Asthma Controversial Treatments

Controversial Treatments

Today’s clinical trials must be approved by both the FDA and local hospital review boards. Unfortunately, these strict guidelines apply only to new drugs and medical procedures. Many older, outmoded controversial techniques in use have not been subjected to these stringent regulations.

Read And Learn More: Air Pollution Asthma Complications Treatment Guidelines

As a result, thousands of allergy and asthma sufferers are unknowingly victimized by unproven and controversial medical treatments. Most medical and surgical specialists rely heavily on hospital support to practice medicine.

• When a doctor is judged to be incompetent or engages in some questionable practice, the hospital can censure the offender or even suspend his or her hospital privileges. Regrettably, there are no such controls for specialists such as allergists, who can operate fully out of their private office or clinic.
• Likewise, most state medical societies and the FDA can- not regulate medical practice in a private office setting unless the doctor is employing an unapproved drug or technique.
• Thus, any doctor with a license to practice can become a self-styled allergist, making asthma and allergy sufferers easy targets for these unconventional treatments.
• The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) is an outstanding national, nonprofit, public foundation dedicated to helping the thirty-five million Americans with asthma and allergic diseases.
• AAFA, which has the support of the major allergy organizations, has published several consumer bulletins, including one entitled “The Potential for Quackery and Fraud and Ques- tionable Treatment in Asthma and Allergy Medicine.
• ” This AAFA bulletin defines quackery and fraud as follows: quackery is the promotion and use of any drug or treatment method that is based on claims that cannot be supported by well-designed clinical trials; fraud is the intention of any individual or organization to take payment for health.
• Care or products that have not been clearly shown to accomplish that which is being promoted. The AAFA bulletin carefully critiques the following questionable treatment practices.

Cytotoxic Testing

This method has many other names, including leukocyte testing and Bryan’s test. In cytotoxic testing, a sample of a patient’s blood, specifically the white blood cells, is mixed with antigens to determine if the patient is sensitive to a specific allergen.

• Cytotoxic testing is quite different from the RAST test, which is based on the presence of allergic IgE antibodies in an allergic patient. Outstanding scientists have shown that there is no difference between the reactions seen in the white blood cells of allergic and nonallergic patients.
• There is no real scientific basis for the cytotoxic test, which has been branded as ineffective by the FDA and Medicare Several states have initiated action to permanently ban cytotoxic testing. In 1987 the California State Court of Appeals ruled that it is an invalid diagnostic test.

Provocation And Neutralization Technique

This technique is supposed to “provoke” and thereby detect allergy. After the suspected allergen is injected into the arm, the doctor waits for symptoms to develop If no symptoms occur, progressively stronger doses of the extract are injected.

• When symptoms occur, a weaker dose is given to “neutralize” the reaction. If this dose is ineffective, stronger doses are injected until the full strength or a neutralizing dose is found Patients are then given bottles containing this allergen and told to place drops under their tongue at regular intervals.
• This is called the sublingual method. Several controlled studies have concluded that this technique is ineffective. The U.S. Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has stated that these two methods lack any “scientific evidence of effectiveness.
• ” The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology has noted that this sublingual technique of neutralization has “no plausible rationale or immunologic basis.”

Urine Autoinjection

The most bizarre of all these techniques involves injecting one’s own sterilized urine back into the body. This technique, called urine autoinjection, is based on the ridiculous.

• Assumptions that the body rejects allergens through its urine and that the injection of these waste products will build up protection against these substances.
• Unlike the other controversial techniques, this one has the potential to cause kidney damage, as a person using it is reinjecting his or her own waste products back into the body.

Clinical Ecologists

One group of doctors who employ these controversial methods call themselves clinical ecologists. They practice “clinical ecology,” which is a school of thought that ascribes numerous ailments and symptoms to the many foods and chemicals in our environment.

• Patients are told that they are “environmentally ill” or hypersensitive to foods, odors, chemicals, and pollutants in their environment. Clinical ecologists believe that diverse conditions such as arthritis, alcoholism, depression, headaches, and learning disabilities are due to ecological allergies.
• Ecologists feel that traditional treatments are too restrictive and impose strict diets and environmental controls that may require major alterations in lifestyle on their patients. Home and working environments may be altered to create “safe rooms” to avoid pollutants and common household chemicals.
• When avoidance is impossible, they utilize provocation and under-the-tongue techniques. The most incredible example of ecological treatment I ever saw was that of a six-month-old infant, whose mother was told.
• To put diluted drops of kerosene under her child’s tongue to control an allergy to automobile exhaust fumes. The concept that our environment is responsible for a multitude of health problems is appealing, but there is no scientific evidence to support the claims of clinical ecologists.
• The executive committee of the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology has stated, “An objective evaluation of the diagnostic and the therapeutic principles used to support the concept of clinical ecology indicates it is an unproven and experimental methodology.
• It is time-consuming and places severe restrictions on the individual’s lifestyle. Individuals who are being treated in this manner should be fully informed about its experimental nature.
• Advocates of this dogma should provide adequate clinical and immunologic studies supporting their concepts which meet accepted standards of scientific investigation.”

ENT Allergists

Another group of doctors who have recently entered the allergy arena is the otolaryngologist doctors or ENT (ear, nose, and throat) specialists. In the past decade, about 20 percent of ENT specialists have turned to allergy, calling themselves, “otolaryngolic allergists.

• ” Many critics attribute this new career goal to a decline in their volume of surgical patients. Few ENT residency programs now provide an in-depth look at allergies, and many ENT doctors branch out into allergies after they have started practice.
• They learn about allergies by attending brief courses that all too often tout controversial methods. These doctors then return to their offices and employ these ineffective and unproven methods on their allergic patients.
• While one may argue that responsible ENT doctors can learn the concepts of allergy testing and treatment for patients with hay fever, they have no training in the management of asthma, insect allergy, or complicated food or drug allergies.
• ENT allergists have not yet passed a board examination that certifies that they are experts in the specialty of allergy.

The Yeast Syndrome

Another school of allergy thought that can be labeled as controversial is yeast syndrome. This syndrome, popularized by Drs. C. Truss and William Crook, preaches that an overabundance of the yeast germ, Candida albicans, is responsible for many ailments, including fatigue, depression, hyperactivity, headache, skin problems, and many respiratory difficulties.

• These yeast doctors believe that high-carbohydrate diets, antibiotics, birth control pills, and other drugs cause an overgrowth of yeast, which weakens our immune system. A weakened immune system is more likely to react to foods, inhalants, odors, and the chemicals in our environment.
• The treatment programs are designed to decrease the growth of yeast with special diets, anti-yeast drugs such as Nystatin, and yeast injections or yeast drops placed under the tongue.
• In his book The Yeast Connection, Dr. Crook states that this is a very common disorder that can be verified only by a favorable response to treatment over a period of time.
• The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology has critiqued this technique and issued the following statement:
• “The concept is speculative and unproven…, the basic elements of this syndrome would apply to almost all sick patients at some time…, there is no published proof yeast is responsible for this syndrome…, and elements of the proposed treatment program are potentially dangerous.”

Carotid Body Resection

In 1961 two well-known Boston chest surgeons, Drs. Nakayama and Overholt reported that the removal of a small piece of nerve tissue (the carotid body) located near the carotid artery (the main artery in the neck) dramatically relieved asthma.

• Subsequently, many thousands of asthmatics underwent removal of this tissue in a procedure called carotid body resection, or glomectomy. Unfortunately, this once-popular surgical procedure was not subjected to well-controlled clinical studies.
• It took doctors a long time to realize that it was not effective in treating asthma. Both the American Thoracic Society and the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology have stated that glomectomy should be reserved for use in well-designed experimental clinical trials.
• Controversial treatments for asthma prevail in India in many forms. Swallowing a particular kind of fish or drinking water from a mountainous stream are only two of examples.
• It should be obvious from the preceding sections that asthma sufferers are easy marks for doctors who utilize these unproven and controversial techniques.
• While many pediatricians, internists, and family practitioners are capable of treating asthma, patients or families afflicted with complicated allergic disorders and asthma may require the expertise of an allergy or asthma specialist.
• They should seek competent care from those doctors who are board-qualified or board-certified in allergy or pulmonary medicine Such specialists complete their initial training in pediatrics or internal medicine and then spend another two years in either allergy and immunology or pulmonary medicine.
• Thus, savvy health consumers seeking expert asthma care should ask themselves one very important question:
• Is this asthma doctor fully trained (board-eligible or board-certified) in the specialty of either allergy and immunology or pulmonary medicine? Consumers should be able to locate a fully trained asthma specialist through a personal physician or local hospital.