Unproved and controversial methods and theories in allergy/immunology.

Unproved methods and controversial theories in the diagnosis and management of allergy/immunology are those that lack scientific credibility. Some definitions are provided for perspective, as in chronic medical conditions, frequently nonscientifically based treatments are developed that can have a profound psychological effect on the patients in the absence of objective physical benefit. Standard practice uses methods of diagnosis and treatment used by reputable physicians in a particular subspecialty or primary care practice, with the understanding that diagnosis and treatment options are consistent with established mechanisms of conditions or diseases. Conventional medicine (Western or allopathic medicine) is that which is practiced by the majority of physicians, osteopaths, psychologists, registered nurses, and physical therapists. Complementary medicine involves diverse practices or products that are used with the practice of conventional medicine, such as using acupuncture in addition to opioids for pain relief. Alternative medicine implies use of complementary practices in place of conventional medicine. Unproved and controversial methods and theories do not have supporting data, validation, or sufficient scientific scrutiny, and they should not be used in the practice of allergy/immunology. Some examples of unproven theories about allergic/immunologic conditions include allergic toxemia, idiopathic environmental intolerance, and toxic disease from indoor molds. Unconventional diagnostic methods for allergic conditions include cytotoxic tests, provocation-neutralization, electrodermal diagnosis, applied kinesiology assessments, chemical analysis of body fluids, and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgG4 testing. Unproven treatments and intervention methods for allergic/immunologic conditions include acupuncture, homeopathy, halotherapy, and autogenous urine injections.

Chapter 29: Unproved and controversial methods and theories in allergy-immunology.

Unproved methods and controversial theories in the diagnosis and management of allergy-immunology are those that lack scientific credibility. Some definitions are provided for perspective because in chronic medical conditions, frequently, nonscientifically based treatments are developed that can have a very positive psychological effect on the patients in the absence of objective physical benefit. Standard practice can be described as "the methods of diagnosis and treatment used by reputable physicians in a particular subspecialty or primary care practice" with the understanding that diagnosis and treatment options are consistent with established mechanisms of conditions or diseases.(3) Conventional medicine (Western or allopathic medicine) is that which is practiced by the majority of MDs, DOs, psychologists, RNs, and physical therapists. Complementary medicine uses the practice of conventional medicine with complementary and alternative medicine such as using acupuncture for pain relief in addition to opioids. Alternative medicine implies use of complementary and alternative practices in place of conventional medicine. Unproved and controversial methods and theories do not have supporting data, validation, and sufficient scientific scrutiny, and they should not be used in the practice of allergy-immunology. Some examples of unproven theories about allergic immunologic conditions include allergic toxemia, idiopathic environmental intolerance, association with childhood vaccinations, and adrenal fatigue. Unconventional (unproved) diagnostic methods for allergic-immunologic conditions include cytotoxic tests, provocation-neutralization, electrodermal diagnosis, applied kinesiology assessments, and serum IgG or IgG(4) testing. Unproven treatments and intervention methods for allergic-immunologic conditions include acupuncture, homeopathy ("likes cure likes"), halotherapy, and autologous urine injections.

A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.

Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.

Haloperidol-induced catalepsy in mice and rats suppressed by orally pre-administered potentized Agaricus

Agaricus muscarius 30s, a potentized homoeopathic drug prepared by sucessive dilution and sonication from the alcoholic extract of the fungus of the same name, significantly reduced haloperidol-induced catalepsy in mice and rats. The drug produced the anticataleptic effect when administred orally and no such effect when administered intraperitoneally. Open field activity of the mice was suppressed more with haloperidol (hal) alone than with the combination of Agaricus 30s (oral) and hal. Agaricus 30s, given intraperitoneally, did not alter hal-induced suppression of the spontaneous activity of mice. Based on the previoluly reported results with Agaricus in combination with apomorphine, D1 and D2 agonists, it was thought that Agaricus might have served as a D1 blocker. It war further assumed that the effect of Agaricus was mediated throught the oral taste receptors