Posts Tagged ‘complementary therapists’

Homeopathy
`We believe that a serious effort to research homeopathy is clearly warranted despite its implausibility.’ That was the conclusion of a group of German and American scientific

researchers who, in 1997, looked at every study of homeopathy they could find. This prestigious trans-Atlantic team carefully assessed the scientific validity of each study, and

then considered the data from studies that were of reasonably good quality.
This kind of study, in which all the available research data on a topic are combined, is called a meta-analysis. There were 119 research studies which were good enough to be

included in this meta-analysis and, taken together, these studies suggested that homeopathy does indeed have some real effects. In other words, it produces significantly more

benefits than simple placebo effect – the psychosomatic improvement which tends to occur with any treatment, even a dummy pill (see p. 233).
Some of the most convincing scientific studies included in the meta-analysis were those relating to homeopathic remedies for allergic conditions (see p. 217). But what exactly

does this mean for allergy sufferers? Is homeopathy a treatment that is worth a try? Unfortunately, it is difficult to say.
Firstly, the evidence from the homeopathy meta-analysis is far from overwhelming, as the researchers themselves point out. The observed improvements – the overall differences

between the placebo and the homeopathic remedy – are not huge. Secondly, even if there are some homeopathic treatments that have real effects, it does not mean that every kind

of homeopathic treatment works. Homeopathy is a very broad field, with a multitude of different approaches. The types of homeopathy that have been tested, and appear to help,

may bear little or no relation to the homeopathic remedies that are generally available (see p. 217).
`Let like cure like’
The central idea in homeopathy – often known as the principle of similars – is that a substance which causes a particular set of symptoms can also, if handled in the right way,

cure symptoms of
a similar kind. In the words of Samuel Hahnemann, the German doctor who invented homeopathy at the beginning of the 19th century, ‘Let like cure like.’
The natural substances that form the basis for homeopathic remedies are mostly derived from toxic plants or minerals. (Sometimes extracts from diseased tissue – called nosodes –

are used instead, but this is a relatively recent development. So is the use of allergen extracts, such as pollen, described on p. 217.) Hahnemann himself began with the

standard drugs of his own day, such as belladonna and arsenic compounds. His innovation was to use them in very much smaller doses than his fellow physicians, and to apply them

to entirely different diseases.
Hahnemann worked by first discovering what the effects of the drugs were, when taken by a healthy person (he experimented on himself and his family for this). Then he tried to

match the symptom pattern produced by the drug with the symptoms of a particular disease. For example, he observed that belladonna produces hallucinations and a hot, dry skin –

symptoms that were also seen in children with scarlet fever. He claimed that, by giving belladonna in very small doses, much less than was normally used, he could stimulate the

body to heal itself of scarlet fever.
Hahnemann, unlike his medical contemporaries, also advocated a good diet, fresh air and exercise. And he was heartily opposed to the conventional medicine of his day, a brutal

business that involved a great deal of blood-letting and large doses of very toxic medicines. Considering how useless, and indeed dangerous, the orthodox medicine of the time

frequently was, Hahnemann’s successes were not really surprising.Less is more’
Homeopathy today is the ultimate version of the ‘less is more’ philosophy. A homeopathic remedy is prepared by taking the basic ingredient, dissolving it in water, and then

diluting that solution over and over again. Imagine pouring a bottle of wine into the Pacific Ocean, and you have a rough idea of how dilute homeopathic remedies are. Making

extreme dilutions was an idea introduced by some of Hahnemann’s followers, after his death.
Dilution is only part of the story, however. With each dilution, homeopaths apply a special shaking-and-tapping technique known as percussing. This was originally done by hand,

but now is often done mechanically. Homeopaths believe that percussing makes the active substance more powerful, despite the dilution. The term used by homeopaths is potency,

and a homeopathic remedy of the highest potency is the one that has been most thorDughly diluted and percussed.
In fact, a simple calculation, using the basic laws of physics, shows that there is nothing there at all but water – many homeo pathic remedies are watered down so thoroughly

that not one Jingle molecule of the active substance is likely to remain. It is  which leads medical researchers to use words such as ,nplausibility’ (see p. 216) when talking

about homeopathy.
Nhat homeopaths do
\ homeopath starts by considering all your symptoms (not just allergies, but any other symptoms as well) and various other characteristics that conventional doctors do not

usually consider, including physical appearance and psychological traits. The homeopath then chooses a substance which, if taken at full strength, would produce a comparable set

of symptoms and characteristics. This approach is called classical homeopathy.
In addition, homeopaths often give advice on diet, sleep, exercise and allergen avoidance. As in the early days of homeopathy, this may be the most important part of the

treatment.
Like many other complementary therapists, homeopaths will listen if you need to talk about personal problems and emotional difficulties, and will offer reassurance or advice.

This can be valuable, though not everyone would agree that a homeopath is the best source for such help. There are two distinct traditions within homeopathy – a scientifically

inclined tradition (represented today by experiments with homeopathic immunotherapy – see right) and a highly metaphysical tradition. Among the many ideas floating about within

the metaphysical tradition is the notion that all illness is a result of psychological or moral failings. Attitudes of this kind, which are quite common among complementary

therapists, can be very damaging (see p. 209).
Sometimes homeopaths recommend avoiding certain foods, on the assumption that the patient suffers from food intolerance, though they rarely use an elimination diet (see p. 194),

the only way to achieve accurate diagnosis.
In addition to all this, some homeopaths also give herbal remedies where they think it will help. This approach is called complex homeopathy.
A much more recent development within homeopathy is homeopathic immunotherapy or HIT, which uses an extreme dilution of an allergen (such as pollen or dust mite) to treat people

who are allergic to that substance. While homeopathic immunotherapy was inspired by conventional immunotherapy, the relationship between the two is a very distant one indeed.

The extensive dilution process means that the liquid used for homeopathic immunotherapy is unlikely to contain even one molecule of the allergen. This puts it in a completely

separate realm from conventional immunotherapy, where the presence of the allergen, and the steadily increasing dose with successive injections, is what produces the beneficial

effect (see p. 166).
Does it work for allergy?
Two scientific trials suggest that HIT makes a difference, albeit a small one, for hayfever and pollen asthma. In the meta-analysis described on p. 216, one of these trials was

given a good rating for scientific reliability, and the other was considered fairly good.
Another type of homeopathic treatment that appeared to be effective for patients with allergic asthma was one using a nosode – an extract of the asthmatic airway itself. A small

sample of the airway was taken from each asthmatic patient, diluted and per-cussed, then given to the patient as a treatment. It seemed to work, and the scientific rating of

this trial was very high.
The third homeopathic treatment that appeared to have an effect in valid scientific studies was Galphimia, used for symptoms in the eye caused by pollen allergy.
If you go to a local homeopath, it is very unlikely that you will be given either of the first two treatments – these are only used experimentally, in large research centres.
The Galphimia treatment might be available from a local homeopath, but it will not necessarily be in the same form as the treatment used in the scientific trial.
Note that all the studies described above are trials with a positive outcome. If you are trying to assess homeopathy overall, you should also consider the many trials that found

no effect. For example, a very careful study of homeopathy for children with asthma, carried out at the University of Exeter and published in 2003, found no benefit from

individualised homeopathy treatment.

Hayfever in Allergy

Foxtall grasses release their pollen - a potential source of hayfever symptoms.
`I gradually recognised that it was not an ordinary cold and that the symptoms were much worse on the

golf course or even during a nice day rowing on Loch Lomond.’ Dr John Morrison Smith, then a medical

student, began suffering from hayfever in the late 1930s. ‘At first I did not know what I had, and

neither did any other doctor I encountered in the next two or three years…’
All the classical allergic diseases (see box on p. 11) seem to be increasing, but none has exploded

quite so dramatically as hayfever. The physicians of Ancient Greece described asthma and food allergy,

and the Romans recorded allergy to horses, but there were no reports of hayfever. The only account –

and it is a doubtful one – comes from Persia in AD 925. Two hundred years ago, hayfever was unknown –

and careful research by medical historians has shown that this was not a case of it simply being

ignored, or misinterpreted as a cold.
The first case was reported in 1819, but even in the 1930s it was so rare that a succession of Scottish

doctors and medical students were baffled by Dr Morrison Smith’s symptoms. Today everyone knows what

hayfever is, since huge numbers of people sneeze and snuffle their way through the pollen season. There

are no certain explanations for this meteoric rise, but greater hygiene (21) may be an important

factor.
Symptoms of hayfever
The common symptoms of hayfever are well known:
• itchiness of the nose, mouth, throat and eyes – often the first sign
• a streaming and/or blocked nose
• frequent sneezing
• red, watery eyes (very rarely, hayfever affects the eyes only, with no symptoms in the nose).
Less commonly, there may be:
• dryness of the throat if the nasal blockage results in constant breathing through the mouth
• no sense of smell due to a blocked nose (but nasal polyps can also cause this – 30)
• a feverish sweaty feeling (but the body temperature is usually normal)
• swelling and inflammation of the eyelids, sometimes leading to blistering and ulceration: there

is a risk of blindness if this is not treated promptly
• recurrent sinusitis (30)
• earache, itching or a stuffy feeling in the ears, or ‘glue ear’ (29)
Some sufferers also experience:
• Oral Allergy Syndrome (an itchy tingling mouth) from certain fruits, nuts and vegetables (see

box on p. 63)
• a skin rash from pollen falling on the skin, direct contact with the leaves of the offending

plants, or with droplets of moisture from them – as when mowing a lawn or using a strimmer. If the skin

is cut or grazed, anaphylaxis can (rarely) result from direct contact with the plant (see pp. 58-9).
Even more rarely there can be:
• stomach upsets or even colitis (inflammation of the bowel) possibly due to pollen swallowed

with food or in the saliva
• irritation in the vagina
• migraine
• kidney inflammation (nephritis), leading to puffiness of the face and hands, and possibly other

symptoms
• joint pains.
The last two are probably caused by pollen allergens bound to their antibodies and carried in the blood

(13).
Diagnosis
The standard diagnostic tool here is the skin-prick test (see lo, 91). In diagnosing hayfever there are

three separate questions:
1 Is it actually hayfever?
2 Which pollen or pollens are responsible?
3 Are allergens other than pollen also involved?
Don’t be surprised if none of these questions is asked. In most countries, if you have hayfever-like

symptoms during the pollen season (i.e. when most hayfever sufferers have symptoms), the doctor will

conclude that you have hayfever - and that will be the end of that.
If hayfever seems plausible to you, and you respond to drug treatment, or manage well on pollen

avoidance (126), then -here is probably no reason to go further. Should you want a more thorough

investigation, you will need to be persistent. These are good reasons for requesting a full diagnosis:
• Your symptoms are worse in the pollen season, but they never really go away, suggesting that

you may be allergic to year-round allergens, such as house-dust mite or moulds, as well. It is worth

knowing which ones, so that you can avoid them. If you live in an area that is always warm (such as

California or Southern Australia) it may be that your culprit pollen is in the air all year round -

even so, knowing which pollen it is can help with avoidance. Around the Mediterranean, the pollen from

cypresses can keep hayfever going through the winter (or cause symptoms in winter only).
• Your symptoms are sometimes worse when they should be better, and vice versa. If you are

consistently worse indoors with the windows closed this could indicate that a seasonal indoor allergen

is the culprit - mould spores or cockroach perhaps (cockroach is often seasonal in regions with cold

winters - 118).
• Your symptoms begin before the pollen season begins, or go on long afterwards. Or the severity

of your symptoms does not match the daily pollen count for your suspect pollen. In Britain, the mould

Cladosporium herbarum produces spores in June, roughly coinciding with the grass-pollen season. Allergy

to this mould can easily be mistaken for grass-pollen allergy. You would need skin-prick tests for both

Cladosporium and grasses.
• You are much worse near home than elsewhere. It could just be a garden plant or tree. As one

California resident observed, ‘The worst offender was an olive tree on our front lawn. It’s been

removed.’
• You want to plan holidays free from the culprit pollen.
Moving house - especially to a region with different vegetation
- can be a spur to finding out exactly what your allergens are. If you are going for a full diagnosis

make sure it is done correctly. Don’t accept testing with ‘mixed tree and shrub pollens’ for example,

or ‘weed pollens’. The result tells you very little. Ask for tests with specific pollens.
Treatment
Too many people allow hayfever to spoil the summer months because they are anxious about taking drugs,

or feel that it is nobler to suffer. This book is not in any way complacent about the dangers from

drugs (see Chapter 5), but when it comes to hayfever there really is very little cause for concern. The

risks with drugs used for hayfever are absolutely minimal, and it is such a waste to miss out on the

best time of year.
Most hayfever responds very well to treatment with antihistamines (138). If they make you sleepy,

persist for a while, because this side effect often wears off - or ask for one of the new non-sedating

forms. The sleepiness is annoying, but it is only a minor side effect, and not an indication of the

drug causing any serious harm.
Cromoglycate drops (for the eyes or nose) do not work for everyone, but if they work for you, go for

them. These are absolutely the safest of the anti-allergy drugs. Steroid drops for the nose (144) are

also recommended. The dose of steroid involved is small, and very little gets into the bloodstream, so

there is no risk of serious side effects. If you suffer stinging, burning or dryness, it might be due

to preservatives in the drops, not the drug itself (see box on p. 33). Steroid drops for the eyes

should be used cautiously (144). Don’t use over-the-counter decongestant drops for more than three days

(29).
Immunotherapy is standard treatment for hayfever in many countries, but in Britain you will have a

struggle to get it (see pp. 164-8). Some hayfever sufferers feel they do well with homeopathy (215) or

acupuncture (214).
Pollen asthma
Some people with hayfever also have pollen asthma. Their asthma is worse in the pollen season but it

usually persists all year round (either because there are other allergens or irritants involved, or

just because the inflammation of the airways is self-perpetuating) whereas hayfever itself clears up.

Treating the hayfever fully with antihistamines helps considerably with the asthma symptoms.

 

In medical terms, this article covers a lot of ground.
First there are the classical allergic diseases
 such as hayfever and immediate food allergy, which are caused by the allergy

antibody, IgE .
Then there is non-IgE immune sensitivity, a category which includes a number of quite different

diseases, caused in a great variety of ways. They also vary in severity - there are serious lifelong

problems such as coeliac disease and minor short-lived problems such as contact dermatitis from garden

plants.
Finally the chapter looks at diseases where the immune system seems not to be involved, or

plays only a minor role: the intolerance reactions to food and synthetic chemicals. These are diverse

and rather mysterious in origin. They would not be described as ‘allergies’ by most doctors, though

they often are by complementary therapists (6).
These categories are not nearly as neat and tidy as they might sound. Some problems refuse to fit

anywhere, such as atopic eczema caused by food. A percentage of children with this problem have IgE to

the food concerned, while others do not - so where does it belong?
If you were expecting an answer to that question, you will be disappointed. Nor, quite often, are there

any certain and honest answers to questions such as ‘Has my baby really got asthma?’ or ‘Can you be

sure it’s irritable bowel syndrome?’ There are no answers to
such questions because most diseases do not exist in neat compartments, and the words we use to

describe them really denote rather abstract concepts.
This does not mean that the terms used to describe diseases are invalid - doctors and medical

researchers invent them to try to make sense of a complex, confusing and largely foggy reality. They

also argue over them, split them, unite them and redefine them. There is a constant desire to get the

medical picture of that foggy reality more precise and accurate (although medical politics gets

involved too - 7 -which is unfortunate).
Over time, thanks to huge amounts of research effort, things gradually get clearer. You’ll no longer

hear a doctor talk about ‘rheumatism’ or ‘arthritis’, because it was long since realised that these

categories were useless - they included a number of diverse diseases. And while doctors might say ‘food

poisoning’ or ‘heart attack’ or ’skin cancer’ to a patient, they use much narrower and more precise

terms when talking among themselves, and when ordering tests or prescribing treatment. Each of these

categories has been split into several well-defined sub-categories.
Ideally, this process of splitting continues until each disease category has a set of well-defined

symptoms (this set is known as a syndrome), plus a few simple and definitive diagnostic tests. This

will probably depend on the cause of the disease (the mechanism in medical jargon) being clearly

understood. Once the mechanism is clear, then a disease category is a truly satisfactory tool for

diagnosis and treatment.
Of the disease categories mentioned in this book only a few, such as coeliac disease and hayfever, have

reached that happy state. The majority are still somewhat arbitrary and debatable.
Some disease terms describe a set of symptoms with no clear underlying cause, for example, ‘irritable

bowel syndrome’. Others describe a well-defined response by the body, that can be caused in many

different ways - an endpoint that can be reached by various routes. This is true of ‘asthma’ or

‘urticaria’.
A third type describes a much less well-defined cluster of symptoms. Idiopathic food intolerance,

chemical intolerance and yeast overgrowth all come into this category. A few doctors don’t even see

some of these clusters as real diseases because the symptoms involved are so vague and so widely

encountered. Some of the arguments used to dismiss idiopathic food intolerance are dissected on pp.

74-7. A key point made against these diseases is that the symptoms they produce are non-specific -

common symptoms such as headache, fatigue and diarrhoea, which can arise in a great variety of ways.

Ever since Pasteur and the germ theory, medicine has been based on the idea of each disease having

specific symptoms and specific causes, and it has roared ahead on the basis of this assumption. This is

the prevailing paradigm of modern medicine, and like all
paradigms it blinds people to facts that don’t fit. Evidence is accumulating that there are diseases

which have multiple, non-specific and variable symptoms. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS - see box on p.

85) is one of these, and its recent transformation from a doubtful diagnosis to a reputable disease

recognised by conventional medicine suggests that the paradigm might be starting to crack.
To sum up, the business of identifying and naming diseases is a complex and uncertain process, in which

the concept of most diseases is only ever that - a concept, subject to change and refinement. This does

not make it worthless - quite the opposite. These concepts are the best we can do at the present time,

and accurate diagnosis is the key to getting the best treatment available now.
As regards both diagnosis and treatment, this book covers a very wide spectrum of medical opinion, from

the entirely orthodox to the frankly whacky. I have tried to give an objective view of these different

opinions and approaches, using the evidence currently available, in the hope that it will help readers

to improve their health while wasting as little as possible of their time or money. In using this

information, you should always try to work closely with your doctor (96), respecting the depth and

breadth of knowledge that conventional medicine has to offer.

 

What is Allergy?
Words matter, particularly in medicine. Using the same words to mean different things is a major difficulty for patients when discussing allergies with a doctor. Unfortunately, few patients realise this, and doctors are frequently too busy to explain what they themselves mean. The result can be a great deal of misunderstanding, confusion and mutual irritation.
Unclear meanings can also create problems if you start exploring other treatment options. The word `allergy’ is like one of those cats that eat at six different houses in the neighbourhood: everyone feels as if they own it exclusively. A conventional allergist will understand one thing by ‘allergy’, while a more unorthodox doctor may have a broader definition, and a herbalist or naturopath may be using the word in a completely different way again.
This is an absolute jungle for the medically unqualified, and it can be an expensive jungle if you are looking around for an answer to your health problems. With the help of this book, you should be able to make sense of all this, and understand the seemingly contradictory advice on offer.
The word allergy was coined in 1906 when it was used to mean altered reactivity - any change in the way the body responds to the environment, whether immunity to a disease already encountered, or a sudden fit of sneezing from pollen. Immunity to disease was soon shunted off into a separate category
altogether, leaving allergy with a narrower meaning:
any adverse reaction to substances that are normally harmless - definition 1. In this book, that meaning is covered by the word sensitivity.
One group of American doctors, who later became known as clinical ecologists, stuck with this definition. Their broad view of allergy is still found among some other doctors today, generally those whose approach to medicine is fairly unorthodox. It is a concept of allergy that is also shared by most practitioners of alternative medicine or complementary therapists.
The rift between the clinical ecologists and mainstream medicine came in the 1920s when the definition of allergy used by conventional doctors was narrowed further to mean reactions to harmless items where the immune system is definitely involved -definition 2. The term immune sensitivity is used in this book to convey that meaning.
In the 1960s, conventional allergists narrowed the definition of allergy again. It was an exciting time because the antibody known as IgE (sometimes called the allergy antibody - see box on p. 12) had just been discovered. The new, tighter meaning of allergy was
reactions to harmless items where IgE is involved -definition 3.
If asked to define allergy, most doctors would give the second of these definitions.
However, when they talk of ‘a tendency to allergy’, ‘allergy treatment’ or `the allergy epidemic’, doctors are generally using the third definition, and just mean IgE-mediated allergy. They may not be conscious of the fact that they are switching from one definition to another. This is not an ideal situation but, generally speaking, it does not create too many problems.
This book deals with ‘allergy’ in the very broadest sense of the word - all kinds of sensitivity. However -and this is purely for the purposes of clarity - where the word allergy is used in the text it always means IgE-mediated allergy (definition 3).
Other immune-mediated problems are called non-IgE immune sensitivity in this book.
Finally, any reaction where the immune system has no proven central role is called an intolerance. (As for other technical words, if you want to find the full definition, look in the index and turn to the page number shown in bold type.)
If you are reading widely on this topic, you may come across sensitivity used either according to definition 1 above, or as another name for intolerance. You may also encounter the word hypersensitivity. This is actually a precise medical term,
but be warned that some writers use ‘hypersensitivity’ very loosely to mean just ’sensitivity’ (definition 1).
Remember that medical politics and economics are powerful forces in all this debate over meanings. Words are quite often redefined by medical interest
groups (such as professional associations) with the clear intention of staking out territory and claiming sole access to medical truth. What is at stake, ultimately, is the right of different doctors to treat patients with certain conditions - and the right of patients to choose for themselves. To add to the longstanding battle over ‘allergy’, there are now rival claims about the meaning of intolerance (74) which have distinctly political overtones.
When you talk with doctors, using the most appropriate terms will help enormously. Talking to a mainstream doctor about ‘food allergy’ when the symptoms suggest food intolerance, for example, is very likely to cause annoyance. This is not unreasonable because IgE-mediated food allergy, unlike food intolerance, is a disease that can very suddenly kill an otherwise healthy person. Using the term `food allergy’ for a headache or mild bowel symptoms is, doctors feel, trivialising a potentially fatal condition.
The important thing is to get along well and communicate clearly with doctors, not to get into a battle about what words mean (in that sense, words don’t matter - they are just labels). Avoid using the word ‘allergy’ unless you are sure it fits in with your doctor’s perception of what is wrong. Just describing how you react - the actual symptoms - is usually the best approach. If you need a general word for your condition, ’sensitive’ is usually a much more diplomatic choice than ‘allergic’.