HOW ALLERGIES CAUSE ARTHRITIS

Mar 20th, 2011 Posted in Arthritis | no comment »
Clinical ecologists have shown that in 80 to 90 percent of arthritis cases, allergy is the culprit. It has been scientifically proved by the recently published double-blind study I conducted with the assistance of Anthony Conte, M.D., which confirms observations of other ecologists.
The mechanism is the same as for any other allergic reaction. Remember that the pain, swelling, and stiffness in arthritic joints (and ultimately the permanent damage) are due to an excess of fluid in and around the joints and the joint inflammation that occurs when the body attempts to defend itself against the environmental offender. When a substance to which the body is sensitive arrives at an affected or soon-to-be-affected joint via the bloodstream, the capillaries in the synovial membrane lining the joint respond with an inflammatory reaction, allowing fluid and certain cells from the bloodstream to enter the joint and the surrounding tissues. This occurs because the immune system begins an unnecessary, illness-causing effort to fight off the usually harmless substance it unfortunately recognizes as an offending intruder.
In many cases it will be easy for an arthritic person to determine if his or her arthritis is an allergic disorder. And once it has been shown to your satisfaction that this is the case, it is usually not very difficult to relieve your pain and swelling. In addition, you will probably be able to prevent the occurrence of permanent joint damage, or at least keep it limited in severity as you bring the allergies under control by yourself or with professional assistance.
Thousands of cases of allergic arthritis have been diagnosed by clinical ecologists in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and elsewhere. Allergic arthritis is a common disorder, and it may very well be the kind that you have.
It is very likely that many of people will be able to do everything in the Lifetime Arthritis System from start to finish on their own and be well again, or much better, without any professional assistance. If your self-help program is not completely successful, at least there is an excellent chance that you will learn so much about your illness, even if it happens to be a very complex disorder, that you will strongly suspect or have definitely proved that you are allergic and are proceeding in the right direction, even though it is obvious that additional help is necessary.
*14/295/5*

HOW ALLERGIES CAUSE ARTHRITISClinical ecologists have shown that in 80 to 90 percent of arthritis cases, allergy is the culprit. It has been scientifically proved by the recently published double-blind study I conducted with the assistance of Anthony Conte, M.D., which confirms observations of other ecologists.The mechanism is the same as for any other allergic reaction. Remember that the pain, swelling, and stiffness in arthritic joints (and ultimately the permanent damage) are due to an excess of fluid in and around the joints and the joint inflammation that occurs when the body attempts to defend itself against the environmental offender. When a substance to which the body is sensitive arrives at an affected or soon-to-be-affected joint via the bloodstream, the capillaries in the synovial membrane lining the joint respond with an inflammatory reaction, allowing fluid and certain cells from the bloodstream to enter the joint and the surrounding tissues. This occurs because the immune system begins an unnecessary, illness-causing effort to fight off the usually harmless substance it unfortunately recognizes as an offending intruder.In many cases it will be easy for an arthritic person to determine if his or her arthritis is an allergic disorder. And once it has been shown to your satisfaction that this is the case, it is usually not very difficult to relieve your pain and swelling. In addition, you will probably be able to prevent the occurrence of permanent joint damage, or at least keep it limited in severity as you bring the allergies under control by yourself or with professional assistance.Thousands of cases of allergic arthritis have been diagnosed by clinical ecologists in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and elsewhere. Allergic arthritis is a common disorder, and it may very well be the kind that you have. It is very likely that many of people will be able to do everything in the Lifetime Arthritis System from start to finish on their own and be well again, or much better, without any professional assistance. If your self-help program is not completely successful, at least there is an excellent chance that you will learn so much about your illness, even if it happens to be a very complex disorder, that you will strongly suspect or have definitely proved that you are allergic and are proceeding in the right direction, even though it is obvious that additional help is necessary.*14/295/5*

COMBATTING ASTHMA IN CHILDREN: ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS – STEROIDS: THE CORTISONE DRUGS – WITHDRAWAL OF INHALED STEROIDS AND WHY ARE INHALED STEROIDS NOT USED MORE EXTENSIVELY?

Mar 12th, 2011 Posted in Asthma | no comment »
Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids. When and how to step down or stop inhaled steroids? In controlled trials it has been observed that after six months of treatment many patients achieve the treatment goals: they have normal airway function, normal exercise tolerance, normal sleep and no symptoms.
After having given budesonide 400-800 mg twice daily and achieving control of symptoms, the dose can be gradually reduced. Once the dose is down to 200-400 mg per day, it may be stopped completely and the patient kept under observation.
Why are inhaled steroids not used more extensively?
There are several reasons, why inspire of being safe and effective, inhaled steroids are not as widely used as they should be. Many medical practitioners are still guided by the traditional, but now debunked, view that asthma is a result of bronchospasm. Unaware of new research and findings they continue to treat the bronchospasms and not chronic inflammation of the airways, which is the real cause of asthma. As a consequence, a small section of the medical community regards steroids as the treatment of the last resort for asthma.
The patients’ attitude that steroids cause severe side effects may also influence the attitude of some doctors. That is true only for oral steroids; we do not see the same side effects with inhaled steroids in normal doses. The lack of an immediate perceived benefit with inhaled steroids (whereas the bronchodilators give immediate symptomatic relief) also reduces compliance of the inhaled steroid. When patients are well, they usually tend to stop taking inhaled steroids first.
*60\260\8*

COMBATTING ASTHMA IN CHILDREN: ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS – STEROIDS: THE CORTISONE DRUGS – WITHDRAWAL OF INHALED STEROIDS AND WHY ARE INHALED STEROIDS NOT USED MORE EXTENSIVELY?Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids. When and how to step down or stop inhaled steroids? In controlled trials it has been observed that after six months of treatment many patients achieve the treatment goals: they have normal airway function, normal exercise tolerance, normal sleep and no symptoms.After having given budesonide 400-800 mg twice daily and achieving control of symptoms, the dose can be gradually reduced. Once the dose is down to 200-400 mg per day, it may be stopped completely and the patient kept under observation.Why are inhaled steroids not used more extensively?There are several reasons, why inspire of being safe and effective, inhaled steroids are not as widely used as they should be. Many medical practitioners are still guided by the traditional, but now debunked, view that asthma is a result of bronchospasm. Unaware of new research and findings they continue to treat the bronchospasms and not chronic inflammation of the airways, which is the real cause of asthma. As a consequence, a small section of the medical community regards steroids as the treatment of the last resort for asthma.The patients’ attitude that steroids cause severe side effects may also influence the attitude of some doctors. That is true only for oral steroids; we do not see the same side effects with inhaled steroids in normal doses. The lack of an immediate perceived benefit with inhaled steroids (whereas the bronchodilators give immediate symptomatic relief) also reduces compliance of the inhaled steroid. When patients are well, they usually tend to stop taking inhaled steroids first.*60\260\8*

NATURAL HISTORY OF TYPE 1 DIABETES: THE EFFECT OF INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT

Mar 4th, 2011 Posted in Diabetes | no comment »
The effect of intensive management was to delay the rate of appearance of microaneurysms in the primary prevention cohort compared with the standard management group. However, the risk reduction was only 27%, and at 5 years of therapy approximately 50% of the intensively managed group had one or more microaneurysms compared with close to 70% of patients in the standard group. By life table analysis over 9 years of follow-up, an estimated 7.9% of patients who received intensive treatment would require laser therapy compared with 30% of those with conventional treatment (risk reduction: 59%; p = 0.001). Thus, although mild background retinopathy progressed in both groups, serious progression of retinopathy and the need for laser therapy was significantly greater in patients randomized to conventional therapy compared with those in the intensive therapy group. This finding provided strong port for intensive glycemic regulation in type 1 diabetes.
*27\357\8*

NATURAL HISTORY OF TYPE 1 DIABETES: THE EFFECT OF INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT The effect of intensive management was to delay the rate of appearance of microaneurysms in the primary prevention cohort compared with the standard management group. However, the risk reduction was only 27%, and at 5 years of therapy approximately 50% of the intensively managed group had one or more microaneurysms compared with close to 70% of patients in the standard group. By life table analysis over 9 years of follow-up, an estimated 7.9% of patients who received intensive treatment would require laser therapy compared with 30% of those with conventional treatment (risk reduction: 59%; p = 0.001). Thus, although mild background retinopathy progressed in both groups, serious progression of retinopathy and the need for laser therapy was significantly greater in patients randomized to conventional therapy compared with those in the intensive therapy group. This finding provided strong port for intensive glycemic regulation in type 1 diabetes.*27\357\8*

Random Posts