The studies I read about showed the most value of HBOT being with low Glascow score patients. The HBOT improved their recovery time but did not change/improve the level of eventual recovery. The study that showed detrimental effects did not say they were caused by the HBOT. The increase in symptoms could have been because the patient continued to degrade and likely would have without the HBOT. In many studies, the statistic collected were so mixed as to be inconclusive. They could not identify the reasons for the varied results.

The anecdotal evidence of HBOT success is substantial. But, the percent who see improvement was not above the placebo level. Nor was it above the level of spontaneous improvement. The studies showed than any improvement was not statistically evident until 40 to 60 sessions. That is a lot of money to spend hoping for improvement. That is why I would like to see a double blind study. The HBOT industry could sponsor a broad based double blind study and win mightily if the results are as they hope/claim.

I am not doubting the value it has been to you. You are likely an anomaly. As I said, I am glad for you. But, there is no danger caused by not trying HBOT. I was an early follower of HBOT research because I was hoping it would help me. I live at almost a mile high altitude. HBOT would hopefully help my body with capillary growth so my brain would be better oxygenated at my living altitude.

There is also research that shows living at altitude causes capillary growth. So, hypobaric therapy has value, too. It also causes the body to increase the ratio of red blood cells so as to carry more oxygen. Mountain climbers develop these improvements from extended stays at altitude.

As I said, I am glad you are seeing improvement, regardless of the reason for the improvement. And I don't doubt that HBOT has played a part in your improvement.

My best to you.