thornhappy
Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Icarys
quote:
whilst it might make perfect sense to you there are also valid criticism about their value out there
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590537?src=rss
http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=329
also in regards to
I'm not going to create an account to look at the one link but the next one..well maybe you should reread that a few times..It isn't saying what you think it is.
I've had a Medscape account for over a decade. I found an article that at first seemed to support your position, but then fell apart as neuroscientists looked at the data. Here's what's really interesting...they only got oxygen at 1.3 atm (30% more than normal; selected because that is what's allowed for home units). That's nothing like you'd get for TBI, stroke, decompression sickness, or radiation injury.
The doctor who conducted it and 7 of 10 other authors get income from selling home units. This is really frowned upon, and you can see that from the uproar about drug studies being funded by doctors who get paid to consult with the same companies. And the worst thing about the study is that it wasn't placebo controlled. Given that the scoring is all subjective (by the parents), it would be critical to have it placebo-controlled.
Here's some of the criticism of the study (posting the whole article would get me shot by the mods!)
However, since its appearance, the study has sparked debate and criticism in the child neurology community, with some experts expressing concerns about the science itself.
"Within a day of the paper appearing, "half a dozen critiques" went up on the Child-Neuro listserv, an online bulletin board frequented by child neurologists that is politically neutral and not funded by government or pharmaceutical companies, said Isabelle Rapin, MD, professor of neurology and child neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in New York. Many academicians have called into question some elements of the study, she said.
Of the study's 10 authors, 8, including Dr. Rossignol, derive revenue from hyperbaric treatment. Further, Dr. Rossignol and 2 of the other investigators have previously received research funding from the International Hyperbarics Association for an earlier study of hyperbaric treatment in autism.
Dr. Rapin criticized the research group for not including an outside expert to interpret the data and called the authors' link to hyperbaric-therapy units a conflict of interest.
"The study needs to be replicated by researchers who have no commercial interest in hyperbaric therapy," she said.
Although she does not rule out a role for environmental manipulation in ASD, Dr. Rapin stressed that it is not likely that there would be "a groundswell change in brain metabolism" using oxygen treatment. The theory behind oxygen therapy simply does not make sense in autism, explained Dr. Rapin, who has been in the field of child neurology for many years and has written books on the disorder.
"We now know that the majority of the children with autism have a genetic disorder of brain development, not a brain lesion like a stroke, where hyperbaric oxygen might have something to offer."
She added: "It strains credibility" that this therapy would be effective in children aged 6 or 10 years old, since 90% of the brain's anatomy is constructed well before that age."
|
RE: Possible help for Autism and a few other probems - 
nm 
Profile
(and then the link from medscape is being chosen. No account opening is required that way, to read the article).
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread