@daedalus2 wrote:

The journal that published this article does allow for posting comments. I think a discussion such as you have here would be completely appropriate and could serve to alert readers as to potential deficiencies in the paper.

To which I responded:

I submitted a comment on 3/14, and received a confirmation e-mail that it had been recieved. Despite a stated two-day moderation decision, it has not been posted.

That was on March 21st. BMC Pediatrics did in fact publish my comments on April 1st.

Differential vs absolute pressure:

OQF seems very confused about the pressure gauges used on the HBOT “soft chambers” and what they are measuring. If you go to the manufacturer’s technical specs, you’ll find that the “soft chambers” (those used in “HBOT” for autism) are not rated for more than 4 psi (26 kPa, 0.27 atm) differential pressure – which means that the difference in pressure from inside to outside cannot exceed 4 psi (26 kPa).

Do’C is absolutely correct that this means the 4 psi is added to the ambient pressure to obtain the absolute pressure inside the chamber. So, if the chamber is used at a higher altitude (where the ambient pressure is lower), the absolute pressure inside will be lower than it is at sea level.

Since Phoenix has an ambient pressure of 0.96 atm, the absolute pressure inside the soft HBOT chamber will be 0.04 atm lower there than it would be at, say, Miami.

Oxygen Benefits vs Toxicity:

OQF also appears to be unaware of the extensive literature showing that even short exposure to high oxygen concentrations can be destructive – not only to the retinas of premature infants, but to the lung cells (type 2 pneumocytes) of even adults. It seems particularly ironic that the same “practitioners” who parrot the “oxidative damage” hypothesis of autism causation will – in the same breath – promote the use of HBOT in autism.

All that HBOT does is increase the partial pressure of the inhaled gasses above what can be achieved at ambient pressure. The same can be achieved by giving supplemental oxygen. The equivalent of this study’s 24% at 1.3 atm would be 31% oxygen at sea level pressure.

Pressure effects:

The argument that the pressure of this treatment is somehow relevant is ludicrous – the amount of compression of the cell that occurs at 1.3 atm is below the threshold of measurement. I suggest that OQF look up “bulk modulus” and try to calculate the compression of cells at 1.3 atm. [hint: 0.0001%]

Pressure effects on the central nervous system are well-known (irritability, twitching, seizures) but are only seen at truly high pressures – 19 atm and above. Even assuming that the “HBOT” therapy did have some homeopathic pressure effects, they would be in the direction of increasing irritability and decreasing function.

Statistical Errors:

Although this study claims to have seen statistically significant effects, their statistical analysis failed to account for the fact that they looked at multiple measures and only found “improvement” in a few.

By simple chance, we would expect that 1 out of 20 measurements would show a “statistically significant” difference if we fail to correct for multiple comparisons. When that correction is made, the results of this “study” fall below statistical significance.

I doubt this will convince OQF, who appears to be of marginal literacy, but I hope that other people reading this will realize that his/her arguments are wrong.

Prometheus

“I meant for autism, obviously”….

Quite simply,The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply”..

http://www.hyperbaricsrx.com/h.....palsy.html

HBOT in Multiple Sclerosis double blind

http://www.hbotnm.com/ms.html

Fibromyalgia & Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy double blind

http://www.haelenhyperbarics.c.....algia.html

There are many more double blind HBOT studies ,pointless to list them all ,quite simply , this is a quote from Professor James of Dundee on CP

A Tragic Medical Mistake for 45 Years!
It is unfortunate that nearly all newborns today are deprived of appropriate oxygen
therapy because of the fear it will cause the formation of fibrous tissue in the eye
(retrolental fibroplasia) causing blindness. This is due to the effects of the
introduction of oxygen tents andincubators following World War II. Premature infants
were given supplementary oxygen to improve their chances of survival, and levels up
to 70 percent were given for extended periods. Epidemics of blindness followed in
the 1950s, which led to a restriction of the level of supplemental oxygen to 40
percent. A reduction in the incidence of blindness followed, which confirmed the
involvement of oxygen in the eye disease (retinopathy).
Since that time, every medical student has been taught that the retinopathy of the
premature (ROP) is caused by oxygen toxicity. With the use of oxygen restricted, by
1964, Dr. A. D. McDonald had recorded a significant rise in the incidence of cerebral
palsy compared with levels before then. However, research brought to light only
within the last few months by P. B. James, M.D., of Scotland, has demonstrated that
it was the withdrawal from the oxygen environment that caused retinal problems.
Resubmersion, time and time again, completely rectified the problem. Thousands of
cases of CP developed needlessly because of this fear of oxygen toxicity.
HYPERBARIC oxygenation does not cause retrolental fibroplasia and now offers a
new modality whereby the reduction in spasticity may be significantly decreased. We
must immediately
institute this practice to rectify what has been a tragic medical mistake. `

Fear of being proven wrong again the same fear Mr Deer has by not providing the Judge Eady complaint letters another mistake,,

if you look up double blind HBOT studies there are many of them .It would seem, this is the first time you have looked into HBOT.

I meant for autism, obviously. But I wonder, are there any positive double-blind studies of HBOT in other developmental disabilities?

The studies of HBOT as a treatment of cerebral palsy, for example, are telling. Basically, it doesn’t work vs. placebo, even though it’s promoted as a treatment.

Doc

Quite simply its not ,it is simulating conditions equivalent of between 5,843 feet to 6,157 feet above sea level @4psi pressure inside the soft chamber @12000 feet useage.

As said previously
“A TV Director filming a program at 16,737 ft, developed severe altitude sickness. He was relieved by rapid descent within 40 minutes to 5362 Ft. This caused an atmospheric pressure difference of of only 0.1 ATA, with only an increase of 0.05 atm abs in partial oxygen pressure. This minor increase in oxygenation was enough to revive him.
This suggests that the rate at which level of oxygen is increased is important and that there is a critical threshold for oxygenation.”

As said, “If you want calculations “cross corrections” for the pressure to take you to sea level diving @ 12,000 feet. look up hbot cross corrections tables .

Calli Arcale

Patents on HBOT “the better mouse trap” springs to mind not a lot in it ,and the science is the exact same…the evidence provided is the children before and after SPEC,MRI scans as evidence prove the workings of oxygen , evidence something a miss on here like the Judge Eady complaint letters evidence..

No, you can’t patent oxygen, but you can certainly patent hyberbaric chambers. They’ve been around a while, so you’d have to be careful not to a) infringe on somebody’s existing patent and b) come up with a device or manufacturing method that’s actually novel in some way. But it’s perfectly doable. I have no doubt that many components involved in HBOT are indeed patented or patent pending.

“What the hell? Don’t they..” think about it doc your up the mountain at 12,000 feet you go in the bag zip it up the operator switches on the compressor the tank pressure guage will not move until you reach sea level..

Incorrect. What part of

“For example, a treatment at an elevation of 12,000 feet above sea level using a 4 psi (1.27 ATA) can simulate a decent of ~5,843 feet to 6,157 feet above sea level”

leads you to conclude sea-level pressure is ever reached?

It isn’t. See that word “above”? It’s used to indicate “greater than”. Seriously, are you having trouble understanding that sentence?

Joseph what about the 30,000 published scientific studies on HBOT are they all wrong as well

This is the first double-blind study of HBOT that I know of. Frankly, studies that are not at least controlled and randomized provide little information when it comes to autism and developmental disabilities. That’s because it’s common for placebo to have a 30% improvement rate or more.

Simply until you understand there is no difference between using a soft chamber and a hard chamber I might as well be writing in Swahili.The principles remain whether it be hard or soft the , physics’ remain the same.. the effects on the blood remain the same etc.The only difference between a hard chamber and a soft chamber is that the hard chambers can go to any depth they are made for some of them 1.8miles simulation. The soft chambers that you directed me to are VENTED to 4psi they are tested to 30psi so if you contacted the company they could modify it for you to a greater pressure. The compressor output is still 4psi…they are made with an operating pressure of the shelf of 4psi this model is 4psi

If you want to get calculations on altitude look up “cross corrections”

Its all very accurate nothing left to chance whatsoever..