The Health Blog

Skin testing is a very reliable method of determining the kind, as well as the degree, of sensitivity to an inhaled allergen. Intradermal or scratch tests should be performed in three sessions, one session each week, as it is not advisable to perform more than ten of them each time. A possible schedule of testing might look like the one indicated here.

First session     Second session     Third session

Trees     Silk     Alternaria

Grasses     Feathers     Aspergillus

Plantain     Dog Hair     Penicillium

Ragweed     Goat Hair     Hormodendron

Dust     Horse Hair     Kapok

Tobacco     Horse Serum     Cottonseed

Pyrethrum     Cat Hair     Flaxseed

Orris Root     Rabbit Hair

The above tests are to be repeated in different dilutions because the intensity of the reaction to each dilution determines the treatment. A very sensitive child classified as AA can tolerate a much smaller quantity of desensitizing material than someone who has been classified as À, Â, Ñ, or D. However, even though testing in different dilutions is a good guide to the strength of the solution to be used in desensitization, it does not indicate the actual amount of discomfort that the allergic child may be suffering.

During skin testing, some highly sensitive children may get hives or shock. If this happens, the doctor should place a tourniquet on the arm above the site of the test (in order to delay the absorption of the testing material) and inject adrenalin in the testing area. This injection may have to be repeated in half an hour.

Skin testing for foods has limited value in the diagnosis of a food allergy. Consequently, many allergists skip these tests altogether. They rely instead on an accurate history and elimination diets. Those who do tests for foods find that intradermal tests are more accurate than scratch tests, but the possibility of severe anaphylactic reactions while testing for shellfish, nuts, and strawberries are possible.

*30/99/5*

Dr Pearson and Dr Rix point out that the level of psychiatric disorder in patients with a variety of other bowel complaints is much lower – only 34 per cent compared to 86 per cent. One factor in this difference is probably the attitude of the medical profession, since the other bowel complaints studied were all recognized conditions which are not dismissed as psychosomatic. Unpleasant symptoms are a lot easier to cope with if you know you have What-sisname’s Syndrome than if you’ve been told that it’s ‘all in your mind’.

The idea that the psychological symptoms could be largely a result of the physical symptoms, rather than the cause of them, is substantiated by one of the patients that Dr Pearson and Dr Rix studied. This patient was sensitive to yeast and reacted to it in very small amounts, so that she produced a positive reaction even with the minute quantities that they used for testing. This patient was put on a yeast-free diet, and given a second psychiatric assessment when her bowel symptoms had resolved. Before the diet her score on the psychiatric assessment was 20 – well over the critical score of 12 that indicates significant psychiatric disturbance. With IBS a thing of the past, her score was one – a marked improvement.

The usefulness of treatments such as psychotherapy and hypnotherapy in treating IBS is entirely compatible with this view. If such treatments could eradicate the symptoms in a large proportion of patients it would be a different matter, but they do not: in most patients, they simply reduce the symptoms to a more manageable level. For the patients who respond to such treatment, there is probably a subtle interplay of mental and physical factors – the distressing symptoms lead to anxiety or depression, and the disturbed state of mind makes the symptoms worse. In some patients, psychological disorders may be even more important.

*203\180\8*