This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Thomas M. Golbert, MD
Denver

JAMA. 1971;217(12):1703-1704.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Samter's recommendation against sublingual desensitization was correct.¹ Subsequent letters^2-3 have indicated that this method is employed by some practitioners treating reagin (IgE, Type I) mediated allergic disease. Dickey³ also advocated other precepts of Rinkel et al.^4-5 These practitioners represent a small portion of the allergy community. Most allergists practice in accordance with established immunological concepts, as summarized in several textbooks^6-8 and symposia.^9-11

Rinkel's precepts^4-5 include "optimal dosage" determined by intracutaneous or sublingual "titration," the intracutaneous "provocative test" with the so-called provoking and neutralizing doses, and sublingual desensitization. These methods are supported by uncontrolled, testimonial impressions only. The basis for asserting benefit is not indicated, and immunological data have not been offered. Recently the food provocative test has been subjected to a controlled investigation¹² and shown to be valueless.

In contrast, the practice of allergy in accordance with immunologic principles . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?