Comments on: Autism HBOT: First Look

By: Dad Of Cameron

Dad Of Cameron — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:05:54 +0000

All readers, please note that there was a follow-up to this post upon receipt of an additional e-mail from Dr. R.

Dr. R did confirm that the actual likely test pressure was ~1.285 ATM (apparently based on remebered observed pressure gauge readings of ~4.15 psi and historically typical atmospheric pressure for wherever this chamber was located. Follow-up appears in the additional post Nitpicking Sloppy Science Additional comment welcome at that post.

By: Dad Of Cameron

Dad Of Cameron — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:00:27 +0000

Hi Ian.
Okay, so 1.29 ATM sounds fair, I did write in a later post that I was certainly nitpicking. All the documentation I reviewed for the Vitaeris states that there are two such pressure regulation valves, not one.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:06:28 +0000

The Vitaeris320 has a valve, to stop the pressure going too high. The chamber is rated to 6PSI, but the pressure valuve stops it going above approximately 4.3psi, which is 1.29 ATA at sea level

By: Dad Of Cameron

Dad Of Cameron — Tue, 09 May 2006 23:56:09 +0000

Dr. Anthony,

Hopefully you would prefer real peer-reviewed scientific research over reports of experience from parents via e-mail.

By: Dr Gene Anthony

Dr Gene Anthony — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:41:53 +0000

One medical question as well, Ms. Rossignol.

Being a Nurse Practioner, I’m assuming that you are very familiar with blood oxygen content calculations, Hüfner’s constant, the hemoglobin dissociation curve and all that stuff.

Surely you are aware that simple O2 therapy at 6lpm by nasal canula provides almost identical increase in plasma oxygen content as the hyperbaric 29% O2 air used in this study. Why go through all the hassle and expense (even for a study)?
_______
I would like to know if any medical people or parents have tried using simple O2 therapy by nasal canula with ASD children. If they have, what kind of results have they experienced. Please feel free to contact me: drganthony@msn.com

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:42:15 +0000

Ms. Rossignol,

Could you comment on the factual error brought up by Dad of Cameron, and on the need to publish errata?

By: Kev

Kev — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:48:58 +0000

Ms. Rossignol,

Thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions.

I’m curious to know - what lead you to publish your results in Medical Hypothesis? Wouldn’t a more ‘mainstream’ journal have been a better option for a study with the implications you claim for it?

By: Camille

Camille — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:24:08 +0000

I personally am concerned with the issue of autistic children supposedly being harmed by oxidative stress and here it would seem that people are blithely popping autistic children into chamber that are bound to increase the “oxidative stress.” That’s beside the point that the machines are so expensive that it then becomes a lifestyles of the rich and famous kind of therapy. There may be some hucksterism here to sell these glorified toys (not by the Rossignols necessarily). And as Dad of Cameron pointed out, why bother? A nasal canula and pure O2 does the same trick. Making the whole toy HBOT thing look more like a scam.

By: Dad Of Cameron

Dad Of Cameron — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:06:26 +0000

One medical question as well, Ms. Rossignol.

Being a Nurse Practioner, I’m assuming that you are very familiar with blood oxygen content calculations, Hüfner’s constant, the hemoglobin dissociation curve and all that stuff.

By: Dad Of Cameron

Dad Of Cameron — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:27:44 +0000

Ms. Rossignol,

I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and comment. I don’t question that anyone may have benefitted from participation in this study, however, use of parent-rated scales used to measure any benefits seem a little less than appropriate for a self proclaimed “skeptical” parent. The disclosures of limitations of this study, from small sample size and lack of control or blinding, to discussion about the possibility of natural development, or change as a result of other therapies despite the low-pressure hyperbarics were refreshingly, present. The hypothesis is valid (I’m not predicting proof or disproof in any way) - simply saying that is testable and falsifiable, so future studies will definitley shed a lot more light on the subject. Hopefully you are truly skeptical, and interested in the scientific accuracy and truth. Do you understand the ethical importance of correcting the overstated actual pressure in ATA?

P.S. I hope the whole family is doing very well.