M.S., Parkinson's, or Simply Lyme Disease?

Have you been experiencing symptoms of illness, knowing that something is wrong but the doctors cannot seem to find the answer and have begun looking at you as a psycho case?

The symptoms constantly change and migrate. They may begin as nagging nausea or swollen lymph nodes for long periods of time, but then you find that you're used to the doctors saying they can't find anything wrong and you get settled into your life again.

Of course, once your able to get along with the nausea and swollen lymph nodes (or whatever symptoms you begin with), along come migraines, unbelievable fatigue, stiff joints, loss of memory, speech impairment, tremor, and seizures. This becomes the process of your life...if you can call it living.

This is exactly what I've experienced over the past (at least) 8 years, although they say I most likely have had Lyme for up to 20 years. During my series of ill years I experienced five bouts of mono, was misdiagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, told I had Lymphoma, misdiagnosed with Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, experienced depression, anxiety, misdiagnosed with plausible Multiple Sclerosis, and more.

I wouldn't take PLAUSIBLE as the diagnosis.

What was the final diagnosis?

Through a string of events, including physical, mental and spiritual, I was able to visit a doctor who ran some tests (ELISA and the Western Blot) that showed positive for Lyme Disease.

Why didn't I get tested for Lyme Disease earlier in this series of illnesses? Well, on a follow-up with one of my other physicians, I found that he actually tested me with the ELISA test and it came back negative, which is very common as testing for Lyme is not completely accurate.

Click Here For Statistics By The CDC
note:  The CDC acknowledges that their statistics are not necessarily accurate.  In fact, the numbers from independent sources tell us that Lyme disease numbers are higher than AIDS.

Based on where I live, the doctors were not likely to test me. However, when I look at those statistics and look at my resulting diagnosis, I take other statistics into perspective, which make me exclaim about why there is not an alert for doctors to perform the simple blood test for Lyme Disease.



Take, for example, the fact that Lyme Disease mimics symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis.

MS World Map Link

"Multiple sclerosis (ms) is the most common, disabling, neurological condition, to affect young adults in the world today."

If you have a patient who you suspect has MS and have prescribed a lumbar puncture that does not come back as positive for anything abnormal, even with brain lesions (which can occur with Lyme Disease), wouldn't you test the patient for Lyme Disease before stating that they must have PLAUSIBLE MS and prescribing injections that may cost them thousands of dollars per month (not to mention lasting side-effects)?

What about Alzheimer's? Tremor and memory problems along with similar symptoms that may cause a doctor to diagnose someone with Alzheimer's can occur with Chronic Lyme Disease (being infected with Lyme Disease for a length of time).

Alzheimer's Site Link

"Every 72 seconds someone in America develops Alzheimer’s"

Parkinson's Disease is the same as the above diseases. This is a disease that is very hard to diagnose and there is actually not a very firm procedure of diagnoses. Wouldn't doctors be wise to perform a simple blood test to verify that the symptoms are not Lyme Disease?

Parkinson's Disease Link

"How is Parkinson disease diagnosed?
The process of making a Parkinson disease diagnosis can be difficult. There is no X-ray or blood test that can confirm Parkinson disease. A physician arrives at the diagnosis only after a thorough examination. Blood tests and brain scans known as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be performed to rule out other conditions that have similar symptoms. People suspected of having Parkinson disease should consider seeking the care of a neurologist who specializes in Parkinson disease."

Fibromyalgia is another mysterious diagnosis, and a growing number of people are being diagnosed and treated with medication on a daily basis.

Fibromylagia Statistics Link

"Prevalence Rate (Fibromyalgia): approx 1 in 73 or 1.36% or 3.7 million people in USA"

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is another mysterious illness, yet I found a quote regarding Lyme Disease under "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" on the following link.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Link

"Lyme disease and related tick-borne infections. Lyme disease does not always present acutely with a rash, and less than half of sufferers recall a tick bite (the nymphal deer tick is the size of a poppy seed, and secretes an anesthetic to prevent the host from feeling its bite). Furthermore, the characteristic joint pain is not always present. For these reasons Lyme can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in its later stages, at which point symptoms are virtually identical to those of CFS.[118] The accuracy of blood tests for Lyme remains highly controversial, especially since they depend on an effective immune system response, which many researchers believe is compromised by the disease. As a result, some clinicians believe Lyme is under-diagnosed."

If you know anyone with symptoms as I have listed above, please have them tested for Lyme Disease. Finding you have Lyme disease can relieve a lot of stress from yourself (a loved one) and your family. The treatments may take time to work, however, just think of the consequences of continuing down the road of a diagnoses of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's instead of a simple diagnoses with an actual treatment and hope for the future.

Please feel free to view my Lyme video diary and please subscribe... located here



Sources:
www.cdc.gov
www.themcfox.com
www.alz.org
www.parkinson.org
www.wrongdiagnosis.com
en.wikipedia.org
www.hopkins-arthritis.org

Attacking "Stay-At-Home Moms"? Stay-at-home moms are worth $112,000, study says...

Hilary Beth Rosen, an American lobbyist and Democratic pundit has made a HUGE mistake by saying that stay-at-home moms don't know what it's like to work, or that they don't have a job and therefore don't work.  Firstly, listen to the words from the mouth of Hilary Rosen...




Insulting?  Absolutely!  In fact, it brings question to the reality that Hilary Rosen lives in.  Is SHE in touch with the real lives of the American people?  What makes her an expert on whether or not women who stay-at-home as mothers actually "work" or have a "job"?  


Take a look at the article below...

Ann Romney flap: Stay-at-home moms are worth $112,000, study says

We all know a mother's work is never done. Salary.com -- a salary compensation website -- puts a price tag on it. (Salary.com / April 13, 2012)

By Rene Lynch

April 13, 2012, 12:39 p.m.

Ann Romney didn't draw a salary when she was a stay-at-home mom raising five boys. But if she had, she'd have pulled in more than $112,000 a year in today's dollars, suggests a popular new study.

Each year, Salary.com asks thousands of stay-at-home moms to complete a detailed survey about how they spend their days managing a household and raising children. The popular website dedicated to salary compensation issues then puts a price tag on all that cooking, cleaning, chauffeuring, laundry-doing ....

This year's study says the average stay-at-home mom's compensation would total $112,962 a year. (Romney would probably earn more because she was raising a larger-than-usual family of five boys.)

If you've tuned into media pundits this week, you'd think that the country is actually debating the value of a stay-at-home mom's work after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen put her foot in her mouth by saying Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life" because she stayed home raising the five kids she shares with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

"That's laughable," said Aaron Gouevia, a content manager at Salary.com. "Moms absolutely have value. They work -- and work a lot."

Meanwhile, Ann Crittenden, author of "The Price of Motherhood," said she was especially saddened that a woman set off the controversy pitting working women against stay-at-home moms. "Women can't seem to stop being judgmental of each other, which is a tragedy because 'divided you shall be conquered,'" she told The Times.

Attacked: Ann Romney, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and has beaten breast cancer, argued she has experienced hard work bringing up her sons

Crittenden said she believes Rosen actually does value stay-at-home moms, but that her poorly chosen words suggested otherwise.

Nonetheless, the flap speaks to the disjointed attitude Americans have toward stay-at-home moms, Crittenden said. By turns, stay-at-home moms are put on a pedestal for doing the "world's most important job" and then they are derided for "just" taking care of the kids.

Crittenden suggested that instead of bickering over Rosen's comments, Republicans and Democrats can show their support for stay-at-home moms by making it easier for women to choose that route. (For many women, forgoing that salary is simply not an option.)

Campaigning: Mitt and Ann Romney, pictured on March 20 in Schaumburg, Illinois, were criticised for having a warped understanding of women's economic concerns

But there was one bright spot in this week's controversy, author Leslie Morgan Steiner told The Times.

"Six years ago, when I was writing 'Mommy Wars,' moms understood in two seconds what the book was about. But when I told men I was researching a book on tensions between working and stay-at-home moms, they would say, 'Huh, could you write a whole book about THAT?'

"Today, men I've talked to and men responding to the comments online seem equally incensed that anyone would suggest that raising five children is not 'work,' " she said. "We've come a long way in the mommy wars if men now fully understand how very hard motherhood is."

SOURCE: LA TIMES
SECOND SOURCE: DAILY MAIL

Would Hilary Rosen Have Criticized Stay-at-Home Dads as Never Having Worked?

It's good that Hilary Rosen apologized for her comments that Ann Romney, who chose to be a stay-at-home mom to raise her five boys, had 'never worked a day in her life.' It took a day for Rosen to finally acknowledge that her comments were unhelpful, but she finally said, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended."

Now, I am opposed to the culture of offense where people look to be offended by some public comment. We all need to chill a little and stop pouncing on each other. People can express their opinions without it always leading to a culture war. But Rosen's comments are different and I'm saying that not as someone running for Congress but as someone who has counseled thousands of women, many of them stay-at-home moms.

Too many have told me that they already feel inferior. Their husbands get to go out of the house and have a change of scenery. They get paid for their work and therefore often feel more appreciated and have greater control of the family's finances and spending. Many stay-at-home moms still have to ask their husbands for money or are degradingly given allowances for the families needs, something I have always railed against. With rare exceptions, a couple's money should be equally pooled, as should most things in marriage. But too many husbands feel that they are the breadwinners and their wives have not earned their share of the family income. So why should they have equal say in how it is spent?

Not that Rosen doesn't have any validity to her points, either. Indeed, she is correct. Many moms would choose to be at home, but they can't. The family is desperate for the second income. But even so, Rosen's unnecessarily demeaning comments against stay-at-home mothers -- and I'm happy to believe her that she never intended her remarks to be insulting -- reinforce a negative stereotype that mothers who are at home are not pulling their weight or earning their fair share.

Let's turn the tables for a moment. There is a growing movement on the part of husbands to be stay-at-home dads while their wives go out and earn the bacon (I apologize for the deep offense I have now no doubt caused my Jewish readers). A 2008 US Census publication puts the number of married fathers who work in the home as their children's primary caregivers at approximately 140,000. Now, would Rosen have said the same thing about these men, that they never worked a single day in their lives, or would she, as have so many others, praised them for their maternal role in putting their children first? Would she have lauded their ability to get beyond the traditional macho-man role and prioritizing their family even before their careers? So if Rosen is going to rail against a war against women, then let's agree that a gender bias that praises men who put their kids first but punishes women for the same is an unfair assault in that battle.

For the record, I am actually an advocate of women having a profession even when they are near full-time mothers. It constitutes advice I often give unhappy wives who come to me for counseling. Get out of the house more and develop your career. If you don't need the money, volunteer for charity.

My wife and I are blessed with nine children. But my wife has always worked alongside me in everything I have done. And I have raised my six daughters to do all the things that I have done with my boys.

Women are the equal of men in all ability and professionalism and I believe in encouraging our daughters to be both moms and professionals, simply because human beings seek the dignity that comes with both.

We acknowledge, on the one hand, that we are links in a higher chain of existence and raise our children to continue that chain. But in addition, we are people in our own right and seek the maximum development of our individualism irrespective of our position in a family.

Still, this is my opinion. Others may disagree. And that's the whole point of the need for Rosen's apology. Rosen is a political consultant with two kids. G-d bless her. It's beautiful that she has chosen to do both. But it is not for her to judge other people's choices. Besides, if Rosen had had five kids rather than two -- and Mormons, like Jews, have large families -- she might have found it slightly more challenging to sustain her career.

The point is that everyone contributes in their own way, and it's time for us to all stop assailing and judging each other. Not only is it important to reverse the culture of taking offense, it's also important to curb a culture that gives it, too.

SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, HERE IS SOME INFORMATION THAT MANY OF YOU MAY BE LOOKING FOR IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ROMNEYS...

Ann Romney's Career Choice: 'No Nannies' For Mother, Says Source

By HOWARD KOPLOWITZ: Subscribe to Howard's 

April 12, 2012 6:05 PM EDT

Ann Romney had the means to hire help in raising her five sons, but she went about it the way the average American mother would -- with no assistance at all.

According to a source familiar with the family, Ann Romney did not tap into her family's vast wealth in raising Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig while Mitt toiled away at the Boston Consulting Group and Bain Capital in the 1970s and 1980s.

Enlarge

(Photo: Facebook)
Ann Romney had the means to hire help in raising her five children, but she went about rearing the kids the way the average American would - with no assistance at all.

"No nannies," said the source, who requested anonymity.

A poster on the liberal website Daily Kos speculated that Ann Romney had help raising the kids, claiming the Romneys had five housekeepers in 2010.

"If they had that much help in 2010 it is hard to imagine that Ann Romney raised her 5 children without any outside assistance, wouldn't you agree?" Daily Kos user jbiggs asked.

But the poster posed the question without offering any evidence to back up his assertion.

Romney's days as a housewife have been scrutinized since Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said Wednesday night on CNN that Romney "has never worked a day in her life."

Romney and stay-at-home moms everywhere took offense to Rosen's remarks for suggesting raising children wasn't work.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Ann Romney tweeted.

Rosen has since apologized for her comment, but she also said Romney had the luxury of staying home when the average American mother today can't afford to do so.

"@AnnDRomney I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don't u?" Rosen tweeted.

Rosen issued a statement in which she referring to the so-called "war on women" that Democrats say Republicans have waged this election cycle.

"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

Rosen's remarks were condemned on both sides of the aisle, including Democrats with strong ties to President Barack Obama.

"I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly," tweeted Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina. "Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize."

"Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney," tweeted Obama senior adviser David Axelrod. "They were inappropriate and offensive."

"Hilary Rosen was wrong about Ann Romney & I hope she will say so...," tweeted Joe Trippi, the pundit who managed Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.

SOURCE: IB TIMES

THERE YOU HAVE IT.  ENOUGH SAID.

Hyperbaric Chamber Controversy

Here is a PDF regarding the subject of the controversy of hyperbarics... click here

Here is a rather entertaining and informative video regarding the controversy...

Here is an old article regarding the controversy of using hyperbaric chambers in sports...

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF
THE HYPERBARIC CHAMBER IN SPORTS:
August 23,1996
Update; Nov. 15,1996The following report was sent to all 26 General Managers in the N.H.L. in January 1995

This past season the Vancouver Canucks were using a hyperbaric (oxygen tank) chamber as part of their training program. At the beginning of the season this chamber was used primarily for speeding up recovery time of injured players. Very soon after this the Canucks began to use it on uninjured players. This is when the problems began.

The Canucks management and training staff had been in touch with myself in mid August of 1993 about trying out our ionization system for a period of two weeks (this try out was canceled two days before we were to start). In our meetings before this, the Canucks management had asked me if our system was similar to their hyperbaric system. I told them it was but I was not about to tell them their system could have major drawbacks. (It would have looked like we were trying to put down their hyperbaric system over ours.) In failing to warn the team at the time I must take partial responsibility over the misuse of the hyperbaric system. Thinking the Canucks had a system similar to the one we were proposing there was no need for them to try our system. They began putting players in the chamber who had no injuries, hopefully to improve endurance, reaction time and balance. Initially this seemed to be the case as the Canucks won 7 of 8 games since the beginning of the season. At this time I could not say anything about the problems until they began to surface.

How does the hyperbaric system work ? The chamber is sealed from the outside atmosphere and pressure is increased on the inside of the chamber. The occupant inside the chamber puts on a breathing device that supplies him with 100% pure oxygen. If the player has an injury, the oxygen together with the increase in pressure pushes the oxygen deeper into the injured area. Recovery time can be cut in half for the injured player. I do not dispute these claims.

Why would there be problems using the hyperbaric system? The system is totally cut off from the outside atmosphere. A natural ion count of 5000 ions per cubic centimeter can be measured in nature. This count can fluctuate but no matter where we go, there are ions. In the hyperbaric tank the ion count would be zero. There is no natural or artificial way to produce ionization in the chamber since the corona discharge from an ionizer would cause the oxygen to ignite. Every human being must have ions to survive. It is this reason why the hyperbaric system is so dangerous.

The Russian ion scientist Tchijewsky tried raising mice, rats, guinea pigs, and rabbits in totally de ionized air. Within two weeks almost all of them had died. Despite the fact the autopsies proved they had died for a variety of reasons - fatty liver, kidney failure, heart degeneration, and , among other ills anemia - Tchijewsky concluded that the real cause of death was the animals' inability to utilize oxygen properly.' An organism receiving the cleanest type of air for breathing is condemned to serious illness if the air does not contain at least a small quantity of air ions."

Tchijewsky's colleague D.A. Lapitsky tried raising small animals in air depleted of oxygen. As they were about to die of suffocation he added neg-ions and found that "animals already near death from asphyxiation began to feel better, sat up sniffed the air, and began to run around the chamber. Their respiration frequency increased. Switching off the ionizer again brought them to the verge of asphyxiation." Lapitsky decided the traditional belief that oxygen alone was the sole prerequisite for the creation and sustenance of life had "demonstrated to be false." Or as Tchijewsky had said, "Death of animals in [de ionized] air must be attributed to the absence of aero ions of oxygen essential to the life activity of an organism." More simply put, without ions we couldn't absorb oxygen in the quantities needed to live. And the fewer ions there are, the lower the efficiency of our minds and bodies.

Tchijewsky also discovered increased performance in athletes using negative ion generators in the late 1940's.

In late November side effects from lack of ionization in the players who were using the hyperbaric chamber for injuries became apparent. Two of these players were Gino Odjick and Pavel Bure. Both had come down with flu symptoms and repiratory problems. The Canucks doctors were unable to find the cause of the respiratory problems. I faxed Pat Quinn on Dec. 16, 1993 with an explanation to these problems and background information on problems with the Hyperbaric chamber. He chose to continue using the chamber. In January I talked with Bruce Newton of the Players Association. I explained the problems with the hyperbaric system but he was unable to help me. "The team and the teams doctors were responsible for any training system and the Players Association had no say over those systems."

The fans of Vancouver began to call the Canucks "TEAM SCHIZOPHRENIC". The Canucks were playing poor at home and great on the road. I contacted Pat Quinn by fax again previous to the playoffs to warn him again. He chose to ignore my advice again. I talked to one of the Canuck players just as the playoffs were starting. He confirmed most of the team was using the hyperbaric tank to increase their play.

Word that this news leaked to me must have gone back to management. At this point management gave the doctors and players permission to speak to the media about how the system worked. (The plan was to bury any controversy before it was started).
Why did the Canucks do so well in the playoffs? First, the playoffs took them away from the hyperbaric chamber for extended periods. Second, the brain under environmental stress from increased positive ions or lack of ions produces hormones and chemicals to deal with this stress. The two main hormones released are melotonin and serotonin. Serotonin is increased and fed into the blood stream. The increased serotonin triggers the release of adrenaline which allows the body to work through the stress. Adrenaline is not quickly renewed as are other chemicals in your body. If a body produces to much serotonin for long duration's, the adrenaline gets used up and the chemical system in the body is unbalanced. This is what was happening with these players. A list of side effects from increasing the serotonin levels in your body for a long period of time are as follows:

Anxiety, nervousness, tremors, sweating, dizziness, lightheadedness, dry mouth, upset or irritated stomach, appetite loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach gas, rash and itching.

Less common side effects include changes in sex drive, impotence, abnormal dreams, difficulty concentrating, acne, hair loss, dry skin, chest pains, allergy, runny nose, bronchitis, abnormal heart rhythms, bleeding, blood pressure changes, headaches, fainting when rising suddenly from a sitting position, bone pain, bursitis, twitching, breast pain, fibrocystic disease of the breast, cystitis, urinary pain, double vision, eye or ear pain, conjunctivitis, anemia, swelling, low blood sugar, and low thyroid activity.
In addition, many other side effects affecting virtually every body system have been reported. They are too numerous to mention.

All side effects mentioned are also experienced from the pill Fluoxetine Hydrochloride (PROZAC). Prozac is an antidepressant drug and works on increasing serotonin levels in the body. It is the natural cortisone levels in the body that are triggered by the serotonin. This added adrenaline gives the personality a boost. Long term studies on Prozac and other antidepressants that work on increasing serotonin are finding most patients on these drugs are worse off after treatment than before treatment. The Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has never in their history had as many problems with a drug as they have had with these forms of antidepressants.

Side effects from positive ions winds (such as the Chinook wind in Calgary and the Santa Ana winds in southern California) compiled by a Swiss meteorological report in 1974 are as follows:

Physical side effects: Body pains, sick headaches, dizziness, twitching of the eyes, nausea, fatigue, faintness, disorders in saline (salt) budget with fluctuations in electrolytical metabolism (calcium and magnesium; critical for alcoholics), water accumulation, respiratory difficulties, allergies, asthma, heart and circulatory disorders (heart attacks approx. 50% higher) low blood pressure, slowing down in reaction time, more sensitivity to pain, inflammations, bleeding embolisms of the lungs, and thrombosis.

Psychological side effects: Emotional unbalance, irritation, vital disinclination, compulsion to meditate, exhaustion, apathy, disinclination or listlessness toward work (poor school achievement), insecurity, anxiety, depression (especially after age forty to fifty); rate of attempted suicide about 20% higher, larger number of admittance's to clinics in drug cases.

In over 90 years since ions were discovered, no side effects have ever been found from negative ions.

SOURCE: 

CLICK HERE

Here is information (only a piece) from Cancer.org about the use of hyperbaric chambers for therapy.  This is positive information that tells me that they are not dangerous and that more illnesses should be treated through the use of this therapy, and that it should be covered by insurance.

What is the evidence?
There is scientific evidence showing HBOT works to treat a number of conditions. The Committee on Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine recommends it for treatment of:

• Decompression sickness

• Arterial gas embolism (bubbles of air in the blood vessels)

• Carbon monoxide poisoning (with or without cyanide poisoning)

• Delayed radiation injury of the soft tissue or bones, including osteoradionecrosis

• Gas gangrene (a serious infection)

• Skin grafts and flaps that are not healing well with standard treatment

• Soft tissue infections in which tissues are dying (necrotic)

• Anemia due to severe blood loss (when transfusions are not an option)

• Crushing injuries in which there is not enough oxygen to the tissues

• Certain wounds that are not healing with standard treatment

• Thermal (heat) burns

• Abscess in the brain or head

• Osteomyelitis (chronic bone inflammation) that does not respond to standard treatment

• Blockage of the retinal artery (blood vessel in the back of the eyeball)

These are considered to be proven uses of HBOT. For some of these conditions, HBOT is the preferred treatment. For some others, HBOT is one of many treatment options to consider. 

There is conflicting evidence about whether HBOT is helpful in treating fast-spreading infections of the skin and underlying tissues. 

A Swedish study of 94 people with diabetic foot ulcers were divided into 2 groups: one group used HBOT for 85 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 8 weeks (40 treatment sessions) for treatment, and the other had placebo sessions. Of the group that was supposed to get HBOT, 52% of them had ulcers that were healed at 1 year, while 29% in the placebo group were healed. Of those in the treatment group who actually got more than 35 HBOT sessions, the healing rate was higher, at 61% in the treatment group. This may reduce the risk of foot amputation in some diabetic patients, but more study is needed to be sure that it works. It would also be useful to find out which patients are most likely to be helped by this procedure. 

Early evidence had suggested HBOT might help people with lymphedema (swelling in arms or legs after surgery, which can happen after modified radical mastectomy or other treatments in which lymph nodes are removed or irradiated). A controlled clinical trial published in 2010 looked at 58 women after breast cancer surgery and radiation to the armpit area. There was no difference in arm size between women who had HBOT and those who had standard care, either right away or 12 months after treatment. 

The lack of randomized clinical studies makes it hard to judge the value of HBOT for many of its claims. Available scientific evidence does not support claims that HBOT stops the growth of cancer cells, destroys germs, improves allergy symptoms, or helps patients who have chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, autism, stroke, cerebral palsy, senility, cirrhosis, or gastrointestinal ulcers. 

Carefully controlled scientific studies are still going on to find out whether HBOT may be helpful for cluster headaches, migraines, heart attacks, and other conditions. 

Are there any possible problems or complications? 

HBOT is a relatively safe method for selected patients getting approved medical treatments. Complications are lessened if pressures within the hyperbaric chamber stay below three times the normal atmospheric pressure and sessions last no longer than 2 hours. There are some people who should not get HBOT, however. 

Milder problems associated with HBOT include claustrophobia, fatigue, and headache. More serious complications include myopia (short-sightedness) that can last for weeks or months, sinus damage, ruptured middle ear, and lung damage. A complication called oxygen toxicity can result in seizures, fluid in the lungs, and even respiratory (lung) failure. Patients at high risk of oxygen toxicity may be given "air breaks" during which they breathe ordinary air rather than pure oxygen for short periods during treatment. 

People with severe congestive heart failure may have their symptoms worsened by HBOT. Patients with certain types of lung disease may be at higher risk of collapsed lung during HBOT. Pregnant women should be treated with HBOT only in serious situations where there are no other options. People getting certain chemotherapy drugs (such as bleomycin, doxorubicin, or cisplatin) should not get HBOT. Anyone getting disulfiram (Antabuse) or using sulfamylon cream should not get HBOT, nor should anyone with a collapsed lung.
A person with a pacemaker, high fever, or even a cold can be harmed by HBOT. Someone with claustrophobia would likely have trouble being in the HBOT chamber. 

Hyperbaric oxygen chambers can be a fire hazard: fires or explosions in hyperbaric chambers have caused about 80 deaths worldwide. Medical hyperbaric chambers today are generally well-built and have good safety records, but certain cautions must always be observed.
Relying on this treatment alone and delaying or avoiding conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.

SOURCE: CANCER.ORG