Re: HBOT for Home Use from Dr. Neubrander

[Guest guest]

Dr. McCandless -

Now this brings up a question from me. We are just beginning HBOT at a

center, hard chamber and our Rx was written 1.3 - 1.5 ATA. I think we

have started at 1.3. I do not want to dive deeper than 1.5.

I cannot seem to completely determine which is 'most' effective Hard

vs. Soft Chamber. I think it has to do with O2 concentration where if

you are in a Hard Chamber you are getting 100% 02 but in a soft chamber

your are getting 24% O2 where room air is 21%. However, adding an O2

concentrator in the home chamber gets you to 95%

If you base this on cost analysis alone - then getting a home chamber

is most cost effective. However, I am interested to know, which is

better hard vs. soft for treatment and effectiveness. I cannot seem to

find a clear answer.

I guess my real question is, what makes HBOT 'most' effective - 02

Concentration or ATA and would that help in making my decision to use a

hard chamber vs. soft chamber.

Hope this makes sense.

Laureen

Quoting JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS :

> Dear Jaquelyn:

> In answer to the question below, the patient is in

> danger of mixing and

> matching the three variables -- total oxygen

> concentration, pressure

> used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

> period. In addition,

> there is another variable that also blocks success or

> can be dangerous,

> that being how long treatments are used relative to

> the " sum of the

> above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

> THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

> THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own and

> without a TRUE

> EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

> population.

> Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who have

> done the kind of

> clinical work we have done to show both effectiveness

> and where the

> safety limits margins are and are not. I would

> strongly caution this

> patient against home use unless under the watchful eye

> of someone who

> REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

>

> Jim

>

> Help!

>

> Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for which

> I need your expert help.

> Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

>

> Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

> 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

> equivalent to diving

> for

> less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that right?

> We dive at 1.75

> but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

> deeper than 1.5. If

> the

> above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just by

> staying in the

> chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest assured

> I'm not planning

> to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

> We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

> currently use at an

> MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever as

> best we can (it's a

> killer).

>

>

>

>

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

>

> Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at

> <http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

>

[Guest guest]

The hard chambers and soft chambers accomplish

different things - advice I got for Chelsey was to get

40 hours in the soft chamber at home and then go to a

center for some sessions in a hard chamber (these are

very expensive and not affordable for home use), then

go back to the soft chamber for another 40,

alternating them. Dr. JM

--- Laureen Forman wrote:

>

> Dr. McCandless -

>

> Now this brings up a question from me. We are just

> beginning HBOT at a

> center, hard chamber and our Rx was written 1.3 -

> 1.5 ATA. I think we

> have started at 1.3. I do not want to dive deeper

> than 1.5.

>

> I cannot seem to completely determine which is

> 'most' effective Hard

> vs. Soft Chamber. I think it has to do with O2

> concentration where if

> you are in a Hard Chamber you are getting 100% 02

> but in a soft chamber

> your are getting 24% O2 where room air is 21%.

> However, adding an O2

> concentrator in the home chamber gets you to 95%

>

> If you base this on cost analysis alone - then

> getting a home chamber

> is most cost effective. However, I am interested to

> know, which is

> better hard vs. soft for treatment and

> effectiveness. I cannot seem to

> find a clear answer.

>

> I guess my real question is, what makes HBOT 'most'

> effective - 02

> Concentration or ATA and would that help in making

> my decision to use a

> hard chamber vs. soft chamber.

>

> Hope this makes sense.

>

> Laureen

>

>

> Quoting JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS

> :

>

> > Dear Jaquelyn:

> > In answer to the question below, the patient is in

> > danger of mixing and

> > matching the three variables -- total oxygen

> > concentration, pressure

> > used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

> > period. In addition,

> > there is another variable that also blocks success

> or

> > can be dangerous,

> > that being how long treatments are used relative

> to

> > the " sum of the

> > above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

> > THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

> > THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own

> and

> > without a TRUE

> > EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

> > population.

> > Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who

> have

> > done the kind of

> > clinical work we have done to show both

> effectiveness

> > and where the

> > safety limits margins are and are not. I would

> > strongly caution this

> > patient against home use unless under the watchful

> eye

> > of someone who

> > REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

> >

> > Jim

> >

> > Help!

> >

> > Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for

> which

> > I need your expert help.

> > Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

> >

> > Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

> > 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

> > equivalent to diving

> > for

> > less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that

> right?

> > We dive at 1.75

> > but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

> > deeper than 1.5. If

> > the

> > above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just

> by

> > staying in the

> > chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest

> assured

> > I'm not planning

> > to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

> > We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

> > currently use at an

> > MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever

> as

> > best we can (it's a

> > killer).

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > Many frequently asked questions and answers can be

> found at

> >

> <http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

> >

[Guest guest]

Laureen,

I am not a doctor, but I have studied HBOT for a while now. The best book I

have found on the subject is " The Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine " by KK

Jain. This book covers the A to Z of Hyperbarics and has details such as

those you are asking about. Both pressure and oxygen content are important

in their own ways. The book is specifically about hard chambers as that is

the industry standard. If you listen to the clinics they explain the

rationale behind the benefits of hard chambers and many parents report

positive outcomes. In addition, many parents report positive outcomes from

the soft chamber. Like Dr. McCandless, I hear many parents doing a mix of

hard and soft sessions. That way you get the benefit of both; the hard

chamber does give deeper pressure and high O2 content, but the soft chamber

can be rented or shared at a lower cost. So, everyone needs to decide which

way to go depending on availability and cost. A good resource online is:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/HDOTherapyforAutism/message/7016

I will only say one thing about high O2 concentrations (hard or soft

chamber). Anything above 23-24% O2 atmosphere should be supervised by an

HBOT tech and/or qualified doctor. There are safety hazards above this range

and parents need to be aware of the risks. The safety record is excellent,

but there have been issues in the past. In most hard chambers, the 100% O2

content is inside of a hood only, although there are models that flood the

entire chamber (these situations have certified technicians watching the

entire time). Flooding a soft chamber at home has risks I personally think

are too high.

All in all, I have heard and seen good benefits from HBOT and the common

thread seems to be continuing to get sessions, whether they be in a hard or

soft chamber. The book above is a little expensive as it is a medical bood,

but well worth it in my opinion if you plan to commit to HBOT long term.

L

From: csb-autism-rx [mailto:csb-autism-rx ]

On Behalf Of Laureen Forman

Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:33 PM

To: csb-autism-rx

Subject: Re: HBOT for Home Use from Dr. Neubrander

Dr. McCandless -

Now this brings up a question from me. We are just beginning HBOT at a

center, hard chamber and our Rx was written 1.3 - 1.5 ATA. I think we

have started at 1.3. I do not want to dive deeper than 1.5.

I cannot seem to completely determine which is 'most' effective Hard

vs. Soft Chamber. I think it has to do with O2 concentration where if

you are in a Hard Chamber you are getting 100% 02 but in a soft chamber

your are getting 24% O2 where room air is 21%. However, adding an O2

concentrator in the home chamber gets you to 95%

If you base this on cost analysis alone - then getting a home chamber

is most cost effective. However, I am interested to know, which is

better hard vs. soft for treatment and effectiveness. I cannot seem to

find a clear answer.

I guess my real question is, what makes HBOT 'most' effective - 02

Concentration or ATA and would that help in making my decision to use a

hard chamber vs. soft chamber.

Hope this makes sense.

Laureen

Quoting JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS <JMcCandless@...

<mailto:JMcCandless%40prodigy.net> >:

> Dear Jaquelyn:

> In answer to the question below, the patient is in

> danger of mixing and

> matching the three variables -- total oxygen

> concentration, pressure

> used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

> period. In addition,

> there is another variable that also blocks success or

> can be dangerous,

> that being how long treatments are used relative to

> the " sum of the

> above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

> THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

> THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own and

> without a TRUE

> EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

> population.

> Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who have

> done the kind of

> clinical work we have done to show both effectiveness

> and where the

> safety limits margins are and are not. I would

> strongly caution this

> patient against home use unless under the watchful eye

> of someone who

> REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

>

> Jim

>

> Help!

>

> Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for which

> I need your expert help.

> Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

>

> Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

> 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

> equivalent to diving

> for

> less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that right?

> We dive at 1.75

> but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

> deeper than 1.5. If

> the

> above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just by

> staying in the

> chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest assured

> I'm not planning

> to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

> We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

> currently use at an

> MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever as

> best we can (it's a

> killer).

>

>

>

>

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

>

> Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at

> <http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi -

Thank you for your insight. I've read the Oxygen Revolution, read

Rossingols study, read through Neubranders protocol, and tried to come

to a good solution for our needs. I might just get the book you

suggested as well. I read as much as I can when it comes to treatments

for my son.

We are currently doing Hard Chamber w/o a hood and it is monitored by a

Tech. My husband does the dives as I am way to claustrophobic to get

into any type of a tube.

The plan as it stands now is to get a home chamber but that would be

after we complete our 40 hard chamber dives. So, I guess I should get

the book soon.

Thanks for the insight.

Laureen

Quoting john leon :

> Laureen,

>

>

>

> I am not a doctor, but I have studied HBOT for a while now. The best book I

> have found on the subject is " The Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine " by KK

> Jain. This book covers the A to Z of Hyperbarics and has details such as

> those you are asking about. Both pressure and oxygen content are important

> in their own ways. The book is specifically about hard chambers as that is

> the industry standard. If you listen to the clinics they explain the

> rationale behind the benefits of hard chambers and many parents report

> positive outcomes. In addition, many parents report positive outcomes from

> the soft chamber. Like Dr. McCandless, I hear many parents doing a mix of

> hard and soft sessions. That way you get the benefit of both; the hard

> chamber does give deeper pressure and high O2 content, but the soft chamber

> can be rented or shared at a lower cost. So, everyone needs to decide which

> way to go depending on availability and cost. A good resource online is:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/HDOTherapyforAutism/message/7016

>

>

>

> I will only say one thing about high O2 concentrations (hard or soft

> chamber). Anything above 23-24% O2 atmosphere should be supervised by an

> HBOT tech and/or qualified doctor. There are safety hazards above this range

> and parents need to be aware of the risks. The safety record is excellent,

> but there have been issues in the past. In most hard chambers, the 100% O2

> content is inside of a hood only, although there are models that flood the

> entire chamber (these situations have certified technicians watching the

> entire time). Flooding a soft chamber at home has risks I personally think

> are too high.

>

>

>

> All in all, I have heard and seen good benefits from HBOT and the common

> thread seems to be continuing to get sessions, whether they be in a hard or

> soft chamber. The book above is a little expensive as it is a medical bood,

> but well worth it in my opinion if you plan to commit to HBOT long term.

>

>

>

> L

>

>

>

> From: csb-autism-rx [mailto:csb-autism-rx ]

> On Behalf Of Laureen Forman

> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:33 PM

> To: csb-autism-rx

> Subject: Re: HBOT for Home Use from Dr. Neubrander

>

>

>

>

> Dr. McCandless -

>

> Now this brings up a question from me. We are just beginning HBOT at a

> center, hard chamber and our Rx was written 1.3 - 1.5 ATA. I think we

> have started at 1.3. I do not want to dive deeper than 1.5.

>

> I cannot seem to completely determine which is 'most' effective Hard

> vs. Soft Chamber. I think it has to do with O2 concentration where if

> you are in a Hard Chamber you are getting 100% 02 but in a soft chamber

> your are getting 24% O2 where room air is 21%. However, adding an O2

> concentrator in the home chamber gets you to 95%

>

> If you base this on cost analysis alone - then getting a home chamber

> is most cost effective. However, I am interested to know, which is

> better hard vs. soft for treatment and effectiveness. I cannot seem to

> find a clear answer.

>

> I guess my real question is, what makes HBOT 'most' effective - 02

> Concentration or ATA and would that help in making my decision to use a

> hard chamber vs. soft chamber.

>

> Hope this makes sense.

>

> Laureen

>

> Quoting JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS <JMcCandless@...

> <mailto:JMcCandless%40prodigy.net> >:

>

>> Dear Jaquelyn:

>> In answer to the question below, the patient is in

>> danger of mixing and

>> matching the three variables -- total oxygen

>> concentration, pressure

>> used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

>> period. In addition,

>> there is another variable that also blocks success or

>> can be dangerous,

>> that being how long treatments are used relative to

>> the " sum of the

>> above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

>> THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

>> THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own and

>> without a TRUE

>> EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

>> population.

>> Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who have

>> done the kind of

>> clinical work we have done to show both effectiveness

>> and where the

>> safety limits margins are and are not. I would

>> strongly caution this

>> patient against home use unless under the watchful eye

>> of someone who

>> REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

>>

>> Jim

>>

>> Help!

>>

>> Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for which

>> I need your expert help.

>> Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

>>

>> Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

>> 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

>> equivalent to diving

>> for

>> less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that right?

>> We dive at 1.75

>> but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

>> deeper than 1.5. If

>> the

>> above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just by

>> staying in the

>> chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest assured

>> I'm not planning

>> to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

>> We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

>> currently use at an

>> MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever as

>> best we can (it's a

>> killer).

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>

>> Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at

>> <http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

>>

[Guest guest]

....many thanks Dr JM for passing on my question. I respect what Dr

Neubrander says. I read his chapter in the book too and am aware of his

equational argument for HBOT. I take his point about needing to be under

an expert for HBOT treatment, but I can't afford his prices even though he

offered me a good deal a while back. I live in Europe and the only

knowledgable HBOT expert we have here is not an expert in autism. His

advice is: " get HBOT where you can " . I'm applying my own intelligence to

that and trying to get further expert advice where I can. I'm not taking

any risks. However at the same time, I don't have the luxury of being able

to do the best protocol ever for HBOT. There simply aren't the chambers

available here. Time's of the essence too for my daughter. At 6, most of

her brain pathways are already set and what neurons she's not yet using

are dying off. As far as I can see, only HBOT and possibly in the future

stem cells, can stop the rot, though I plug away at a cupboard load of

supplements, suppositories and injections.

I have the opportunity to buy a hard chamber, a two man chamber, a big

metal monster up for sale from an ex-North Sea diver. I'm taking all the

advice I can get on this. Please reassure Dr N that this is not something

I would enter into lightly - (or willingly since I get claustrophobic so

it's a blinking miracle I can even get through the door with my daughter).

But I've seen tremendous improvements in her from her HBOT sessions so

far. In a course of 40 sessions at 1.75 my daughter dropped just over 24

points on the ATEC rating scale (the Autism Research Institute's treatment

evaluation checklist) and stablised at 20 points below her original

score in the months following during maintenance. According to the rating,

she's now on the cusp of maybe being able to be semi-independent as an

adult, although I believe there's still a long way to go yet. She's also

just lost her ASD diagnosis. It's turned into " speech and language

disorder and associated difficulties " , presenting me with a new battle to

change schools.

Anyway, like I said, I respect what Dr N says, but it would be good if he

could be more specific about the exact protocol to follow (if this can be

generalised for all children) to avoid the dangers, since I am already

aware that it can be a dangerous treatment to follow. But I guess that

would then make me a patient of his, and quite rightly I should pay for

that. My original query below came out of a conversation I had with a UK

DAN doctor who had been to a recent US DAN conference and picked up my

point below.

Btw, I note your follow-up comment on Chelsey's HBOT regime (soft chamber

then hard then soft again). That's something for me to think about too.

Thank-you again for taking the trouble to contact Dr Neubrander, and

please pass on my thanks to him for his time.

--- Help!

Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for which

I need your expert help.

Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

equivalent to diving

for

less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that right?

We dive at 1.75

but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

deeper than 1.5. If

the

above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just by

staying in the

chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest assured

I'm not planning

to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

currently use at an

MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever as

best we can (it's a

killer).

------------------------------------

Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at

<http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

[Guest guest]

Has Dr. Neubrander published his findings?

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:09 PM, JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS <JMcCandless@...

> wrote:

> Dear Jaquelyn:

> In answer to the question below, the patient is in

> danger of mixing and

> matching the three variables -- total oxygen

> concentration, pressure

> used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

> period. In addition,

> there is another variable that also blocks success or

> can be dangerous,

> that being how long treatments are used relative to

> the " sum of the

> above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

> THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

> THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own and

> without a TRUE

> EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

> population.

> Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who have

> done the kind of

> clinical work we have done to show both effectiveness

> and where the

> safety limits margins are and are not. I would

> strongly caution this

> patient against home use unless under the watchful eye

> of someone who

> REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

>

> Jim

>

> Help!

>

> Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for which

> I need your expert help.

> Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

>

> Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

> 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

> equivalent to diving

> for

> less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that right?

> We dive at 1.75

> but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

> deeper than 1.5. If

> the

> above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just by

> staying in the

> chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest assured

> I'm not planning

> to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

> We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

> currently use at an

> MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever as

> best we can (it's a

> killer).

>

>

>

>

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

>

> Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at <

> http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

>

[Guest guest]

Only in his chapter in the 2007 version of CSB so far.

Dr. JM

--- JOYCE DAVILA wrote:

> Has Dr. Neubrander published his findings?

>

> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:09 PM, JAQUELYN MCCANDLESS

> <JMcCandless@...

> > wrote:

>

> > Dear Jaquelyn:

> > In answer to the question below, the patient is in

> > danger of mixing and

> > matching the three variables -- total oxygen

> > concentration, pressure

> > used, and time used per treatment and per 24 hour

> > period. In addition,

> > there is another variable that also blocks success

> or

> > can be dangerous,

> > that being how long treatments are used relative

> to

> > the " sum of the

> > above variables " just mentioned. IT IS MY OPINION

> > THAT PEOPLE CAN HURT

> > THEMSELVES if they do these things on their own

> and

> > without a TRUE

> > EXPERT on the subject as it relates to our patient

> > population.

> > Unfortunately there are almost no clinicians who

> have

> > done the kind of

> > clinical work we have done to show both

> effectiveness

> > and where the

> > safety limits margins are and are not. I would

> > strongly caution this

> > patient against home use unless under the watchful

> eye

> > of someone who

> > REALLY KNOWS this stuff!

> >

> > Jim

> >

> > Help!

> >

> > Jim, again a patient is asking me a question for

> which

> > I need your expert help.

> > Thanks and love, Jaquelyn

> >

> > Is it the case that if you dive longer at 1.3 or

> > 1.5 ATA (say, for two hours) then the impact is

> > equivalent to diving

> > for

> > less time (say, for one hour) at 1.75. Is that

> right?

> > We dive at 1.75

> > but I want to get a home chamber and it won't go

> > deeper than 1.5. If

> > the

> > above is true then we could continue at 1.75 just

> by

> > staying in the

> > chamber for longer. If it's not true than rest

> assured

> > I'm not planning

> > to " hotrod " a home chamber to go deeper.

> > We'll just have to keep trekking to the chamber we

> > currently use at an

> > MS treatment centre, working around our hayfever

> as

> > best we can (it's a

> > killer).

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > Many frequently asked questions and answers can be

> found at <

> > http://forums.autism-rxguidebook.com/default.aspx>

> >