3 ms·

OR: Dr. Harch is published and well respected. He also has many documented cases of saving divers lives - including working with the US Navy. Could this be j

OR: Dr. Harch is published and well respected. He also has many documented cases of saving divers lives - including working with the US Navy. Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique? In March 2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine [1]. He has a legit cv: http://www.hbot.com/about http://www.hbot.com/about. Some of this publications: 1. Harch PG, et al. SPECT brain imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of type II decompression sickness. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1992;19(Suppl):42. 2. Harch PG, et al. The effect of HBOT tailing treatment on neurological residual and SPECT brain images in type II (cerebral) DCI/CAGE. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):22-23. 3. Harch PG, et al. HMPAO SPECT brain imaging and low pressure HBOT in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic traumatic, ischemic, hypoxic and anoxic encephalopathies. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 1994;21(Suppl):30. From the article [1] you mentioned: "In March 2000, the American Board of Medical Specialties approved undersea and hyperbaric medicine as a subspecialty of both emergency medicine and preventive medicine."

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Now that they mention it, it's pretty obvious that cell death didn't occur. If it did, how did oxygen counteract it? That seems like the most persuasive argument to address, and I'm not sure those references do.
- nashashmi 9y ago
  Could be a cell sleeping state that shutdown when there was a lack of oxygen and woke up when oxygen was plenty fold.
caycep 9y ago
If you want to nitpick about it - his publication record is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harch+pg%5Bau%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harch+pg%5Bau%5D As far as I can tell, he only really has editorials and reviews for the most part (which you can pump out to low quality journals any day). He was involved in a small scale rat experiment, a few case reports, and 40-patient non-controlled case series. Basically, at the level of a junior medical resident or fellow. Furthermore, any references to his publications on his site are buried. The best I can find is here: http://www.hbot.com/blog/edward-lucarini/hbot-tbi-references http://www.hbot.com/blog/edward-lucarini/hbot-tbi-references Which are mostly book chapters (grunt work often farmed out to suffering medical students) and case reports (considered "interesting" but scientifically worthless). When judged by academic accomplishments, i.e. peer reviewed papers in high-impact journals, he is essentially not on the map.
dumbneurologist 9y ago
> Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique That the medical community wants evidence to substantiate an extreme claim is not a valid criticism of the medical community: it's literally the scientific process. There are just too many extreme claims based on "unconventional" medical ideas to possibly draw conclusions that any one of them deserves closer attention. It's great that some doctors at LSU think these ones are deserving - I really want them to succeed, because it means my patients benefit. But the mechanistic reasoning behind /why/ we think it /should/ help is so dubious that there are a thousand better places for me to spend my own time. Bottom line: 99% of doctors want to see new, revolutionary ideas succeed. If they don't think things are work, it's because they haven't personally seen it being revolutionary. And the harder it is to see a revolutionary effect... the less revolutionary it is, by definition
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dmix 9y ago
  Paul Harch wrote a book claiming HBOT can help treat: • Stroke • Autism and other learning disabilities • Cerebral palsy and other birth injuries • Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and other degenerative neurological diseases https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-Groundbreaking-Disabilities/dp/1578262372/ https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-Groundbr... Wikipedia is saying there is zero scientific evidence to back up any of this. I'd say Dr Harch crossed the line into quackery by making these grand claims, despite his otherwise reputable background. Which is sad because his books all have plenty of 5/5 star ratings by people who are desperate for answers and are being oversold an unproven science. I highly doubt there has been a conspiracy in the "medical community" to not take oxygen therapy seriously. It's not exactly a new treatment, as the OP's comment points out, it's been tested since at least 2000 (17 years ago) by mainstream medical groups.
xenadu02 9y ago
>Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique You honestly think neurologists enjoy going to parents of toddlers and telling them their child may never lead a normal life again? If this were a legitimate treatment most neurologists would jump on it. The fact is there is -zero- chance that oxygen therapy months after the accident had any effect. Oxygen doesn't magically make neurons regenerate. Neurons are energy hungry and die within hours under the absolute best of circumstances. This story is nothing new. The pool was very cold, that's why the kid made a "miraculous" recovery. Cooling the brain massively reduces neuron losses. This has been known for decades now and contrary to your supposition the medical community has adopted it where the evidence proves it is helpful - in some cases of suspected brain damage due to oxygen deprivation they will force the person's body temperature down and slowly re-warm while introducing oxygen. This has to be done carefully because re-introducing oxygen too quickly after a certain amount of time can induce apoptosis and make the damage worse.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Now that they mention it, it's pretty obvious that cell death didn't occur. If it did, how did oxygen counteract it? That seems like the most persuasive argument to address, and I'm not sure those references do.

nashashmi 9y ago
Could be a cell sleeping state that shutdown when there was a lack of oxygen and woke up when oxygen was plenty fold.

caycep 9y ago

If you want to nitpick about it - his publication record is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harch+pg%5Bau%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=harch+pg%5Bau%5D As far as I can tell, he only really has editorials and reviews for the most part (which you can pump out to low quality journals any day). He was involved in a small scale rat experiment, a few case reports, and 40-patient non-controlled case series. Basically, at the level of a junior medical resident or fellow. Furthermore, any references to his publications on his site are buried. The best I can find is here: http://www.hbot.com/blog/edward-lucarini/hbot-tbi-references http://www.hbot.com/blog/edward-lucarini/hbot-tbi-references Which are mostly book chapters (grunt work often farmed out to suffering medical students) and case reports (considered "interesting" but scientifically worthless). When judged by academic accomplishments, i.e. peer reviewed papers in high-impact journals, he is essentially not on the map.

dumbneurologist 9y ago

> Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique That the medical community wants evidence to substantiate an extreme claim is not a valid criticism of the medical community: it's literally the scientific process. There are just too many extreme claims based on "unconventional" medical ideas to possibly draw conclusions that any one of them deserves closer attention. It's great that some doctors at LSU think these ones are deserving - I really want them to succeed, because it means my patients benefit. But the mechanistic reasoning behind /why/ we think it /should/ help is so dubious that there are a thousand better places for me to spend my own time. Bottom line: 99% of doctors want to see new, revolutionary ideas succeed. If they don't think things are work, it's because they haven't personally seen it being revolutionary. And the harder it is to see a revolutionary effect... the less revolutionary it is, by definition

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmix 9y ago
Paul Harch wrote a book claiming HBOT can help treat: • Stroke • Autism and other learning disabilities • Cerebral palsy and other birth injuries • Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and other degenerative neurological diseases https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-Groundbreaking-Disabilities/dp/1578262372/ https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Revolution-Hyperbaric-Groundbr... Wikipedia is saying there is zero scientific evidence to back up any of this. I'd say Dr Harch crossed the line into quackery by making these grand claims, despite his otherwise reputable background. Which is sad because his books all have plenty of 5/5 star ratings by people who are desperate for answers and are being oversold an unproven science. I highly doubt there has been a conspiracy in the "medical community" to not take oxygen therapy seriously. It's not exactly a new treatment, as the OP's comment points out, it's been tested since at least 2000 (17 years ago) by mainstream medical groups.

xenadu02 9y ago

>Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique You honestly think neurologists enjoy going to parents of toddlers and telling them their child may never lead a normal life again? If this were a legitimate treatment most neurologists would jump on it. The fact is there is -zero- chance that oxygen therapy months after the accident had any effect. Oxygen doesn't magically make neurons regenerate. Neurons are energy hungry and die within hours under the absolute best of circumstances. This story is nothing new. The pool was very cold, that's why the kid made a "miraculous" recovery. Cooling the brain massively reduces neuron losses. This has been known for decades now and contrary to your supposition the medical community has adopted it where the evidence proves it is helpful - in some cases of suspected brain damage due to oxygen deprivation they will force the person's body temperature down and slowly re-warm while introducing oxygen. This has to be done carefully because re-introducing oxygen too quickly after a certain amount of time can induce apoptosis and make the damage worse.