Archive for the ‘Allergies’ Category


The Diagnosis of Mold Allergy

Diagnosis of mold allergy rests on an allergic history followed by intracutaneous testing.

Scratch tests are not to be used for molds because they are not reliable. The reading of the test is usually done fifteen minutes after performing it; however, molds are known to cause delayed reactions which show up one or two days after the test. The number of tests necessary to diagnose a mold allergy varies with the training and experience of the allergist who is performing them.

The Treatment of Mold Allergy

Treatment consists of weekly injections of a weak solution of mixed mold extract, to be increased in potency until a maximum tolerated dosage is reached after four to five months. Once that dosage is reached, the period between injections is prolonged until only one injection per month is given for a period of two to three years. These injections provide relief from allergy symptoms in about 80 percent of the mold-sensitive children thus treated. Even in institutes which specialize in mold allergy, the results are not superior.

The list below contains commercial products useful in preventing mold growth in a basement or in other damp areas.

Bye-Mold: Sold by Allergy-Free Products for the Home, Springfield, Missouri. Impregon: Made by Fleming Company, St. Louis. Ammonium compounds: Zephiran Chloride, Roccal, and other chlorine solutions, found in drugstores all over the country. Paraformaldehyde crystals: Two ounces left in an open jar for several days in a room that is well ventilated prior to reuse.

Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde): The liquid is to be poured into a wide-mouth container until about one-half inch deep. The number of containers used varies with the size of the basement, and it is most important that the basement be thoroughly aired out before use.

Lysol solution: To use in cleaning the walls and floor of the room.

Electrostatic air purifiers.

Dehumidifiers and desiccants: For example a cloth sack containing two to three pounds of calcium chloride suspended above a pail to collect the drippings.


Posted on April 23rd, 2009 by admin  |  No Comments »


Over-stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system can produce psychosomatic symptoms such as diarrhoea, nervousness, tremors, high blood pressure and abnormal heart rhythms. Whereas in the wild, the effect of a burst of adrenaline would be worked off by the strenuous exercise (running for your life) that followed, this does not happen when the adrenaline is generated by an unpleasant encounter with a bank manager or traffic warden. Our instinctive reactions seem to be rooted in the past and they are not always appropriate to twentieth-century living. To make matters worse, adrenaline production is encouraged by smoking and by too much sugar, alcohol or coffee.

Over activity by the parasympathetic can also result in bowel disturbances, or contraction of the bronchi producing asthma, or over-secretion of acid by the stomach eventually leading to stomach ulcers.

A third way in which symptoms can be produced is through mental tension being translated into muscle tension, especially in the muscles of the neck, jaw and head. Prolonged tightening of these muscles can produce headache, and possibly migraine.

In addition there are conditions where the psychological component is only a small part of the story – it can make the symptoms worse but not initiate the illness. This is true of eczema, psoriasis and most cases of asthma Exactly how the mind affects such symptoms is not known, except in the case of asthma where the autonomic nervous system can make the bronchi contract in reponse to anxiety or emotion.


Posted on April 20th, 2009 by admin  |  No Comments »


Mrs E. had always used a diaphragm successfully. She went through the menopause at about 52 years with few problems, her periods stopping within about six months. A year after they stopped the doctor explained that she was now free to stop using her cap, and was therefore a little surprised to find her still collecting supplies six months later. Mrs E. looked defensive and uncomfortable as she explained that she had always felt con-traceptively secure using her cap but at the same time she had seen it as a safeguard against cancer. She accepted that she did not need it for contraception but could not relinquish its use as a protective for the cervix. She was afraid that the doctor would prevent her getting more supplies as she no longer needed it for contraception. She also admitted that newspaper articles about the cost-effectiveness of the NHS made her feel uneasy. Talking about these feelings with the doctor, and being given some explanation about the causative factors involved in carcinoma of the cervix, has enabled her to look forward to lessening her attachment to the cap. Meanwhile she continues to use it, collecting supplies with the doctor’s blessing and looking happy again.


Posted on April 7th, 2009 by admin  |  No Comments »