Posts Tagged ‘dry skin’

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.

Atopic eczema
A Greek word meaning ‘to boil over’ or ‘to erupt’ is the source of the medical term ‘eczema’. It refers, of course, to the way in which the skin erupts into a rash, but it could equally well describe the eruption of controversy around this disease. No other allergic disease is quite such a cauldron of dissent - indeed, even the question of whether it is an allergic disease remains unresolved. These controversies directly affect the treatment of atopic eczema, so it is useful to understand them if you or your child have eczema.
The disagreement begins with the question of what causes atopic eczema.
Let’s start with the one point that everyone agrees on: dry skin plays a fundamental role. Those with atopic eczema have dry skin, not just in the eczematous areas, but in other parts as well, sometimes all over the body. The skin cells are less efficient than normal skin cells at retaining water.
Everyone would also agree that there is inflammation of the skin – a reaction that is produced by the immune system. But when it comes to the question of what starts off the inflammation there are huge differences of opinion among specialists treating atopic eczema – these specialists include dermatologists, allergists and paediatricians.
Since people with atopic eczema are atopic (allergy-prone), and most have
huge amounts of the allergy antibody, IgE, going round in their blood, it might
seem plausible that an allergic reaction to some external item kicks off the
inflammation. And when skin-prick tests (see p. 91) to common allergens such
as house-dust mite are tried, there are usually a large number of positive results.
But many of these turn out to be false positives – when tested more directly,
the allergen concerned does not actually play a part in causing the skin symptoms.
This has led some specialists working with eczema, mainly dermatologists, to
What the words mean
Eczema is not a disease in itself. The word refers to a certain type of reddish rash — a rash which can be caused in a variety of ways. The type of eczema that affects people of an allergic disposition (atopics), is called either atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis.
The word dermatitis just means inflammation of the skin. Most doctors consider it to be synonymous with eczema, but some give it a slightly broader meaning.
believe that allergic reactions play little part in either initiating or perpetuating atopic eczema. In their view, the basic cause of atopic eczema is dry skin and a generally overwrought immune system, not specific allergic reactions.
To some of these doctors, positive skin-prick tests are all false positives in atopic eczema – that is, irrelevant to the disease process. A positive skin-test result, in their opinion, simply indicates that the skin of atopic eczema sufferers is in a highly sensitive state, not that the allergen concerned plays any causative role.
Allergists tend to take a different view of this, as you might expect. And recent research shows that they are correct – allergens often do play a significant part in provoking atopic eczema.
Research using direct challenge tests (see p. 90) has identified some of the things that could provoke such sensitivity reactions:
• house-dust mites, pollen or moulds
• cats, dogs, rabbits and other furry pets
• cow’s milk or other food – a prime suspect in babies and young children (see p. 68). The response to food is usually delayed, occurring some hours after the item is consumed.
With mite, pollen and pet allergens, the eczema symptoms can be provoked either by allergens falling on the skin, or by direct contact (e.g. mite allergens in the bed, skin contact with pets, or lying on grass for those with grass-pollen allergy).
The rash tends to occur on skin not covered by clothes, as you would expect. But it can sometimes occur only on particular exposed areas – usually the most sensitive areas of skin. For example, there are people who react to house-dust mite but have eczema on the eyelids only.
Additionally, experiments show that even when an airborne allergen is only inhaled it can sometimes provoke eczema symptoms. The allergen probably reaches the skin in the bloodstream. (Alternatively, it might provoke an immune reaction in the airways which generates chemical messages of the kind that promote inflammation – these then reach the skin in the blood.) This means that the skin reaction could occur anywhere on the body, not just on exposed skin.
In the case of food, the molecules of food that cause the trouble are probably being absorbed from the stomach without being completely broken down. They then reach the skin via the blood to provoke a reaction there. (Or, again, it could be an inflammatory messenger chemical travelling from the gut to the skin in the blood.)
When food gets directly onto the skin – which it frequently does with small children, of course – it can provoke a reaction that way too. This may be a slow eczema-causing reaction, or a much faster reaction known as contact urticaria (see pp. 50-51). Reacting to food with contact urticaria is quite common in children with atopic eczema – but the same food doesn’t necessarily provoke atopic eczema when it is eaten. (However, eating these foods can sometimes trigger anaphylaxis – see pp. 58-9. They should therefore be treated with great caution.)
At the same time as all this research – which shows for sure that allergens play a part in atopic eczema – others have been asking what actually happens when skin reacts to an allergen. Their studies have turned the accepted understanding of allergies upside-down. They show that when something like egg or pollen provokes atopic eczema, what is occurring isn’t necessarily an allergic reaction of the usual sort, with IgE and mast cells (see
box on p.12). Instead, other immune cells are causing the trouble. Sometimes IgE is involved, but without mast cells. Sometimes neither is involved. These revolutionary discoveries are described in more detail on pp. 18-19. One interesting realisation from this research is that in different eczema sufferers, different immune reactions may be producing the rash – even if they are reacting to the same allergen! This helps to explain why the results of skin tests are so inconsistent and puzzling.
The wandering rash
For a baby with atopic eczema, the face, and especially the cheeks, are commonly affected, but there may be a rash all over the legs, the backs of the arms, and the back. As the months go by, the rash settles on the lower legs, and spreads to the fold of the elbow, and then the fold at the back of the knees — by about three years of age, this flexure eczema is the main problem for most children.
In adults, eczema is often found in quite restricted areas, such as the hands, scalp, lips, eyelids or chest. It may be located around the nipples — a sensitive spot where rubbing by clothing is enough to initiate a rash.
Atopic eczema is always in a process of change, and different parts of the body may display different stages of the rash:
• The rash is red and usually dry at first, and there may be not a great deal to see. In this early stage the visible signs may be minimal, while the itchiness can be colossal. Sometimes there is oozing of clear fluid.
• Occasionally the first phase is more marked, with dense patches of small red bumps or tiny blisters. On the hands, these may merge to form larger blisters.
• Infections tend to change the appearance of the rash (see p. 44).
• With time the skin becomes thicker, paler and scaly. It may form leathery patches (called lichenification), especially if there is habitual scratching or rubbing. This is chronic eczema.
• When the eczema clears, there may be an area of skin that is lighter in colour, or darker, than the surrounding skin.
The next step
Whatever causes atopic eczema, it provokes the most horrendous itching, as every eczema sufferer knows. The itch cries out to be scratched, and scratching is the major cause of the visible rash. If left untouched, the skin does not erupt into eczema, although it may well turn red, and there are still distinct changes in the skin that can be seen with a microscope.
Once eczema has erupted, the skin is no longer an intact protective layer that neatly separates ‘in-here’ from ‘out-there’. The skin becomes more permeable and loses its own natural moisture far more readily, so the dryness gets worse. At the same time allergens and irritants penetrate far more easily, causing yet more inflammation.
Something else compounds the damage: once atopic eczema is established, the immune system starts making IgE antibodies to the body’s own proteins, especially those found in skin cells. This helps explain why atopic eczema can become so severe and so entrenched.
Infections — another vicious circle
When eczema erupts and the skin barrier is breached, infections often become a problem. A regular source of trouble is the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, a cause of the infection impetigo. This microbe invades eczematous skin far more readily than healthy skin, causing a prolific ooze with golden-yellow crusting.
Staphylococcus aureus produces a toxin known as a ’super-antigen’ which revs up the immune system to even more furious effort. This effort does not, unfortunately, oust the bacteria, but it does make the skin inflammation even worse. To add to their woes, many who are afflicted with atopic eczema start making IgE antibodies against Staphylococcus aureus toxins.
Infection with fungi (yeasts and moulds) is also a problem in atopic eczema (see p. 49), and there may be sensitivity reactions to these fungi.
The herpes virus, responsible for causing cold sores, can also invade eczematous skin, though this is much rarer. It worsens the eczema and produces fever and general weakness. There may also be flocks of small red bumps, each with a tiny dimple or blister at the centre. Any symptoms of this kind indicate that the patient needs urgent treatment.
Irritants and stress
People with atopic eczema are far more susceptible to everyday irritants such as wool and rough synthetic fabrics, soap, and traces of detergent left behind in clothes. Chlorinated water, either in swimming pools or from the tap, can also aggravate the skin, and even ‘hard’ water (found in areas with chalk or limestone bedrock) may be a factor.
Some air pollutants may play a part in atopic eczema. Researchers in Germany have found that children living close to busy trunk roads, or in homes with a gas cooker and no extraction hood (see pp. 128-9), were more likely to develop eczema. Formaldehyde fumes, often found in modern houses (see p. 129), are sometimes a factor when eczema affects the face and hands.

Allergies and
inheritance
WHY IT RUNS IN
FAMILIES
`My father had asthma as a child, and his sister had it too. In fact she died from it. My mother has never had any allergies, but one of her brothers had terrible hayfever all his life. Out of us four, only my brother Peter is completely allergy-free. I had bad eczema when I was small, as did my sister. So when our son developed eczema, and then asthma, and an allergy to house-dust mite which made his nose run all the time, I wasn’t entirely surprised.’ What Janet’ is describing is a good example of an atopic family — one where classical allergies, of one kind or another, affect several family members. The members of such a family are called atopics.
Atopics have an underlying tendency to allergy which, with luck, may never be expressed. But if they are unlucky, the tendency will lead to allergies, which can settle on the skin (atopic eczema), the nose (hayfever or perennial allergic rhinitis), the airways (asthma) or the mouth and digestive tract (food allergy). These diseases, which recur down the generations in atopic families like Janey’s, are known as the classical allergic diseases.
The atopic tendency is coded into our DNA –in the genes that are passed from parent to child. There are also other genes that make asthma more likely to develop, and these can work in concert with the allergy-promoting genes to produce asthma in a child. And there are probably genes for dry skin, which contribute to atopic eczema.
Genes alone are not enough, however. Environment (which means, in medical terms, everything external that affects an individual,
including diseases, diet, air, allergens such as dust mite or pollen, and even medical treatment) also plays a large part in promoting allergic reactions. In other words, genes and the external world interact to produce allergic disease. What happens in the months and years immediately after birth seems to be a crucial element.
This helps to explain why allergies are on the increase even though we are, genetically speaking, not so different from our grandparents or great-grandparents. It is also a cause for optimism, since it means we can largely reverse the trend in coming generations. All we have to do is adjust the environment, especially for newborns and young children. Luckily, most of the problem factors are ones over which we have personal control, such as smoking by parents, diet, infant feeding, hygiene (less is better), antibiotic treatment, house design and furnishings Generally speaking, inherited traits such as height or skin colour are governed, not by a single gene with a large effect, but by a great many genes each with a small effect. This is called multi-gene inheritance. The many small effects add up to produce the final outcome. Atopy is probably inherited in a similar way, which would explain why some people have a very strong tendency to allergies (they have lots of the wrong genes) while other people have only a mild tendency (they have just a few).
Current estimates hold that at least twenty different genes are involved in determining atopy. This means that no two atopic individuals are going to be quite the same, because each will have a different combination of the possible variants on these twenty genes. In the words of Dr Vincent Beltrani, of Columbia University, New York, ‘it is not surprising that, as a result of all the possible genetic combinations and permutations, each atopic individual possesses a unique “allergic fingerprint” and that not all atopic individuals have identical findings’.
Multi-gene inheritance has another important effect, in terms of predicting who will develop allergies. The genetic risks from the two parents add up, so if both parents have allergies themselves or come from atopic families, the risks of the child developing allergies are much higher than if only one parent is atopic. The actual figures are uncertain because the results vary considerably from one study to another. If one parent is atopic, the risk can range from 20% to 58%, whereas if both parents are atopic, the risk ranges from 50% to 80% or even more.
Note that these are just risks: there are no certainties here because the actual mix of genes that a child receives is a selection – half of the mother’s genes and half of the father’s. There’s no saying which half a child gets, because this is a random selection process, similar to the shuffling and dealing of playing cards. Luck plays a big part.
Naturally enough, both atopic parents and their doctors have asked whether there is any test that could assess the number of pro-allergy genes in a newborn and so predict the chances of allergy developing in particular children. That would allow more stringent anti-allergy measures  to be taken for the children most at risk.
Various tests have been tried, and one does work, to a limited extent. It involves measuring the level of the allergy antibody, IgE, in a blood sample taken from the umbilical cord just after birth. Very high levels of IgE give some indication of the chances of allergies developing later, but the accuracy of the prediction is, unfortunately, not that good when the test is carried out in atopic families. The test doesn’t reveal much more than is already known – that the baby has atopic parents.
This same test, when carried out on newborns who are not from atopic families, sometimes gives a much more useful and accurate result. In one study, 75% of those babies with high levels of cord-blood IgE developed allergies a few years later, compared to only 6% of those with low levels. Unfortunately, the test does not always give such impressive results, and some disappointing studies have led doctors to conclude that it is not worthwhile as a standard test for all newborns.
This finding of high IgE in children from non-atopic families highlights an important point: pro-allergy genes are everywhere. A lot of healthy people have them, but at levels which do not cause any symptoms – yet. This explains why, with the allergy epidemic, many new allergy sufferers are coming from families never affected by allergy before. As our lifestyle becomes more pro-allergy, a baby needs fewer of the pro-allergy genes to grow into an allergic individual.
Other forms of sensitivity
The multi-gene inheritance of classical allergy is very different from the inheritance of diseases such as primary lactase deficiency  where there is a single gene that is at fault. Generally, speaking, all metabolic abnormalities are inherited in this straightforward way, so they are an all-or-nothing affair: one child in the family gets the defective gene while another does not. No environmental triggers are needed to activate the defect.
In the case of food intolerance, if minor metabolic abnormalities play a part, as they may do for some sufferers, then there could be inheritance of the defect, but this will not necessarily lead to symptoms unless other intolerance-promoting factors (such as disturbed gut flora) are present. Those who suffer from both food intolerance and chemical intolerance (also called chemical sensitivity) are the most likely to have metabolic abnormalities, and it is interesting that such problems do sometimes affect several members of the same family. (Doctors who are sceptical about such diseases will dismiss this as simply ‘learned illness behaviour’ among family members, a theory that is difficult to test without a lot of expensive research.)
Inheritance plays a part in several other forms of sensitivity. It is very important, for example, in coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis , which both stem from the same genetic feature. They are only expressed when wheat is eaten but the timing is important here – introducing wheat into a child’s diet later, rather than during the first year of life, seems less likely to provoke the disease. When coeliac disease comes on in adult life, it suggests that some other environmental trigger was needed, in addition to eating wheat, to start off the disease process.