Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

[Guest guest]

most of our kids have neutropenia it just goes along with the immune

dysfunction. In the brain certain areas have hypoperfusion and some areas

hyperperfusion, if you are using HBOT you could actually damage those areas with

hyperfusion. Too much oxygen is not always a good thing. Dr. Goldberg is very

knowledgable and has lots of experience. Good luck to you, hang in there.

 Sincerely Noel

From: michelletarsi <michelletarsi@...>

Subject: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 10:43 AM

Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have an appt.

coming up and

was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child. Strangely

enough, it is

the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we have done it

ALL). My

daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

[Guest guest]

Dr. G does not like HBOT because while it does increase oxygen to the

brain, you can't control where the oxygen goes. If it's going to

areas that have enough oxygen and you do HBOT, you are potentially

putting more oxygen into an area that doesn't need it which may cause

damage.

If you intend to continue HBOT, Dr. G is not the doctor for you.

This has been a deal breaker for many parents.

Cheryl

On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:43 AM, michelletarsi wrote:

> Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I

> have an appt. coming up and

> was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child.

> Strangely enough, it is

> the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we

> have done it ALL). My

> daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Responsibility for the content of this message lies strictly with

> the original author(s), and is not necessarily endorsed by or the

> opinion of the Research Institute, the Parent Coalition,

> or the list moderator(s).

>

[Guest guest]

He is wrong about it.

Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have an appt.

coming up and

was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child. Strangely

enough, it is

the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we have done

it ALL). My

daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature

database 3440 (20080913) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15 years, We

have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well controlled. The

depth is how you control it, there is a proven protocol for autism, yeast, GI

issues, and a host of other disorders.

You control it by the time, depth and amount treatments. I just finished with a

young boy who improved with speech, control, and the results were so outstanding

that other patients did not even know he had issues.

I also have three daughters that were treated and fully recovered, It will

deliver the meds more effectively.

Read the peer reviewed studies, Don't close the doors on HBOT.

Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Dr. G does not like HBOT because while it does increase oxygen to the

brain, you can't control where the oxygen goes. If it's going to

areas that have enough oxygen and you do HBOT, you are potentially

putting more oxygen into an area that doesn't need it which may cause

damage.

If you intend to continue HBOT, Dr. G is not the doctor for you.

This has been a deal breaker for many parents.

Cheryl

On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:43 AM, michelletarsi wrote:

> Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I

> have an appt. coming up and

> was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child.

> Strangely enough, it is

> the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we

> have done it ALL). My

> daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Responsibility for the content of this message lies strictly with

> the original author(s), and is not necessarily endorsed by or the

> opinion of the Research Institute, the Parent Coalition,

> or the list moderator(s).

>

[Guest guest]

HBOT will normalize the blood flow in a hypo and hyper perfused brain.

Normalizing the blood flow, allow for the entire brain to be perfused normally.

Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 10:43 AM

Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have an appt.

coming up and

was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child. Strangely

enough, it is

the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we have done

it ALL). My

daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

[Guest guest]

> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going blind through

> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or protocol... But

> would be very interested in how something like this might happen. Do you have

> any thoughts on what

> might have gone wrong?

>

> Natasa

>

>

>

> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15 years, We

> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well controlled.

[Guest guest]

Besides not at all indicated for this condition too much oxygen

creates toxic radicals not healthy for anyone

Elyse

-- In , " michelletarsi " <michelletarsi@...> wrote:

>

> Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have

an appt. coming up and

> was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child.

Strangely enough, it is

> the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we

have done it ALL). My

> daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

>

[Guest guest]

I totally disagree!

I have three daughters who have recovered completely and there are studies that

prove it does work for some children. Even insurance is now paying for it.

See www.hbot4u.com

Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Besides not at all indicated for this condition too much oxygen

creates toxic radicals not healthy for anyone

Elyse

-- In , " michelletarsi " <michelletarsi@...> wrote:

>

> Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have

an appt. coming up and

> was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child.

Strangely enough, it is

> the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we

have done it ALL). My

> daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

>

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature

database 3450 (20080918) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

It has been found to be beneficial for some of our kids.

We just don't know what phenotype it works best for.

Too many positive anecdotal success stories. Theres something going on

here.

________________________________

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of

elyse14

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:12 AM

Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Besides not at all indicated for this condition too much oxygen

creates toxic radicals not healthy for anyone

Elyse

-- In <mailto:%40> ,

" michelletarsi " <michelletarsi@...> wrote:

>

> Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is against HBOT. I have

an appt. coming up and

> was told to stop immediately as it could be dangerous to my child.

Strangely enough, it is

> the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that has worked (we

have done it ALL). My

> daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and Autism.

>

[Guest guest]

Was HBOT the only thing you did for your daughters? If not, what were the other

therapies?

Thanks,

Robyn

> >

> > Can anyone tell me exactly why Dr. Goldberg is

> against HBOT. I have

> an appt. coming up and

> > was told to stop immediately as it could be

> dangerous to my child.

> Strangely enough, it is

> > the only Biomedical treatment that we have done that

> has worked (we

> have done it ALL). My

> > daughter is 3 1/2 and dx with Neutropenia and

> Autism.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version

> of virus signature database 3450 (20080918) __________

>

> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

>

> http://www.eset.com

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Neurospect on children reveal white profuse " hot spots " not at all a

healthy point for the brain . Too much oxygen is toxic to the cells

Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008 Jun;21(3):332-9.

Oxygen in neonatal anesthesia: friend or foe?

Sola A.

Mid Atlantic Neonatology Associates and Atlantic Neonatal Research

Institute,

town, NJ 07960, USA. augustosolaneo@...

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical practices in oxygen administration are in

need of

change based on the increasing understanding of oxygen toxicity.

Hypoxemia is due

to many pathophysiological causes; avoiding hypoxemia is an important

objective

during neonatal anesthesia. Nevertheless, the only known cause for

hyperoxemia is

the excess and unnecessary administration of oxygen by healthcare

providers. To

avoid hyperoxemia is an important objective during neonatal

anesthesia. RECENT

FINDINGS: Neonatal exposure to 100% oxygen is almost never necessary.

Much lower

concentrations of inspired supplemental oxygen during the neonatal

period can

also lead to oxygen toxicity if oxygen is used when it is not

necessary. Excess

oxygen is associated with serious morbidities such as retinopathy of

prematurity,

bronchopulmonary dysplasia, injury to the developing brain, and

childhood cancer.

When providing supplemental oxygen, monitoring with modern SpO2

technology and

avoidance of SpO2 values of 95-100% are less frequently associated

with

hyperoxemia. SUMMARY: Even brief neonatal exposures to pure oxygen

must be

avoided during neonatal anesthesia. When any dose of supplemental

oxygen is

given, a reliable pulse oximeter aiming to avoid hyperoxemia is

necessary. Even

though further research is essential, administration of oxygen by

healthcare

providers when it is not necessary is a foe and a neonatal health

hazard.

PMID: 18458550 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):642-7.

Comment in:

Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):347-9.

Resuscitation with room air instead of 100% oxygen prevents oxidative

stress in

moderately asphyxiated term neonates.

Vento M, Asensi M, Sastre J, García-Sala F, Pallardó FV, Viña J.

Servicio de Pediatría, Hospital Virgen del Consuelo, Valencia, Spain.

maximo.vento@...

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, asphyxiated newborn infants have been

ventilated using

100% oxygen. However, a recent multinational trial has shown that the

use of room

air was just as efficient as pure oxygen in securing the survival of

severely

asphyxiated newborn infants. Oxidative stress markers in moderately

asphyxiated

term newborn infants resuscitated with either 100% oxygen or room air

have been

studied for the first time in this work. METHODS: Eligible term

neonates with

perinatal asphyxia were randomly resuscitated with either room air or

100%

oxygen. The clinical parameters recorded were those of the Apgar

score at 1, 5,

and 10 minutes, the time of onset of the first cry, and the time of

onset of the

sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, reduced and oxidized

glutathione

concentrations and antioxidant enzyme activities (superoxide

dismutase, catalase,

and glutathione peroxidase) were determined in blood from the

umbilical artery

during delivery and in peripheral blood at 72 hours and at 4 weeks'

postnatal

age. RESULTS: Our results show that the room-air resuscitated (RAR)

group needed

significantly less time to first cry than the group resuscitated with

100% oxygen

(1.2 +/- 0.6 minutes vs 1.7 +/- 0.5). Moreover, the RAR group needed

less time

undergoing ventilation to achieve a sustained respiratory pattern

than the group

resuscitated with pure oxygen (4.6 +/- 0.7 vs 7.5 +/- 1.8 minutes).

The

reduced-to-oxidized-glutathione ratio, which is an accurate index of

oxidative

stress, of the RAR group (53 +/- 9) at 28 days of postnatal life

showed no

differences with the control nonasphyxiated group (50 +/- 12).

However, the

reduced-to-oxidized-glutathione ratio of the 100% oxygen-resuscitated

group (OxR)

(15 +/- 5) was significantly lower and revealed protracted oxidative

stress.

Furthermore, the activities of superoxide dismutase and catalase in

erythrocytes

were 69% and 78% higher, respectively, in the OxR group than in the

control group

at 28 days of postnatal life. Thus, this shows that these antioxidant

enzymes,

although higher than in controls, could not cope with the ongoing

generation of

free radicals in the OxR group. However, there were no differences in

antioxidant

enzyme activities between the RAR group and the control group at this

stage.

CONCLUSIONS: There are no apparent clinical disadvantages in using

room air for

ventilation of asphyxiated neonates rather than 100% oxygen.

Furthermore, RAR

infants recover more quickly as assessed by Apgar scores, time to the

first cry,

and the sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, neonates

resuscitated with

100% oxygen exhibit biochemical findings reflecting prolonged

oxidative stress

present even after 4 weeks of postnatal life, which do not appear in

the RAR

group. Thus, the current accepted recommendations for using 100%

oxygen in the

resuscitation of asphyxiated newborn infants should be further

discussed and

investigated.

PMID: 11335737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Dr Goldberg stated on the last chat (it should be in the chat transcripts on

that separate group) that they are finding areas of diffuse hyperperfusion

(although I think he may have said hypoperfusion but that may have been a typo

or I understood it wrong) in areas of the brain in kids who had been doing HBOT

and I believe one of those areas is the occipital lobe which I think is

associated with vision.  There were other areas too.  These findings had NEVER

been seen prior to that therapy. 

 

Re the Pardo study that has confirmed the findings of immune activation in the

brain has a Q & A where they discuss those findings.  The neuroinflammation in the

brain that is causing the hypoperfusion (reduced blood flow) to the temporal and

frontal lobes is a neuroimmune process, and they discuss the importance of the

fact that they do not know yet if this immune activation and the hypoperfusion

is a protective measure. 

 

With the knowledge that there may be viruses in the CNS (and other areas of the

body) that are contributing to this, doing HBOT and over-riding the natural

protective nature of the body and brain while disregarding all of the factors

that created it in the first place are opening up the opportunity for viruses to

continue their damage and create the opportunity for more oxidative stress -

already high.  There was one little study (in support of HBOT) that everyone

believes effectively eliminates concerns re oxidative stress & HBOT.  However,

there are other studies in other areas like what Mrs Goldberg just posted where

there is definitely an increase in concern.  There is no proof that HBOT helps

to heal the immune system.  Many people go on to continue seeking help, and some

of the neurospects of after are showing a lot of reason for serious concern.

 

Yes ... HBOT can bring about an immediate and dramatic improvement in symptoms. 

But the potential damage and long-term effects are way too high a risk for me to

ever consider.  Plus there are so many children w/hyperperfusion (too much blood

flow) in the deeper areas of the brain (partly where OCD and anxiety reside) and

how do they keep this from being worsened? 

 

HBOT is targeting one of the base findings in - the hypoperfusion.  It's

giving some quick and immediate and dramatic results for people.  But what are

the long-term consequences?  Steroid therapy has also brought about significant

and dramatic results, too ... that doesn't mean that it is a good choice - but

of course many people are devoted to it because, well .... they SAW their child

get better!  But what of all the other side-effects?  And what about when you

stop?

 

The differences in paradigms are very important, and the core of the

hypothesis is based on more than 25 years of mainstream medical research by top

researchers on Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome.  So many of the

therapies being tried today have already been used and failed and often worsened

CFIDS.  If they had been successful, many of the top doctors would still be

using them.  Knowing HBOT's effects, knowing the presence of hypoperfusion and

HBOT's ability to increase perfusion ... wouldn't they be on that like flies?

 

I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to HBOT.  I

certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids benefit and want to

shout if from the rooftops.  And I believe the people who are committed to

providing the therapy rejoice when they see what happens.  But I am so afraid of

what the potential harm is to these kids.  And no one doing HBOT is also

monitoring viruses, immune function, etc.  They are not.  Very likely, they have

very little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and in

CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not being monitored.

 

Just my opinions.

Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going blind through

> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or protocol... But

> would be very interested in how something like this might happen. Do you have

> any thoughts on what

> might have gone wrong?

>

> Natasa

>

>

>

> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15 years, We

> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well controlled.

[Guest guest]

Well said, .

Robyn

> From: <thecolemans4@...>

> Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 3:57 PM

> Dr Goldberg stated on the last chat (it should be in the

> chat transcripts on that separate group) that they are

> finding areas of diffuse hyperperfusion (although I think he

> may have said hypoperfusion but that may have been a typo or

> I understood it wrong) in areas of the brain in kids who had

> been doing HBOT and I believe one of those areas is the

> occipital lobe which I think is associated with vision. 

> There were other areas too.  These findings had NEVER been

> seen prior to that therapy. 

>  

> Re the Pardo study that has confirmed the findings of

> immune activation in the brain has a Q & A where they

> discuss those findings.  The neuroinflammation in the brain

> that is causing the hypoperfusion (reduced blood flow) to

> the temporal and frontal lobes is a neuroimmune process, and

> they discuss the importance of the fact that they do not

> know yet if this immune activation and the hypoperfusion is

> a protective measure. 

>  

> With the knowledge that there may be viruses in the CNS

> (and other areas of the body) that are contributing to this,

> doing HBOT and over-riding the natural protective nature of

> the body and brain while disregarding all of the factors

> that created it in the first place are opening up the

> opportunity for viruses to continue their damage and create

> the opportunity for more oxidative stress - already high. 

> There was one little study (in support of HBOT) that

> everyone believes effectively eliminates concerns re

> oxidative stress & HBOT.  However, there are other

> studies in other areas like what Mrs Goldberg just posted

> where there is definitely an increase in concern.  There is

> no proof that HBOT helps to heal the immune system.  Many

> people go on to continue seeking help, and some of the

> neurospects of after are showing a lot of reason for serious

> concern.

>  

> Yes ... HBOT can bring about an immediate and dramatic

> improvement in symptoms.  But the potential damage and

> long-term effects are way too high a risk for me to ever

> consider.  Plus there are so many children w/hyperperfusion

> (too much blood flow) in the deeper areas of the brain

> (partly where OCD and anxiety reside) and how do they keep

> this from being worsened? 

>  

> HBOT is targeting one of the base findings in - the

> hypoperfusion.  It's giving some quick and immediate

> and dramatic results for people.  But what are the

> long-term consequences?  Steroid therapy has also brought

> about significant and dramatic results, too ... that

> doesn't mean that it is a good choice - but of course

> many people are devoted to it because, well .... they SAW

> their child get better!  But what of all the other

> side-effects?  And what about when you stop?

>  

> The differences in paradigms are very important, and the

> core of the hypothesis is based on more than 25 years

> of mainstream medical research by top researchers on Chronic

> Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome.  So many of the

> therapies being tried today have already been used and

> failed and often worsened CFIDS.  If they had been

> successful, many of the top doctors would still be using

> them.  Knowing HBOT's effects, knowing the presence of

> hypoperfusion and HBOT's ability to increase perfusion

> ... wouldn't they be on that like flies?

>  

> I can certainly understand the believers who are very

> committed to HBOT.  I certainly understand the parents who

> have seen their kids benefit and want to shout if from the

> rooftops.  And I believe the people who are committed to

> providing the therapy rejoice when they see what happens. 

> But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is to these

> kids.  And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> immune function, etc.  They are not.  Very likely, they

> have very little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking

> place in and in CFIDS, and without that critical piece

> of data, a lot is not being monitored.

>  

> Just my opinions.

>

>

>

>

> Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please

> help

>

>

> > Hi , I have just read on another list about one

> girl going blind through

> > hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which

> clinic or protocol... But

> > would be very interested in how something like this

> might happen. Do you have

> > any thoughts on what

> > might have gone wrong?

> >

> > Natasa

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for

> close to 15 years, We

> > have 100's of brain scans on children that prove

> that it is well controlled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to

> HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids

> benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I believe the

> people who are committed to providing the therapy rejoice when they

> see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is

> to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely, they have very

> little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and

> in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not

> being monitored.

On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT and I'm not

advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that are very

aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I don't agree

that all these people don't monitor or know about immune

dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA) alone that are

very aware of immune and use HBOT.

Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly. They all are

very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not assume that

he's the only one to consider these things. We were on the protocol

for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't continue to

constantly research what others are doing and while I have no desire

(nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say that the people

doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure they can pull

up study after study telling you how beneficial it's been. What they

can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of this therapy.

But then again, how many long term studies have there been on ssris?

SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only Prozac is

approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put on an ssri

at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label. Valtrex has

never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of fact, if

you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that it should

never be used on children that have not reached puberty because the

effects have never been studied. We have deduced that it's safe but

we've never proven it.

I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter what side

you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof. There is

no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with. One side

says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that one is

seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many things just

not directly relating to our children or not directly related to

autism or not directly related to any manner of things. Others we

have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously. The politics

of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to get into but suffice it

to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear someone use this

argument, I want to know that they are serious about the argument and

not just using it as lip service or because that's what someone they

trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this is not

using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on children.

But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing that. No

one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with home raised

meats. No one is out there making their own clothes, spinning their

own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have never been

studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And it's

unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in that kind of

society.

Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you because

truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many people and

it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing things that

haven't been properly studied daily but that doesn't make us stop

using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other protocol. The

reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have to decide

who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to be the most

(not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we can

incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we think is

right for our children and look at the science that disagrees with it

and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G, not be

because we didn't believe in him, but because it was just too hard to

continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our consciousness. We

didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore. And he's

doing great now that he's almost off. Every time we've lowered the

dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't

crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't. But at least *we*

will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be on it and

I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how trustworthy he is)

for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just knowing he

wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to also be

comfortable with what is going into him and being done to him and if

I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for him, etc. In the

end, that's all it comes down to. What we are comfortable with and

what we know about our children and what we are giving them. You

look at what you know and what you learn and you go from there. You

learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it all and sort

it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like anything else.

My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about you. I'm

just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say this for all

those people that have told me that, " there's no evidence " or

" evidence based practice " or anything related about how I treat my

son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please don't

think this is directed at you personally.

Cheryl

>

> Just my opinions.

>

>

>

>

> Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

>

>> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going

>> blind through

>> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or

>> protocol... But

>> would be very interested in how something like this might happen.

>> Do you have

>> any thoughts on what

>> might have gone wrong?

>>

>> Natasa

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15

>> years, We

>> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well

>> controlled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Let me just add a few things, from a nursing perspective.  I have seen some

horrific things happen in hospitals and with doctors, All of us are lab rats

okay, to say the least.  Medications are given and the pt. is rechecked for

symptoms, did it work? How do you feel? If not good, it is changed. TRIAL and

ERROR.  Science is forever changing. SOme of the longest vaccine trials were for

TWO WEEKS...We never know, what I do know, and I agree Cheryl, is you as parents

have to make that call. I will try things with in reason, not because science

says this is great, science has said things that have been proven wrong, my

point is it is constantly changing. We have done things in nursing 15 years ago,

that we now go OMG!! I can't believe that is what we used to think....My

opinion, not aimed at anyone...take care

 Sincerely Noel

From: cher.lowrance <cher.lowrance@...>

Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:21 PM

>

> I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to

> HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids

> benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I believe the

> people who are committed to providing the therapy rejoice when they

> see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is

> to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely, they have very

> little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and

> in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not

> being monitored.

On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT and I'm not

advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that are very

aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I don't agree

that all these people don't monitor or know about immune

dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA) alone that are

very aware of immune and use HBOT.

Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly. They all are

very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not assume that

he's the only one to consider these things. We were on the protocol

for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't continue to

constantly research what others are doing and while I have no desire

(nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say that the people

doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure they can pull

up study after study telling you how beneficial it's been. What they

can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of this therapy.

But then again, how many long term studies have there been on ssris?

SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only Prozac is

approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put on an ssri

at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label. Valtrex has

never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of fact, if

you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that it should

never be used on children that have not reached puberty because the

effects have never been studied. We have deduced that it's safe but

we've never proven it.

I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter what side

you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof. There is

no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with. One side

says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that one is

seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many things just

not directly relating to our children or not directly related to

autism or not directly related to any manner of things. Others we

have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously. The politics

of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to get into but suffice it

to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear someone use this

argument, I want to know that they are serious about the argument and

not just using it as lip service or because that's what someone they

trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this is not

using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on children.

But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing that. No

one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with home raised

meats. No one is out there making their own clothes, spinning their

own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have never been

studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And it's

unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in that kind of

society.

Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you because

truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many people and

it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing things that

haven't been properly studied daily but that doesn't make us stop

using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other protocol. The

reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have to decide

who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to be the most

(not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we can

incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we think is

right for our children and look at the science that disagrees with it

and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G, not be

because we didn't believe in him, but because it was just too hard to

continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our consciousness. We

didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore. And he's

doing great now that he's almost off. Every time we've lowered the

dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't

crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't. But at least *we*

will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be on it and

I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how trustworthy he is)

for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just knowing he

wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to also be

comfortable with what is going into him and being done to him and if

I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for him, etc. In the

end, that's all it comes down to. What we are comfortable with and

what we know about our children and what we are giving them. You

look at what you know and what you learn and you go from there. You

learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it all and sort

it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like anything else.

My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about you. I'm

just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say this for all

those people that have told me that, " there's no evidence " or

" evidence based practice " or anything related about how I treat my

son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please don't

think this is directed at you personally.

Cheryl

>

> Just my opinions.

>

>

>

>

> Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

>

>> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going

>> blind through

>> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or

>> protocol... But

>> would be very interested in how something like this might happen.

>> Do you have

>> any thoughts on what

>> might have gone wrong?

>>

>> Natasa

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15

>> years, We

>> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well

>> controlled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

just to throw in another perspective (not taking sides in the argument,

pretty much on the fence re hbot)

.... fwiw Dr Klinghardt's comment on hbot and whether to recommend to our

son was that in his experience with his patients he wasn't too

impressed with (but wouldn't advise AGAINST it either) and that on the

whole he found it tended to have good and lasting effects mostly on

those kids who had already shown improvements and reacted well through

other, previous treatments...

also fwiw he also said that he would recommend something called Valkion

singlet oxygen unit over HBOT as it is better (as in similar but more

benefits in shorter time), safer, cheaper and easier to run...

we have not tried it ourselves but have researched it a lot and are

trying to rise finances (it costs just over £2000 to buy, it is a bit

more in US cos of tax import etc, it is made in Sweden).

I have since heard from a few people who have used it in clinics or have

bought one, a couple of neutral-to-good, and several very impressive

reports so far... including one parent who reported that they were blown

away with results after only 2 treatments as matching 40 hbot

sessions...

there is more info+research here http://www.tyoma.com.ua/ , and

manufacturer's site www.valkion.com

once again to stress I hate for this to appear as hard sell or knocking

down hbot (and imo valkion is more of a light/biophotonic treatment than

proper 'oxygen' one, as no singley oxygen ever leaves the machine and

enters the body), but for us hbot was never an option - no centres

around here - and our son does sound like good valkion candidate...

>

>

> >

> > I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to

> > HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids

> > benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I believe the

> > people who are committed to providing the therapy rejoice when they

> > see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is

> > to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> > immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely, they have very

> > little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and

> > in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not

> > being monitored.

>

> On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT and I'm not

> advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that are very

> aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I don't agree

> that all these people don't monitor or know about immune

> dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA) alone that are

> very aware of immune and use HBOT.

> Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly. They all are

> very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not assume that

> he's the only one to consider these things. We were on the protocol

> for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't continue to

> constantly research what others are doing and while I have no desire

> (nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say that the people

> doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure they can pull

> up study after study telling you how beneficial it's been. What they

> can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of this therapy.

> But then again, how many long term studies have there been on ssris?

> SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only Prozac is

> approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put on an ssri

> at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label. Valtrex has

> never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of fact, if

> you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that it should

> never be used on children that have not reached puberty because the

> effects have never been studied. We have deduced that it's safe but

> we've never proven it.

>

> I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter what side

> you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof. There is

> no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with. One side

> says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that one is

> seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many things just

> not directly relating to our children or not directly related to

> autism or not directly related to any manner of things. Others we

> have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously. The politics

> of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to get into but suffice it

> to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear someone use this

> argument, I want to know that they are serious about the argument and

> not just using it as lip service or because that's what someone they

> trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this is not

> using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on children.

> But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing that. No

> one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with home raised

> meats. No one is out there making their own clothes, spinning their

> own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have never been

> studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And it's

> unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in that kind of

> society.

>

> Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you because

> truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many people and

> it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing things that

> haven't been properly studied daily but that doesn't make us stop

> using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other protocol. The

> reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have to decide

> who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to be the most

> (not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we can

> incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we think is

> right for our children and look at the science that disagrees with it

> and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G, not be

> because we didn't believe in him, but because it was just too hard to

> continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our consciousness. We

> didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore. And he's

> doing great now that he's almost off. Every time we've lowered the

> dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't

> crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't. But at least *we*

> will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be on it and

> I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how trustworthy he is)

> for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just knowing he

> wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to also be

> comfortable with what is going into him and being done to him and if

> I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for him, etc. In the

> end, that's all it comes down to. What we are comfortable with and

> what we know about our children and what we are giving them. You

> look at what you know and what you learn and you go from there. You

> learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it all and sort

> it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like anything

else.

>

> My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about you. I'm

> just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say this for all

> those people that have told me that, " there's no evidence " or

> " evidence based practice " or anything related about how I treat my

> son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please don't

> think this is directed at you personally.

>

> Cheryl

>

> >

> > Just my opinions.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

> >

> >

> >> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going

> >> blind through

> >> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or

> >> protocol... But

> >> would be very interested in how something like this might happen.

> >> Do you have

> >> any thoughts on what

> >> might have gone wrong?

> >>

> >> Natasa

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15

> >> years, We

> >> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well

> >> controlled.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Oh my goodness you just said a mouthful.  I have two children who have

albinism.  They both had surgery that most people thought was to controversial. 

Zack's acuity went from 20/200 to 20/70 and 's improved from 20/800 to

20/89.  Two years later more than 150 with albinism that I personally know have

had this procedure with similar results and there have been thousands of

normally pigmented people who have had his procedure and all but 3 have had

significant gains in acuity but they were much older when they had the

procedure.  Still most believe that this does not work.  As a parent I educated

myself about the procedure and then I made what I felt was the best decision for

my children.  I think that treatment of autism is much the same.  many people do

things outside of my comfort level but the bottom line is that they are doing

what they feel is best for their child and who knows maybe some of these things

are best for their child.  I

try to keep an open mind in situations like this.  We as parents are doing as

best as we can for our children.  Sheri

From: cher.lowrance <cher.lowrance@ gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

groups (DOT) com

Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:21 PM

>

> I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to

> HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids

> benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I believe the

> people who are committed to providing the therapy rejoice when they

> see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is

> to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely, they have very

> little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and

> in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not

> being monitored.

On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT and I'm not

advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that are very

aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I don't agree

that all these people don't monitor or know about immune

dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA) alone that are

very aware of immune and use HBOT.

Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly. They all are

very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not assume that

he's the only one to consider these things. We were on the protocol

for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't continue to

constantly research what others are doing and while I have no desire

(nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say that the people

doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure they can pull

up study after study telling you how beneficial it's been. What they

can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of this therapy.

But then again, how many long term studies have there been on ssris?

SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only Prozac is

approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put on an ssri

at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label. Valtrex has

never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of fact, if

you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that it should

never be used on children that have not reached puberty because the

effects have never been studied. We have deduced that it's safe but

we've never proven it.

I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter what side

you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof. There is

no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with. One side

says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that one is

seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many things just

not directly relating to our children or not directly related to

autism or not directly related to any manner of things. Others we

have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously. The politics

of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to get into but suffice it

to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear someone use this

argument, I want to know that they are serious about the argument and

not just using it as lip service or because that's what someone they

trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this is not

using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on children.

But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing that. No

one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with home raised

meats. No one is out there making their own clothes, spinning their

own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have never been

studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And it's

unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in that kind of

society.

Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you because

truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many people and

it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing things that

haven't been properly studied daily but that doesn't make us stop

using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other protocol. The

reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have to decide

who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to be the most

(not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we can

incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we think is

right for our children and look at the science that disagrees with it

and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G, not be

because we didn't believe in him, but because it was just too hard to

continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our consciousness. We

didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore. And he's

doing great now that he's almost off. Every time we've lowered the

dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't

crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't. But at least *we*

will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be on it and

I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how trustworthy he is)

for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just knowing he

wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to also be

comfortable with what is going into him and being done to him and if

I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for him, etc. In the

end, that's all it comes down to. What we are comfortable with and

what we know about our children and what we are giving them. You

look at what you know and what you learn and you go from there. You

learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it all and sort

it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like anything else.

My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about you. I'm

just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say this for all

those people that have told me that, " there's no evidence " or

" evidence based practice " or anything related about how I treat my

son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please don't

think this is directed at you personally.

Cheryl

>

> Just my opinions.

>

>

>

>

> Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

>

>> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going

>> blind through

>> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or

>> protocol... But

>> would be very interested in how something like this might happen.

>> Do you have

>> any thoughts on what

>> might have gone wrong?

>>

>> Natasa

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15

>> years, We

>> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well

>> controlled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sheri that was my point exactly....

 Sincerely Noel

From: cher.lowrance <cher.lowrance@ gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

groups (DOT) com

Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:21 PM

>

> I can certainly understand the believers who are very committed to

> HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have seen their kids

> benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I believe the

> people who are committed to providing the therapy rejoice when they

> see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the potential harm is

> to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also monitoring viruses,

> immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely, they have very

> little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking place in and

> in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a lot is not

> being monitored.

On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT and I'm not

advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that are very

aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I don't agree

that all these people don't monitor or know about immune

dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA) alone that are

very aware of immune and use HBOT.

Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly. They all are

very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not assume that

he's the only one to consider these things. We were on the protocol

for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't continue to

constantly research what others are doing and while I have no desire

(nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say that the people

doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure they can pull

up study after study telling you how beneficial it's been. What they

can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of this therapy.

But then again, how many long term studies have there been on ssris?

SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only Prozac is

approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put on an ssri

at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label. Valtrex has

never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of fact, if

you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that it should

never be used on children that have not reached puberty because the

effects have never been studied. We have deduced that it's safe but

we've never proven it.

I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter what side

you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof. There is

no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with. One side

says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that one is

seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many things just

not directly relating to our children or not directly related to

autism or not directly related to any manner of things. Others we

have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously. The politics

of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to get into but suffice it

to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear someone use this

argument, I want to know that they are serious about the argument and

not just using it as lip service or because that's what someone they

trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this is not

using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on children.

But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing that. No

one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with home raised

meats. No one is out there making their own clothes, spinning their

own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have never been

studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And it's

unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in that kind of

society.

Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you because

truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many people and

it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing things that

haven't been properly studied daily but that doesn't make us stop

using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other protocol. The

reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have to decide

who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to be the most

(not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we can

incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we think is

right for our children and look at the science that disagrees with it

and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G, not be

because we didn't believe in him, but because it was just too hard to

continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our consciousness. We

didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore. And he's

doing great now that he's almost off. Every time we've lowered the

dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't

crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't. But at least *we*

will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be on it and

I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how trustworthy he is)

for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just knowing he

wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to also be

comfortable with what is going into him and being done to him and if

I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for him, etc. In the

end, that's all it comes down to. What we are comfortable with and

what we know about our children and what we are giving them. You

look at what you know and what you learn and you go from there. You

learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it all and sort

it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like anything else.

My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about you. I'm

just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say this for all

those people that have told me that, " there's no evidence " or

" evidence based practice " or anything related about how I treat my

son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please don't

think this is directed at you personally.

Cheryl

>

> Just my opinions.

>

>

>

>

> Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

>

>> Hi , I have just read on another list about one girl going

>> blind through

>> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details, which clinic or

>> protocol... But

>> would be very interested in how something like this might happen.

>> Do you have

>> any thoughts on what

>> might have gone wrong?

>>

>> Natasa

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner for close to 15

>> years, We

>> have 100's of brain scans on children that prove that it is well

>> controlled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I read an article about hyperbaric oxygen treatment that pointed out the

possible serious side effects of this treatment. The original use was for divers

who experienced the bends from water pressure. The side efffects in the chamber

included possible damage to the eyes/eyesight of the person being exposed to the

extreme pressure of the oxygen in the chamber. The eardrums are also at risk

for damage to the pressure of incresed oxygen beyond the normal levels. The

internal organs of the person may also be affected by the pressure of high

levels of oxygen. The article advised extreme caution when considering use of

this method in the treatment of autism.

Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):642-7.

Comment in:

Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):347-9.

Resuscitation with room air instead of 100% oxygen prevents oxidative

stress in

moderately asphyxiated term neonates.

Vento M, Asensi M, Sastre J, García-Sala F, Pallardó FV, Viña J.

Servicio de Pediatría, Hospital Virgen del Consuelo, Valencia, Spain.

maximo.vento@...

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, asphyxiated newborn infants have been

ventilated using

100% oxygen. However, a recent multinational trial has shown that the

use of room

air was just as efficient as pure oxygen in securing the survival of

severely

asphyxiated newborn infants. Oxidative stress markers in moderately

asphyxiated

term newborn infants resuscitated with either 100% oxygen or room air

have been

studied for the first time in this work. METHODS: Eligible term

neonates with

perinatal asphyxia were randomly resuscitated with either room air or

100%

oxygen. The clinical parameters recorded were those of the Apgar

score at 1, 5,

and 10 minutes, the time of onset of the first cry, and the time of

onset of the

sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, reduced and oxidized

glutathione

concentrations and antioxidant enzyme activities (superoxide

dismutase, catalase,

and glutathione peroxidase) were determined in blood from the

umbilical artery

during delivery and in peripheral blood at 72 hours and at 4 weeks'

postnatal

age. RESULTS: Our results show that the room-air resuscitated (RAR)

group needed

significantly less time to first cry than the group resuscitated with

100% oxygen

(1.2 +/- 0.6 minutes vs 1.7 +/- 0.5). Moreover, the RAR group needed

less time

undergoing ventilation to achieve a sustained respiratory pattern

than the group

resuscitated with pure oxygen (4.6 +/- 0.7 vs 7.5 +/- 1.8 minutes).

The

reduced-to-oxidized-glutathione ratio, which is an accurate index of

oxidative

stress, of the RAR group (53 +/- 9) at 28 days of postnatal life

showed no

differences with the control nonasphyxiated group (50 +/- 12).

However, the

reduced-to-oxidized-glutathione ratio of the 100% oxygen-resuscitated

group (OxR)

(15 +/- 5) was significantly lower and revealed protracted oxidative

stress.

Furtherm

ore, the activities of superoxide dismutase and catalase in

erythrocytes

were 69% and 78% higher, respectively, in the OxR group than in the

control group

at 28 days of postnatal life. Thus, this shows that these antioxidant

enzymes,

although higher than in controls, could not cope with the ongoing

generation of

free radicals in the OxR group. However, there were no differences in

antioxidant

enzyme activities between the RAR group and the control group at this

stage.

CONCLUSIONS: There are no apparent clinical disadvantages in using

room air for

ventilation of asphyxiated neonates rather than 100% oxygen.

Furthermore, RAR

infants recover more quickly as assessed by Apgar scores, time to the

first cry,

and the sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, neonates

resuscitated with

100% oxygen exhibit biochemical findings reflecting prolonged

oxidative stress

present even after 4 weeks of postnatal life, which do not appear in

the RAR

group. Thus, the current accepted recommendations for using 100%

oxygen in the

resuscitation of asphyxiated newborn infants should be further

discussed and

investigated.

PMID: 11335737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Hi, Cheryl.

I just have a few questions if you don't mind. How old is your son? I know you

said you started the protocol when he was three. I have two (and soon to be a

third) to be on the protocol and I'm very interested in your insight. I don't

necessarily have issues with the Valtrex, as I have come to believe (mostly

since Noah's miraculous recovery from CVS and debilitating migraines) that the

virus is probably doing as much if not more damage than Valtrex can do. The

SSRIs are a different story; however, we've seen some wonderful improvements

with those as well. Which brings me to my next question: what, if anything, were

you seeing in your son that you attributed to the SSRIs? Also, where did you

research the effects of SSRIs? It is a constant struggle to reconcile the use of

these drugs with the improvements we're seeing, but I do want to be making an as

informed decision as possible regarding these meds. As some have wisely pointed

out, medicine is a

practice, an art form, and is inherent with experimentation and flaws.

Lastly, what medical interventions, if any, are you using for your son

currently?

Thanks for your help.

Robyn

> From: cher.lowrance <cher.lowrance@...>

> Subject: Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

>

> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:21 PM

> >

> > I can certainly understand the believers who are very

> committed to

> > HBOT. I certainly understand the parents who have

> seen their kids

> > benefit and want to shout if from the rooftops. And I

> believe the

> > people who are committed to providing the therapy

> rejoice when they

> > see what happens. But I am so afraid of what the

> potential harm is

> > to these kids. And no one doing HBOT is also

> monitoring viruses,

> > immune function, etc. They are not. Very likely,

> they have very

> > little knowledge of the immune dysfunction taking

> place in and

> > in CFIDS, and without that critical piece of data, a

> lot is not

> > being monitored.

>

> On this point I have to disagree. I'm not doing HBOT

> and I'm not

> advocating for or against it but there are several Drs that

> are very

> aware of the immune aspect that also recommend HBOT. I

> don't agree

> that all these people don't monitor or know about

> immune

> dysfunction. I can name at least 3 in this state (CA)

> alone that are

> very aware of immune and use HBOT.

> Monitoring viruses and other immune markers regularly.

> They all are

> very aware of CFS, HHV6, etc. I love Dr. G but lets not

> assume that

> he's the only one to consider these things. We were on

> the protocol

> for almost 2 years but that doesn't mean I didn't

> continue to

> constantly research what others are doing and while I have

> no desire

> (nor the money) to do HBOT, I certainly wouldn't say

> that the people

> doing it are not educated on these aspects. I'm sure

> they can pull

> up study after study telling you how beneficial it's

> been. What they

> can't do is tell you what the long term effects are of

> this therapy.

> But then again, how many long term studies have there been

> on ssris?

> SSRIs aren't even approved for use in children and only

> Prozac is

> approved for children ages 8 and older and my son was put

> on an ssri

> at 3. Anyone that prescribes it is doing so off label.

> Valtrex has

> never even been studied on children - ever. As a matter of

> fact, if

> you read the insert on Valtrex it tells you directly that

> it should

> never be used on children that have not reached puberty

> because the

> effects have never been studied. We have deduced that

> it's safe but

> we've never proven it.

>

> I always have a hard time hearing any argument, no matter

> what side

> you are on, saying show me the proof. There is no proof.

> There is

> no evidence. At least none that everyone is happy with.

> One side

> says this study is seriously flawed, the other says that

> one is

> seriously flawed, etc. We have tons of evidence on many

> things just

> not directly relating to our children or not directly

> related to

> autism or not directly related to any manner of things.

> Others we

> have serious evidence and no one is taking it seriously.

> The politics

> of " evidence " is not an argument I'm going to

> get into but suffice it

> to say that you can't have it both ways. If I hear

> someone use this

> argument, I want to know that they are serious about the

> argument and

> not just using it as lip service or because that's what

> someone they

> trust has said. I want to know that whoever is saying this

> is not

> using *anything* that hasn't been proven and studied on

> children.

> But the reality is, there is no one out there that is doing

> that. No

> one is feeding their kids a homegrown, organic diet with

> home raised

> meats. No one is out there making their own clothes,

> spinning their

> own yarn and string, avoiding all the toxins that have

> never been

> studied properly, and living a perfectly pure life. And

> it's

> unrealistic to expect anyone to. We just don't live in

> that kind of

> society.

>

> Sorry , I don't mean to sound like I'm

> bashing you because

> truly, I'm not. I hear this kind of thing from so many

> people and

> it's just really frustrating to me because we are doing

> things that

> haven't been properly studied daily but that

> doesn't make us stop

> using the protocol, DAN protocol or any other

> protocol. The

> reality is, we are looking at opinions. And we just have

> to decide

> who's opinions we agree with, who has what we deem to

> be the most

> (not necessarily right or wrong) science behind it that we

> can

> incorporate into our own conscious awareness of what we

> think is

> right for our children and look at the science that

> disagrees with it

> and hope we can form our own conclusions. We left Dr. G,

> not be

> because we didn't believe in him, but because it was

> just too hard to

> continue reconciling ssri use on our son with our

> consciousness. We

> didn't feel like we were doing the right thing anymore.

> And he's

> doing great now that he's almost off. Every time

> we've lowered the

> dose, he's made a huge leap. It certainly doesn't

> mean that he won't

> crash. We won't know until he does or doesn't.

> But at least *we*

> will know for sure whether or not he actually *needs* to be

> on it and

> I'm not just taking a doctor's word (no matter how

> trustworthy he is)

> for it. I trust Dr. G to not hurt my child but just

> knowing he

> wouldn't hurt my son isn't good enough. I have to

> also be

> comfortable with what is going into him and being done to

> him and if

> I'm okay with it, whether it's the best choice for

> him, etc. In the

> end, that's all it comes down to. What we are

> comfortable with and

> what we know about our children and what we are giving

> them. You

> look at what you know and what you learn and you go from

> there. You

> learn the differing opinions, you try to weed through it

> all and sort

> it out and decide what you are comfortable with just like

> anything else.

>

> My opinion is in no way a reflection on how I feel about

> you. I'm

> just feeling particularly feisty today and needed to say

> this for all

> those people that have told me that, " there's no

> evidence " or

> " evidence based practice " or anything related

> about how I treat my

> son and your post just kind of opened that door. So please

> don't

> think this is directed at you personally.

>

> Cheryl

>

> >

> > Just my opinions.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids????

> Please help

> >

> >

> >> Hi , I have just read on another list about

> one girl going

> >> blind through

> >> hbot recently. I'm don¹t know any details,

> which clinic or

> >> protocol... But

> >> would be very interested in how something like

> this might happen.

> >> Do you have

> >> any thoughts on what

> >> might have gone wrong?

> >>

> >> Natasa

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Yes you can control it, I have been a clinic owner

> for close to 15

> >> years, We

> >> have 100's of brain scans on children that

> prove that it is well

> >> controlled.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

There is a huge difference between low pressure HBOT and high pressure

HBOT. It is important to make a distinction according to what ailment

is being treated.

Sincerely,

L. Juarez, PhD Candidate, M.S., Marriage and Family Therapist

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:40 AM, gvizjazz@... wrote:

I read an article about hyperbaric oxygen treatment that pointed out the

possible serious side effects of this treatment. The original use was

for divers who experienced the bends from water pressure. The side

efffects in the chamber included possible damage to the eyes/eyesight of

the person being exposed to the extreme pressure of the oxygen in the

chamber. The eardrums are also at risk for damage to the pressure of

incresed oxygen beyond the normal levels. The internal organs of the

person may also be affected by the pressure of high levels of oxygen.

The article advised extreme caution when considering use of this method

in the treatment of autism.

Re: Why is HBOT bad for our kids???? Please help

Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):642- 7.

Comment in:

Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):347- 9.

Resuscitation with room air instead of 100% oxygen prevents oxidative

stress in

moderately asphyxiated term neonates.

Vento M, Asensi M, Sastre J, García-Sala F, Pallardó FV, Viña J.

Servicio de Pediatría, Hospital Virgen del Consuelo, Valencia, Spain.

maximo.vento@ uv.es <mailto:maximo.vento@...>

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, asphyxiated newborn infants have been

ventilated using

100% oxygen. However, a recent multinational trial has shown that the

use of room

air was just as efficient as pure oxygen in securing the survival of

severely

asphyxiated newborn infants. Oxidative stress markers in moderately

asphyxiated

term newborn infants resuscitated with either 100% oxygen or room air

have been

studied for the first time in this work. METHODS: Eligible term

neonates with

perinatal asphyxia were randomly resuscitated with either room air or

100%

oxygen. The clinical parameters recorded were those of the Apgar

score at 1, 5,

and 10 minutes, the time of onset of the first cry, and the time of

onset of the

sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, reduced and oxidized

glutathione

concentrations and antioxidant enzyme activities (superoxide

dismutase, catalase,

and glutathione peroxidase) were determined in blood from the

umbilical artery

during delivery and in peripheral blood at 72 hours and at 4 weeks'

postnatal

age. RESULTS: Our results show that the room-air resuscitated (RAR)

group needed

significantly less time to first cry than the group resuscitated with

100% oxygen

(1.2 +/- 0.6 minutes vs 1.7 +/- 0.5). Moreover, the RAR group needed

less time

undergoing ventilation to achieve a sustained respiratory pattern

than the group

resuscitated with pure oxygen (4.6 +/- 0.7 vs 7.5 +/- 1.8 minutes).

The

reduced-to-oxidized -glutathione ratio, which is an accurate index of

oxidative

stress, of the RAR group (53 +/- 9) at 28 days of postnatal life

showed no

differences with the control nonasphyxiated group (50 +/- 12).

However, the

reduced-to-oxidized -glutathione ratio of the 100% oxygen-resuscitated

group (OxR)

(15 +/- 5) was significantly lower and revealed protracted oxidative

stress.

Furtherm

ore, the activities of superoxide dismutase and catalase in

erythrocytes

were 69% and 78% higher, respectively, in the OxR group than in the

control group

at 28 days of postnatal life. Thus, this shows that these antioxidant

enzymes,

although higher than in controls, could not cope with the ongoing

generation of

free radicals in the OxR group. However, there were no differences in

antioxidant

enzyme activities between the RAR group and the control group at this

stage.

CONCLUSIONS: There are no apparent clinical disadvantages in using

room air for

ventilation of asphyxiated neonates rather than 100% oxygen.

Furthermore, RAR

infants recover more quickly as assessed by Apgar scores, time to the

first cry,

and the sustained pattern of respiration. In addition, neonates

resuscitated with

100% oxygen exhibit biochemical findings reflecting prolonged

oxidative stress

present even after 4 weeks of postnatal life, which do not appear in

the RAR

group. Thus, the current accepted recommendations for using 100%

oxygen in the

resuscitation of asphyxiated newborn infants should be further

discussed and

investigated.

PMID: 11335737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

>Dr Goldberg stated on the last chat (it should be in the chat

>transcripts on that separate group)

How do I find chat transcripts? Time of the chat is crazy busy for me.