Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

[Guest guest]

I am talking about the more appropriate treatment protocols for indications like

anaerobic infections (gas gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis, fourniers gangrene,

crepitant cellulitis), arterial gas embolisms, late effects radiation injuries

(radiation cystitis, proctitis, enteritis, myelits, soft tissue radiation

injuries and osteoradionecrosis) as well as mundane indications line

preservation of skin flap/grafts and diabetic ulcers.? In the case of AGE, the

treatment modality is the pressure decreasing the bubble size with isobaric

counter diffusion of breathing 100% oxygen.? In the cases anaerobic bacteria? is

has been shown that 2.5 ATA is required to effectively deal with the infection

as well as the toxins released by the bacteria.? Marx protocols pretty much

speak for themselves and have been verified with recent radiation cystitis

studies that 2.5 ATA is the appropriate protocol.? In Salt City where the most

recent UHMS/BNA annual scientific conference was held I attended several

presentations on studies comparing lower pressures for diabetic ulcers and all

showed 2.0 ATA as the appropriate monoplace protocol.? In my readings the only

indications where 1.5 ATA ia indicated is neurological in nature.

?

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

Re: [ ] HBOT and flying on airplane

If you were as experienced in hyperbarics as you attempt to convince people

of on line, you would know that there are several indications where the

pressure the patient is treated is important. Are you saying that you would

treat

CO poisoning, anaerobic infections, AGE, radiation injuries, mycoses

infections, as well as DCS at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA? I suppose Marx studies in these

areas

don't mean much. Also there is no chance of developing DCS flying after

being treated in a true HBO environment, where there is an a small chance of it

happening when being treated in " mild hyperbarics " with less than 100% oxygen

(depending on the time at pressure and the numbers of treatments). Just check

the dive tables.

As for calling names, that did not happen. What happened is questioning

your literacy, which I would do for anyone that jumps into a conversation

without

reviewing what had been being discussed.

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

In a message dated 9/30/08 12:12:49 AM, szymonski@... writes:

& gt; If you idiots would quit treating patients at such high pressures you

& gt; wouldn't have any problems with decompression issues and flying. If you

were

& gt; treating at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA, you would have no problems with flying, or any

of the

& gt; other negative side affects associated with the high pressures.

& gt;

& gt; Oh, look there, I can call names and make insults as well. Leave the name

& gt; calling out of this post, as we all get no where with it.

& gt;

& gt;

**************

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out!

(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

[Guest guest]

That is funny, as I have seen many of these conditions treated with great

success at 1.3 ATA, some at 1.5. The studies do not always show the whole

truth, depends on the persons doing the study and that persons motivation behind

the study.

I am happy for you that you know all there is about HBOT. May I suggest that

you would be a much better caregiver if you would step out of your comfort zone

and find out for yourself what works, instead of believing everything that you

read.

Now, let me ask you what your motivation is that you so aggressively attack the

use of lower pressure? And do not tell me it is because they do not work, as

most of us know they do.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] HBOT and flying on airplane

If you were as experienced in hyperbarics as you attempt to convince people

of on line, you would know that there are several indications where the

pressure the patient is treated is important. Are you saying that you would

treat

CO poisoning, anaerobic infections, AGE, radiation injuries, mycoses

infections, as well as DCS at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA? I suppose Marx studies in these

areas

don't mean much. Also there is no chance of developing DCS flying after

being treated in a true HBO environment, where there is an a small chance of it

happening when being treated in " mild hyperbarics " with less than 100% oxygen

(depending on the time at pressure and the numbers of treatments). Just check

the dive tables.

As for calling names, that did not happen. What happened is questioning

your literacy, which I would do for anyone that jumps into a conversation

without

reviewing what had been being discussed.

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

In a message dated 9/30/08 12:12:49 AM, szymonski@... writes:

& gt; If you idiots would quit treating patients at such high pressures you

& gt; wouldn't have any problems with decompression issues and flying. If you

were

& gt; treating at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA, you would have no problems with flying, or any

of the

& gt; other negative side affects associated with the high pressures.

& gt;

& gt; Oh, look there, I can call names and make insults as well. Leave the name

& gt; calling out of this post, as we all get no where with it.

& gt;

& gt;

**************

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out!

(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

[Guest guest]

I will agree in some of these cases you are right. 2.0 works well. It has never

had to stand the test of 1.3 or 1.5 so it works well. But would 1.3 or 1.5 work

who know's.But you must realize that in some cases there has been significant

improvement with the lower pressure. Has this really been studied. OK Mr. UHMS

have you done this double blind controlled study at 1.3 or 1.4 or 1.5 in a

portable compared to 2.0.in a standard. Let's ask you the same question they ask

the neurological group. Where is your double blind study using the portables

against the higher pressures.

 

Can I say WHOOP THERE IT IS... Now let's get real 

 

The UHMS screams like a Harlet in Church if you mention you could treat at a

lower pressure.

 

WHY:::

 

It is because it then states that further study should be done. It means that

introducing portables could be a factor. It means that they may have to add

another indication for Neurological conditions.

 

I seen a Diabetic foot ulcer that went allmost to the bone treated at 1.5 ata.

in a monoplace. YES IT CLEARED UP IN NO TIME AT ALL...

 

I seen it I have pictures of it. This person came to me when there child had CP

I saw the wound and told her why don't you go in with your child. So she did and

we documented it..

 

 

BUT THE TRUTH BE KNOWN I HAVE THIS BRAIN INJURY AND I DON " T NO NOTHING SO THAT

IS ALL A BUCH OF CRAP HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I DON'T THINK SO...

 

From: MackRN@... <MackRN@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] HBOT and flying on airplane

medicaid

Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 9:19 AM

I am talking about the more appropriate treatment protocols for indications like

anaerobic infections (gas gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis, fourniers gangrene,

crepitant cellulitis), arterial gas embolisms, late effects radiation injuries

(radiation cystitis, proctitis, enteritis, myelits, soft tissue radiation

injuries and osteoradionecrosis) as well as mundane indications line

preservation of skin flap/grafts and diabetic ulcers.? In the case of AGE, the

treatment modality is the pressure decreasing the bubble size with isobaric

counter diffusion of breathing 100% oxygen.? In the cases anaerobic bacteria? is

has been shown that 2.5 ATA is required to effectively deal with the infection

as well as the toxins released by the bacteria.? Marx protocols pretty much

speak for themselves and have been verified with recent radiation cystitis

studies that 2.5 ATA is the appropriate protocol.? In Salt City where the most

recent UHMS/BNA annual scientific

conference was held I attended several presentations on studies comparing lower

pressures for diabetic ulcers and all showed 2.0 ATA as the appropriate

monoplace protocol.? In my readings the only indications where 1.5 ATA ia

indicated is neurological in nature.

?

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

Re: [ ] HBOT and flying on airplane

If you were as experienced in hyperbarics as you attempt to convince people

of on line, you would know that there are several indications where the

pressure the patient is treated is important. Are you saying that you would

treat

CO poisoning, anaerobic infections, AGE, radiation injuries, mycoses

infections, as well as DCS at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA? I suppose Marx studies in these

areas

don't mean much. Also there is no chance of developing DCS flying after

being treated in a true HBO environment, where there is an a small chance of it

happening when being treated in " mild hyperbarics " with less than 100% oxygen

(depending on the time at pressure and the numbers of treatments). Just check

the dive tables.

As for calling names, that did not happen. What happened is questioning

your literacy, which I would do for anyone that jumps into a conversation

without

reviewing what had been being discussed.

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

In a message dated 9/30/08 12:12:49 AM, szymonski (DOT) com writes:

& gt; If you idiots would quit treating patients at such high pressures you

& gt; wouldn't have any problems with decompression issues and flying. If you

were

& gt; treating at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA, you would have no problems with flying, or any

of the

& gt; other negative side affects associated with the high pressures.

& gt;

& gt; Oh, look there, I can call names and make insults as well. Leave the name

& gt; calling out of this post, as we all get no where with it.

& gt;

& gt;

************ **

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out!

(http://local. mapquest. com/?ncid= emlcntnew0000000 1)

[Guest guest]

To the extent that people receiving HBOT are getting air, rather than pure

oxygen, and that is variable, there would be the possibility of nitrogen build

up for that patient--air is about 70% nitrogen, and doesn't dissapate as rapidly

as oxygen, so that I would have to weigh in on this with Wayne.  The potential

is there--it's very well documented in the PADI dive tables, and no doubt

elsewhere within medical research.  The issues medically can include the

bends--air in potential body cavities such as joints, sinuses and decayed teeth,

for example, and also potentially air embolism to the brain, which is,

essentially, the same as producing a stroke.  I wouldn't take this issue

lightly.  Waiting 24 hours before flying is a safe bet.

From: MackRN@... <MackRN@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] HBOT and flying on airplane

szymonski@..., medicaid

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 7:57 PM

Unfartunately you are incorrect about the causes of DCS. It is the

amount

of nitrogen that is absorbed into the tissues no the depth a peson dives. The

deeper you go the more nitrogen is absorbed into the tissues in a shorter

period of time, but it also can be absorbed at shallower depths. Thatis why

the

dive tables for scuba list the shallower depths. Although it is unlikely to

develop DCS at 1.5 ATA combining that with flying makes it a possibility. I

have had apatient reffered to me from DAN who was filming in the Caymens at

20 feet for an extended period of time, got on a passenger plane (which was

pressurized) and landed in Atlanta with a Type 2 DCS.

As for my certifications, well earned them during the 25 years I have worked

in the field.

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

In a message dated 9/30/08 12:51:31 AM, szymonski (DOT) com writes:

> One more thing Mack....I went back and read your post and when this

> conversation got started on flying after hyperbarics, no one was discussing,

or even

> mentioned, scuba diving as you are here.  The folks were originally talking

> about hyperbaric " dives " at 1.3 to 1.5 ATA. 

>  

> You can have problems flying after scuba diving, but you have to dive to

> quite deep depths before it becomes a problem.  Far deeper than those that are

> similiar in pressure to 1.5 ATA.  The only time the shallower depths become a

> problem is if you are flying in an unpressurized aircraft, which was not the

> case in the original question that was posted.

>  

> Before you make insults like the one you did, maybe you should read back

> and then stay on subject.  Apparently you think you are smarter than everyone

> else and that is probably why you feel the need to put all those fancy letters

> behind your name.  I got news for you, I can put more letters behind mine

> but I do not feel the need to cover my insecurities by trying to impress

others

> with degrees that anyone can obtain if they choose to spend the time.

>

>

************ **

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out!

(http://local. mapquest. com/?ncid= emlcntnew0000000 1)

[Guest guest]

I think you missed AGE, for which all of the accepted treatment

protocols are deeper than 1.5 ATA.

My issue with the flexible chamber manufacturers is the promotion of

their device (which is cleared for Acute Mountain Sickness only and

have a max pressure of 1.5 ATA on air - with the exception of the SOS

Hyperlite) marketing their equipment for clinical indications that

require higher pressures and oxygen.

Specifically, I am referring to the company that submitted a 510k and

(somehow) got it through the FDA, claiming it could treat all the UHMS

indications. On some lists, this was touted as a major

accomplishment. The clearance was pulled after it was realized the

device could not treat the indications.

As to flying after diving / hyperbaric treatments (the related posts -

not your comments), as has been stated - the amount nitrogen uptake is

a function of BOTH depth (pressure) and time. This can happen when

scuba diving (regardless of breathing gas) or in a hyperbaric

treatment when the chamber is pressurized using air (bag or multiplace

or a monoplace with an air environment).

Also, don't forget that, while an airplane is " pressurized " (relative

to the outside pressure), the inside pressure is actually less than 1

ATA (compounding the potential nitrogen off-gassing issue). The

internal pressure is equivalent to 8,000 ft ASL (10.92 psia or 0.74

ATA). (so you don;t have to take my word for it, here is a website

with the data -

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0206a.shtml)

Glen

>

> CO poisoning and DCS, no. I agree with you. As far as the rest,

they can be successfully treated at 1.3 to 1.5 with O2.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

>

[Guest guest]

Glen,

I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the point. I know

for a fact that lower pressures can be used for treating many different

conditions. I am not saying it has to be done at lower pressures, even though

it is more safe to do so.

I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can treat at 1.3

in a hard chamber.

As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not all are the

same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure differential. The

aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set by the pilot determines the

cabin altitude. For example, the plane I fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000

ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude at max differential. I can fax you a copy of

the Pilot's operating handbook if you would like to read it.

I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every rule.

However, it is rare.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

I think you missed AGE, for which all of the accepted treatment

protocols are deeper than 1.5 ATA.

My issue with the flexible chamber manufacturers is the promotion of

their device (which is cleared for Acute Mountain Sickness only and

have a max pressure of 1.5 ATA on air - with the exception of the SOS

Hyperlite) marketing their equipment for clinical indications that

require higher pressures and oxygen.

Specifically, I am referring to the company that submitted a 510k and

(somehow) got it through the FDA, claiming it could treat all the UHMS

indications. On some lists, this was touted as a major

accomplishment. The clearance was pulled after it was realized the

device could not treat the indications.

As to flying after diving / hyperbaric treatments (the related posts -

not your comments), as has been stated - the amount nitrogen uptake is

a function of BOTH depth (pressure) and time. This can happen when

scuba diving (regardless of breathing gas) or in a hyperbaric

treatment when the chamber is pressurized using air (bag or multiplace

or a monoplace with an air environment).

Also, don't forget that, while an airplane is " pressurized " (relative

to the outside pressure), the inside pressure is actually less than 1

ATA (compounding the potential nitrogen off-gassing issue). The

internal pressure is equivalent to 8,000 ft ASL (10.92 psia or 0.74

ATA). (so you don;t have to take my word for it, here is a website

with the data -

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0206a.shtml)

Glen

>

> CO poisoning and DCS, no. I agree with you. As far as the rest,

they can be successfully treated at 1.3 to 1.5 with O2.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, but 1.3 ATA with 100% O2 in a hard chamber is a 500% increase in

dosage compared to 1.3 ATA RA.

a significantly increased dosage is a significantly increased dosage.

At 02:23 PM 10/10/2008, you wrote:

>Glen,

>

>I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

>point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

>treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be

>done at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

>I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

>treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

>

>As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not all

>are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

>differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential

>set by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the

>plane I fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft

>flight altitude at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the

>Pilot's operating handbook if you would like to read it.

>I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

>rule. However, it is rare.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> [ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

>

>

>I think you missed AGE, for which all of the accepted treatment

>protocols are deeper than 1.5 ATA.

>

>My issue with the flexible chamber manufacturers is the promotion of

>their device (which is cleared for Acute Mountain Sickness only and

>have a max pressure of 1.5 ATA on air - with the exception of the SOS

>Hyperlite) marketing their equipment for clinical indications that

>require higher pressures and oxygen.

>

>Specifically, I am referring to the company that submitted a 510k and

>(somehow) got it through the FDA, claiming it could treat all the UHMS

>indications. On some lists, this was touted as a major

>accomplishment. The clearance was pulled after it was realized the

>device could not treat the indications.

>

>As to flying after diving / hyperbaric treatments (the related posts -

>not your comments), as has been stated - the amount nitrogen uptake is

>a function of BOTH depth (pressure) and time. This can happen when

>scuba diving (regardless of breathing gas) or in a hyperbaric

>treatment when the chamber is pressurized using air (bag or multiplace

>or a monoplace with an air environment).

>

>Also, don't forget that, while an airplane is " pressurized " (relative

>to the outside pressure), the inside pressure is actually less than 1

>ATA (compounding the potential nitrogen off-gassing issue). The

>internal pressure is equivalent to 8,000 ft ASL (10.92 psia or 0.74

>ATA). (so you don;t have to take my word for it, here is a website

>with the data -

><http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0206a.shtml>http://www.aerosp\

aceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0206a.shtml)

>

>

>Glen

>

>

> >

> > CO poisoning and DCS, no. I agree with you. As far as the rest,

>they can be successfully treated at 1.3 to 1.5 with O2.

> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Brett,

My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

>

> Glen,

>

> I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

>

> As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

handbook if you would like to read it.

> I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

rule. However, it is rare.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

[Guest guest]

Agreed, but it is very rare.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

Brett,

My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

>

> Glen,

>

> I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

>

> As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

handbook if you would like to read it.

> I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

rule. However, it is rare.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Glenn and Brett,

Glenn you are correct.

It is not only SCIENTIFICALLY false, but is a MEDICAL FRAUD to

promote that patients can use a 1.3 ATA RA chamber to treat those

listed non-brain injury conditions.

Look, we all agree it is helpful. But, we have to look at the law

here. And legally, there is absolutely no basis to say that 1.3 ATA

RA can treat diabetic wounds, or radiation necrosis, or necrotizing fasciitis.

This is simply an illegal assertion and our medical laws were

designed specifically to control these types of claims.

(this is why I unfortunately came down hard on these

statements).

If a physician prescribed a collapsible chamber for any patient with

a lethal infection, or a Wagner 3 non-healing wound (possibly any

non-healing wound) I truly believe he will loose his license to

practice medicine....unless he had a very good reason (hyperbarists

often prescribe ultra low pressures of 100% O2 to patients who have

dangerous heart conditions when treating for diabetic foot wounds,

for example).

This is no like saying take 1 motrin for your headache instead of two.

Instead this is taking a life and death risk, or minimally treating a

lethal or severely disabling condition with cavalier

neglect. Physicians simply cannot and will not do it. And, you

cannot push these chambers for those conditions for that reason. It

is irresponsible, dangerous and illegal.

Now, if a person has a chamber in their home and are using it

regularly, and their dad has diabetes and develops a non-healing

wound, would anyone get in trouble for allowing his to try this? Not

really. If they did that with their neighbor, though, they better

have good insurance coverage and a good criminal lawyer.

You have to remember, hyperbarists claim that HBOT " STOPS " at UNDER

1.5 ATA 100% O2. That is their line for HBOT.

This is an 800% increase in dosage above 1.3 ATA RA.

It is artificial and probably not accurate. But, they ahve th e law

with them. It is like arguing against a speed limit in court when

you get a ticket. By default, you will not win and cannot win.

Each of the conditions you noted are treated at much higher

pressures, 2.2 - 2.8 ATA 100% O2.

And, HBOT is approved by the FDA for a variety of medical

applications, while collapsible chambers are approved for " Mountain

Sickness " only.

So, we cannot be making claims about mHBO by comparing it to medicinal HBOT.

truly, it will undo and kill all the gains we ahve made for our kids.

And, for the record, if my mother (for example) had a diabetic foot

wound and I had an mHBO chamber, I WOULD use it on her. But, that is

a far cry from making public claims on it.

Take care,

Ed

At 05:50 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>Brett,

>

>My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

>that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

>or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

>can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

>patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

>general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

>

>I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

>(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

>My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

>example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

>(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

>pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

>demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

>after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

>and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

>additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

>

>

> >

> > Glen,

> >

> > I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

>point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

>treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

>at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> > I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

>treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

> >

> > As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

>all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

>differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

>by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

>fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

>at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

>handbook if you would like to read it.

> > I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

>rule. However, it is rare.

> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> >

>

>

Ed Nemeth

President, CEO

Spectrum Events

444 North Third Street, Suite 304

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-856-7044 x 339

916-856-7040 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Ed,

First, I never said anything about portables.

Second, please explain to me how it is illegal to use portable chambers on these

conditions.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

Hi Glenn and Brett,

Glenn you are correct.

It is not only SCIENTIFICALLY false, but is a MEDICAL FRAUD to

promote that patients can use a 1.3 ATA RA chamber to treat those

listed non-brain injury conditions.

Look, we all agree it is helpful. But, we have to look at the law

here. And legally, there is absolutely no basis to say that 1.3 ATA

RA can treat diabetic wounds, or radiation necrosis, or necrotizing fasciitis.

This is simply an illegal assertion and our medical laws were

designed specifically to control these types of claims.

(this is why I unfortunately came down hard on these

statements).

If a physician prescribed a collapsible chamber for any patient with

a lethal infection, or a Wagner 3 non-healing wound (possibly any

non-healing wound) I truly believe he will loose his license to

practice medicine....unless he had a very good reason (hyperbarists

often prescribe ultra low pressures of 100% O2 to patients who have

dangerous heart conditions when treating for diabetic foot wounds,

for example).

This is no like saying take 1 motrin for your headache instead of two.

Instead this is taking a life and death risk, or minimally treating a

lethal or severely disabling condition with cavalier

neglect. Physicians simply cannot and will not do it. And, you

cannot push these chambers for those conditions for that reason. It

is irresponsible, dangerous and illegal.

Now, if a person has a chamber in their home and are using it

regularly, and their dad has diabetes and develops a non-healing

wound, would anyone get in trouble for allowing his to try this? Not

really. If they did that with their neighbor, though, they better

have good insurance coverage and a good criminal lawyer.

You have to remember, hyperbarists claim that HBOT " STOPS " at UNDER

1.5 ATA 100% O2. That is their line for HBOT.

This is an 800% increase in dosage above 1.3 ATA RA.

It is artificial and probably not accurate. But, they ahve th e law

with them. It is like arguing against a speed limit in court when

you get a ticket. By default, you will not win and cannot win.

Each of the conditions you noted are treated at much higher

pressures, 2.2 - 2.8 ATA 100% O2.

And, HBOT is approved by the FDA for a variety of medical

applications, while collapsible chambers are approved for " Mountain

Sickness " only.

So, we cannot be making claims about mHBO by comparing it to medicinal HBOT.

truly, it will undo and kill all the gains we ahve made for our kids.

And, for the record, if my mother (for example) had a diabetic foot

wound and I had an mHBO chamber, I WOULD use it on her. But, that is

a far cry from making public claims on it.

Take care,

Ed

At 05:50 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>Brett,

>

>My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

>that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

>or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

>can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

>patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

>general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

>

>I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

>(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

>My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

>example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

>(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

>pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

>demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

>after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

>and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

>additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

>

>

> >

> > Glen,

> >

> > I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

>point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

>treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

>at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> > I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

>treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

> >

> > As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

>all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

>differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

>by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

>fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

>at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

>handbook if you would like to read it.

> > I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

>rule. However, it is rare.

> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> >

>

>

Ed Nemeth

President, CEO

Spectrum Events

444 North Third Street, Suite 304

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-856-7044 x 339

916-856-7040 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Brett,

I am not saying it is " illegal " as much as I am saying it is

indefensible***. Did you read my statement about the heart

patients.... you cannot treat some heart patients at higher pressures.

*** anything FDA approved can be prescribed by a physician for any

reason he can JUSTIFY. But, many meds have clear prohibitions. You

cannot for example EVER prescribe some thing for cancer unless it is

specifically FDA APPROVED for cancer. It is otherwise absolutely

illegal. Please take a moment and consider this issue.

So, look at it this way, as far as indefensible.....

A physician gets a patient with a diabetic foot wound.... then

properly prescribes mHBO to taht patient for a variety of reasons....

the patient loses their foot anyhow (they fall in the 25% that HBOT

itself cannot help).

That patient looses their leg and gets a bright and honest lawyer (an

oxymoron, of course - but, its my story) to sue for malpractice and

while on the stand that bright lawyer asks the physican, " Dr. please

cite the publications you referred to when prescribing mHBOT for my

poor, permanently disabled client's foot wound? "

Dr responds, " Well, there are none, but.... "

Lawyer, " No, no that's ok. You answered the question. thank you "

The physician is then dismissed from the stand.

The lawyer then brings up the patient's Expert Witness, (

Freels knows the definition here), and asks them about the " proper,

accepted prescriptions " for HBOT for diabetic foot wound. that UHMS

Expert tesetifis for three hours about how HBOT has been studied ad

nauseum world wide at 2.2-2.8 ATA 100% O2, and that no studies have

been made ever on those conditions at mHBO. Thus, there is no

reasonable basis for a physician to prescribe mHBO for that patient.

The Dr loses the malpractice big time and faces sanctions against his

license for his actions.

Second you did say exactly that... I copied your written statement

listing all those other conditions taht you advocate mHBO for and it

was in my email posted as clear as day. And, now have wasted the

better part of my weekend trying to keep facts on this board..... and

I rarely post here, unless it is very important.

So, please stop wasting everyone's time on this.

The facts are the facts.

Legal implications of marketing snake oil is very different from what

you and I would do in the privacy of our own homes with the knowledge we have.

Read that statement carefully and please don't bother me any more on

this unless you have something grounded and founded to say.

Respectfully,

Ed Nemeth

At 10:01 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>Ed,

>

>First, I never said anything about portables.

>

>Second, please explain to me how it is illegal to use portable

>chambers on these conditions.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> Re: [ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

>

>

>Hi Glenn and Brett,

>

>Glenn you are correct.

>

>It is not only SCIENTIFICALLY false, but is a MEDICAL FRAUD to

>promote that patients can use a 1.3 ATA RA chamber to treat those

>listed non-brain injury conditions.

>

>Look, we all agree it is helpful. But, we have to look at the law

>here. And legally, there is absolutely no basis to say that 1.3 ATA

>RA can treat diabetic wounds, or radiation necrosis, or necrotizing

>fasciitis.

>

>This is simply an illegal assertion and our medical laws were

>designed specifically to control these types of claims.

>

>(this is why I unfortunately came down hard on these

>statements).

>

>If a physician prescribed a collapsible chamber for any patient with

>a lethal infection, or a Wagner 3 non-healing wound (possibly any

>non-healing wound) I truly believe he will loose his license to

>practice medicine....unless he had a very good reason (hyperbarists

>often prescribe ultra low pressures of 100% O2 to patients who have

>dangerous heart conditions when treating for diabetic foot wounds,

>for example).

>

>This is no like saying take 1 motrin for your headache instead of two.

>

>Instead this is taking a life and death risk, or minimally treating a

>lethal or severely disabling condition with cavalier

>neglect. Physicians simply cannot and will not do it. And, you

>cannot push these chambers for those conditions for that reason. It

>is irresponsible, dangerous and illegal.

>

>Now, if a person has a chamber in their home and are using it

>regularly, and their dad has diabetes and develops a non-healing

>wound, would anyone get in trouble for allowing his to try this? Not

>really. If they did that with their neighbor, though, they better

>have good insurance coverage and a good criminal lawyer.

>

>You have to remember, hyperbarists claim that HBOT " STOPS " at UNDER

>1.5 ATA 100% O2. That is their line for HBOT.

>

>This is an 800% increase in dosage above 1.3 ATA RA.

>

>It is artificial and probably not accurate. But, they ahve th e law

>with them. It is like arguing against a speed limit in court when

>you get a ticket. By default, you will not win and cannot win.

>

>Each of the conditions you noted are treated at much higher

>pressures, 2.2 - 2.8 ATA 100% O2.

>

>And, HBOT is approved by the FDA for a variety of medical

>applications, while collapsible chambers are approved for " Mountain

>Sickness " only.

>

>So, we cannot be making claims about mHBO by comparing it to medicinal HBOT.

>

>truly, it will undo and kill all the gains we ahve made for our kids.

>

>And, for the record, if my mother (for example) had a diabetic foot

>wound and I had an mHBO chamber, I WOULD use it on her. But, that is

>a far cry from making public claims on it.

>

>Take care,

>Ed

>

>

>

>

>

>

>At 05:50 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>

> >Brett,

> >

> >My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

> >that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

> >or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

> >can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

> >patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

> >general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

> >

> >I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

> >(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

> >My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

> >example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

> >(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

> >pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

> >demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

> >after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

> >and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

> >additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Glen,

> > >

> > > I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

> >point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

> >treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

> >at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> > > I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

> >treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

> > >

> > > As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

> >all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

> >differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

> >by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

> >fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

> >at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

> >handbook if you would like to read it.

> > > I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

> >rule. However, it is rare.

> > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> > >

> >

> >

>

>Ed Nemeth

>President, CEO

>Spectrum Events

>444 North Third Street, Suite 304

>Sacramento, CA 95814

>

>916-856-7044 x 339

>916-856-7040 (fax)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to clarify. The point I was making is that when you claim something

is illegal, you scare the hell out of people.

Second, the bigger issue, with all hbot, is that the doctor should make it clear

to the patient that hbot, mild or not, may help but that there are no

guarantees. Signed waivers are a good idea.

Ed, I agree with you on most issues, when you word them correctly. However,

sometimes you make it sound as if you are against portables altogether. I know

that is not the case. You must remember that to some researching hbot on this

serve, portables are their only option. I would hate to see someone go without

hbot because they decided against a portable after reading these posts, when

they have no other option.

Second, many of the protocols could be updated to include mild treatment if

somebody would do more studies using mild pressures, instead of subscribing to

the " business as usual " frame of thought.

Thanks.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

>

>

>Hi Glenn and Brett,

>

>Glenn you are correct.

>

>It is not only SCIENTIFICALLY false, but is a MEDICAL FRAUD to

>promote that patients can use a 1.3 ATA RA chamber to treat those

>listed non-brain injury conditions.

>

>Look, we all agree it is helpful. But, we have to look at the law

>here. And legally, there is absolutely no basis to say that 1.3 ATA

>RA can treat diabetic wounds, or radiation necrosis, or necrotizing

>fasciitis.

>

>This is simply an illegal assertion and our medical laws were

>designed specifically to control these types of claims.

>

>(this is why I unfortunately came down hard on these

>statements).

>

>If a physician prescribed a collapsible chamber for any patient with

>a lethal infection, or a Wagner 3 non-healing wound (possibly any

>non-healing wound) I truly believe he will loose his license to

>practice medicine....unless he had a very good reason (hyperbarists

>often prescribe ultra low pressures of 100% O2 to patients who have

>dangerous heart conditions when treating for diabetic foot wounds,

>for example).

>

>This is no like saying take 1 motrin for your headache instead of two.

>

>Instead this is taking a life and death risk, or minimally treating a

>lethal or severely disabling condition with cavalier

>neglect. Physicians simply cannot and will not do it. And, you

>cannot push these chambers for those conditions for that reason. It

>is irresponsible, dangerous and illegal.

>

>Now, if a person has a chamber in their home and are using it

>regularly, and their dad has diabetes and develops a non-healing

>wound, would anyone get in trouble for allowing his to try this? Not

>really. If they did that with their neighbor, though, they better

>have good insurance coverage and a good criminal lawyer.

>

>You have to remember, hyperbarists claim that HBOT " STOPS " at UNDER

>1.5 ATA 100% O2. That is their line for HBOT.

>

>This is an 800% increase in dosage above 1.3 ATA RA.

>

>It is artificial and probably not accurate. But, they ahve th e law

>with them. It is like arguing against a speed limit in court when

>you get a ticket. By default, you will not win and cannot win.

>

>Each of the conditions you noted are treated at much higher

>pressures, 2.2 - 2.8 ATA 100% O2.

>

>And, HBOT is approved by the FDA for a variety of medical

>applications, while collapsible chambers are approved for " Mountain

>Sickness " only.

>

>So, we cannot be making claims about mHBO by comparing it to medicinal HBOT.

>

>truly, it will undo and kill all the gains we ahve made for our kids.

>

>And, for the record, if my mother (for example) had a diabetic foot

>wound and I had an mHBO chamber, I WOULD use it on her. But, that is

>a far cry from making public claims on it.

>

>Take care,

>Ed

>

>

>

>

>

>

>At 05:50 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>

> >Brett,

> >

> >My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

> >that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

> >or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

> >can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

> >patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

> >general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

> >

> >I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

> >(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

> >My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

> >example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

> >(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

> >pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

> >demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

> >after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

> >and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

> >additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Glen,

> > >

> > > I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

> >point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

> >treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

> >at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> > > I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

> >treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

> > >

> > > As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

> >all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

> >differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

> >by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

> >fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

> >at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

> >handbook if you would like to read it.

> > > I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

> >rule. However, it is rare.

> > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> > >

> >

> >

>

>Ed Nemeth

>President, CEO

>Spectrum Events

>444 North Third Street, Suite 304

>Sacramento, CA 95814

>

>916-856-7044 x 339

>916-856-7040 (fax)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Brett,

I each posting, I have made some pains to make sure it was understood

that I support mHBO...... I support ALL HBOT. I am sorry if that did

not come through.

The issues are deep and entrenched, and technical.

But, if someone were to post a question asking about mHBO for

anything other than TBI, stroke, CP, autism, I would be very arm's

length in any statements I made on mHBO for those other conditions

(radiation necrosis, etc.) You and I know it is helpful. but, you

cannot have someone bet their life, or limb on something that is less

than studied and proven AND have them spend $15-20k for those

recommendations. The downside for everyone is cataclismic.

For the record, the CHERISH Foundation advocates more dosage studies

on everything. And, by dosages I include both time and depth and

100% O2 verses RA.

I am convinced, on a personal basis, that we could live in a 1.3 ATA

RA - 1.5+ ATA RA environment 24 hours a day, with no down side, and

live 50%+ longer lives, and have a better quality of life. I truly

believe that. BUt, I also have no real scientific proof.

I also believe that 1.5 hour treatments can be reduced to 1 hour treatments.

I further feel that 1 hour treatments could be reduce as well.

Keeping tissues in a high O2 environment does next to nothing for

many conditions. It is the body's response to the higher O2

environments after approx. 20 minutes that creates a lot of HBOT's

magic. It actually signals the DNA to release many different growth

and healing hormones and enzymes at 18-20 minutes.

So, technically, with taht line of thought, a person can have a 20+

minute treatment and get the benefits they need.

So, on the theoretical side, I am very liberal... ass opposed to the

medical / regulatory side of things.

But, since I have been advocating HBOT for all our kids, I have been

hammered by the medical establishment beyond anything you would ever

believe. So, I am more conservative in claims that possibly I need to be.

Remember, the laws and regs are not est. to heal people. They are

est. to protect the status quo and protect people.

take care,

Ed

At 10:40 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

>Just wanted to clarify. The point I was making is that when you

>claim something is illegal, you scare the hell out of people.

>Second, the bigger issue, with all hbot, is that the doctor should

>make it clear to the patient that hbot, mild or not, may help but

>that there are no guarantees. Signed waivers are a good idea.

>Ed, I agree with you on most issues, when you word them correctly.

>However, sometimes you make it sound as if you are against portables

>altogether. I know that is not the case. You must remember that to

>some researching hbot on this serve, portables are their only

>option. I would hate to see someone go without hbot because they

>decided against a portable after reading these posts, when they have

>no other option.

>Second, many of the protocols could be updated to include mild

>treatment if somebody would do more studies using mild pressures,

>instead of subscribing to the " business as usual " frame of thought.

>

>Thanks.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> Re: [ ] Re: HBOT and flying on airplane

> >

> >

> >Hi Glenn and Brett,

> >

> >Glenn you are correct.

> >

> >It is not only SCIENTIFICALLY false, but is a MEDICAL FRAUD to

> >promote that patients can use a 1.3 ATA RA chamber to treat those

> >listed non-brain injury conditions.

> >

> >Look, we all agree it is helpful. But, we have to look at the law

> >here. And legally, there is absolutely no basis to say that 1.3 ATA

> >RA can treat diabetic wounds, or radiation necrosis, or necrotizing

> >fasciitis.

> >

> >This is simply an illegal assertion and our medical laws were

> >designed specifically to control these types of claims.

> >

> >(this is why I unfortunately came down hard on these

> >statements).

> >

> >If a physician prescribed a collapsible chamber for any patient with

> >a lethal infection, or a Wagner 3 non-healing wound (possibly any

> >non-healing wound) I truly believe he will loose his license to

> >practice medicine....unless he had a very good reason (hyperbarists

> >often prescribe ultra low pressures of 100% O2 to patients who have

> >dangerous heart conditions when treating for diabetic foot wounds,

> >for example).

> >

> >This is no like saying take 1 motrin for your headache instead of two.

> >

> >Instead this is taking a life and death risk, or minimally treating a

> >lethal or severely disabling condition with cavalier

> >neglect. Physicians simply cannot and will not do it. And, you

> >cannot push these chambers for those conditions for that reason. It

> >is irresponsible, dangerous and illegal.

> >

> >Now, if a person has a chamber in their home and are using it

> >regularly, and their dad has diabetes and develops a non-healing

> >wound, would anyone get in trouble for allowing his to try this? Not

> >really. If they did that with their neighbor, though, they better

> >have good insurance coverage and a good criminal lawyer.

> >

> >You have to remember, hyperbarists claim that HBOT " STOPS " at UNDER

> >1.5 ATA 100% O2. That is their line for HBOT.

> >

> >This is an 800% increase in dosage above 1.3 ATA RA.

> >

> >It is artificial and probably not accurate. But, they ahve th e law

> >with them. It is like arguing against a speed limit in court when

> >you get a ticket. By default, you will not win and cannot win.

> >

> >Each of the conditions you noted are treated at much higher

> >pressures, 2.2 - 2.8 ATA 100% O2.

> >

> >And, HBOT is approved by the FDA for a variety of medical

> >applications, while collapsible chambers are approved for " Mountain

> >Sickness " only.

> >

> >So, we cannot be making claims about mHBO by comparing it to

> medicinal HBOT.

> >

> >truly, it will undo and kill all the gains we ahve made for our kids.

> >

> >And, for the record, if my mother (for example) had a diabetic foot

> >wound and I had an mHBO chamber, I WOULD use it on her. But, that is

> >a far cry from making public claims on it.

> >

> >Take care,

> >Ed

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >At 05:50 AM 10/12/2008, you wrote:

> >

> > >Brett,

> > >

> > >My point was that there are at least one soft chamber manufacturer

> > >that claimed to be able to treat indications that require pressures at

> > >or near 3 ATA and 100% oxygen. For a manufacturer of a device that

> > >can not provide that to claim that he can treat the indication is

> > >patently false - and does a disservice to the hyperbaric industry in

> > >general (whether you are supportive of mHBOT or not).

> > >

> > >I agree with you that various planes can be set a different pressure

> > >(whether 8,000 ft; 5,000 ft; or something else - it does not matter) -

> > >My point however (and I used a commercial passenger liner as a single

> > >example) was that they are not " pressurized " above 1 ATA and that

> > >(while they are at greater pressure at altitude than the outside

> > >pressure), the less than 1 ATA pressure inside can and has been

> > >demonstrated to contributed to DCS (as has driving over the mountains

> > >after diving). The point is that you are taking on a nitrogen load

> > >and then going to a pressure lower than 1 ATA, which will cause

> > >additional nitrogen off gassing and potential bubbles.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Glen,

> > > >

> > > > I don't care what the " accepted " protocols are, that is not the

> > >point. I know for a fact that lower pressures can be used for

> > >treating many different conditions. I am not saying it has to be done

> > >at lower pressures, even though it is more safe to do so.

> > > > I am saying that it can be. This doesn't mean portables, you can

> > >treat at 1.3 in a hard chamber.

> > > >

> > > > As for the flying issue: I have flown jets for 20 years, and not

> > >all are the same. It depends on the design and the preset pressure

> > >differential. The aircraft altitude and the pressure differential set

> > >by the pilot determines the cabin altitude. For example, the plane I

> > >fly now has a cabin altitude of 5000 ft if at 30000 ft flight altitude

> > >at max differential. I can fax you a copy of the Pilot's operating

> > >handbook if you would like to read it.

> > > > I am not saying that DCS cannot occur, there are exceptions to every

> > >rule. However, it is rare.

> > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >Ed Nemeth

> >President, CEO

> >Spectrum Events

> >444 North Third Street, Suite 304

> >Sacramento, CA 95814

> >

> >916-856-7044 x 339

> >916-856-7040 (fax)

> >

> >