When Leonard Noon reported his first tentative experiments with immunotherapy for hayfever, in 1911 (see p. 164), he believed that pollen contained a toxin. Most people were
‘immune’ to this toxin, he said, in the same way that people might be immune to measles or diphtheria, but hayfever sufferers lacked this immunity. Noon thought that his
steadily increasing doses of pollen, injected just under the skin, were inducing immunity to the pollen toxin, in the same way that a smallpox vaccine could induce immunity to
smallpox.
Noon’s theory was all wrong, as we now know, but the important thing was that the treatment seemed to work. In fact it transformed the lives of some patients, especially those
who were very severely affected by hayfever. One spoke of a ‘marvellous cure’, another of going for walks to kick my old enemy the hay’.
So doctors kept using Noon’s treatment, and in time — when it became clear that Noon’s theory was flawed — medical researchers began trying to figure out how the injections
really worked.
Surprisingly, they have still not succeeded, even though a great deal is now known about the changes that can occur in people undergoing immunotherapy. Despite a wealth of
detailed knowledge (see p. 166), it remains impossible to say exactly how conventional immunotherapy reduces allergic reactions. Surprising discoveries about the effects of
conventional immunotherapy are being made all the time.
New methods of immunotherapy are still being devised today, and there are three different approaches being taken.
Firstly, there are doctors experimenting with modifications of the technique devised by Noon. For example, instead of injecting the allergen extract, some doctors are giving it
to their patients in capsule form. to be swallowed. Others are giving it as a liquid, to be placed under the tongue and held there for a few minutes, then swallowed (see p.
169). Sound scientific trials show that both these methods work well, at least with some allergens.
There are also experiments with speeded-up immunotherapy
(see p. 166), called ultrarush techniques — at the outset, injections are given at hourly intervals, or even more frequently (in hospital, of course, where severe reactions can
be dealt with immediately). Doctors have found that they can induce a remarkably rapid tolerance of the allergen in this way.
The second approach is to apply modern medical knowledge about allergic reactions and so develop entirely new methods of immunotherapy (see p. 168-9). Such research involves
working out, from first principles, novel ways of modifying the immune response in general, or the reaction to one allergen in particular.
This theory-led approach is certainly successful for classical allergies such as hayfever and perennial allergic rhinitis, where there is a good understanding of the basic
mechanism (i.e. the malfunctions of the immune system that produce the disease). But for those diseases where the underlying mechanism is only partially understood, such as
atopic eczema, this approach is not necessarily the best one. And for diseases such as food intolerance, where the cause of the illness remains largely unknown, it is a complete
non-starter.
The third type of approach is to devise a technique by trial and error, and then puzzle out the ‘how’ question later. This is the same sort of path as Noon originally took, and
some believe that this kind of pragmatic experimental approach — practising a method which seems to be effective, even though it’s a mystery how it works — is as valid now as it
was in 1911. Others disagree.
210 complementary therapies The two most widely used methods that have been developed in this way are Provocation-Neutralisation and Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation.
Although these techniques are practised by doctors with a conventional medical training, they remain ‘outside the pale’ as far as orthodox medicine is concerned. The
controversies that surround them are discussed below.
Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation (EPD)
This technique has been developed by a British doctor, Dr Len McEwen, who began work on it in the 1960s. It is now practised in many parts of the world, as well as Britain,
including the United States, Germany and Italy.
EPD is used for a far wider range of problems than conventional immunotherapy, being given to people with food intolerance and chemical intolerance, as well as to those with
true allergies. This — along with the fact that it is unclear how it works —contributes to the controversies that surround it, because these conditions do not have the same
basic causes.
Dr McEwen began with the observation that, when immune cells are aroused during inflammation — whether caused by allergy or some other stimulus — they release large amounts of
an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase. This enzyme increases the immune response to the allergen or antigen that provoked the inflammation.
Dr McEwen experimented with injecting beta-glucuronidase into the skin, along with very small amounts of allergen, believing that in such circumstances the enzyme might have the
opposite effect, and reduce the immune reaction to the allergen. Eventually he discovered a combination of enzyme and allergen which seemed to have the desired effect.
EPD has been tested, in a rigorous scientific manner, and the results suggest that it can work for hayfever and asthma, as well as for childhood migraine and hyperactivity in
children when these are triggered by foods.
In one trial with hayfever patients, researchers measured the levels of anti-pollen IgE following EPD treatment, and it did not rise during the pollen season as it normally does
in those with hayfever. This kind of finding is impressive because it is unlikely to be due to placebo effect. Not all studies have produced positive results, however.
In addition, doctors using EPD claim that it is very effective for patients with allergies who have not done well on the standard course of immunotherapy injections (see p.
164). This fits in with other studies suggesting that the immune changes brought about by EPD are fundamentally different from those induced by traditional immunotherapy.
Patients with true food allergy have been given EPD, and while it does not enable them to eat their culprit food, it does
seem to reduce their reaction to accidental exposures.
Doctors in the Netherlands are using EPD as a treatment for people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and report that it helps about 50% of patients.
One point in favour of EPD is that it uses very small amounts of allergen, and is therefore very safe — anaphylaxis has never occurred with this technique.
Provocation-Neutralisation
‘After following conventional methods [of immunotherapy] for thirteen years, I heard Carleton H. Lee deliver a paper on provocative testing in 1965, at a meeting of the American
College of Allergists in Chicago. I was naturally sceptical, but tried his suggestions when I returned to my office. The results can only be described as astounding. Many
patients with unresolved allergic problems responded markedly and rapidly. Many with resistant asthma or perennial allergic rhinitis improved greatly or cleared completely when
food injection therapy was added to their inhalant injection therapy.’ So wrote Dr Joseph B. Miller — a distinguished allergist and paediatrician, and a Professor of Medicine at
the University of Alabama, in 1972.
The technique which he learned from Carleton H. Lee was controversial then and, although Miller developed it with great care and precision during the years that followed, it
remains controversial now.
There are two elements in provocation - neutralisation: testing and treatment. Both are used for a wide range of problems — not just classical allergic diseases, but also food
intolerance and chemical intolerance. As with EPD (see left), this is one of the controversial aspects of the technique.
Although provocation-neutralisation involves an injection technique that looks, superficially, very much like conventional immunotherapy (see p. 164), there are several
important differences. Firstly, the allergen extract used (in the case of true allergies) is a very dilute extract, so that far less of the allergen is injected than in
conventional immunotherapy. Likewise, in the case of food intolerance and chemical intolerance, the extracts of the offending substance are used in highly dilute form.
Secondly, the idea of the neutralising dose — which is the central plank of provocation-neutralisation — is quite different from anything in conventional immunotherapy. Broadly
speaking, the conventional technique (see pp. 165-6) works by slowly reeducating the immune system with a gradually increasing dose of the allergen. Only after a succession of
injections does the immune system start to behave differently on encountering the allergen. By contrast, in provocation-neutralisation treatment, the neutralising dose is
claimed to have an instantaneous and direct effect on the body, ‘turning off’ symptoms that have already begun. This is the neutralisation aspect of the technique. The doctors
who practise this technique do not claim to know how the neutralising dose might work.
According to the theory of provocation-neutralisation, the strength of the extract that acts as a neutralising dose is specific for a particular allergen and a particular
person. It can only be worked out by a rather slow procedure involving a series of injections. These are intradermal injections – they place the allergen extract in the skin, at
a slightly deeper level than a skin-prick test. (For treatment, rather than testing, subcutaneous injections are used – these go deeper than intradermal injections, placing the
allergen extract just underneath the skin. Neither hurts very much.)
Ideally, the neutralising dose should be decided on by measuring the size of the wheal (a raised area of skin around the injection site), and whether it grows, stays the same
size, or disappears. The doctor or nurse carrying out the procedure can, in theory, work out the neutralising dose just by careful examination of the skin wheals.
However, it is part of the tradition of provocation-neutralisation techniques that verbal feedback from the patient is also taken into account – so if the patient says that an
injection has turned off the symptoms, that reinforces the belief that the neutralising dose has been found.
The problem with this aspect of provocation-neutralisation is that expectations, and the power of suggestion, can become involved. So if the doctor or nurse says ‘you may find
that this next injection makes the symptoms go away’, that is often exactly what happens – because the forces of placebo effect (see p. 233) come into play. Unfortunately,
verbal interactions such as this are a key aspect of the provocation-neutralisation procedure in many clinics.
Just the same hazard besets provocation - neutralisation if it is used to test for the existence of allergy or intolerance, because it is quite common for practitioners to tell
patients which allergen (or other offending substance) is being injected and to ask if any symptoms are provoked by the injection. This is not good practice – if someone expects
to react to a particular substance, they are quite likely to produce symptoms through purely psychological mechanisms (see pp. 232-3).
Quite apart from this, the question of allergy testing with provocation-neutralisation techniques is contentious, because the pioneers of the technique, such as Professor
Miller, never advocated using provocation - neutralisation in this way. Using it as a routine test for sensitivity reactions was a later development, and there are many doctors
today who, while they practise provocation-neutralisation as a treatment, say that it does not work well as a test for sensitivity reactions. While they agree that injecting a
dose
which is either stronger or weaker than the neutralising dose may provoke actual symptoms (this is the provocation aspect of the technique) they don’t think the reaction is
reliable enough to form the basis of a test for allergies. Nor do they think that using skin-wheal measurements alone (i.e. silent testing) turns the technique into an accurate
test for allergies. That is not what the provocation-neutralisation technique was designed for – it is about treatment, not testing.
The evidence from research
Recent research from the Nova Scotia Environmental Health Centre in Canada confirms that testing by provocation injections is not reliable. The subjects in this study were all
suffering fr= multiple chemical intolerance, a condition which – for one reasor or another – makes patients liable to develop symptoms at an,, time. No less than 70% of these
patients experienced symptoms in response to a dummy injection which contained none of the offending substance. Indeed, 15% of patients also produced a skin wheal in response to
some of the dummy injections, confirming that even this reaction may be subject to the power of suggestion (see pp. 232-3).
Looking just at the patients who did not react to the placebo injection (i.e. those least susceptible to suggestion) the test still did not yield any reliable result – a person
might react to one injection with a particular substance, but fail to react to a subsequent injection with the same substance. The authors concluded that their patients were ‘in
a state of heightened sensitivity as the result of the chronic irritation by various environmental components and other external and internal stressors’. In this state of
sensitivity. patients are so close to the brink all the time that the smallest thing can trigger symptoms. So the apparent reactions to the test injections were actually
determined by other factors – some psychological factors (including a psychological response to the prick of the needle) and some external ones, such as exposure to smells or
very small amounts of airborne chemicals.
Another recent research study, carried out by scientists at the University of California, confirmed the finding of the Nova Scotia team as regards testing. Although this study
did not set out to look at the use of the neutralising dose for treatment, some of the patients were given neutralising doses during the testing process and the researchers
observed that ‘in most cases a single neutralising injection relieved the symptoms’. This casual observation clearly needs to be confirmed by more rigorous testing. Oddly
enough, despite this positive observation about the neutralising doses, the overall conclusion of the researchers was to completely dismiss all aspects of
provocation-neutralisation as ‘the result of suggestion and chance’. This conclusion has been widely publicised in the United States as part of a general campaign against
provocation-neutralisation and doctors who practise it.
Other researchers have looked at treatment with neutralising doses, using stringent scientific methods (a double-blind placebo-controlled trial — see p. 90), and found that they
do work. In one such trial, patients with asthma. and allergies to dogs or cats, were treated with injections of the neutralising dose. They showed a reduction in the
sensitivity of their airways, as measured by objective tests. In another experiment, patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and an allergy to house-dust mite were studied,
and the neutralising dose was given as drops of allergen extract placed under the tongue (sublingual drops) – an alternative to injections. The blockage of the nose, as measured
by scientific tests, was reduced by the neutralising dose.
A great many more trials of this kind would be required to convince most doctors that provocation-neutralisation works.
Furthermore, the recent study from California – which observed a number of practitioners of provocation-neutralisation at work with their patients — showed that these
practitioners need to be a lot more rigorous and objective in their approach. However, the fact that provocation-neutralisation is often practised badly does not necessarily
mean that the basic technique is without any value. There are a great many level-headed doctors and patients who, while initially very sceptical about
provocation-neutralisation, have found it surprisingly effective – just as Professor Miller did back in 1965.
Deciding for yourself
So is provocation-neutralisation an option that is worth trying for your condition?
As regards testing, the answer is probably ‘no’. The most reliable tests are skin-prick tests or FAST blood tests for true allergies (see pp. 91-2), an elimination diet for food
intolerance (see p. 194), and avoidance followed by re-exposure (a challenge test) for chemical intolerance.
As regards treatment for true allergies, conventional immunotherapy has been far more thoroughly tested and, if you can get it (not easy in Britain — see p. 164), is probably a
better bet. It is definitely the best treatment for allergy to insect stings.
The major advantage that provocation-neutralisation has over conventional immunotherapy, in the case of true allergies, is that it is far safer. Because such small amounts of
allergen are used, anaphylactic reactions (see p. 58) don’t occur.
When it comes to treatment for food intolerance, complete avoidance of the problem food(s), for a period of a year or two, is usually a very effective treatment (see p. 77).
Other forms of treatment are only needed for people who find that they have
intolerance to a great many different foods (on the basis of an elimination diet, not kinesiology, blood tests and the like — see p. 93) and cannot devise an adequate diet from
the foods they are able to eat. For such people, provocation-neutralisation may be worth a try. Many patients feel that they have gained considerable help from this treatment.
They report suffering fewer symptoms and being able to return to a more nutritionally balanced diet.
In the case of chemical intolerance, the first line of treatment should be to avoid the substances concerned as far as possible, eat a good balanced diet, and take a vitamin and
mineral supplement if nutritional deficiencies are suspected. Treating any underlying hyperventilation (see pp. 226-9) can also help considerably. Only if there are persistent
symptoms, and you are sure these are not due to psychological causes, might provocation-neutralisation be worth a try. Some people with chemical intolerance do find it is
helpful, but whether this is a real effect, or simply placebo, remains uncertain.
If you decide to give provocation-neutralisation a try, find a practitioner who has good medical qualifications, who seems objective and sensible in their approach, and who
doesn’t make implausible claims for the technique. Take note of what other treatments the practitioner offers, and whether these seem rational or not – this is often a good
guide to the care and objectivity with which provocation - neutralisation is carried out.
Ask the doctor how he or she assesses the neutralising dose. and avoid anyone who does not use the traditional method of a series of injections combined with wheal measurement.
When the neutralising dose is being assessed, say that you would like it to be done ’single-blind’ – that is, you don’t want to be told anything about what is being injected.
Reporting how you feel to the doctor or nurse during the assessment is fine, but only mention really significant symptoms, or a very definite clearance of the symptoms, if this
occurs. These precautions will help you to be sure that you are getting something which is of genuine benefit, rather than just a very expensive form of placebo treatment.
I always wanted to be a doctor, and I enjoyed
medical school immensely, but once I became a
ell GP, I no longer felt quite so sure about what I was doing. It seemed clear to me that there were a lot of people coming to my surgery who I couldn’t do much for. And there
were others who, while I could treat their obvious medical problems with some success, remained distressed and were not coping well with life. Once I became a senior partner in
this practice, I experimented with having a counsellor come in for one session a week, and then an osteopath for the bad backs. It was popular with the patients, and I saw some
people improve enormously. Now we have stress-management classes too, and one of my colleagues has trained in acupuncture, which he uses for selected patients. We also use
elimination diets for patients with a lot of long-term problems like migraine. Overall, I think of it in terms of having more tools at our disposal - being able to tackle things
from a different angle when standard medicine isn’t hitting the spot.’
Geoffrey, a GP in the north of England, is typical of the reconciliation that is now beginning to occur between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. But he also has
plenty of criticisms to make of the alternative scene. ‘The idea that alternative medicine is “holistic” while conventional medicine isn’t, really raises my hackles. Most GPs
could be magnificently holistic if they had an hour with each patient as alternative therapists usually do. We have just 15 minutes, on average, and we have to pack a lot into
that - including our basic duty to eliminate the possibility of serious organic disease such as cancer. Time pressure is everything now, and it has squeezed the humanity out of
medicine, to a very large extent. But the potential for a holistic approach is there - most doctors have a tremendous store of wisdom and life
experience at their disposal, which could form the basis of a holistic approach to treatment if only there were more time to spend with each patient.’
It is in search of a more unhurried and all-embracing approach to treatment that many people turn to alternative medicine. Frequently, what they get out of the therapy has less
to do with the actual methods used, and still less with the theories behind those methods, but everything to do with spending a quiet hour with someone supportive and caring who
listens to all the complex concerns that surround any illness, gives reassurance or advice, or just offers a `safe space’ in which to talk about life’s difficulties.
Other people turn to alternative therapies due to a more serious disillusionment with orthodox medicine. When patients with inscrutable medical problems -such as persistent
unexplained diarrhoea, joint pain or chronic urticaria - are given a succession of different diagnoses by different doctors, they often lose faith entirely in modern medicine
and reject orthodox treatment in favour of alternatives. This is a great mistake. Modern medicine isn’t perfect, but that is only to be expected, because it is not a fixed body
of knowledge but a process - a continuing journey of questioning, investigation, discovery and improvement. Scientific medicine has come a tremendously long way from the state
of ignorance that prevailed two centuries ago, and it will undoubtedly go farther.
Conventional medicine has a great deal going for it - ask anyone over 50, with severe life-long asthma, what they think of treatment now compared to treatment in the 1950s or
early 1960s. You will hear a hymn of praise to the improvements in both drugs and drug delivery systems. Asthma is just one example -conventional medicine has a lot to offer for
all the classical allergic diseases. Alternative medicine should always be regarded as an adjunct to conventional treatment, not a replacement. That is why many doctors prefer
the term complementary medicine.
A third reason for using alternative medicine is a more philosophical one, a need to understand illness in some larger sense, often part of a general search for meaning in life.
Some types of alternative treatment attempt to offer metaphysical reasons for allergy -rather than the mundane explanations of antibodies and immune cells that are given in this
book - and this can be attractive to some people. There is no harm in this approach, which can prompt you to make a critical review of your life, look at unresolved emotional
issues, or reassess choices that are making you unhappy.
But not all illness, or worsening symptoms, can be explained by emotional causes, and the rigid belief that every illness must have a meaning can be damaging. It easily
degenerates into the wholesale psychologisation of illness, the kind of blame-the-victim mentality which can attribute hayfever to ‘Emotional congestion; fear of the calendar; a
belief in persecution; guilt’ and asthma in babies to ‘Fear of life; not wanting to be here’. Both these diagnoses are taken from the best-selling You
can Heal your Life by Louise Hay, which is very influential among some alternative therapists. This compulsive psychologisation of illness can be profoundly damaging, and if
your complementary therapist is preoccupied by ideas of this kind, you could find yourself on a very long guilt trip indeed.
Apart from the psychological aspects of alternative medicine, there is the question of whether it actually works in a practical sense - whether it provides more than just
emotional support and placebo effect (the benefit that comes from any treatment which you believe in). This is always the central question for scientific medicine in relation to
its own treatments,
and conventional doctors naturally apply the same criteria to alternative medicine. Most of this chapter is concerned with trying to answer that question.
Unfortunately, there are so many different kinds of alternative therapy available today that it is impossible to cover all of them in this book. To complicate matters further,
many complementary therapists now practise two or more different techniques, mixing them to
produce their own unique cocktail of diagnosis and treatment. This eclectic approach can span a remarkable range - you may find a therapist doing distinctly whacky stuff such as
iridology (looking at the eye to diagnose all illness - it has been tested and definitely doesn’t work), combined with something perfectly rational such as an elimination diet.
(The elimination diet might be presented as a ‘detox diet’, but it is actually being used to detect food intolerances.)
With new forms of therapy springing up all over the place, a healthy scepticism is a distinct asset for the consumer. Be sceptical about any diagnostic test or treatment that is
only being practised by one person in the country, or in the world - when doctors hit on something that works, they want other doctors to try it out. World exclusives in
medicine are usually suspect.
Avoid any practitioner who tells you to stop using your drugs without your doctor’s consent. Likewise, avoid those with a messianic gleam in their eye, an evident disregard for
logic or reasonable discussion, or an amazing cure that fixes everything from acne to AIDS. Very few of those who sell bogus cures and phoney diagnostic tests are complete
rogues. Most are nice people who are quite genuinely convinced that they have indeed found the answer to people’s problems. The powers of placebo effect (see p. 233) can sustain
such a conviction for a very long time.
