of the neurological deficit, as it activates lipid

>peroxidation mechanisms.

>In short, they consider anything over 1.1 ATA, 30% O2 for 15-20

>minutes as iatrogenic.

>

>-Four variables?...O2 concentration makes it five, and amount of sessions,

>six.

>Anyway, as few people agree with this approach,

>and until we acknowledge the importance of their parameters,

>it remains arguable.

>

>-Regarding protocols:

>I am not presently sure of the convenience of adscribing them to the

>persons and institutions you mention.

>Dr. Harch seem to have abjured the 1.5 ATA protocol, attributed to him.

> " The ideal protocol is indeterminate....

>oxygen toxicity at 15.ATA and 1.75 ATA in chronic neurologically injured

>patients is a certainty " . etc..

> " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain Injury " , in the

>mentioned Proceedings of the 2nd. International Symposium.

>By the way, 1.5 ATA was introduced by Holbach, Caroli, and Wassmann,

>some 25 years ago, in Germany, and brought to the US by Dr. Neubauer, if

>memory serves me well.

>Holbach, KH, Caroli A. Wassmann H. " Cerebral energy metabolism in patients

>with brain lesions of normo- and hyperbaric oxygen pressures. J Neurol.

>1977;217:17-30.

>

>-Dr. Kazantseva wrote the Manual for Physicians, and many other papers,

>with Dr. E.I.Gusev, a famed neurologist.

>As he is the first author, pehaps the MHT protocol may be properly called

>Gusev-Kazantseva´s,

>although she is the sole owner of the patents.

>-The McGill´s study was, by all indicators, geared to discredit HBO, so no

>such protocol should be considered.

>

> " More is not necessarily better " may be a complex assertion.

>How much is " too much " ?

>The answer is not simple, as it is clearly variable from patient to patient,

>but the initial 1.5 ATA protocol is still universally advised...

>Although Dr. Harch denies the difference in tissue reactions to injury of

>the brain ( " false " , he says),

>he may agree that some pathologic events are severely crippling to brain

>tissue, and that while other

>microvessels have wider fenestrations(openings) than the blood-brain barrier,

>nowhere in the body there is a similar reaction.

>This tightly-knit barrier is instrumental in an exquisite, and active

>selectivity and regulation,

>that is undermined by the acute and chronic events under consideration.

>Oxygen may repair those injury-induced abnormal " holes " ,

>but if it is initially given in excessive doses,

>as O2 traverses the impaired barrier massively,

>it proves exhorbitantly deleterious to the cerebral tissues.

>No such thing happens so clearly in other bodily tissues.

>No other organ with a regulative failure is so sensitive to oxygen.

>The brain is different,

>because of its special tissue matrix, its low-tolerance regulation

>mechanisms, and its exclusive barrier.

>The injured brain is more so.

>We should strive to thow more light on its physiopathology,

>biological effects of lipid peroxidations,

>the effect of heme-iron (extravasated blood) in the autocatalytic spread

>of peroxidation, etc.

>In the meantime there, is no better counsellor than experience.

>Regarding toxicity,

>I believe that putting the stress in the altered sensitivity brought

>about by the neural injury

>may more conducive to advances in the field.

>Oxygen has been illegitimately classified as a drug, but it is not a drug,

>and not a toxic substance, either:

>no Lethal Concentration 50, no Toxic Concentration, no Threshold Limit

>Value, have been established.

> The danger of adverse effect of the substance is mostly determined by

> how it is

>used, not by the inherent toxicity(?) of the gas itself.

>This means that if excessively or wrongly applied, it may harm,

>as we all know.

>Best regards.

>Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

>Buenos Aires, Argentina

>

>

>Ed Nemeth wrote:

>

> > Dr. Fojgel,

> >

> > Thank you for further details on my previous email.

> >

> > Note that in my email, I was quickly responding to a question and was

> > pointing out " low pressure " used for (my father's) brain injuries as

> > opposed to " high pressures " used for wounds.

> >

> > To add a note to your correctly detailed comments on Dr. Kazantseva further

> > specified that her research demonstrated (in her second paper) that MHT

> > requires picogenol and CoQ10 for improved results. She even details some

> > of the biochemical changes in the " impaired energy metabolism " . She was

> > very adamant regarding the four variables: pressure, time, picogenol and

> > CoQ10. Note that the study included 1.1 with CoQ10 and Pic., but the 1.2

> > group did not include the CoQ10 and Pic. we could speculate from there....

> >

> > (For (other readers) more information, contact www.bestpub.com to purchase

> > the Proceedings of he 2nd Int'l Symposium on Hyperbaric Oxygenation for the

> > CP and Injured child (july, 2002).) Pages: 197 and 199.

> >

> > Therefore, we have much to learn about the mechanism of HBOT's effects on

> > brain injuries. Regardless, we know that as a crude tool, it works. The

> > question then becomes how to optimize the treatments for each patient.

> >

> > Regarding your points on " oxygen toxicity " I believe we are all debating

> > some semantics from Dr. K's 1.05-1.1-1.2 to Dr. Harch's 1.5 to McGill's

> > 1.75; I believe everyone recognizes not just the diminishing returns, but

> > also the adverse effects of too much oxygen.

> >

> > As you point out " Pure water can kill you " . Dr.Harch's simple point is

> > that more HBOT is not necessarily better. I think we all agree on that same

> > issue with oxygen.

> >

> > On a personal note, I would love to confirm Dr. K's research on MHT and its

> > effects on impaired energy metabolism. It would open up an entirely new

> > vista and opportunity for helping our kids. (I would also love to hear Dr.

> > comments on her findings, he is usually very insightful.)

> >

> > Thanks for your comments!

> >

> > Best wishes!

> >

> > Ed Nemeth

> >

> > At 01:13 AM 7/3/2002 -0300, you wrote:

> > >This discussion may rather belong to " HBOprofessionals " , but as it popped

> > >up here,

> > >and as I think of parts of it as intrinsically political, well...

> > >

> > >Dear Mr. Nemeth,

> > >Dr. N. Kazantzeva and her colleagues have established 1.1 ATA as their

> > >limit for MHT

> > >(from as low as 1.05 ATA)

> > >NB that she talked about 30% oxygen, not 100%, and for about 15-20

> minutes...

> > > 1.2 was to be called HB treatment, if memory serves me well (40%, and

> > > only 3-4 sessions).

> > >1.5, 100% oxygen for 60 minutes was called HyperBaric Oxygenation,

> > >and was not indicated for neurological conditions, in her unique

> rationale.

> > >1.3 ATA lies outside the MHT category,

> > >given the eventual disregulative effects of that pressure/concentration in

> > >some

> > >(ALL, she said) neurological patients.

> > >She was very positive and enfatic about that (in Russian, unfortunately),

> > >as you may remember.

> > >

> > >Dr. Harch is correct in his perception of the need for individualized

> > >treatments,

> > >so 1.5 ATA of 100% oxygen for one hour cannot be taken to the letter.

> > >Naturally, in individualized treatments there are no fixed protocols, but

> > >indicative ones.

> > >Objective parameters have not been established in the West, yet,

> > >so we could say that it still remains -almost entirely- a matter of

> > >clinical experience and perhaps,

> > >of SPECT results.

> > >Not as to preclude treatment as absolutely as most of our opponents

> > >maintain, though.

> > >Experience is critical for the best outcome.

> > >

> > > " Dosis fiat venenum " (Dose makes it a poison) was said by Paracelsus some

> > >400+ years.

> > >Pure water can kill you, in the proper amount, but nowhere it is

> > >called toxic.

> > >Cardiac patients need diuretics to get rid of excessive water, to

> > >avoid heart failure,

> > >and even then, you do not call water a poison.

> > >Unfortunately, the colleague´s assertions about a purported oxygen

> toxicity

> > >in this context cannot be sustained,

> > >as the inocent substance is thus unjustly blamed.

> > >CNS toxicity has been diagnosed in technical divers, and in hyperbaric

> > >patients,

> > >under certain circumstances.

> > >Pulmonary toxicity has been seen in higher oxygen concentrations

> > >for extreme treatment periods, both in normobaric and hyperbaric patients.

> > >In most cases, pressure, concentration and muscular and cardiac work

> > >were far from normal/basal.

> > >Tables and empiric limits have been agreed upon for " normal " people.

> > >Therefore, the exquisite effects of oxygen in some brain injured patients

> > >should be termed otherwise,

> > > " oxygen toxicity " being a misnomer in this case.

> > >Same substance, but a disparate substrate...

> > >Oxygen sensibility, perhaps?

> > >Best regards,

> > >and my respects for the

> > >distinguished and experienced colleague,

> > >our President.

> > >Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

> > >Buenos Aires, Argentina.

> > >

> > >PS: This was already argued -in Boca and elsewhere-, but to no avail, it

> > >seems.

> > >While Dr. Harch´s paper ( " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain

> > >Injury " )

> > >appears to be scientifically unobjectionable and quite comprehensive,

> > >I remained unconvinced of the convenience of dubbing the effect in

> > >question as " oxygen toxicity " ,

> > >without any gradation or a suitable modifier.

> > >The definition of the adjective does not fit the necessary and curative

> > >substance

> > >http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/toxic.html

> > >Furthermore, it may lead to confusion with " oxygen toxic products -or

> > >metabolites- " ,

> > >one of the mechanisms of action of our method..

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Ed Nemeth wrote:

> > >

> > > > For my Dad, I believe it was 1.5.

> > > >

> > > > If you remember the Russian physician at the SYmposium last summer

> (Natalia

> > > > Kazantseva): she spoke of " Minimized Hyperbaric Treatment " (MHT)

> at 1.1 to

> > > > 1.2.....

> > > >

> > > > I suppose you could view 1.3 similarly.

> > > >

> > > > It seems like Dr. Harch is correct in his assertions about O2

> toxicity and

> > > > the need for individualized treatments.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes for you and Bill!

> > > >

> > > > Warm Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Ed

> > > >

> > > > At 05:50 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> > > > >Ed - If I may ask, what was the " low " pressure that your Dad was

> treated

> > > > >at? I am very interested in this, as we have noticed with last hbot

> > > for Bill

> > > > >that l.3 to l.4 produced the best results we have ever seen in

> > > Bill. And, NO

> > > > >SETBACKS,

> > > > >

> > > > >Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > >e

>

>

>

>_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.

>

>Free downloads of nearly 50 pdf files on HBOT efficacy

>medicaid/files/

>

>Download your state EPSDT program here

>http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/stateplan/Map.asp by doing a search on the

>word " ameliorate " . State Medicaid websites

>http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/RelSites_Oth_States.asp . State Medicaid waiver

>programs: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/1029/medicaid.html

>

>Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) can save billions of dollars and millions

>of heartaches. Subscribe to this discussion group by sending an email now

>to mailto:medicaid-subscribe

>

>Click here to unsubscribe

>mailto:medicaid-unsubscribe .

>

>

[Guest guest]

Remove me from the list

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Nemeth,

thank you for your concepts and confidence.

Similarly, we scientists shouldn´t have egos to protect, as science is, by

definition, falsifiable.

(a word coined by Sir Karl Popper, meaning that any scientific hypothesis should

be open to disconfirmation.)

Anytime, anywhere, a new datum by any obscure researcher may tear a carefully

built theory down, no matter how

decorated the originator may have been.

There is no shame in that: that´s how science progresses.

Furthermore, Popper said:

but those who uphold it dogmatically [a system] . . . are adopting the very

reverse of that critical attitude which in

my view is the proper one for the scientist. In point of fact, no

conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be

produced; . . . If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the

empirical sciences, you will never

benifit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.

Your request is understandable, but difficult to satisfy.

Here in this list there are many colleagues, more experienced in hyperbarics

than I,

that may do it better.

But you ask about a comprehensive approach...., well, in this case,

tackling it from a strictly specialistic outlook -as opposed to a

multi-disciplinary one-

might be a dis-service.

Such a description would take us several pages, a virtual symposium...

Anyway, some ideas will be outlined in the next days,

but allow me to be very unspecific, and necessarily noncomprehensive.

Most parents have already seen several practitioners, tried approach after

approach,

and perhaps have their children currently under treatment....

Their confidence in their practitioner should never be undermined.

I believe everyone in the field tries his best to help,

but scientific reality may prove too complex to be readily encompassed,

and it grows daily, at a monstrous pace. Practice generally takes over...

Next season, perhaps, we may be able to put a small book together,

that could present these ideas in an easily readable form, as you request.

As for the original article by Holbach, Caroli, Wassmann...it was written some

25 years ago.

It should be under a pile of Journals, by now...

My net searcher brought 14 pages with the very reference, but not the original

text.

....Dr. ´ library on the subject is immense: he might have a copy.

I could use one, too, by the way..

But that group has also published several papers in other journals since 1976,

that I know of.

Perhaps we could ask Dr. Wassmann himself, in Muenster, Germany, at:

neuroch@...

You can see the paragraph under his name in the Contributors chapter of the

Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium.,

or his newer contribution and other references, in there.

Best regards.

Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Ed Nemeth wrote:

> Dr. Fojgel,

>

> Thank you for further info. and comments. First, of all, you are not

> " annoying " . As parents, we have no ego's to protect, only injured

> children! We are all just searching for the " best and optimal " care for

> our children! We don't care if it comes from you, or in the form of a

> pill, or from the planet Mars. All we want to do is care for our children!

>

> Perhaps, you could quickly outline what you would believe to be the optimal

> medical approach to caring for a brain injured child, (and / or adult),

> including all aspects of care (HBOT, vitamins/supplements/pharmaceuticals,

> physical therapies, etc.

>

> Many of us parents can read and understand much of this information, but in

> all honesty, we are just acting as physicians because our doctors will not

> support our kids. All we really want to do is provide the best opportunity

> to caring for our kids who have been caste away by US medicine, and the US

> Ins/HMO's, etc. This, of course is acerbated by the issues you have noted

> (McGIll, etc, as well as our country specific issues)

>

> Therefore, I am asking you to provide an easily and clearly understandable

> approach to treating our children.

>

> Also, I have searched extensively for Holbach, KH, Caroli A. Wassmann H.

> " Cerebral energy metabolism in patients with brain lesions of normo- and

> hyperbaric oxygen pressures. J Neurol. 1977;217:17-30. and could not find

> it anywhere.

>

> Thanks!

>

> And, always, Best Wishes!

> Ed Nemeth

>

> At 01:21 AM 7/4/2002 -0300, you wrote:

> >Dear Mr. Nemeth,

> >it was my intention to help in clarifying some not so minor details, not

> >to annoy.

> >-1.3 ATA cannot be viewed similarly to MHT, as you suggested.

> >-1.2 ATA regimen doesn´t include pycnogenol and CoQ10 because Dr. NK´s group

> >considers this pressure deleterious of laboratory data dynamics,

> >and a stabilizer of the neurological deficit, as it activates lipid

> >peroxidation mechanisms.

> >In short, they consider anything over 1.1 ATA, 30% O2 for 15-20

> >minutes as iatrogenic.

> >

> >-Four variables?...O2 concentration makes it five, and amount of sessions,

> >six.

> >Anyway, as few people agree with this approach,

> >and until we acknowledge the importance of their parameters,

> >it remains arguable.

> >

> >-Regarding protocols:

> >I am not presently sure of the convenience of adscribing them to the

> >persons and institutions you mention.

> >Dr. Harch seem to have abjured the 1.5 ATA protocol, attributed to him.

> > " The ideal protocol is indeterminate....

> >oxygen toxicity at 15.ATA and 1.75 ATA in chronic neurologically injured

> >patients is a certainty " . etc..

> > " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic Brain Injury " , in the

> >mentioned Proceedings of the 2nd. International Symposium.

> >By the way, 1.5 ATA was introduced by Holbach, Caroli, and Wassmann,

> >some 25 years ago, in Germany, and brought to the US by Dr. Neubauer, if

> >memory serves me well.

> >Holbach, KH, Caroli A. Wassmann H. " Cerebral energy metabolism in patients

> >with brain lesions of normo- and hyperbaric oxygen pressures. J Neurol.

> >1977;217:17-30.

> >

> >-Dr. Kazantseva wrote the Manual for Physicians, and many other papers,

> >with Dr. E.I.Gusev, a famed neurologist.

> >As he is the first author, pehaps the MHT protocol may be properly called

> >Gusev-Kazantseva´s,

> >although she is the sole owner of the patents.

> >-The McGill´s study was, by all indicators, geared to discredit HBO, so no

> >such protocol should be considered.

> >

> > " More is not necessarily better " may be a complex assertion.

> >How much is " too much " ?

> >The answer is not simple, as it is clearly variable from patient to patient,

> >but the initial 1.5 ATA protocol is still universally advised...

> >Although Dr. Harch denies the difference in tissue reactions to injury of

> >the brain ( " false " , he says),

> >he may agree that some pathologic events are severely crippling to brain

> >tissue, and that while other

> >microvessels have wider fenestrations(openings) than the blood-brain barrier,

> >nowhere in the body there is a similar reaction.

> >This tightly-knit barrier is instrumental in an exquisite, and active

> >selectivity and regulation,

> >that is undermined by the acute and chronic events under consideration.

> >Oxygen may repair those injury-induced abnormal " holes " ,

> >but if it is initially given in excessive doses,

> >as O2 traverses the impaired barrier massively,

> >it proves exhorbitantly deleterious to the cerebral tissues.

> >No such thing happens so clearly in other bodily tissues.

> >No other organ with a regulative failure is so sensitive to oxygen.

> >The brain is different,

> >because of its special tissue matrix, its low-tolerance regulation

> >mechanisms, and its exclusive barrier.

> >The injured brain is more so.

> >We should strive to thow more light on its physiopathology,

> >biological effects of lipid peroxidations,

> >the effect of heme-iron (extravasated blood) in the autocatalytic spread

> >of peroxidation, etc.

> >In the meantime there, is no better counsellor than experience.

> >Regarding toxicity,

> >I believe that putting the stress in the altered sensitivity brought

> >about by the neural injury

> >may more conducive to advances in the field.

> >Oxygen has been illegitimately classified as a drug, but it is not a drug,

> >and not a toxic substance, either:

> >no Lethal Concentration 50, no Toxic Concentration, no Threshold Limit

> >Value, have been established.

> > The danger of adverse effect of the substance is mostly determined by

> > how it is

> >used, not by the inherent toxicity(?) of the gas itself.

> >This means that if excessively or wrongly applied, it may harm,

> >as we all know.

> >Best regards.

> >Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

> >Buenos Aires, Argentina

> >

> >

> >Ed Nemeth wrote:

> >

> > > Dr. Fojgel,

> > >

> > > Thank you for further details on my previous email.

> > >

> > > Note that in my email, I was quickly responding to a question and was

> > > pointing out " low pressure " used for (my father's) brain injuries as

> > > opposed to " high pressures " used for wounds.

> > >

> > > To add a note to your correctly detailed comments on Dr. Kazantseva

further

> > > specified that her research demonstrated (in her second paper) that MHT

> > > requires picogenol and CoQ10 for improved results. She even details some

> > > of the biochemical changes in the " impaired energy metabolism " . She was

> > > very adamant regarding the four variables: pressure, time, picogenol and

> > > CoQ10. Note that the study included 1.1 with CoQ10 and Pic., but the 1.2

> > > group did not include the CoQ10 and Pic. we could speculate from

there....

> > >

> > > (For (other readers) more information, contact www.bestpub.com to purchase

> > > the Proceedings of he 2nd Int'l Symposium on Hyperbaric Oxygenation for

the

> > > CP and Injured child (july, 2002).) Pages: 197 and 199.

> > >

> > > Therefore, we have much to learn about the mechanism of HBOT's effects on

> > > brain injuries. Regardless, we know that as a crude tool, it works. The

> > > question then becomes how to optimize the treatments for each patient.

> > >

> > > Regarding your points on " oxygen toxicity " I believe we are all debating

> > > some semantics from Dr. K's 1.05-1.1-1.2 to Dr. Harch's 1.5 to McGill's

> > > 1.75; I believe everyone recognizes not just the diminishing returns, but

> > > also the adverse effects of too much oxygen.

> > >

> > > As you point out " Pure water can kill you " . Dr.Harch's simple point is

> > > that more HBOT is not necessarily better. I think we all agree on that

same

> > > issue with oxygen.

> > >

> > > On a personal note, I would love to confirm Dr. K's research on MHT and

its

> > > effects on impaired energy metabolism. It would open up an entirely new

> > > vista and opportunity for helping our kids. (I would also love to hear

Dr.

> > > comments on her findings, he is usually very insightful.)

> > >

> > > Thanks for your comments!

> > >

> > > Best wishes!

> > >

> > > Ed Nemeth

> > >

> > > At 01:13 AM 7/3/2002 -0300, you wrote:

> > > >This discussion may rather belong to " HBOprofessionals " , but as it

popped

> > > >up here,

> > > >and as I think of parts of it as intrinsically political, well...

> > > >

> > > >Dear Mr. Nemeth,

> > > >Dr. N. Kazantzeva and her colleagues have established 1.1 ATA as their

> > > >limit for MHT

> > > >(from as low as 1.05 ATA)

> > > >NB that she talked about 30% oxygen, not 100%, and for about 15-20

> > minutes...

> > > > 1.2 was to be called HB treatment, if memory serves me well (40%, and

> > > > only 3-4 sessions).

> > > >1.5, 100% oxygen for 60 minutes was called HyperBaric Oxygenation,

> > > >and was not indicated for neurological conditions, in her unique

> > rationale.

> > > >1.3 ATA lies outside the MHT category,

> > > >given the eventual disregulative effects of that pressure/concentration

in

> > > >some

> > > >(ALL, she said) neurological patients.

> > > >She was very positive and enfatic about that (in Russian, unfortunately),

> > > >as you may remember.

> > > >

> > > >Dr. Harch is correct in his perception of the need for individualized

> > > >treatments,

> > > >so 1.5 ATA of 100% oxygen for one hour cannot be taken to the letter.

> > > >Naturally, in individualized treatments there are no fixed protocols, but

> > > >indicative ones.

> > > >Objective parameters have not been established in the West, yet,

> > > >so we could say that it still remains -almost entirely- a matter of

> > > >clinical experience and perhaps,

> > > >of SPECT results.

> > > >Not as to preclude treatment as absolutely as most of our opponents

> > > >maintain, though.

> > > >Experience is critical for the best outcome.

> > > >

> > > > " Dosis fiat venenum " (Dose makes it a poison) was said by Paracelsus some

> > > >400+ years.

> > > >Pure water can kill you, in the proper amount, but nowhere it is

> > > >called toxic.

> > > >Cardiac patients need diuretics to get rid of excessive water, to

> > > >avoid heart failure,

> > > >and even then, you do not call water a poison.

> > > >Unfortunately, the colleague´s assertions about a purported oxygen

> > toxicity

> > > >in this context cannot be sustained,

> > > >as the inocent substance is thus unjustly blamed.

> > > >CNS toxicity has been diagnosed in technical divers, and in hyperbaric

> > > >patients,

> > > >under certain circumstances.

> > > >Pulmonary toxicity has been seen in higher oxygen concentrations

> > > >for extreme treatment periods, both in normobaric and hyperbaric

patients.

> > > >In most cases, pressure, concentration and muscular and cardiac work

> > > >were far from normal/basal.

> > > >Tables and empiric limits have been agreed upon for " normal " people.

> > > >Therefore, the exquisite effects of oxygen in some brain injured patients

> > > >should be termed otherwise,

> > > > " oxygen toxicity " being a misnomer in this case.

> > > >Same substance, but a disparate substrate...

> > > >Oxygen sensibility, perhaps?

> > > >Best regards,

> > > >and my respects for the

> > > >distinguished and experienced colleague,

> > > >our President.

> > > >Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

> > > >Buenos Aires, Argentina.

> > > >

> > > >PS: This was already argued -in Boca and elsewhere-, but to no avail, it

> > > >seems.

> > > >While Dr. Harch´s paper ( " The Dosage of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Chronic

Brain

> > > >Injury " )

> > > >appears to be scientifically unobjectionable and quite comprehensive,

> > > >I remained unconvinced of the convenience of dubbing the effect in

> > > >question as " oxygen toxicity " ,

> > > >without any gradation or a suitable modifier.

> > > >The definition of the adjective does not fit the necessary and curative

> > > >substance

> > > >http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/toxic.html

> > > >Furthermore, it may lead to confusion with " oxygen toxic products -or

> > > >metabolites- " ,

> > > >one of the mechanisms of action of our method..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Ed Nemeth wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > For my Dad, I believe it was 1.5.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you remember the Russian physician at the SYmposium last summer

> > (Natalia

> > > > > Kazantseva): she spoke of " Minimized Hyperbaric Treatment " (MHT)

> > at 1.1 to

> > > > > 1.2.....

> > > > >

> > > > > I suppose you could view 1.3 similarly.

> > > > >

> > > > > It seems like Dr. Harch is correct in his assertions about O2

> > toxicity and

> > > > > the need for individualized treatments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best wishes for you and Bill!

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Ed

> > > > >

> > > > > At 05:50 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> > > > > >Ed - If I may ask, what was the " low " pressure that your Dad was

> > treated

> > > > > >at? I am very interested in this, as we have noticed with last hbot

> > > > for Bill

> > > > > >that l.3 to l.4 produced the best results we have ever seen in

> > > > Bill. And, NO

> > > > > >SETBACKS,

> > > > > >

> > > > > >Thanks,

> > > > > >

> > > > > >e

> >

> >

> >

> >_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.

> >

> >Free downloads of nearly 50 pdf files on HBOT efficacy

> >medicaid/files/

> >

> >Download your state EPSDT program here

> >http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid/stateplan/Map.asp by doing a search on the

> >word " ameliorate " . State Medicaid websites

> >http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/RelSites_Oth_States.asp . State Medicaid waiver

> >programs: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/1029/medicaid.html

> >

> >Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) can save billions of dollars and millions

> >of heartaches. Subscribe to this discussion group by sending an email now

> >to mailto:medicaid-subscribe

> >

> >Click here to unsubscribe

> >mailto:medicaid-unsubscribe .

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, I love your logic. I have only one response to your question about the

doctors that wish not to come around to the concept and accept HBOT to help

the injured brain. " What are they afraid of? " you ask? In my opinion it is

many things, first and foremost THEIR JOBS. Second in line would be their

standing in good steed in the Medical Community in relation to their peers.

This of course is just MT PERSONAL view of the whole take, from the mere 5

years I have been aboard this BI train with my son.

Those that think outside their box are the ones NOT afraid of change, are

stubborn to conform to the same old same old, and are the ones who set the

future pace in the world of change with their initiative. These are the kind

of people I seek out to deal with with my son.

Just one Mom's tiny though.

Tammy & Nate

[Guest guest]

> my view is the proper one for the scientist. In point of fact, no

>conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be

> produced; . . . If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof)

>in the empirical sciences, you will never

> benifit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.

>

Okay. I'll buy that.

And to go with that--another thought, another " belief " --or conviction--the

one that has been driving me for about seven years now:

We each are individually made in the image of God, and God is perfect. He

doesn't make mistakes. By definition, he can't make mistakes.

Now suppose I cut my finger. Until it heals, that one finger is impaired

and nothing else, though maybe the hand that it's on is slightly impaired.

But my cut finger doesn't affect my hearing. My ears and toes and testicles

and spleen and liver and everything else still work just fine.

Now, suppose I have a brain-injury. The brain is in charge of everything.

It runs the show. However, if I hurt my brain--not only is my brain hurt

but also there's now an impaired part of my body as a result of an injury

to that part of my brain that controls that part of my body.

In other words, a brain-injury will affect at least two parts of the

body--the brain and the body part that the brain controls. Next we are told

that this brain-injury--and consequent body disfunction--is permanent

because the brain cannot repair itself.

This seems like a major, major design flaw--and therefore doesn't make

sense to me because I've been designed and built by God Himself and God

doesn't make mistakes. He's perfect, I'm not.

In fact, if anything, the only thing that does make sense is that the brain

should be the *easiest* thing to fix simply because it controls everything.

If something happens to the brain, everything else is affected--which

therefore reveals an incredible design flaw if brain-injury can't be

repaired.

Ultimately brain-injury results from oxygen deprivation in one form or

another--yet doctors know nothing of High-Dosage Oxygen--nor do they seem

to be interested, pediatric neurologists in particular. Why? What are

doctors afraid of?

Just stop and think about the computer sitting in front of you. Whether

it's a Mac or a PC, at some point in time you have to do some routine

maintenance on the hard drive with Norton utilities or something. Or,

should the hard drive crash--you can get a new one and replace the old hard

drive. You can fix your computer.

Man figured this out. If Man in all his ineptness can do that with a

computer, what has God figured out on the upkeep, maintenance, and repair

of the mind of Man--that man has ignored?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. "

[Psalm 37:4]

Freels

2948 Windfield Circle

Tucker, GA 30084-6714

770/491-6776 (phone and fax)

509/275-1618 (efax, sends fax as email attachment)

mailto:dfreels@...

[Guest guest]

Yes the brain can heal. We have found that out For three years Dr.s told us

that our daughter would die she was so injured that it could not tell

the body how to do the things it was upposed to do. Right before we took her

to HBOT she was given about Six months to live at that. THey told us the

constant lung infections were taking there tole. When I aproached them with

HTe theory of HBOT they tried to shut it down. However we took her and now

the results are amazing she is better the organs are doing what there

supposed to do. And for the first time in three years she is eating by mouth

they call it sapontanious recovery. But let's let's look at that theroy for a

minute. For three years she layed with no improvements none at all she only

went down hill. Now after three years we took her to Dr. Neubauer and

he treated her after a while he raised the prssure and then we went back down

but the results were amazing. Now was this spontanious recovery. No I didn't

think so what we saw is that the Brain had been damaged. It needed repair

like you said as if your computer does. When the thing HBOT that was needed

to repair the brain was adminastered what happened It started to heal. It was

like a car with no alternator working when the alternator was replaced or

fixed the battery started to charge again work like it should. Are we to

involved with our daily lives to see we are nothing more than a complicated

peice of machinery as a car or computer. Yes we are. We don't realize that

our bodys work and they are fixable with other things than medication. We

often overlook the big picture here. We are human and look at ourselves that

way we don't stop to think we are nothing more that a complex creature here.

I have seen paitents treated at several different presures who to say what

presure is the best we may never know. Ford's are diferent than Chevrolets.

Same with us. It is not an exact science here we just have to work with the

treating Physicain and let him make the call. Working with Dr. Neubauer I can

tell you he listens and he works to get the result you are looking for. He

cares and has a very open mind. The question is not how do we regulate this

it is how to get it passed to where others can get treated so we can figure

out a guideline here. Dr. Neubauer and Dr. Harsh are the two leading people

in HBOt to the best of my knowledge and both are very strong on how they

treat. If you take your child to one of these Dr.'s they will figure out the

best protocol for your child or loved one. I have seen it happen numbers of

times. Not one child or person have I seen go into the clinic that did not

produce some result good out of the treatments. I have seen children there

with my own eyes that have made a 80% recovery and I still talk to the arents

today. They will tell you if they hadn't went there there lives would be hell

right now. Same with us. I have a case history here of my child and looking

at tit you would no it is the HBOT that helped her in a significant way.

[Guest guest]

I think you are right when you say there JOBS. After HBOT I took my child to

the neurologist to have her looked at to see if he could explain why she no

longer needed sezuire medication. His reply was there is no proof that she

doesn't I asked about the eeg report and his reply was maybe she was having a

good day. I said so the clinical examintion of her not flopping around (sorry

to be so crude) is not proof as well. She before had 5 to 10 sezuires a day

on the medication and the eeg allways showed sezuire activity where she was

having a good day or not. His reply was if the Dr. you ae taking her to is

helping her that much why are you here. THat statement lead me to believe

that he was threatened by the new aproach we were taking.