Question:

JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club. Exactly, some banned medications are allowed if prescribed by a doctor, so where is the line drawn?  If the anti-asthma medication is banned the implication is that its use can confer some advantage on the athlete, so why not say that its user can not compete, since that seems to be the prevalent opinion on this NG about this masters competitor? Phil.

I imagine the difference is that the approved anti-asthma medicines only allow the affected athlete to perform AS WELL AS they might without asthma – it doesn’t enhance their natural ability or (?) enhance the abilities of someone without asthma. I think one thing that must be considered here is that there are alternative, non-steroidal drugs that can be used for menopause and those medications are not banned. If there are alternatives that accomplish the medical purposes without raising the steroid issue, it’s logical to ban the steroids. If there were no alternatives,  then there might be a case to be made. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38

Response:

I imagine the difference is that the approved anti-asthma medicines only allow the affected athlete to perform AS WELL AS they might without asthma – it doesn’t enhance their natural ability or (?) enhance the abilities of someone without asthma.

So this is the crux. Asthma inhalers are prohibited for anyone not prescribed them by a doctor, suggesting they offer a performance enhancement if taken by a normal fit person. So you have now penalised the normal fit person by allowing an asthma sufferer to ‘level the playing field’ and take a performance enhancing drug. So I have two questions. 1) When does taking medication to treat an illness become taking medication to improve my performance? (ans. when the IAAF says so) 2) What is there to stop an athlete getting a friendly doctor to write them out a prescription for an asthma inhaler when not medically required? In any case, I suspect the IAAF allow asthma medication purely on safety grounds rather than any desire to give asthma sufferers a leg-up. IanB.

Response:

What, in a class of her own for people who have taken performance enhancing drugs? Sorry, can’t see that happening. That’s like a two tier system – races for people on drugs, and races for people who aren’t cheating. Huh.

Maybe not such a bad idea.  They do it in bodybuilding.

Response:

JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? ‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question. JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club.

Exactly, some banned medications are allowed if prescribed by a doctor, so where is the line drawn?  If the anti-asthma medication is banned the implication is that its use can confer some advantage on the athlete, so why not say that its user can not compete, since that seems to be the prevalent opinion on this NG about this masters competitor? Phil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This beggars the question; what else is legal if accompanied by a doctors prescription? And what checks are in place to ensure the doctor is prescribing for medical rather than performance reasons? IanB – and if you’re going to run 9.7sec this summer Mr. Greene, I recommend you take some of these.

Response:

Well, I don’t think people should be penalised for taking medication that they necessarily need to use.

And if that means that they are ineligible for competition, then tough. If other competitors have to take drugs that may have knock on effects for their every day lives just to compete with those who have already chosen to take them, that’s even worse. The thus-far drug free athletes would be forced into taking performance enhancing drugs just to keep up. If you’re on medication that means you can’t drive, you don’t drive, right? There are so many drugs available that alternatives must be nearly always available. I remember reading above somewhere that she had changed from one brand to another, and that the first wasn’t banned. So it’s still her fault. Gavin ’sorry, I didn’t bother to find out if murder was illegal in this competition’ Hodgson — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089    http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986               Know pain… or lose. Your choice.

Response:

typical libertarian drug loving response. why cann’t the track federation (as the business owner) make whatever rules it wants?  If to protect their image the fedration chooses to ban the use of some substances why shouldn’t they be allowed to?  If an athlete ‘needs’ a banned substance then they have a choice.  Find an alternative treatment, do without the treatment, seek a waiver (which the fedration can grant if it chooses or not) or retire. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why does it matter if athletes dope up to become good at a sport?  I mean it’s their bodies.  Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares?  She’s 56 and this is NORMAL treatment.  Of course I also support the legalization of all drugs.  It’s not like she even lied about it.  At the time she filled out the form she wasn’t taking the drug (had only been on it for 2 months when she got "caught").  I say they should leave her alone and hope they can be as fit as she is at her age. -jeff Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? ‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question.

JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club. This beggars the question; what else is legal if accompanied by a doctors prescription? And what checks are in place to ensure the doctor is prescribing for medical rather than performance reasons? IanB – and if you’re going to run 9.7sec this summer Mr. Greene, I recommend you take some of these.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I don’t think people should be penalised for taking medication that they necessarily need to use. And if that means that they are ineligible for competition, then tough. If other competitors have to take drugs that may have knock on effects for their every day lives just to compete with those who have already chosen to take them, that’s even worse. The thus-far drug free athletes would be forced into taking performance enhancing drugs just to keep up. If you’re on medication that means you can’t drive, you don’t drive, right? There are so many drugs available that alternatives must be nearly always available. I remember reading above somewhere that she had changed from one brand to another, and that the first wasn’t banned. So it’s still her fault. Gavin ’sorry, I didn’t bother to find out if murder was illegal in this competition’ Hodgson — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089 http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986 Know pain… or lose. Your choice.

What I find much more fascinating, then really debating about whether or not competitive atheletes are following XYZ authority (IAAF?) on drug policy is to actually figure out the culture of drug policy that the authority has implemented. As an anthropologist, that is a much more fascinating question to me. We’re all writing about this drug policy as if all of these drug policies are "naturally obvious" when I would argue very strongly that these drug policies are culturally created. Perhaps this is an obvious point to some. In other words, the drug policy is very much a policy that indicates the kinds of cultural assumptions the authorities make. And we may want to challenge those very cultural assumptions. I bring this up because I find folks defending the drug policy way too quickly without actually consciously realising what kinds of cultural assumptions those policy are based on and what kind of effects those policies actually have on the ground level. I have to say that I’m no expert on the subject though, but I am wary enough to know that I don’t want to go defending a policy (and especially one that affects athletes) without getting a good grip on its consequences and assumptions. C

Response:

*The* question is should she compete in light of the fact she’s taking anabolic steroids?

Yes, she should still compete. C

Response:

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender.

The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.  As an entrant at Gateshead I remember the furore it caused at the time very well. Applying the IAAF criteria, before such a demand would be made, the testosterone levels (depending on which one they were testing) would have approximated that of an average male, and would have been outside the range of an average female.  An average healthy male’s testosterone peaks in puberty, drops after puberty and then remains reasonably constant over time. (Rising of course whenever the words "football" or "hooters" or "corvette" are spoken aloud.)

The IAAF tests do not test for the level of testosterone in part because it varies so wildly in the normal male, the test is instead for the testosterone/ epi-testerone ratio which does not vary so wildly.  Taking testosterone itself changes the ratio and so a high ratio (6) is regarded as evidence of ‘doping’, this is a poor diagnostic particularly when applied to women since the data for applying the test was derived from studies on men!  In the case of synthetic steroids which can only be in the body via ‘medication’ the tests have basically ‘zero-tolerance’.  So I think that your statements about ‘High school seniors’ are inaccurate extrapolation on your part Jenn. Who’d have thought that a drug called Estratest prescribed for menopause related problems would contain methyl-testosterone?  In fact it also contains estrogens, the female hormones which are being replaced in ‘Hormone replacement therapy’, other hormones, such as the methyl-testosterone, are usually added to such medications to counteract undesireable side-effects of the medication itself. That an IAAF spokesman could say: "Why someone of her age would want to use steroids is beyond me.", indicates total stupidity on their part and is worthy of investigation if IAAF are to maintain credibility in overseeing masters competition.  Osteoporosis is a particularly debilitating condition for women after menopause and is a reason why many women take up running later in life as exercise is a major factor in rebuilding the bone density.  Also HRT is often used to prevent the onset of O., my mother started taking such medication at the age of 75 for this reason.  JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? Phil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So when I said ‘levels of a male high school senior’ I could have easily have said ‘levels of a thirty year old male.’  The former, I thought, demonstrated the point better. Regardless, whether it was that of a teenage male, young man or older man, the testosterone was *unusually* high.  *That’s* the point.  And, they was unusually high because she was taking a banned drug competing against women *not* taking the same drug.  Granted it was prescribed by a physician and was probably not taken for performance enhancement.  Fact is, it probably *did* enhance performance. Jennifer – Post menopausal on anabolic steroids.  How’d you like to come home to that after work?

Response:

The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.

Perhaps, perhaps not.   Here’s the T/E rule:  "In the case of T/E ratio higher than 6, it is mandatory that the relevant medical authority conduct an investigation before the sample is declared positive. Such investigation will follow with a written report, will include a review of previous tests, subsequent tests, and endocrine and gender specific investigations." The logical progression according to the above rule (and my assumption) was first, a test following by, second "Hey wait a minute are you a guy?!"  You state it occurred in the reverse.  You have a 50:50 chance of being right, as do I.  If you were there and say it happened your way, I believe you. The IAAF tests do not test for the level of testosterone in part because it varies so wildly in the normal male, the test is instead for the testosterone/ epi-testerone ratio which does not vary so wildly.

True, if the T/E test was used, which is why in my original post I stated something to the effect of "depending on which testosterone they were testing." I didn’t and still do not know if they were testing using the IAAF EPI test. I do know that in addition to the T/E test there are competitions using absolute measures for testosterone levels instead of the T/E. (i.e. (1) E in excess of 200mg will be investigated regardless of gender, age, or T/E ratio (2) presence of exogenous "anabolic production" testosterone). Regardless, I concede that my comparison to a high school senior was hyperbole (although I’ll still *speculate* quite accurate).  *But*  so far, all previous points (yours and mine), all these debate points, are collateral and almost irrelevant. *The* question is should she compete in light of the fact she’s taking anabolic steroids? [snip] Osteoporosis is a particularly debilitating condition for women after menopause and is a reason why many women take up running later in life as exercise is a major factor in rebuilding the bone density.  Also HRT is often used to prevent the onset of O., my mother started taking such medication at the age of 75 for this reason.

And that is an excellent reason for taking HRT — but I think your mum’s eligibility for Olympic competition is lost. Your mum likely has a physical, competitive advantage over the same 75 year old woman *not* on therapy.  The difference is mainly attributable to the generally positive effects an anabolic brings.   Should she take the drug?  Sure, if she and her doctor think it’s appropriate. Should she be allowed to compete? No, not if it’s on the banned list.   Suppose, for example,  she’s anemic?  Should she be allowed to take EPO and compete?  I say no, regardless of age.  Drugs can delay age related ailments, but if they confer a competitive advantage, then a person taking them should not be allowed to compete. Should a 75 year old woman, taking Human Growth Hormone, because it makes her feel and function as a younger 65 year old, be allow to compete against a similar aged granny not taking HGH?  I say no. JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy?

‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question. Jennifer –  Role reversal.  "…just because you’re old doesn’t mean you can break the rules mum."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender. The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.  As an entrant at Gateshead I remember the furore it caused at the time very well.

We also cannot forget that whether one looks like a man or a woman is very much a cultural call and also in certain contexts, some men do look like women and some women look like men (of course depending on the person doing the "judging".) For instance, I wouldn’t have EVER guessed that Hilary Swank (who played "Boys Don’t Cry) was a woman had I not known that the movie was about a transsexual. If I had no clue that the story was about a transsexual and if I had no idea that Hilary Swank was playing a transsexual, I would have thought she was a man. And obviously, Swank didn’t take drugs or have operations to make her look like a man.

Response:

So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper.

So why do the East German woman from the 70’s and 80’s still have their gold medals? To stop the cheats at the Sydney Olympics they need to:     * Search EVERY athlete and official entering Australia     * Random search raids in athletes village     * keeping blood samples for 4 years and test samples for every new test and         remove medals from those found positive.     * make sponsors have "drug" clauses in contracts with athletes that make them         return money if they are caught. Australia are doing this with scholarship money         and starting to make it mandatory for all sporting contracts – this is a VERY good         thing.

Response:

First, I was trying to extend the conversation to the broader topic of doping in general which logically follows from the accusation that this woman used illegal drugs. Facts:  (1) There *are* drug rules; don’t assume them away.

At the time she signed up for the event she complied with the rules.  The medicine that wasn’t allowed in the rules did the same thing as one that she was taking that was legal, but this particular woman couldn’t take that drug any longer.  In theory, the other athletes could be using the legal drug, getting the same benefits from it, and their standing not being questioned. (2) She was competing with and defeating others.  The others, abided by the rules and passed the testing without the benefit of an artificially raised testosterone level.

That was part of my (failed) attempt to bridge this discussion to the larger one of doping in general.  I think drug rules are stupid – you can (and probably will disagree). (3) In response to your ‘who cares,’ well I bet you her competitors care.  Certainly the IAAF cared.

Well, let’s take everything to it’s grammatical extreme.  I hope you were able to grasp what I meant by this. Now.  The question was and is,

Yes, I forgot how we must only answer the exact question posed in the original message in a thread.  To extend the thread to any other relevant topics would just be insane. (1)  should she be judged the winner of the particular events in question and

Yes. (2) should her ban be upheld in light of the rules?

Yes. Jennifer – and raise your hand next time

what makes you think i didn’t? i didn’t…and never would…but how did you know?

Response:

Hmmm… Each athlete has a responsibility to his or her self, and to the reputation of their sport and hence to their competitors to acquaint themselves with the regulations regarding banned substances. Regardless of where these substances come from. If these substances are found in an athlete’s body, then they alone are to be held responsible. This is as true at vets level as it is at any other level. And considering this was the _World Champs_ naivety isn’t a defence. (Try telling a judge you didn’t know theft was illegal…) Now, this woman may have had no intention to cheat. It certainly reads that way, particularly considering that she declared her medication. But there can be no exemptions from any drug testing programme – what would be the point of the programme? So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper. — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089    http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986            Running ovals around the competition.

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication.   Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

I lean towards jenn’s reaction on this one. I don’t think she was "cheating" intentionally, but the fact remains that her medication, taken for whatever reason,  would clearly give her an edge over another competitor not taking it. Her lack of knowledge about which drugs were banned (the list is there for the reading) can’t be allowed as an excuse else every athlete claim the same thing. As for USATF’s reaction, I’m not sure allowing Masters athletes to take steroids for "medical" reasons would be a wise course.  How could you draw any kind of line between legal medical use and doping for competitive edge? And since there are non-steroidal alternatives, what’s the need? Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38

Response:

This person was taking more than the recommended dose! The reason the competitors wanted a gender test done on her was that  she talked like a man and looked like a man. She was showing all of the symptoms of the East German woman on steroids of the 70’s and 80’s. It was no surprise that she tested positive. Ignorance is no defence for taking banned substances. I think she found that one tablet was doing wonders for the performance, so she tried 2 – then 3 – then 4, until she looks and sounds like a bloke. Geoff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Let’s role play.  I’ll be the magister, you, the student. Prof.:  There are laws against dropping things on dogs.   If I drop a 20 pound object from a height of 10 feet onto a dog how fast would the object be moving immediately prior to it canine impact? You:  Why does it matter if athletes [drop heavy objects on dogs] ?  I mean it’s her [heavy object  and dogs are evil.] Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares? Professor:  uh…young man…the question was… You:   She’s 56 and [heavy objects fall and dogs suck]  Of course I also support the repeal of [the laws of gravity. Who passed that law anyway?] It’s not like she even lied about it. Although I’m not unsympathetic to a libertarian philosophy, I’ll remind you that your response is more of an irrelevant rant and less of an analysis of the problem that’s afoot. Facts:  (1) There *are* drug rules; don’t assume them away.  (2) She was competing with and defeating others.  The others, abided by the rules and passed the testing without the benefit of an artificially raised testosterone level. (3) In response to your ‘who cares,’ well I bet you her competitors care.  Certainly the IAAF cared. Now.  The question was and is, (1)  should she be judged the winner of the particular events in question and (2) should her ban be upheld in light of the rules? Jennifer – and raise your hand next time

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmmm… Each athlete has a responsibility to his or her self, and to the reputation of their sport and hence to their competitors to acquaint themselves with the regulations regarding banned substances. Regardless of where these substances come from. If these substances are found in an athlete’s body, then they alone are to be held responsible. This is as true at vets level as it is at any other level. And considering this was the _World Champs_ naivety isn’t a defence. (Try telling a judge you didn’t know theft was illegal…) Now, this woman may have had no intention to cheat. It certainly reads that way, particularly considering that she declared her medication. But there can be no exemptions from any drug testing programme – what would be the point of the programme? So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper.

An alternative way to look at the case is to really look at the drug policy and to look at whether the drug policy is disseminated clearly to athletes. Look at the drug policy and evaluate how realistic it is. After all, people should not be reprimanded for a drug they need to take for whatever reason. And also look at whether that policy is clearly expressed to athletes and how it is done.

Response:

Why does it matter if athletes dope up to become good at a sport?  I mean it’s their bodies.  Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares?  She’s 56 and this is NORMAL treatment.  Of course I also support the legalization of all drugs.  It’s not like she even lied about it.  At the time she filled out the form she wasn’t taking the drug (had only been on it for 2 months when she got "caught").  I say they should leave her alone and hope they can be as fit as she is at her age. -jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication.   Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

To me, sounds like a drug policy gone awry and a track athlete that was wrongfully hurt. One thing bugged me about your article: It seems fair to me that considering Jager’s state of events, your article’s title should be written with **quotes** around the word doping. Thus, it perhaps should look like this: Kathy Jager fights two-year IAAF ban for "doping" Conal Guan-Yow Ho                                 Department of Anthropology Graduate Student                        University of California, Santa Cruz Office: 337 Social Sciences I                                            USA

Response:

[snip] Raises very important questions for the masters movement.

The question is: Should drugs that combat symptoms of aging be legal against athletes of the same age who don’t take the drug? See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html

My opinion is and has been that the only solution is to eliminate all drug testing in athletics in any age group. However, under the current rules, Ms. Jager’s ban should stand.   Ms. Jager has 2 arguments, neither of which should prevai: 1:  "Nobody with IAAF told me."  Bull.  She filled out a questionaire stating the drugs she was taking.  Did she stop to inquire which ones might be banned? She sure should have and would have found that the anabolic she was taking was illegal for IAAF competition — it’s on the list. 2:  "Don’t hold me to the same standard as a 20 year old."  New argument, same bull. Ms. Jager took hormone replacement therapy on Doctor’s orders to deal with symptoms of menopause.  An added side effect of this therapy was to boost the testosterone level to that of a male high school senior. A woman with a drug boosted testosterone level (that of 18 year old male) competing against other 55-60 year old women in events requiring speed,strength and power. Fair? Jennifer – a granny with ‘roid rage

Response:

2:  "Don’t hold me to the same standard as a 20 year old."  New argument, same bull. Ms. Jager took hormone replacement therapy on Doctor’s orders to deal with symptoms of menopause.  An added side effect of this therapy was to boost the testosterone level to that of a male high school senior. A woman with a drug boosted testosterone level (that of 18 year old male) competing against other 55-60 year old women in events requiring speed,strength and power. Fair?

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? Conal

Response:

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing?

I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender. Applying the IAAF criteria, before such a demand would be made, the testosterone levels (depending on which one they were testing) would have approximated that of an average male, and would have been outside the range of an average female.  An average healthy male’s testosterone peaks in puberty, drops after puberty and then remains reasonably constant over time. (Rising of course whenever the words "football" or "hooters" or "corvette" are spoken aloud.) So when I said ‘levels of a male high school senior’ I could have easily have said ‘levels of a thirty year old male.’  The former, I thought, demonstrated the point better. Regardless, whether it was that of a teenage male, young man or older man, the testosterone was *unusually* high.  *That’s* the point.  And, they was unusually high because she was taking a banned drug competing against women *not* taking the same drug.  Granted it was prescribed by a physician and was probably not taken for performance enhancement.  Fact is, it probably *did* enhance performance. Jennifer – Post menopausal on anabolic steroids.  How’d you like to come home to that after work?

Response:

Question:

I imagine the difference is that the approved anti-asthma medicines only allow the affected athlete to perform AS WELL AS they might without asthma – it doesn’t enhance their natural ability or (?) enhance the abilities of someone without asthma.

So this is the crux. Asthma inhalers are prohibited for anyone not prescribed them by a doctor, suggesting they offer a performance enhancement if taken by a normal fit person. So you have now penalised the normal fit person by allowing an asthma sufferer to ‘level the playing field’ and take a performance enhancing drug. So I have two questions. 1) When does taking medication to treat an illness become taking medication to improve my performance? (ans. when the IAAF says so) 2) What is there to stop an athlete getting a friendly doctor to write them out a prescription for an asthma inhaler when not medically required? In any case, I suspect the IAAF allow asthma medication purely on safety grounds rather than any desire to give asthma sufferers a leg-up. IanB.

Response:

JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club. Exactly, some banned medications are allowed if prescribed by a doctor, so where is the line drawn?  If the anti-asthma medication is banned the implication is that its use can confer some advantage on the athlete, so why not say that its user can not compete, since that seems to be the prevalent opinion on this NG about this masters competitor? Phil.

I imagine the difference is that the approved anti-asthma medicines only allow the affected athlete to perform AS WELL AS they might without asthma – it doesn’t enhance their natural ability or (?) enhance the abilities of someone without asthma. I think one thing that must be considered here is that there are alternative, non-steroidal drugs that can be used for menopause and those medications are not banned. If there are alternatives that accomplish the medical purposes without raising the steroid issue, it’s logical to ban the steroids. If there were no alternatives,  then there might be a case to be made. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38

Response:

*The* question is should she compete in light of the fact she’s taking anabolic steroids?

Yes, she should still compete. C

Response:

JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? ‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question.

JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club. This beggars the question; what else is legal if accompanied by a doctors prescription? And what checks are in place to ensure the doctor is prescribing for medical rather than performance reasons? IanB – and if you’re going to run 9.7sec this summer Mr. Greene, I recommend you take some of these.

Response:

Well, I don’t think people should be penalised for taking medication that they necessarily need to use.

And if that means that they are ineligible for competition, then tough. If other competitors have to take drugs that may have knock on effects for their every day lives just to compete with those who have already chosen to take them, that’s even worse. The thus-far drug free athletes would be forced into taking performance enhancing drugs just to keep up. If you’re on medication that means you can’t drive, you don’t drive, right? There are so many drugs available that alternatives must be nearly always available. I remember reading above somewhere that she had changed from one brand to another, and that the first wasn’t banned. So it’s still her fault. Gavin ’sorry, I didn’t bother to find out if murder was illegal in this competition’ Hodgson — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089    http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986               Know pain… or lose. Your choice.

Response:

typical libertarian drug loving response. why cann’t the track federation (as the business owner) make whatever rules it wants?  If to protect their image the fedration chooses to ban the use of some substances why shouldn’t they be allowed to?  If an athlete ‘needs’ a banned substance then they have a choice.  Find an alternative treatment, do without the treatment, seek a waiver (which the fedration can grant if it chooses or not) or retire. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why does it matter if athletes dope up to become good at a sport?  I mean it’s their bodies.  Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares?  She’s 56 and this is NORMAL treatment.  Of course I also support the legalization of all drugs.  It’s not like she even lied about it.  At the time she filled out the form she wasn’t taking the drug (had only been on it for 2 months when she got "caught").  I say they should leave her alone and hope they can be as fit as she is at her age. -jeff Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I don’t think people should be penalised for taking medication that they necessarily need to use. And if that means that they are ineligible for competition, then tough. If other competitors have to take drugs that may have knock on effects for their every day lives just to compete with those who have already chosen to take them, that’s even worse. The thus-far drug free athletes would be forced into taking performance enhancing drugs just to keep up. If you’re on medication that means you can’t drive, you don’t drive, right? There are so many drugs available that alternatives must be nearly always available. I remember reading above somewhere that she had changed from one brand to another, and that the first wasn’t banned. So it’s still her fault. Gavin ’sorry, I didn’t bother to find out if murder was illegal in this competition’ Hodgson — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089 http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986 Know pain… or lose. Your choice.

What I find much more fascinating, then really debating about whether or not competitive atheletes are following XYZ authority (IAAF?) on drug policy is to actually figure out the culture of drug policy that the authority has implemented. As an anthropologist, that is a much more fascinating question to me. We’re all writing about this drug policy as if all of these drug policies are "naturally obvious" when I would argue very strongly that these drug policies are culturally created. Perhaps this is an obvious point to some. In other words, the drug policy is very much a policy that indicates the kinds of cultural assumptions the authorities make. And we may want to challenge those very cultural assumptions. I bring this up because I find folks defending the drug policy way too quickly without actually consciously realising what kinds of cultural assumptions those policy are based on and what kind of effects those policies actually have on the ground level. I have to say that I’m no expert on the subject though, but I am wary enough to know that I don’t want to go defending a policy (and especially one that affects athletes) without getting a good grip on its consequences and assumptions. C

Response:

What, in a class of her own for people who have taken performance enhancing drugs? Sorry, can’t see that happening. That’s like a two tier system – races for people on drugs, and races for people who aren’t cheating. Huh.

Maybe not such a bad idea.  They do it in bodybuilding.

Response:

JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? ‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question. JJK – Jackie Joyner Kersey I presume, and Asthma inhalers are allowed provided they are prescribed by a doctor, I remember a notice to this effect being issued at our club.

Exactly, some banned medications are allowed if prescribed by a doctor, so where is the line drawn?  If the anti-asthma medication is banned the implication is that its use can confer some advantage on the athlete, so why not say that its user can not compete, since that seems to be the prevalent opinion on this NG about this masters competitor? Phil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This beggars the question; what else is legal if accompanied by a doctors prescription? And what checks are in place to ensure the doctor is prescribing for medical rather than performance reasons? IanB – and if you’re going to run 9.7sec this summer Mr. Greene, I recommend you take some of these.

Response:

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender.

The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.  As an entrant at Gateshead I remember the furore it caused at the time very well. Applying the IAAF criteria, before such a demand would be made, the testosterone levels (depending on which one they were testing) would have approximated that of an average male, and would have been outside the range of an average female.  An average healthy male’s testosterone peaks in puberty, drops after puberty and then remains reasonably constant over time. (Rising of course whenever the words "football" or "hooters" or "corvette" are spoken aloud.)

The IAAF tests do not test for the level of testosterone in part because it varies so wildly in the normal male, the test is instead for the testosterone/ epi-testerone ratio which does not vary so wildly.  Taking testosterone itself changes the ratio and so a high ratio (6) is regarded as evidence of ‘doping’, this is a poor diagnostic particularly when applied to women since the data for applying the test was derived from studies on men!  In the case of synthetic steroids which can only be in the body via ‘medication’ the tests have basically ‘zero-tolerance’.  So I think that your statements about ‘High school seniors’ are inaccurate extrapolation on your part Jenn. Who’d have thought that a drug called Estratest prescribed for menopause related problems would contain methyl-testosterone?  In fact it also contains estrogens, the female hormones which are being replaced in ‘Hormone replacement therapy’, other hormones, such as the methyl-testosterone, are usually added to such medications to counteract undesireable side-effects of the medication itself. That an IAAF spokesman could say: "Why someone of her age would want to use steroids is beyond me.", indicates total stupidity on their part and is worthy of investigation if IAAF are to maintain credibility in overseeing masters competition.  Osteoporosis is a particularly debilitating condition for women after menopause and is a reason why many women take up running later in life as exercise is a major factor in rebuilding the bone density.  Also HRT is often used to prevent the onset of O., my mother started taking such medication at the age of 75 for this reason.  JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy? Phil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So when I said ‘levels of a male high school senior’ I could have easily have said ‘levels of a thirty year old male.’  The former, I thought, demonstrated the point better. Regardless, whether it was that of a teenage male, young man or older man, the testosterone was *unusually* high.  *That’s* the point.  And, they was unusually high because she was taking a banned drug competing against women *not* taking the same drug.  Granted it was prescribed by a physician and was probably not taken for performance enhancement.  Fact is, it probably *did* enhance performance. Jennifer – Post menopausal on anabolic steroids.  How’d you like to come home to that after work?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender. The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.  As an entrant at Gateshead I remember the furore it caused at the time very well.

We also cannot forget that whether one looks like a man or a woman is very much a cultural call and also in certain contexts, some men do look like women and some women look like men (of course depending on the person doing the "judging".) For instance, I wouldn’t have EVER guessed that Hilary Swank (who played "Boys Don’t Cry) was a woman had I not known that the movie was about a transsexual. If I had no clue that the story was about a transsexual and if I had no idea that Hilary Swank was playing a transsexual, I would have thought she was a man. And obviously, Swank didn’t take drugs or have operations to make her look like a man.

Response:

The Australian competitors had said that she looked like a man and objected to her participation demanding proof that she was a woman.  This was easily proved at Gateshead by producing evidence that she was the mother of two children!  The suggestion that she was male was not the result of hormone tests, you are misreading the article Jenn.

Perhaps, perhaps not.   Here’s the T/E rule:  "In the case of T/E ratio higher than 6, it is mandatory that the relevant medical authority conduct an investigation before the sample is declared positive. Such investigation will follow with a written report, will include a review of previous tests, subsequent tests, and endocrine and gender specific investigations." The logical progression according to the above rule (and my assumption) was first, a test following by, second "Hey wait a minute are you a guy?!"  You state it occurred in the reverse.  You have a 50:50 chance of being right, as do I.  If you were there and say it happened your way, I believe you. The IAAF tests do not test for the level of testosterone in part because it varies so wildly in the normal male, the test is instead for the testosterone/ epi-testerone ratio which does not vary so wildly.

True, if the T/E test was used, which is why in my original post I stated something to the effect of "depending on which testosterone they were testing." I didn’t and still do not know if they were testing using the IAAF EPI test. I do know that in addition to the T/E test there are competitions using absolute measures for testosterone levels instead of the T/E. (i.e. (1) E in excess of 200mg will be investigated regardless of gender, age, or T/E ratio (2) presence of exogenous "anabolic production" testosterone). Regardless, I concede that my comparison to a high school senior was hyperbole (although I’ll still *speculate* quite accurate).  *But*  so far, all previous points (yours and mine), all these debate points, are collateral and almost irrelevant. *The* question is should she compete in light of the fact she’s taking anabolic steroids? [snip] Osteoporosis is a particularly debilitating condition for women after menopause and is a reason why many women take up running later in life as exercise is a major factor in rebuilding the bone density.  Also HRT is often used to prevent the onset of O., my mother started taking such medication at the age of 75 for this reason.

And that is an excellent reason for taking HRT — but I think your mum’s eligibility for Olympic competition is lost. Your mum likely has a physical, competitive advantage over the same 75 year old woman *not* on therapy.  The difference is mainly attributable to the generally positive effects an anabolic brings.   Should she take the drug?  Sure, if she and her doctor think it’s appropriate. Should she be allowed to compete? No, not if it’s on the banned list.   Suppose, for example,  she’s anemic?  Should she be allowed to take EPO and compete?  I say no, regardless of age.  Drugs can delay age related ailments, but if they confer a competitive advantage, then a person taking them should not be allowed to compete. Should a 75 year old woman, taking Human Growth Hormone, because it makes her feel and function as a younger 65 year old, be allow to compete against a similar aged granny not taking HGH?  I say no. JJK and other athletes are given special medical dispensation to use anti-asthma medication which is on the banned list why is not this woman allowed the same courtesy?

‘fraid I don’t know who JJK is nor the particular anti-asthma medication in question. Jennifer –  Role reversal.  "…just because you’re old doesn’t mean you can break the rules mum."

Response:

So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper.

So why do the East German woman from the 70’s and 80’s still have their gold medals? To stop the cheats at the Sydney Olympics they need to:     * Search EVERY athlete and official entering Australia     * Random search raids in athletes village     * keeping blood samples for 4 years and test samples for every new test and         remove medals from those found positive.     * make sponsors have "drug" clauses in contracts with athletes that make them         return money if they are caught. Australia are doing this with scholarship money         and starting to make it mandatory for all sporting contracts – this is a VERY good         thing.

Response:

First, I was trying to extend the conversation to the broader topic of doping in general which logically follows from the accusation that this woman used illegal drugs. Facts:  (1) There *are* drug rules; don’t assume them away.

At the time she signed up for the event she complied with the rules.  The medicine that wasn’t allowed in the rules did the same thing as one that she was taking that was legal, but this particular woman couldn’t take that drug any longer.  In theory, the other athletes could be using the legal drug, getting the same benefits from it, and their standing not being questioned. (2) She was competing with and defeating others.  The others, abided by the rules and passed the testing without the benefit of an artificially raised testosterone level.

That was part of my (failed) attempt to bridge this discussion to the larger one of doping in general.  I think drug rules are stupid – you can (and probably will disagree). (3) In response to your ‘who cares,’ well I bet you her competitors care.  Certainly the IAAF cared.

Well, let’s take everything to it’s grammatical extreme.  I hope you were able to grasp what I meant by this. Now.  The question was and is,

Yes, I forgot how we must only answer the exact question posed in the original message in a thread.  To extend the thread to any other relevant topics would just be insane. (1)  should she be judged the winner of the particular events in question and

Yes. (2) should her ban be upheld in light of the rules?

Yes. Jennifer – and raise your hand next time

what makes you think i didn’t? i didn’t…and never would…but how did you know?

Response:

This person was taking more than the recommended dose! The reason the competitors wanted a gender test done on her was that  she talked like a man and looked like a man. She was showing all of the symptoms of the East German woman on steroids of the 70’s and 80’s. It was no surprise that she tested positive. Ignorance is no defence for taking banned substances. I think she found that one tablet was doing wonders for the performance, so she tried 2 – then 3 – then 4, until she looks and sounds like a bloke. Geoff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication.   Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

I lean towards jenn’s reaction on this one. I don’t think she was "cheating" intentionally, but the fact remains that her medication, taken for whatever reason,  would clearly give her an edge over another competitor not taking it. Her lack of knowledge about which drugs were banned (the list is there for the reading) can’t be allowed as an excuse else every athlete claim the same thing. As for USATF’s reaction, I’m not sure allowing Masters athletes to take steroids for "medical" reasons would be a wise course.  How could you draw any kind of line between legal medical use and doping for competitive edge? And since there are non-steroidal alternatives, what’s the need? Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Ironman Canada ‘98 16:17:03 Great Floridian ‘99, 17:13:38

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmmm… Each athlete has a responsibility to his or her self, and to the reputation of their sport and hence to their competitors to acquaint themselves with the regulations regarding banned substances. Regardless of where these substances come from. If these substances are found in an athlete’s body, then they alone are to be held responsible. This is as true at vets level as it is at any other level. And considering this was the _World Champs_ naivety isn’t a defence. (Try telling a judge you didn’t know theft was illegal…) Now, this woman may have had no intention to cheat. It certainly reads that way, particularly considering that she declared her medication. But there can be no exemptions from any drug testing programme – what would be the point of the programme? So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper.

An alternative way to look at the case is to really look at the drug policy and to look at whether the drug policy is disseminated clearly to athletes. Look at the drug policy and evaluate how realistic it is. After all, people should not be reprimanded for a drug they need to take for whatever reason. And also look at whether that policy is clearly expressed to athletes and how it is done.

Response:

Why does it matter if athletes dope up to become good at a sport?  I mean it’s their bodies.  Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares?  She’s 56 and this is NORMAL treatment.  Of course I also support the legalization of all drugs.  It’s not like she even lied about it.  At the time she filled out the form she wasn’t taking the drug (had only been on it for 2 months when she got "caught").  I say they should leave her alone and hope they can be as fit as she is at her age. -jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Let’s role play.  I’ll be the magister, you, the student. Prof.:  There are laws against dropping things on dogs.   If I drop a 20 pound object from a height of 10 feet onto a dog how fast would the object be moving immediately prior to it canine impact? You:  Why does it matter if athletes [drop heavy objects on dogs] ?  I mean it’s her [heavy object  and dogs are evil.] Let them do whatever they want.  I am referring to young and old athletes alike.  This case is just absurd.  Who’s cares? Professor:  uh…young man…the question was… You:   She’s 56 and [heavy objects fall and dogs suck]  Of course I also support the repeal of [the laws of gravity. Who passed that law anyway?] It’s not like she even lied about it. Although I’m not unsympathetic to a libertarian philosophy, I’ll remind you that your response is more of an irrelevant rant and less of an analysis of the problem that’s afoot. Facts:  (1) There *are* drug rules; don’t assume them away.  (2) She was competing with and defeating others.  The others, abided by the rules and passed the testing without the benefit of an artificially raised testosterone level. (3) In response to your ‘who cares,’ well I bet you her competitors care.  Certainly the IAAF cared. Now.  The question was and is, (1)  should she be judged the winner of the particular events in question and (2) should her ban be upheld in light of the rules? Jennifer – and raise your hand next time

Response:

2:  "Don’t hold me to the same standard as a 20 year old."  New argument, same bull. Ms. Jager took hormone replacement therapy on Doctor’s orders to deal with symptoms of menopause.  An added side effect of this therapy was to boost the testosterone level to that of a male high school senior. A woman with a drug boosted testosterone level (that of 18 year old male) competing against other 55-60 year old women in events requiring speed,strength and power. Fair?

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing? Conal

Response:

Excuse me if I remember the article incorrectly, but nowhere do I remember the article talking about Jager achieving testosterone levels of a male high school senior. Are you exaggerating the truth? Or is there something else I’m missing?

I’m not exaggerating, but the phrasing of my statement might mislead.  I’ll clarify. The article stated that upon testing, they suspected she was a man and demanded proof of gender. Applying the IAAF criteria, before such a demand would be made, the testosterone levels (depending on which one they were testing) would have approximated that of an average male, and would have been outside the range of an average female.  An average healthy male’s testosterone peaks in puberty, drops after puberty and then remains reasonably constant over time. (Rising of course whenever the words "football" or "hooters" or "corvette" are spoken aloud.) So when I said ‘levels of a male high school senior’ I could have easily have said ‘levels of a thirty year old male.’  The former, I thought, demonstrated the point better. Regardless, whether it was that of a teenage male, young man or older man, the testosterone was *unusually* high.  *That’s* the point.  And, they was unusually high because she was taking a banned drug competing against women *not* taking the same drug.  Granted it was prescribed by a physician and was probably not taken for performance enhancement.  Fact is, it probably *did* enhance performance. Jennifer – Post menopausal on anabolic steroids.  How’d you like to come home to that after work?

Response:

Hmmm… Each athlete has a responsibility to his or her self, and to the reputation of their sport and hence to their competitors to acquaint themselves with the regulations regarding banned substances. Regardless of where these substances come from. If these substances are found in an athlete’s body, then they alone are to be held responsible. This is as true at vets level as it is at any other level. And considering this was the _World Champs_ naivety isn’t a defence. (Try telling a judge you didn’t know theft was illegal…) Now, this woman may have had no intention to cheat. It certainly reads that way, particularly considering that she declared her medication. But there can be no exemptions from any drug testing programme – what would be the point of the programme? So it’s unfortunate for the woman concerned, but it’s still her fault. So the ban should stand, and people should learn from her example. Cheats Never Prosper. — Gavin Hodgson, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge UK. http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/~acapella ; ICQ 25932089    http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GTG986            Running ovals around the competition.

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication.   Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

Response:

Please check out the latest version of my article on Kathy Jager, who received a two-year IAAF ban from competition for testing positive for a prohibited substance — the methyltestosterone in her doctor-prescribed hormone-replacement medication. Raises very important questions for the masters movement. See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html Thanks for your attention. I welcome your comments and questions. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com

To me, sounds like a drug policy gone awry and a track athlete that was wrongfully hurt. One thing bugged me about your article: It seems fair to me that considering Jager’s state of events, your article’s title should be written with **quotes** around the word doping. Thus, it perhaps should look like this: Kathy Jager fights two-year IAAF ban for "doping" Conal Guan-Yow Ho                                 Department of Anthropology Graduate Student                        University of California, Santa Cruz Office: 337 Social Sciences I                                            USA

Response:

[snip] Raises very important questions for the masters movement.

The question is: Should drugs that combat symptoms of aging be legal against athletes of the same age who don’t take the drug? See http://www.masterstrack.com/news2000may16a.html

My opinion is and has been that the only solution is to eliminate all drug testing in athletics in any age group. However, under the current rules, Ms. Jager’s ban should stand.   Ms. Jager has 2 arguments, neither of which should prevai: 1:  "Nobody with IAAF told me."  Bull.  She filled out a questionaire stating the drugs she was taking.  Did she stop to inquire which ones might be banned? She sure should have and would have found that the anabolic she was taking was illegal for IAAF competition — it’s on the list. 2:  "Don’t hold me to the same standard as a 20 year old."  New argument, same bull. Ms. Jager took hormone replacement therapy on Doctor’s orders to deal with symptoms of menopause.  An added side effect of this therapy was to boost the testosterone level to that of a male high school senior. A woman with a drug boosted testosterone level (that of 18 year old male) competing against other 55-60 year old women in events requiring speed,strength and power. Fair? Jennifer – a granny with ‘roid rage

Response:

Question:

I have never stated that hyperventialtion does not exist, nor have I ever stated that hyperventilation syndrome does not exist.  What I have stated is that ‘chronic hyperventilation’ does not exist.

As you say to everyone else, where’s the science to justify your claim? Chronic Hyperventilation The diagnosis of chronic HVS is much more difficult because the hyperventilation is usually not clinically apparent. Often these patients have had extensive medical investigations and have been assigned several misleading diagnoses. A majority (2/3) of patients with chronic HVS have a persistently low pCO2 with compensatory renal excretion of HCO3, resulting in a near-normal pH. The respiratory alkalosis can be maintained with only occasional deep sighing respirations, and these are often observed in patients with chronic HVS. When faced with an additional stress that provokes hyperventilation, their physiologic acid base reserve is less and they become symptomatic more readily than non-HVS patients.[3,4,] Many of these patients also suffer from obsessive- compulsive disorders, experience sexual and marital difficulties, and have poor adaptations to stress. Chronic HVS patients may have symptoms that mimic virtually any serious organic disorder but usually they will have atypical features of these diseases. Jo.

Response:

For asthmatics who have being doing Buteyko, all this drug stuff is about as far away as fairy tales.  Would a physician really take the anti-asthma drugs himself or recommend them to friends or relatives?

My primary care physician has asthma.  And he uses his anti-inflamitory medications.  (In fact, he wanted to specalize in allergy for this reason – but discovered that he was getting exposed to too many triggers). Why cannot the people in the asthma care industry have the human decency to point out the significance of hyperventilation and that breathing less rather than more tends to bring relief.

They do point out the signifance of hyperventilation.  Of course they do so _accurately_, as asthma is a inflamitory disease.  Anybody who thinks that they may have hyperventilation causing asthma-like symptoms should be screened for hyperventilation syndrome. The important thing is not to allow your belief in an obsolete theory (Buteyko) blind you to the advances that have been made in the understanding of asthma.  You have to be willing to discard a theory when it no longer is able to account for known facts. If you are a physician, I

Question:

Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there?

Michael,  Buteyko New Zealand has an excellent Asthma Newsletter which they will email to you once a month for free.  If you contact  them at I’m sure Jenny will be happy to put you on their mailing list. Peter Kolb FREE INFORMATION ON BUTEYKO’S CURE FOR ASTHMA PROVIDED BY GRATEFUL EX-ASTHMATICS:   http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/buteyko.htm

Response:

Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there?

Asthma Update 123 Monticello Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 Healthy Home & Workplace (back issues) P.O. Box 121 Canal St. Station 350 Canal St. N.Y., NY 10013

Response:

Air Currents   byGlaxoWellcome   P.O. Box 5875   Hauppauge, NY 11788 http://www.asthmacontrol.com Inez Inez Clinscales-Fakir

Response:

Michael Gajdos : Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there?

In my home State (Victoria) there is an organisation called the "The Asthma Foundation" which produces a newsletter.  I am a fairly new member so am not sure of how frequent this is issued – I think it is quarterly.  Perhaps you could check for a similar organisation where you live – try the White Pages. Trevor

Response:

Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there?

You can register to be notified of updates at the JAMA Asthma Center web site. http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/asthma.htm http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/register/register.htm "JAMA Asthma Information Center E-mail update registration form Would you like us to tell you when we’ve updated this site? Just fill out the form below, and you’ll be notified automatically. Note: We will not sell or provide this information to anyone outside the AMA for any commercial purposes." Ellis

Response:

Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there? You can register to be notified of updates at the JAMA Asthma Center web site. http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/asthma.htm http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/register/register.htm

You can also subscribe to the American Lung Assoc newsletter at http://www.lungusa.org/homepage.html "AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION BREATHE EASY /ASTHMA DIGEST April 1998 Volume III, Issue 4 In This Digest: 1. ASTHMA DRUG FOUND EFFECTIVE IN CHILDREN 2. DRUG COMBINATION SHOWN EFFECTIVE IN FIGHTING HAY FEVER 3. PARENTS TRUST CHILDREN TO TAKE ASTHMA DRUGS 4. DRUG MAY HELP ASPIRIN-SENSITIVE ASTHMATICS 5. ASTHMA INCREASE SEEN IN ALMOST ALL AGE, SEX CATEGORIES 6. WHAT’S NEW ON THE ALA WEB SITE 7. URL LISTING 1. Asthma Drug Found Effective in Children The recently FDA-approved asthma drug montelukast (Singulair), taken once a day, is effective therapy for 6- to 14-year-old children with chronic asthma, according to a study published in the April 15 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at Merck Research Laboratories, manufacturer of montelukast, studied 336 children ages 6 to 14 at 47 outpatient centers in the United States and Canada to determine the effectiveness of the drug, one of a new class of asthma medications known as leukotriene inhibitors. Children in the study had a history of intermittent or persistent asthma symptoms. Approximately two-thirds of the children received montelukast in a five-milligram chewable tablet, taken at bedtime.  The other children were given a placebo. The researchers found that montelukast significantly improved lung function. The treatment effects usually occurred within one day after the first dose of montelukast. Patients receiving montelukast also reported significant improvements in the physical and emotional aspects of their lives. The most common adverse experiences were headache, asthma, and upper respiratory tract infection. Eleven patients were discontinued from the study because of adverse effects. For more information about this study, visit the American Medical Association web site  http://www.ama-assn.org 2. Drug Combination Shown Effective in Fighting Hay Fever The combination of the new asthma drug Singulair and the allergy drug Claritin may reduce hay fever symptoms better than either drug alone, suggests a study presented recently at a meeting of the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology.  The study found that patient taking a combination of Singulair and Claritin experienced a 28 percent reduction in hay fever nasal symptoms, better than the 16 percent reduction they experienced using either drug by itself, Bloomberg News reported on March 16. The study of 458 patients also found that the combination of drugs also better reduced eye symptoms, such as itching, redness and puffiness. The American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology web site is at http://www.aaaai.org 3. Parents Trust Children To Take Asthma Drugs Parents of children with asthma may be overly confident of their youngsters’ ability to take asthma drugs alone, a new study suggests. Reuters reported on March 23 that a recent telephone survey of 29 low-income, African-American parents with asthmatic children found that the parents trusted their child to take their asthma medication independently starting around age 8.5 years for inhaled medications, and 9.5 years for oral medication. However, many of those children may not take their medication as directed, according to the study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in Washington, DC. The researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found that the four most common reasons given by parents for allowing their child to take their medications independently were: the parent worked; belief that it was time for the child to take care of himself or herself; that the child knows best when they need the medication; and that the parent believed that the child is capable of finding and taking the medication alone. The American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology web site is at http://www.aaaai.org 4. Leukotriene Inhibitor May Help Aspirin-Sensitive Asthmatics Intolerance to aspirin and related nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be   significant problem for some people with asthma. For these people, NSAIDs causes severe constriction of the airways, often accompanied by runny nose, rash and conjunctivitis (pinkeye). a new study of 40 people with aspirin-sensitive asthma found that the drug zileuton (Zyflo) added to inhaled or oral steroids improved lung function and reduced runny nose and nasal stuffiness and improved sense of smell. Zileuton is a leukotriene inhibitor. Leukotrienes are chemicals that are released in the airways in response to exposure to an allergen or asthma trigger, and can cause the airways to become inflamed and irritated. Previous research has suggested that leukotrienes play a central role in aspirin-intolerant asthma, the researchers wrote in the April issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Lung Association. For information about the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, isit http://www.ajrccm.org 5. Asthma Increase Seen In Almost All Age, Sex Categories A 20-year study of patients in a large HMO show that the prevalence of asthma increased steadily and significantly in both males and females and in all age ranges except males aged 65 and older. Previous studies showing increases in asthma hospitalization and hospital-based episodes of asthma care were limited primarily to young boys. The authors of the new study note that "asthma hospitalizations, while accounting for a disproportionate part of total asthma health care costs, reflect only the tip of the iceberg in terms of total asthma care visits." The study looked at members of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division in Portland,  re. From 1966-1987 membership grew from 86,200 to 310,800. The study appeared in the April issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Lung Association. For nationwide statistics on asthma, visit the American Lung Association web site at: http://www.lungusa.org 6. What’s New on the ALA Web Site 1998 ALA/ATS International Conference releases…check out the ALA National Web Site for the latest releases from our International Conference at http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/enjoy/intercon.html IC Releases include: — International Conference Release: Minority Health a Focus at American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference, April 24-29; (April 6, 1998) (http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/global/news/medical/medic98_minority….) — International Conference Release:  Women’s, Children’s Lung Health a Focus at American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference, April 24-29; (April 6, 1998) (http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/global/news/medical/medic98_women.html)- — International Conference Release:      Gender Differences In Lung Disease Found In Prevalence, Diagnosis and Treatment; (April 26th Embargo Date) (http://www.lungusa.org//noframes/global/news/association/asnic98_gend…) — International Conference Release:      Studies at ALA/ATS International Conference Look at Relationship Between Asthma and Obesity; (April 26th Embargo Date) (http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/global/news/association/asnic98_studi…) —Association News Release: "Statement by John R. Garrison, CEO, American Lung Association, In Response to Report on Cigar Smoking" (April 10, 1998) (http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/global/news/association/asnupinsmoke….) — Test Your Tuberculosis Know-How (http://www.lungusa.org/noframes/global/news/association/tbquiz.html) 7. URL Listing 1. American Medical Association http://www.ama-assn.org 2. American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology  http://www.aaaai.org 3. American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology  http://www.aaaai.org 4. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine http://www.ajrccm.org 5. American Lung Association http://www.lungusa.org " Ellis

Response:

Are there any asthma/allergy newsletters out there?

Response:

Question:

Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White

This can be a side effect of albuterol. She could try substituting one of the other bronchodilators, like terbutaline. Actually under current asthma guidelines, albuterol is no longer recommended on a regular basis; just for exacerbations or exercise. If more than 1 puff/day of albuterol is needed, it indicates the need to add or increase long-acting preventor meds, like inhaled steroids. Ellis

Response:

Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White

Response:

I have the same problems with ventolin and bricanyl, it’s a common side effect, although lots of people only have this problems with high doses.  I tremble, feel like its cold and i feel anxious and like i’m scared. But it’s dangerous not to take the medicins when she needs them, but i know sometimes it’s hard to chose. I noticed the side-effects will be less if you use the inhalers for a long period of time. But if i was your wife, i would ask the docter for more steroids (then maybe she could use less albuterol) good luck, marieke – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White

Response:

Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White This can be a side effect of albuterol. She could try substituting one of the other bronchodilators, like terbutaline.

I get the shakes with terbutaline (Bricanyl in the UK).  They are listed as a possible side-effect on the insert. Actually under current asthma guidelines, albuterol is no longer recommended on a regular basis; just for exacerbations or exercise.

But since I only take it once or twice a month I don’t mind! If more than 1 puff/day of albuterol is needed, it indicates the need to add or increase long-acting preventor meds, like inhaled steroids. Ellis

– Surfer! http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk/flash Hopeful anti-spam: alter double ‘w’ to single ‘w’ to view site & send Email.

Response:

Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White This can be a side effect of albuterol. She could try substituting one of the other bronchodilators, like terbutaline. Actually under current asthma guidelines, albuterol is no longer recommended on a regular basis; just for exacerbations or exercise. If more than 1 puff/day of albuterol is needed, it indicates the need to add or increase long-acting preventor meds, like inhaled steroids.

Side effects from drugs in MDIs (metered-dose-inhalers) can be minimized by using a spacer, like an AeroChamber. This typically reduces side effects by at least 50%, by catching the overspray before it is deposited in the mouth and throat, and helping aerosolize the drug. Rinsing the mouth with water after inhaling may help. Another technique is just take one puff of the albuterol at a time, ie spreading out the dose. If taking 2 puffs/4 hr for an exacerbation, instead take 1 puff/2 hour.  Ellis

Response:

You seem to be confusing me with the orginal poster, to whom I was replying. My asthma is controlled using small amounts of conventional drugs & environmental controls. In addition I live a healthy life style with exercise and a Pyramid diet. Haven’t heard of any supplements that have documented asthma curing powers. If you know of any why not post the information here along with the source. Here’s a link: http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/library/readroom/60279.htm Nutrition and Asthma                Catherine A. Monteleone, MD; Adria R. Sherman, PhD Excerpt: "Asthma is a syndrome that may have many causes resulting in airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness. The search for the causes of asthma has led to the investigation of genetic, atopic, viral, and nutritional factors. For the last 2 decades, a number of studies have linked particular nutrients to asthma. The studies have examined both the suboptimal status of particular nutrients as causes of asthma and supplements of specific nutrients as therapy for asthma. We reviewed and analyzed data from these studies to determine the role of nutritional therapy in the management of asthma. The studies on food allergies reveal that IgE-mediated reactions to food are a minor cause of respiratory symptoms, affecting more children than adults. Currently, there are no available data to support the use of nutritional supplements in the treatment of chronic asthma. "                 Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:23-34 Ellis – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Ellis, Would it not make sense to you to try supplements that have been documented to help asthmatics reduce their requirement for asthma medication and reduce their symptoms?  The new research of glyconutritionals and nutraceuticals on all kinds of compromised health conditions is truly astounding!  It is almost too good to be true!  But I know that the way I feel now is not just a figment of my imagination! Has anyone had the problem of getting tremors or "shakes" after taking albuterol?  My wife has gotten to the point of refusing to take her inhalers at all due the the side-effects.  She’d rather suffer with the breathlessness. -Russ White

Response:

Question:

Hi all,     We originally subscribed to this group to look for information that might help us to cope with our daughter’s allergies (cats, dogs, field grasses, and milk), but now I find that I am the one asking for help.     I was tested for allergies in January, and out of the 62 things I was tested for, I came up positive on 30. Although the trees were a surprise, the grasses (and their severity), and weeds were not, as I’ve had hayfever for as long as I can remember. Another surprise was the vegetables (corn, peas, carrots, and beans), and nuts (almonds, and hazelnuts). I am also allergic to wood dust, all house dusts and several molds. And to top things off I am also somewhat dermographic (skin sensitive/allergic).     I am taking an antihistamine (Reactine 5 mg.) and a nasal corticosteroid (was taking Nasacort AQ which gave me nosebleeds so my doctor changed the Prescription), but I wonder about the safety of these products (remember Seldane). I have also noticed that the Reactine seems to wear off around 10 p.m., which is about 10 hours short of the 24 hours which the manufacturers say it is effective.     When I decided to see my doctor about having the allergy shots, he was away because of an injury, so I had to see a different doctor. She told me that the shots don’t work, and why don’t I just take antihistamines for the rest of my life, tear all of the carpets out of my house, and don’t go outside during the allergy season. "HELLO!! ANYBODY HOME IN THERE!?!? I GUESS NOT!" If I even made a quarter of a doctor’s salary, I would be happy to replace my carpets with hardwood flooring and area rugs, but stay in the house from March till October, GIVE ME A BREAK!!     I’m a 37 yr. old wife (hubby works 12 hr./day), mother of two (1 in high school, 1 in elementary school), and businesswoman (Owner/Operator-Graphic Design & Desktop Publishing Business {Start-up Phase}), and volunteer (Cancer Society). I neither have the time, energy, nor income to completely rearrange mine and my family’s, home, lives, and diets. Also I’ve had other health problems over the past year and a half, which have pretty much forced me to "hibernate" during these past 2 winters, so being a person who loves the outdoors, nature and gardening, I have to… no… NEED to get outside when the weather warms up.     As you can probably tell, I’m very discouraged by this whole thing, and I apologize to all of you for rambling on, but I would like to hear about possible REALISTIC solutions/suggestions if anyone has any. (No spammers Please!)     Thank you for your help. Patricia M. Nault

Response:

Please talk to your regular doctor when he returns.  Shots DO work!!! In fact my entire family takes weekly shots – if we go more than three weeks between shots, somebody gets really sick with an upper respiratory infection. The doctor’s feeling that shots don’t work may be based on a study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in Jan 1997 that studied children with asthma to see if shots helped or not.  This was a dreadfully done study – patient selection was done for the researchers’ convenience with little applicability in the real world, the kids all received as much FREE asthma medication as the parents requested, the kids’ medication was NOT reduced as the protocol detailed if the parents did not wish to reduce it, the researchers inspected all of the children’s homes before they were included in the study to make sure all possible allergy producers had been eliminated. The conclusion of the study was that if you eliminate as many triggers as possible, overmedicate the child, and keep the child in a sterile box, it probably won’t make any difference to the asthma if the child receives shots or not.  Nice, but who can do that? Kim (who read this study while taking a Drug Literature Evaluation course) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Phillip Nault wrote: > Hi all, >     We originally subscribed to this group to look for information that > might help us to cope with our daughter’s allergies (cats, dogs, field > grasses, and milk), but now I find that I am the one asking for help. >     I was tested for allergies in January, and out of the 62 things I was > tested for, I came up positive on 30. Although the trees were a surprise, > the grasses (and their severity), and weeds were not, as I’ve had hayfever > for as long as I can remember. Another surprise was the vegetables (corn, > peas, carrots, and beans), and nuts (almonds, and hazelnuts). I am also > allergic to wood dust, all house dusts and several molds. And to top things > off I am also somewhat dermographic (skin sensitive/allergic). >     I am taking an antihistamine (Reactine 5 mg.) and a nasal corticosteroid > (was taking Nasacort AQ which gave me nosebleeds so my doctor changed the > Prescription), but I wonder about the safety of these products (remember > Seldane). I have also noticed that the Reactine seems to wear off around 10 > p.m., which is about 10 hours short of the 24 hours which the manufacturers > say it is effective. >     When I decided to see my doctor about having the allergy shots, he was > away because of an injury, so I had to see a different doctor. She told me > that the shots don’t work, and why don’t I just take antihistamines for the > rest of my life, tear all of the carpets out of my house, and don’t go > outside during the allergy season. "HELLO!! ANYBODY HOME IN THERE!?!? I > GUESS NOT!" If I even made a quarter of a doctor’s salary, I would be happy > to replace my carpets with hardwood flooring and area rugs, but stay in the > house from March till October, GIVE ME A BREAK!! >     I’m a 37 yr. old wife (hubby works 12 hr./day), mother of two (1 in high > school, 1 in elementary school), and businesswoman (Owner/Operator-Graphic > Design & Desktop Publishing Business {Start-up Phase}), and volunteer > (Cancer Society). I neither have the time, energy, nor income to completely > rearrange mine and my family’s, home, lives, and diets. Also I’ve had other > health problems over the past year and a half, which have pretty much forced > me to "hibernate" during these past 2 winters, so being a person who loves > the outdoors, nature and gardening, I have to… no… NEED to get outside > when the weather warms up. >     As you can probably tell, I’m very discouraged by this whole thing, and > I apologize to all of you for rambling on, but I would like to hear about > possible REALISTIC solutions/suggestions if anyone has any. (No spammers > Please!) >     Thank you for your help. > Patricia M. Nault

Response:

I know just how you feel, Debra.  I was diagnosed 3 years ago and I have been miserable since.  I am allergic to so many difference foods and enviromental things, it is difficult.  But it can be done.  First off, I rent and if I pulled up the carpets, I think my landlord would kill me, so I vacumn often, dust often.  I run a air cleaner as well, it’s a small apartment so that works for me.  Also, I was on those shots, but, because I am allergic to so much, they didn’t help me.  But they do work for alot of people, so I’d give it a try.  I tried spelt as well.  I have tried lots of alternatives but, no luck so far.  I don’t eat bread of any type.  I am not giving up, though.  Good luck. Carol J. Debra Raley wrote in message <350A9FC1.4744C…@eaglenet.com>…

Patricia, Don’t listen to that doctor who said allergy shots don’t work….They do actually, although it takes a while to get your body built up, it is not instantanious. I have been on them for almost 30 years, been to several doctors, tested about 5-6 times all different ways…I do however notice a difference from when I get the shot compared to a season where I’m not one the shots. As for the ripping out the carpet thing and staying indoors, that doctor is just being a butthole. Now purchasing a rainbow vac, will help, that vacuums the dust and puts it into a water tank so the dust doesn’t circulate around. It’s amazing what the water looks like when you vacuum just one room, YUK. Hardwood floors in my opinion make dust fly just as fast as carpet….Don’t listen to him. And no one wants to spend their life on antihistimes. One thing that does help too for a boost if you know you are going to be exposed to a certain condition ie: pollen, cats, dogs, etc …is an all natural homeopathic medicine called "Allergy Relief" by bioAllers. this is in the form of drops you place under your tongue…it contains the stuff you are allergic to along with adrenaline…I was sceptible at first…but it really works. I’m highly allergic to cat’s, and I house-sit for a women with 4 cats….I’m miserable if I forget to take an extra boost of antihistimine first, but it dries me out and makes me sleepy.. then I started taking the drops….and they really do work…and best of all, No Side Effect. Well good luck….get a second opinion, if allergy shots were such BS, then why is half the nation on them? 1 word against millions. Debbie Raley ra…@eaglenet.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Phillip Nault wrote: > Hi all, >     We originally subscribed to this group to look for information that > might help us to cope with our daughter’s allergies (cats, dogs, field > grasses, and milk), but now I find that I am the one asking for help. >     I was tested for allergies in January, and out of the 62 things I was > tested for, I came up positive on 30. Although the trees were a surprise, > the grasses (and their severity), and weeds were not, as I’ve had hayfever > for as long as I can remember. Another surprise was the vegetables (corn, > peas, carrots, and beans), and nuts (almonds, and hazelnuts). I am also > allergic to wood dust, all house dusts and several molds. And to top things > off I am also somewhat dermographic (skin sensitive/allergic). >     I am taking an antihistamine (Reactine 5 mg.) and a nasal corticosteroid > (was taking Nasacort AQ which gave me nosebleeds so my doctor changed the > Prescription), but I wonder about the safety of these products (remember > Seldane). I have also noticed that the Reactine seems to wear off around 10 > p.m., which is about 10 hours short of the 24 hours which the manufacturers > say it is effective. >     When I decided to see my doctor about having the allergy shots, he was > away because of an injury, so I had to see a different doctor. She told me > that the shots don’t work, and why don’t I just take antihistamines for the > rest of my life, tear all of the carpets out of my house, and don’t go > outside during the allergy season. "HELLO!! ANYBODY HOME IN THERE!?!? I > GUESS NOT!" If I even made a quarter of a doctor’s salary, I would be happy > to replace my carpets with hardwood flooring and area rugs, but stay in the > house from March till October, GIVE ME A BREAK!! >     I’m a 37 yr. old wife (hubby works 12 hr./day), mother of two (1 in high > school, 1 in elementary school), and businesswoman (Owner/Operator-Graphic > Design & Desktop Publishing Business {Start-up Phase}), and volunteer > (Cancer Society). I neither have the time, energy, nor income to completely > rearrange mine and my family’s, home, lives, and diets. Also I’ve had other > health problems over the past year and a half, which have pretty much forced > me to "hibernate" during these past 2 winters, so being a person who loves > the outdoors, nature and gardening, I have to… no… NEED to get outside > when the weather warms up. >     As you can probably tell, I’m very discouraged by this whole thing, and > I apologize to all of you for rambling on, but I would like to hear about > possible REALISTIC solutions/suggestions if anyone has any. (No spammers > Please!) >     Thank you for your help. > Patricia M. Nault

Response:

Dear Mrs. Nault, Sorry to hear about your allergies, I know from experience what a frustrating ordeal it can be. However, there are ways of coping with them. And sometimes they eventually just go away.(but don’t wait for that to happen).  I originally started having trouble with allergiies in 1986.  It was so bad that I could not even drive a car. I was in Jaurez Mexico at the time and I went to a Doctor that studied in the U.S.A.   He started me on antihistamines, and weekly shot of Vitamine B12 boosters. The shots as he explained were to boost my imune system and help my body to fight off the allergies. They helped tremendously , especially for the hayfever. I moved away after a few months, so I don’t know if they could have completely rid me of allergies. but they did help lessen the symptoms.     Later, I was tested and started allergy immunization shots. They also helped very much and I know friends who get shots regularly also and they are able to live a comfortable life.  They can be a bit inconvenient, but so are allergies.  I no longer take allergy shots, (mostly I just got tired of taking them) and I still have allergies. But I can garauntee that my allergies are much easier to deal with today.     There are lots of different medicines, I’ve probably tried them all, but the shots gave me the best long term relief. Good luck David LeJeune

Response:

Patricia, Don’t listen to that doctor who said allergy shots don’t work….They do actually, although it takes a while to get your body built up, it is not instantanious. I have been on them for almost 30 years, been to several doctors, tested about 5-6 times all different ways…I do however notice a difference from when I get the shot compared to a season where I’m not one the shots. As for the ripping out the carpet thing and staying indoors, that doctor is just being a butthole. Now purchasing a rainbow vac, will help, that vacuums the dust and puts it into a water tank so the dust doesn’t circulate around. It’s amazing what the water looks like when you vacuum just one room, YUK. Hardwood floors in my opinion make dust fly just as fast as carpet….Don’t listen to him. And no one wants to spend their life on antihistimes. One thing that does help too for a boost if you know you are going to be exposed to a certain condition ie: pollen, cats, dogs, etc …is an all natural homeopathic medicine called "Allergy Relief" by bioAllers. this is in the form of drops you place under your tongue…it contains the stuff you are allergic to along with adrenaline…I was sceptible at first…but it really works. I’m highly allergic to cat’s, and I house-sit for a women with 4 cats….I’m miserable if I forget to take an extra boost of antihistimine first, but it dries me out and makes me sleepy.. then I started taking the drops….and they really do work…and best of all, No Side Effect. Well good luck….get a second opinion, if allergy shots were such BS, then why is half the nation on them? 1 word against millions. Debbie Raley ra…@eaglenet.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Phillip Nault wrote: > Hi all, >     We originally subscribed to this group to look for information that > might help us to cope with our daughter’s allergies (cats, dogs, field > grasses, and milk), but now I find that I am the one asking for help. >     I was tested for allergies in January, and out of the 62 things I was > tested for, I came up positive on 30. Although the trees were a surprise, > the grasses (and their severity), and weeds were not, as I’ve had hayfever > for as long as I can remember. Another surprise was the vegetables (corn, > peas, carrots, and beans), and nuts (almonds, and hazelnuts). I am also > allergic to wood dust, all house dusts and several molds. And to top things > off I am also somewhat dermographic (skin sensitive/allergic). >     I am taking an antihistamine (Reactine 5 mg.) and a nasal corticosteroid > (was taking Nasacort AQ which gave me nosebleeds so my doctor changed the > Prescription), but I wonder about the safety of these products (remember > Seldane). I have also noticed that the Reactine seems to wear off around 10 > p.m., which is about 10 hours short of the 24 hours which the manufacturers > say it is effective. >     When I decided to see my doctor about having the allergy shots, he was > away because of an injury, so I had to see a different doctor. She told me > that the shots don’t work, and why don’t I just take antihistamines for the > rest of my life, tear all of the carpets out of my house, and don’t go > outside during the allergy season. "HELLO!! ANYBODY HOME IN THERE!?!? I > GUESS NOT!" If I even made a quarter of a doctor’s salary, I would be happy > to replace my carpets with hardwood flooring and area rugs, but stay in the > house from March till October, GIVE ME A BREAK!! >     I’m a 37 yr. old wife (hubby works 12 hr./day), mother of two (1 in high > school, 1 in elementary school), and businesswoman (Owner/Operator-Graphic > Design & Desktop Publishing Business {Start-up Phase}), and volunteer > (Cancer Society). I neither have the time, energy, nor income to completely > rearrange mine and my family’s, home, lives, and diets. Also I’ve had other > health problems over the past year and a half, which have pretty much forced > me to "hibernate" during these past 2 winters, so being a person who loves > the outdoors, nature and gardening, I have to… no… NEED to get outside > when the weather warms up. >     As you can probably tell, I’m very discouraged by this whole thing, and > I apologize to all of you for rambling on, but I would like to hear about > possible REALISTIC solutions/suggestions if anyone has any. (No spammers > Please!) >     Thank you for your help. > Patricia M. Nault

Response:

Question:

Does anyone know about this Nasal Inhaler and what makes it better than the others?  I do not know why a Dr. would put me on one rather than the other.  Are there any differences? Thanks Mac

Response:

The advantage of Rhinocort is that it is used once a day. If this is to be used by a child, watch their behavior.  We wondered what was making our 7 1/2 year old behave irrationally and aggressively (possession??).  One night at work, I was glancing through a copy of Drug Topics magazine at an article of "The New Drugs of 1994".  I saw that Rhinocort could cause uncontrollable, agressive behavior in children and lowering the dosage would help.  We tapered him OFF the Rhinocort and his normal behavior returned. Kim

Response:

Hi, I start this post with a big grin. I just love the way you American guys are so super confident in everything you say – and then argue between yourselves about who is more right than the other.

I also post with a big grin – laughing at the "I’m in the know" attitude so frequently adopted by Europeans, particularly the Brits. One would think that all news flows through London and then the Queen lets out only what she wants the rest of us to know. If I always seem to be so sure of myself it is not that I am always so sure, just that I tend to not speak with authority unless I am. I wouldn’t dream of getting involved in any of your Tyson type bouts UK web site which is just a bit more cautious about long term usage of Rhinocort.

It is a website, not a journal. There are also websites that will tell you aliens are amongst us. Big deal. It is not an abstract. From www.NetDoctor.co.uk Warning!   a.. Children on long-term corticosteroid therapy should have their height monitored, since high doses of corticosteroids taken for long periods can impair growth in children.

This is a common fear that has been investigated thoroughly. Many studes show no difference in final height and the few that do show a decrement usually show only a small one. Besides, I don;t believe the original discussion was in a child.   b.. For full therapeutic benefit this medicine should be used regularly.

Agreed.   c.. The dose of this medicine for use in children has not been established.

So-So – it has been established that commonly used doses do not result in a high serum level of drug.   d.. Even if symptom relief has been achieved, this medicine should not be used continuously for longer than 3 months without consulting your doctor.

In the US it is available only by prescription. Therefore it cannot be used without consulting a doctor (barring diversion). Note: It says "without consulting a doctor" – not that it shouldn’t be used.   e.. This preparation may cause side effects elsewhere in the body if used at high doses and for long periods of time.

Agreed. Note: it says high doses AND a long time.   f.. Special care is demanded in the treatment of patients transferred from oral to nasal corticosteroids where disturbances of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis could be expected.

Agreed- irrelevant to this topic. —

– CBI – smiling even more.

Response:

<snip I also post with a big grin – laughing at the "I’m in the know" attitude so frequently adopted by Europeans, particularly the Brits. One would think that all news flows through London and then the Queen lets out only what she wants the rest of us to know.

ROFL I presume that was posted with three rousing choruses of the Star Spangled Banner. Its a good job we have our sense of humour. ) — ned — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. prescribed for a max three months at a time. I have not seen any indications for this – reference? (I have been using Flonase for about 2 years now.) I would recommend the following site: http://www.rhinocort-us.com/2000.asp Contrary to what someone posted, it is NOT a saline solution, from what I read there. It is the same chemical as the aerosol Rhinocort, but in a pump-spray solution. It does not indicate a 3 month maximum, or any maximum.  It does offer some things to watch for in long term use. My doctor said maximum relief occurs in 3 months.  The website says 2 weeks. My doctor is going to hate me if I keep discovering things on my own. Nevertheless… You are correct on both counts – there is no max and the max benefit is in about 2 weeks (give or take a week).

Hi, I start this post with a big grin. I just love the way you American guys are so super confident in everything you say – and then argue between yourselves about who is more right than the other. I wouldn’t dream of getting involved in any of your Tyson type bouts UK web site which is just a bit more cautious about long term usage of Rhinocort. From www.NetDoctor.co.uk Warning!   a.. Children on long-term corticosteroid therapy should have their height monitored, since high doses of corticosteroids taken for long periods can impair growth in children.   b.. For full therapeutic benefit this medicine should be used regularly.   c.. The dose of this medicine for use in children has not been established.   d.. Even if symptom relief has been achieved, this medicine should not be used continuously for longer than 3 months without consulting your doctor.   e.. This preparation may cause side effects elsewhere in the body if used at high doses and for long periods of time.   f.. Special care is demanded in the treatment of patients transferred from oral to nasal corticosteroids where disturbances of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis could be expected. — — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

As stated, it was prescribed by my GP for three month periods.

Then that advice applies to yourself. I have a written text from which I quote :- Rhinocort …. side-effects, warning see budesonide. treats the symptoms and has no effect on any underlying infection: such an infection, remaining undetected may reach potentially serious proportions while its symptoms are masked by the corticosteroid. … prolonged use should be avoided.

Sounds like common-sense advice.  Warning you that treating the inflammation does not treat an infection. — We make war so we may live in peace. Aristotle

Response:

…… and not recommended for long term usage. I had it prescribed for a max three months at a time. I have not seen any indications for this – reference?

Neither have I. I have used Rhinicort for quite a few years with no restrictions. I stayed with it rather then changing after trying Rhinicort Aqua. Rhinocort is a topical steroid used for nasal problems.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. for a max three months at a time. I have not seen any indications for this – reference? (I have been using Flonase for about 2 years now.) I would recommend the following site: http://www.rhinocort-us.com/2000.asp Contrary to what someone posted, it is NOT a saline solution, from what I read there. It is the same chemical as the aerosol Rhinocort, but in a pump-spray solution. It does not indicate a 3 month maximum, or any maximum.  It does offer some things to watch for in long term use. My doctor said maximum relief occurs in 3 months.  The website says 2 weeks. My doctor is going to hate me if I keep discovering things on my own. Nevertheless…

You are correct on both counts – there is no max and the max benefit is in about 2 weeks (give or take a week). Isn’t the internet great?

I would say it is a two edged sword. — CBI, DM

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. prescribed for a max three months at a time. I have not seen any indications for this – reference? (I have been using Flonase for about 2 years now.)

Hi, Colin As stated, it was prescribed by my GP for three month periods. I have a written text from which I quote :-  Rhinocort …. side-effects, warning see budesonide. treats the symptoms and has no effect on any underlying infection: such an infection, remaining undetected may reach potentially serious proportions while its symptoms are masked by the corticosteroid. … prolonged use should be avoided. End quote. Since I am not currently using Rhinocort, I can’t quote from manufacturers literature. Now, let me state that I have viewed American Rhinocort web pages and they give no such advice. Maybe its a rather more cautious approach ‘tother side of the pond.   ) — ned — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. for a max three months at a time.

I have not seen any indications for this – reference? (I have been using Flonase for about 2 years now.) — We make war so we may live in peace. Aristotle

Response:

Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. for a max three months at a time. I have not seen any indications for this – reference? (I have been using Flonase for about 2 years now.)

I would recommend the following site: http://www.rhinocort-us.com/2000.asp Contrary to what someone posted, it is NOT a saline solution, from what I read there. It is the same chemical as the aerosol Rhinocort, but in a pump-spray solution. It does not indicate a 3 month maximum, or any maximum.  It does offer some things to watch for in long term use. My doctor said maximum relief occurs in 3 months.  The website says 2 weeks. My doctor is going to hate me if I keep discovering things on my own. Nevertheless… Isn’t the internet great? =Bullwinkle=

Response:

There’s also Rhinocort Aqua which is a saline solution used to help flush out nasal passages & sinuses.  I can’t handle snorting salt water so I use RA instead. Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism.

for a max three months at a time. — ned — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

There’s also Rhinocort Aqua which is a saline solution used to help flush out nasal passages & sinuses.  I can’t handle snorting salt water so I use RA instead.

Rhinocort Aqua is a steroid also.  It is the same medication with a different delivery mechanism. — We make war so we may live in peace. Aristotle

Response:

What does Rhinocort do?

Response:

What does Rhinocort do?

Rhinocort is a nasal anti-inflammitory.  Typically used to treat rhinitis and sinusitis. — We make war so we may live in peace. Aristotle

Response:

There’s also Rhinocort Aqua which is a saline solution used to help flush out nasal passages & sinuses.  I can’t handle snorting salt water so I use RA instead. Pat

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What does Rhinocort do? Rhinocort is a nasal anti-inflammitory.  Typically used to treat rhinitis and sinusitis. — We make war so we may live in peace. Aristotle

Response:

to say that 44mcg of flovent is equal in efiicacy, in reference to treating asthma,  to beclomethasone with half the systemic effects is not a valid statement. the thing that is important to remember is that flovent has a significantly higher binding affinity to the glucocoritcoid receptors in the lung.  this allows flovent to be more effective in preventing asthma at lower doses.  however,  the binding affinity applies to the glucocorticoid receptors in the bones and tissue as well.  thus, flovent’s systemic effects are much greater that beclomethasone,  not half.

Response:

If flovent has a greater risk of systemic effects, does it not also have greater potency in suppressing the symptoms, with more medicine per inhalent molecules.  It seems the appropriate guidance is to use the least amount of steroid that produces suppression of inflammation (symptoms), as well as the least amount of inhalent to deliver the necessary medicine. For some who have severe symptoms, or need to inhale many doses of vancenase (beclomethasone), flovent would seem to be the best medicine. In either case, whether you are using 30 puffs of vancenase or 4 puffs of flovent, one is facing risks of systemic impacts, but still far less than taking prednisone sufficient to suppress the same symptoms.  If inflammation is slight, flovent may be overkill.

Flovent is a new steroid asthma inhaler available in 3 strenths, 44 ug, 110 ug, & 220 ug. The low strength (44 ug) has the same efficacy as Vanceril(Beclovent) but half the systemic effect, thus is twice as safe according to several studies. The higher strength versions of Flovent are useful to severe cases of asthma needing high doses since it reduces the required number of inhalations.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If flovent has a greater risk of systemic effects, does it not also have greater potency in suppressing the symptoms, with more medicine per inhalent molecules.  It seems the appropriate guidance is to use the least amount of steroid that produces suppression of inflammation (symptoms), as well as the least amount of inhalent to deliver the necessary medicine. For some who have severe symptoms, or need to inhale many doses of vancenase (beclomethasone), flovent would seem to be the best medicine. In either case, whether you are using 30 puffs of vancenase or 4 puffs of flovent, one is facing risks of systemic impacts, but still far less than taking prednisone sufficient to suppress the same symptoms.  If inflammation is slight, flovent may be overkill. Flovent is a new steroid asthma inhaler available in 3 strenths, 44 ug, 110 ug, & 220 ug. The low strength (44 ug) has the same efficacy as Vanceril(Beclovent) but half the systemic effect, thus is twice as safe according to several studies. The higher strength versions of Flovent are useful to severe cases of asthma needing high doses since it reduces the required number of inhalations.

The nominal dose for Flovent 44 is 2 puffs twice a day, the nominal dose for Vanceril/Beclovent (42 ug) is 2 puffs 3 or 4 times a day, or 4 puffs twice a day. Therefore Flovent 44 has about twice the efficacy per puff as standart strength Vanceril/Beclovent. Several studies show the systemic effect of Flovent is half that of Vanceril/Beclovent for the same efficacy. A:1995 Sep, 3-18 Fluticasone has at least twice the clinical potency of beclomethasone d. and budesonide…without an accompanying increase in systemic effects, suggesting a therapeutic index which may be higher than other currently available inhaled corticosteroids. 2.’Comparison of fluticasone p & beclomethasone d on direct and indirect measurements of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in patients with stable asthma’, Bootsma GP, Dept of Pulmonary Diseases, U. Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Thorax, 50: 10, 1995 Oct, 1044-50 These findings show that fluticasone p is as effective as twice the dose of beclomethasone d on bronchial hyperresponsiveness, assessed by provocation with both histamine and UNDW, without increased systemic activity.

Response:

If flovent has a greater risk of systemic effects, does it not also have greater potency in suppressing the symptoms, with more medicine per inhalent molecules.  It seems the appropriate guidance is to use the least amount of steroid that produces suppression of inflammation (symptoms), as well as the least amount of inhalent to deliver the necessary medicine. For some who have severe symptoms, or need to inhale many doses of vancenase (beclomethasone), flovent would seem to be the best medicine. In either case, whether you are using 30 puffs of vancenase or 4 puffs of flovent, one is facing risks of systemic impacts, but still far less than taking prednisone sufficient to suppress the same symptoms.  If inflammation is slight, flovent may be overkill.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Advice, please: What is the difference between Vancenase and Rhinocort? Mary Vancenase or Beconase is beclomethasone (asthma equivalent is Vanceril or Beclovent). Rhinocort is budesonide (asthma equivalent is Pulmicort). Below is an excerpt from the National Jewish Center web page on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis in Asthmatic Children. It suggests that budesonide is more powereful and has more systemic effect than beclomethasone. Of course it is also dose dependent, and only the minimum dose to achieve the desired effect should be used. The complete article is at http://www.njc.org/MSU/12n3MSU_Ster_Ind_Osteo.html ‘Unfortunately, it is also unclear if the use of inhaled steroids completely avoids the osteoporotic effects of oral steroids. The only evidence available indicates that children treated with the recommended dose of inhaled beclomethasone (Beclovent and Vanceril), 84 ug three or four times daily, have not had growth abnormalities. The inference from this indirect evidence is that standard inhaled doses of this steroid do not result in osteoporosis. What remains unknown is whether this extrapolation applies to the other inhaled steroids often used to treat asthma, such as triamcinolone (Azmacort) and flunisolide (Aerobid). The basic approach to management is a three-pronged attack involving diet, modified steroid use, and weight-bearing exercise. No reports have emerged of bone problems associated with these newer inhaled steroids when used at their recommended dosages, but physicians often prescribe these drugs at levels that are up two-fold higher than the recommended dose. At this dose, the plasma level of drug is the bioequivalent of systemic steroid dose. This pattern of usage has raised concerns about possible adverse effects, including osteoporosis. Physicians must be careful that their enthusiasm for inhaled steroids doesn’t blind them into thinking that they have absolutely no systemic effects. In addition, several studies with budesonide, a new, more potent inhaled steroid with higher topical/systemic potency ratio, have demonstrated a significant reduction in lower-leg growth after treatment with doses as low as 200 ug/day.’ Bill, Having read your posts on this NG, and alt.support.asthma, I question your motivation in some of your posts, and some of the "fear factor" comments you imply. From reading your posts you seem to be a champion of National Jewish Center, and fluticasone (Flovent). Both of which are well repected in their individual fields.  However, when you posted to this NG you chose not to make any mention of fluticasone, as to the systemic potency of fluticasone used in the treatment of asthmatics. (Keeping in mind this NG is for allergy suffers).

Please don’t be afraid of my posts. "Information is power." NJC has a very good searchable data base, don’t you like it? Fluticasone wasn’t mentioned in this thread until you just brought it up, Mary asked about Rhinocort vs Vancenase. I followed your link and to NJC and I would like to quote the following passages: cut What you failed to note, as well as the NJC study, was that the when looking at the short term studies the researchers noted that "The clinical significance of this finding is not known". As a matter of fact, long term studies, two 1 year studies, and one 5 1/2 year study, have shown no evidence of bone growth or HPA supression.

How could I note it if NJC didn’t note it, they were my only reference, this isn’t supposed to be a complete medical diagnosis, only a quick response to try to provide further info to the original poster Having read your posts on Flovent (fluticasone), you by your own admission, state the value of the new "higher potent steroids", and to use you own words from a previous post when I asked you if you were implying that budesonide was more systemically potent:    " Yes, this is what I understand, but I’m not an expert. My doctor, who is      associated with a major teaching institution confirmed he had heard that      Flovent has less systemic effect."

That’s what I said but budesonide was not mentioned in your original question, only steroids in general, why don’t you post your comments relating to another message to that thread.This thread from Mary is on Rhinocort vs Vancenase, she didn’t mention Flovent, but now that you brought it up I will discuss it below. I must call your attention to a study entitled "Assessment of the relative systemic potency of inhaled fluticasone and budesonide", by M. Boorsma et al, in the European  Respiratory Journal, dated 1996.  The study found "In conclusion, in healthy male volunteers using pressurized metered-dose inhalers, fluticasone propionate was shown to have a stronger systemic effect than busdesonide." Also it should be noted that in a Glaxo sponsored study, by Malcolm Johnson, PhD, they readily admit to the lipofilicity of fluticasone as well as report the half-life’s of glucocorticoid steroids, by a function of hours: Dexamethasone    1.1Methylprednisone 0.5

Triamcinalone    3.9 17- BMP          7.5  (Beclomethasone) Flunisolide      3.5 Budesonide       5.1 Fluticasone     10.5 Is this not consistent to the systemic potency of Fluticasone?

I don’t know, I’m just an engineer, but see reference 1 below which came to the opposite conclusion. In your studies please look into the lung deposition of these two drugs. I think you will find out why budesonide (Pulimcort) is the widest perscribed asthma medication outside the United States, (which will soon be introduced to the US market).

In response to this post and my own interest and the fact I just figured out how to do a Medline search(thru www.healthgate.com), I checked out Rhinocort(budesonide) vs Vancenase(beclomethasone) some more. I

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Furthermore, a lot of these postings, and those that annoy me most, are not attempts at honest discussion of things. They sound more like a sales-pitch, based on something that sounds like pseudo-science. I am not saying the Buteyko method is yet another quack remedy, but it sure has a lot of the outer appereances of it: Well I don’t understand you people.  What have you got againest Buteyko anyway. It’s free and nobody on the internet that I know of is making any money from it. What’s your problem?  I can’t give you a medical report on how and why it works. I am a laymen.  Go to our web-page if you want that.        http://www.cix.co.uk/~reardo/buteyko.htm Before I started Buteyko exercises. I was taking 2 puffs of ventolin about every 3 hours around the clock, plus 8 puffs of beclovent a day. On top of all this about twice and sometimes 3 times a year I had to take a predisone series, to get me through. I discovered Buteyko via. the internet last April 1996, I got down to where I wasn’t taking anything except 2 puffs of beclovent twice a day, with no sign of asthma in my life period. All summer — nothing! I have not had a single predisone series, nor have I even come close to needing one.  Then Like a nut I even stopped doing the exercises, and about 3 weeks ago I crashed. I was back again on ventolin and 8 puffs of beclovent. Once again however, by doing the exercises I am climbing back up again to not having any asthma. Thanks to Buteyko.      BUT DON’T STOP DOING THE EXERCISES — PEOPLE — YOU’LL BE SORRY. Now what’s your problem. I want to pass this fantastic thing on to other people. You say I am a fanatic, you better believe it. Why is it wrong for me to pass something on to other people, that has so greatly helped me gain back a life I had lost do to asthma. I happen to know what it is like to have horrible asthma attacks. To find what I have found and to then keep it to myself, would be wrong very wrong, in fact I doubt if I could live with myself. Could you, if you had this knowledge?  You people are the ones who are nuts. But you will lose, because Buteyko is here, and it’s here to stay. You can suppress the truth all you want, but in the end although it usually is slow in coming, truth will win. Why don’t you want poeple helped, with their asthma?????? Why are you fighting this??? If it is a bunch of boloney, and it still works, why fight it? If it’s a placibo and it still works, why fight it? I don’t care what you or anybody else says. If it works, and it does for me. I lose nothing. I get my life back. What do you have to offer me in exchange for this? Are you saying I should quit doing Buteyko exercises? Sorry I already tried that, it worked for about a week and then the bottom fell out. What do you want me to do, to replace Buteyko?   NOW, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA? Since to you Buteyko is nothing. You must have something better. If not, why arn’t you keeping your mouth shut? What’s your purpose in all this?  Do you have stock in asthma drugs? or what? I give up. —– Thank God for Buteyko, is all I really have to say.

Hey..hey..hey…don’t give up! If I had read your message a year ago, perhaps I should learn the exersizes a year ago, and be sorry that I haven’t heard about it one year less…you people who are experiencing these reliefs from asthma and not reporting them here are as bad as the ones who try to cover up those facts… please come forward and make your voice to be heard against this comedy to your fellow asthmatics. Please do this! |-| /- |-< |-< ||| – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ron

Response:

(ad hominem attack deleted)

Kind of expected those, yes My problem is also that I see a tremendous potential for psychological harm in the way that certain advocates of Buteyko proselytize, and even potential physical harm if a person who really does need medication is kept by true believers from access to that medication (and here I am thinking of children and how they often suffer at the hands of true believers of many sorts).

On the subject of psychological harm: I just got a mail (you know who you are) that really urged me to try Buteyko. But, just in case (parafrasing, won’t quote email) it also already stated that if it didn’t work for me, that would only be because I was the kind of complacent person happy to reach for the instant relief of my Ventolin, and not putting enough effort in Buteyko. What a wonderfull way to be able to claim 100% succesrate An another "nicety" from that email: he had the bloody nerve to question whether I am really having asthma. Talking about stuff that could be psycholigical harmfull, and it certainly is a slap in the face. Still wondering whether I am going to reply to that one, gonna calm down a bit first. P.s: Laura, would you please write your postings with lines that are less than 75, or at least 80 characters? Now they all wrap around (80 lines displays and newsreaders are still the norm) and they get unnecesary hard to read, especially once they have been quoted once or twice. (I reformatted your quote to fit). Regards, Paul.           Lynx users have a "Right to follow a link", too!

Response:

No,no, you guys need more magnesium here;-)) |-| /- |-< |-< ||| – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

t medication (and here I am thinking of children and how they often suffer at the hands of true believers of many sorts). So, those are my problems.  If you have a problem with it, that’s your problem.

My problem is the opposite of your problem, as I think of all those poor children on all kinds of asthma medication, some that makes them sick, just so they can breathe. I know I’ve been there and on some of those medicines.  You have a choice of not breathing or being sick. If only those kids could be told about Buteyko. By the way, our web-page is at        http://www.cix.co.uk/~reardo/buteyko.htm Thank you, Ron

Response:

Well I don’t understand you people.  What have you got againest Buteyko anyway.

I _think_ I just wrote a rather large posting on that, and you just replied to it. Did you read it? It’s free and nobody on the internet that I know of is making any money from it.

Look again, for the telltale "Buteyko instructor" in the signatures, for instance. (Hey, and I was nice and didn’t even put this argument in my list of objections…) What’s your problem?  I can’t give you a medical report on how and why it works. I am a laymen.  Go to our web-page if you want that.

You at least admit you are a laymen. Others alas don’t. Of course, I am one as well, but at least I don’t claim to have a scientific theory of asthma, nor am I force-feeding it anyone. Now what’s your problem. I want to pass this fantastic thing on to other people. You say I am a fanatic, you better believe it. Why is it wrong for me to pass something on to other people, that has so greatly helped me gain back a life I had lost do to asthma.

There is nothing wrong at all with saying that. The point I was trying to make is that as long as you SHOUT IT IN MY EAR all the time, and in the same messages say "and stop your medication in two weeks", I’m going to stay FAR away from this Buteyko. I happen to know what it is like to have horrible asthma attacks. To find what I have found and to then keep it to myself, would be wrong very wrong, in fact I doubt if I could live with myself. Could you, if you had this knowledge?  You people are the ones who are nuts. But you will lose, because Buteyko is here, and it’s here to stay. You can suppress the truth all you want, but in the end although it usually is slow in coming, truth will win.

I am not _supressing_ any _truth_, Ronald. Please stop looking at all this as a fight of Buteyko against non-believers, that is one of the things that is so very annoying about all this. It is what makes you look like you’re selling a religion door to door. Why don’t you want poeple helped, with their asthma?????? Why are you fighting this??? If it is a bunch of boloney, and it still works, why fight it? If it’s a placibo and it still works, why fight it? I don’t care what you or anybody else says. If it works, and it does for me. I lose nothing. I get my life back. What do you have to offer me in exchange for this? Are you saying I should quit doing Buteyko exercises? Sorry I already tried that, it worked for about a week and then the bottom fell out.

No, of *course* I am not saying that, did you see me say that anywhere? If it helps for you, I’m very glad for you. Others have been helped by magnetism, going to Lourdes, or whatever. What do you want me to do, to replace Buteyko?  NOW, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA? Since to you Buteyko is nothing. You must have something better. If not, why arn’t you keeping your mouth shut? What’s your purpose in all this?  Do you have stock in asthma drugs? or what?

I wonder if you read the paragraph on "conspiracy-fantasies" in my posting? Regards, Paul Boven. —           Lynx users have a "Right to follow a link", too!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (ad hominem attack deleted) …then what is your problem? My "problem" is that when someone insists that he is giving me hard evidence, I insist on looking at it very hard and punching my finger through all the holes.  I dislike anecdote being passed off as science, or whopping big generalities being considered confirmed through a specious chain of reasoning. My problem is also that I see a tremendous potential for psychological harm in the way that certain advocates of Buteyko proselytize, and even potential physical harm if a person who really does need medication is kept by true believers from access to that medication (and here I am thinking of children and how they often suffer at the hands of true believers of many sorts). So, those are my problems.  If you have a problem with it, that’s your problem. Laura (now back to the work I put off all weekend <groan)

Response:

Anyone who has read this list for any length of time knows where I stand and what I do for my asthma.  If you want to discuss magnesium supplementation and food allergy with me, you can email me privately or publically–I sell no products, I endorse no brands.

Ohh! I seeeee…that’s why…"magnesium supplementation";-))) Can you supply us your supplementations free of charge;-)) I’ve already supplied you breathing exersizes as a substitute to your "equally effective food supplementations" as you have reported…it seems that breathing exersizes are good for poor asthmatics and your magnesium supp.. is good for the rich ones….then what is your problem? |-| /- |-< |-< ||| – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I just don’t feel a compulsion to insist that all asthmatics are magnesium deficient and have food allergies.  It’s worth looking into if you think this may be at the root of your own problems, but I truly believe that most people have an inner knowledge of

Response:

(ad hominem attack deleted) …then what is your problem? My "problem" is that when someone insists that he is giving me hard evidence, I insist on looking at it very hard and punching my finger through all the holes.  I dislike anecdote being passed off as science, or whopping big generalities being considered confirmed through a specious chain of reasoning.   My problem is also that I see a tremendous potential for psychological harm in the way that certain advocates of Buteyko proselytize, and even potential physical harm if a person who really does need medication is kept by true believers from access to that medication (and here I am thinking of children and how they often suffer at the hands of true believers of many sorts). So, those are my problems.  If you have a problem with it, that’s your problem. Laura (now back to the work I put off all weekend <groan)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why don’t you want poeple helped, with their asthma?????? Why are you fighting this??? If it is a bunch of boloney, and it still works, why fight it? If it’s a placibo and it still works, why fight it? I don’t care what you or anybody else says. If it works, and it does for me. I lose nothing. I get my life back. What do you have to offer me in exchange for this? Are you saying I should quit doing Buteyko exercises? Sorry I already tried that, it worked for about a week and then the bottom fell out. What do you want me to do, to replace Buteyko?   NOW, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA? Since to you Buteyko is nothing. You must have something better. If not, why arn’t you keeping your mouth shut? What’s your purpose in all this?  Do you have stock in asthma drugs? or what? I give up. —– Thank God for Buteyko, is all I really have to say. Ron

Ron, Frankly, I don’t mind your posts.  You almost always just post a pointer and say that it is working for you.  I like that.  If Buteyko works for you, good–it’s an interesting bit of anecdotal evidence.  I doubt that many people object to moderately stated testimonials of personal experience.  We do object to scurrilous accusations that we want asthmatics to suffer.  Why would we want that, when we are asthmatics ourselves (as are you, and as always will be, since you can not stop your practice without return of symptoms.) As I’m sure you know, there are people who are making outlandish claims and unsupported/unsupportable statements about Buteyko.  That kind of hucksterism works against acceptance of any method.  I know that you started Buteyko at about the same time I started taking supplementary magnesium.  We’ve both experienced equivalent results.  To my mind, that means that neither Buteyko or magnesium is *the* answer to everyone’s asthma.  Since Buteyko practioners claim that asthmatics overbreathe, and that now that they aren’t overbreathing anymore, it also seems reasonable to me that Buteyko works well for people who indeed do hyperventilate and for whom hyperventilation is a trigger.  But claims that all asthmatics breathe through their mouths, all asthmatics snore, all asthmatics overbreathe–we sceptics, sitting here breathing gently through our noses as we always do, surrounded by family members who never have their sleep interrupted by any snoring on our part, well, why should we expend energy learning what Buteyko practioners admit is a difficult method when we by no means fit the profile, and why should we believe it at all when we’re told that all asthmatics are exactly alike? Now, someone else has promised me that soon he would be posting some less excitable information on Buteyko.  I look forward to reading the facts, as opposed to what, to me, clearly seems to be myth. Laura (As for what I "offer" other people with asthma, I have made no bones about it.   Anyone who has read this list for any length of time knows where I stand and what I do for my asthma.  If you want to discuss magnesium supplementation and food allergy with me, you can email me privately or publically–I sell no products, I endorse no brands.  I just don’t feel a compulsion to insist that all asthmatics are magnesium deficient and have food allergies.  It’s worth looking into if you think this may be at the root of your own problems, but I truly believe that most people have an inner knowledge of why they have problems, and can thus recognize the appropriate treatment modality on their own when they see it, no fanaticism necessary.)

Response:

Furthermore, a lot of these postings, and those that annoy me most, are not attempts at honest discussion of things. They sound more like a sales-pitch, based on something that sounds like pseudo-science. I am not saying the Buteyko method is yet another quack remedy, but it sure has a lot of the outer appereances of it:

Well I don’t understand you people.  What have you got againest Buteyko anyway. It’s free and nobody on the internet that I know of is making any money from it. What’s your problem?  I can’t give you a medical report on how and why it works. I am a laymen.  Go to our web-page if you want that.        http://www.cix.co.uk/~reardo/buteyko.htm Before I started Buteyko exercises. I was taking 2 puffs of ventolin about every 3 hours around the clock, plus 8 puffs of beclovent a day. On top of all this about twice and sometimes 3 times a year I had to take a predisone series, to get me through. I discovered Buteyko via. the internet last April 1996, I got down to where I wasn’t taking anything except 2 puffs of beclovent twice a day, with no sign of asthma in my life period. All summer — nothing! I have not had a single predisone series, nor have I even come close to needing one.  Then Like a nut I even stopped doing the exercises, and about 3 weeks ago I crashed. I was back again on ventolin and 8 puffs of beclovent. Once again however, by doing the exercises I am climbing back up again to not having any asthma. Thanks to Buteyko.      BUT DON’T STOP DOING THE EXERCISES — PEOPLE — YOU’LL BE SORRY. Now what’s your problem. I want to pass this fantastic thing on to other people. You say I am a fanatic, you better believe it. Why is it wrong for me to pass something on to other people, that has so greatly helped me gain back a life I had lost do to asthma. I happen to know what it is like to have horrible asthma attacks. To find what I have found and to then keep it to myself, would be wrong very wrong, in fact I doubt if I could live with myself. Could you, if you had this knowledge?  You people are the ones who are nuts. But you will lose, because Buteyko is here, and it’s here to stay. You can suppress the truth all you want, but in the end although it usually is slow in coming, truth will win. Why don’t you want poeple helped, with their asthma?????? Why are you fighting this??? If it is a bunch of boloney, and it still works, why fight it? If it’s a placibo and it still works, why fight it? I don’t care what you or anybody else says. If it works, and it does for me. I lose nothing. I get my life back. What do you have to offer me in exchange for this? Are you saying I should quit doing Buteyko exercises? Sorry I already tried that, it worked for about a week and then the bottom fell out. What do you want me to do, to replace Buteyko?   NOW, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA? Since to you Buteyko is nothing. You must have something better. If not, why arn’t you keeping your mouth shut? What’s your purpose in all this?  Do you have stock in asthma drugs? or what? I give up. —– Thank God for Buteyko, is all I really have to say. Ron

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello everyone, Like Laura, and probably others, I am a bit surprised, and dismayed, by all these Buteyko postings. I have seen some that suggest stopping your medication in just a few *days*, some advocate to tape your mouth closed while sleeping, and they all have this phrase "Why don’t you try it, it can’t hurt you". I feel these statements rather contradict each other. Furthermore, a lot of these postings, and those that annoy me most, are not attempts at honest discussion of things. They sound more like a sales-pitch, based on something that sounds like pseudo-science. I am not saying the Buteyko method is yet another quack remedy, but it sure has a lot of the outer appereances of it: The scientific basis, at least as it is presented here, is one of extreme oversimplification and generalisation. Wrongfull generalisation in my opinion. The Buteyko-advocates say "All asthmatics overbreathe" yet we have lots of asthmatics here denying that, and even an MD stating that this is not the case. And I know that, compared to healthy friends, my breathing- rate is quite low, yet I couldn’t do without my Serevent and Becotide. I don’t want to generalise too much myself, but Buteyko-advocates often seem to have an almost religous zeal about spreading the word, and you’d better not question their science (belief). The last time I wrote something about Buteyko in this newsgroup, it resulted in a few not-so-nice emails in my mailbox. I am glad to see other people are now reacting to the Buteyko advertisements as well. Another characteristic of these postings is the rather strong dislike of the established medical community. Sometimes going all the way to claiming conspiracies, claiming that the medical eshtablishment is making way too much money over our backs to even consider medical trials and the like. Such conspirational fantasies don’t make me feel very reassured of the reasonabality of their other claims. Call me conservative (in fact, in one of those previously mentioned emails that was just what happened, in a rather derogatory manner), but I have quite a lot more faith in the methods and ethics of science and especially the medical profession. Reading some of Laura’s postings, and the anwsers to that, I started thinking. Just why do some of these Buteyko-postings annoy me so much? And then I realised they have very much in common with the things another rather prolific poster treated us to. Those who have been reading this newsgroup for a little while will remember him: Joseph Goodman, aka Joe Tsyony, Pat Caroll, and some more. The same zeal, the same sales-pitch-like writing style, a scientific basis that is about equally solid, the same ideas about conspiracy, and criticism is met with a repeat of the sales-pitch, and sometimes name-calling and the like. Of course not all Buteyko adherents are like this, but this is the impression I’ve been getting morre and more from reading the postsings in this group lately. So instead of yet another critique of the ideas behind Buteyko, I tried to explain just why some of these Buteyko- postings provoke all these reactions. If it talks like a quack, writes like a quack.. well, it ain’t no duck then. Regards, Paul Boven.           Lynx users have a "Right to follow a link", too!

Paul, religious like fervor that they use in trying to convince everyone how great this method of their’s is. And once again, I must say if I am having a severe asthma attack the last thing I can do is slow down my breathing……Also I would like everyone to know, I work out 3 to 4 times a week in a gym…….So I have good breathing habits…….

Response:

Hello everyone, Like Laura, and probably others, I am a bit surprised, and dismayed, by all these Buteyko postings. I have seen some that suggest stopping your medication in just a few *days*, some advocate to tape your mouth closed while sleeping, and they all have this phrase "Why don’t you try it, it can’t hurt you". I feel these statements rather contradict each other. Furthermore, a lot of these postings, and those that annoy me most, are not attempts at honest discussion of things. They sound more like a sales-pitch, based on something that sounds like pseudo-science. I am not saying the Buteyko method is yet another quack remedy, but it sure has a lot of the outer appereances of it: The scientific basis, at least as it is presented here, is one of extreme oversimplification and generalisation. Wrongfull generalisation in my opinion. The Buteyko-advocates say "All asthmatics overbreathe" yet we have lots of asthmatics here denying that, and even an MD stating that this is not the case. And I know that, compared to healthy friends, my breathing- rate is quite low, yet I couldn’t do without my Serevent and Becotide. I don’t want to generalise too much myself, but Buteyko-advocates often seem to have an almost religous zeal about spreading the word, and you’d better not question their science (belief). The last time I wrote something about Buteyko in this newsgroup, it resulted in a few not-so-nice emails in my mailbox. I am glad to see other people are now reacting to the Buteyko advertisements as well. Another characteristic of these postings is the rather strong dislike of the established medical community. Sometimes going all the way to claiming conspiracies, claiming that the medical eshtablishment is making way too much money over our backs to even consider medical trials and the like. Such conspirational fantasies don’t make me feel very reassured of the reasonabality of their other claims. Call me conservative (in fact, in one of those previously mentioned emails that was just what happened, in a rather derogatory manner), but I have quite a lot more faith in the methods and ethics of science and especially the medical profession. Reading some of Laura’s postings, and the anwsers to that, I started thinking. Just why do some of these Buteyko-postings annoy me so much? And then I realised they have very much in common with the things another rather prolific poster treated us to. Those who have been reading this newsgroup for a little while will remember him: Joseph Goodman, aka Joe Tsyony, Pat Caroll, and some more. The same zeal, the same sales-pitch-like writing style, a scientific basis that is about equally solid, the same ideas about conspiracy, and criticism is met with a repeat of the sales-pitch, and sometimes name-calling and the like. Of course not all Buteyko adherents are like this, but this is the impression I’ve been getting morre and more from reading the postsings in this group lately. So instead of yet another critique of the ideas behind Buteyko, I tried to explain just why some of these Buteyko- postings provoke all these reactions. If it talks like a quack, writes like a quack.. well, it ain’t no duck then. Regards, Paul Boven.           Lynx users have a "Right to follow a link", too!

Response:

Question:

I agree. It’s not the message that’s offensive, it’s that I don’t trust the delivery. If you offer me a chocolate, I’ll take it gladly and eat it. If you wack me over the head with it 50 times, I’m not interested even though I love chocolate.

Yeah, but Mary, when you go to your Dr for a refill, does he/she give you something other than ventolin? I am sure you had it 100 times by now, isn’t it strange that his/her wacking you into your mouth with it so many times doesn’t make you not interested even though you hate/love it? It is same with breathing exersizes, they are no chocolates, they are part and parsel of your asthma treatment, if it is. It is good that asthmatics are discussing here day and night about the same drugs again and again, for me breathing exersizes are part of this subject matter. If I see a repetition of discussion on a drug that I had already got aquainted with, I just skip it to others who may just started to read this group. Actually you do not need to suffer such repetitions, you can create a kill file and add in your kill file the key words which you are not interested to read about, then you won’t notice them forever:-) If everybody tryies to shy away others here just they don’t like repetitions, people may get turned off completely from this group. I am not reading all of the messages posted here, but once in a while I come accross with very important piece of info, which makes my day. I don’t think people who are posting here similar messages are doing this to annoy others, no, either they think that it is a piece of important info that everyone had to hear about, or perhaps it is part of their business to do so…this is same for the discussions on commercial medications as well. But even that doesn’t bother me, because during these discussions I learn more about their characteristics. I think all in all it is good to be here to share knowledge and experience, even if we don’t need all of it, or we detest some of it. |-| /- |-< |-< ||| – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mary

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I really don’t know why I find it necessary to reply whenever I see : "Buteyko antagonism" in this group.  Maybe because I have tried it, and : I get almost personally offended when it’s being spoken ill of. Well, I can’t really help you there… but _just let me say this_ (for those who don’t know, a certain former Prime Minister used this a lot when avoiding questions), and then perhaps you might understand why some of us are Buteyko antagonistic.  It is not because we think it is rubbish (though nobody has shown to my satisfaction that it isn’t), but because too often in the last 12 months (or was it longer?), it has been promoted:  1. as a general solution to the problem of living with asthma,  2. as being scientifically proven,  3. by spam-merchant methods,  4. too often. While I can understand that there is a certain amount of missionary zeal to this, after a while, one starts to feel like one is beseiged. It starts to feel like (although it almost certainly isn’t) every thread you read will have a follow-up saying "Buteyko is the answer." Yours sincerely, Kin Hoong

I agree. It’s not the message that’s offensive, it’s that I don’t trust the delivery. When I first read about Buteyko, I was quite interested and wanted to learn more for my husband. Since then I feel like I’ve been wacked in the head with it. I like hearing the true stories of people who’ve tried this method (although once per person would be quite enough). I know it’s not been backed up by a scientific study endorsed by the medical profession, but I also place value on anecdotal evidence. However I am suspicious of a zealous, wack-you-over-the-head, it’ll cure you, you’re stupid if you don’t do it, kind of endorsement! I also think it’s amusing that doctor’s are accused of hiding this information because they would lose customers! This is the 90’s, and HMOs are booming. HMOs are paid a lump sum per patient  – they pocket more money if they see you less! I always joke that I have to convince the "bodyguards" (receptionists and nurses) that I’m dying in order to see the doctor. They want to prescribe the least expensive and least invasive cure they can (without getting sued). Mary

Response:

: I really don’t know why I find it necessary to reply whenever I see : "Buteyko antagonism" in this group.  Maybe because I have tried it, and : I get almost personally offended when it’s being spoken ill of. Well, I can’t really help you there… but _just let me say this_ (for those who don’t know, a certain former Prime Minister used this a lot when avoiding questions), and then perhaps you might understand why some of us are Buteyko antagonistic.  It is not because we think it is rubbish (though nobody has shown to my satisfaction that it isn’t), but because too often in the last 12 months (or was it longer?), it has been promoted:  1. as a general solution to the problem of living with asthma,  2. as being scientifically proven,  3. by spam-merchant methods,  4. too often. While I can understand that there is a certain amount of missionary zeal to this, after a while, one starts to feel like one is beseiged. It starts to feel like (although it almost certainly isn’t) every thread you read will have a follow-up saying "Buteyko is the answer." Yours sincerely, Kin Hoong

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I really don’t know why I find it necessary to reply whenever I see : "Buteyko antagonism" in this group.  Maybe because I have tried it, and : I get almost personally offended when it’s being spoken ill of. Well, I can’t really help you there… but _just let me say this_ (for those who don’t know, a certain former Prime Minister used this a lot when avoiding questions), and then perhaps you might understand why some of us are Buteyko antagonistic.  It is not because we think it is rubbish (though nobody has shown to my satisfaction that it isn’t), but because too often in the last 12 months (or was it longer?), it has been promoted:  1. as a general solution to the problem of living with asthma,  2. as being scientifically proven,  3. by spam-merchant methods,  4. too often. While I can understand that there is a certain amount of missionary zeal to this, after a while, one starts to feel like one is beseiged. It starts to feel like (although it almost certainly isn’t) every thread you read will have a follow-up saying "Buteyko is the answer." Yours sincerely, Kin Hoong

I agree. It’s not the message that’s offensive, it’s that I don’t trust the delivery. If you offer me a chocolate, I’ll take it gladly and eat it. If you wack me over the head with it 50 times, I’m not interested even though I love chocolate. Mary

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The worst thing that one can do is to stop proven, effective therapy in such of a "cure" that doesn’t yet exist. Actually the Buteyko method does not recommend stopping a proven effective method of therapy.  I was curious so I explored the web site and information there.  It is a breathing exercise.  It is recommended that you do not stop any medication without consulting your doctor. I have tried the breathing exercises.  Interestingly it did help the bronchspasm portion of my asthma attack a lot.  It did not prevent the inflammatory portion as I still get rebound attacks 4-8 hours after exposure to "amylcinnamaldehyde" a chemical common in fragranced products. If nothing else the controlled breathing is benificial because it trains the patient to panic less during an attack.  I don’t think anyone would argue that the calmer you can stay during an attack the better off you are.  I know for myself personally when I try to force air through already narrowed airways the asthma attack quickly escalates.  I had already discovered before reading about Buteyko that slowing down the depth and rate of respirations would lessen the severity of the attack. Of course my asthma situation is different than most.  I have a severe asthmatic reaction to a specific chemical.  If exposure is short once a way from the chemical the asthma subsides rather quickly.  So if I can ride through the attack for a few minutes then I don’t need to use my inhaler.  As I don’t tolerate asthma medications very well, this is difinitely a plus for me.  Buteyko has helped in this respect a great deal. It costs nothing, I certainly see no harm in someone giving it a try. But of course in all things a little common sense must be used.  If it doesn’t work use your inhaler. Betty Bridges

Betty is right, Buteyko has nothing to do with your asthma medications in the end…but if you don’t need them, would you still use them? No.. If you try breathing exersizes who knows perhaps you may not need your ventoline puffs first and then gradually you may not need your preventive medications either..it is you who decides to take this medications to improve, sustain your health, not your doctor.. |-| /- |-< |-< |||

Response:

My lung function tests show very poor results, and I don’t believe this technique to be able to chnage that. But what’s wrong about "just" being able to breathe betterand even without meds? Basically, my concern is that all you are doingis hiding the symptoms.  You are simply suppressing the associated discomfort, without addressing the underlying problems.

I don’t mean to belittle your asthma, but using the word "simply" in the above context has never been true of my condition.  Whether suppressed or not, I think getting rid of the "discomfort" associated with climbing a few steps, or even simply walking more than 100 meters (not even uphill!), needing ventolin 15 times a day AND frequent hospitalizations, should not be underestimated. The dead giveaway here is your statement that your lung function still shows poor results.

I didn’t say it STILL shows poor results.  I said I don’t believe Buteyko to be able to change that.  What I meant was that I haven’t practiced the technique long enough, and even if I start practicing again now, I think I’ll be able to manage pretty weel without meds, but I think my lung function will stay the same. Short as my Buteyko experience was (a few weeks), it left a tremendous impression on me.  Still, due to my severe condition at the time, I found it almost impossiblt to practice technically (it’s VERY HARD), plus a great amount of self control is required, which unfortunately I don’t have. I am a ‘poor preciever’ of my asthma symptoms.  This is generally attributed to the fact that my areobic capacity is large enough so that minor asthma symptoms are covered by the excess lung capacity. What this means is that I have to carefully monitor myself, and remember that just because I ‘feel good’ dosen’t mean that my asthma is under control.  I recommend that _anybody_ using Butekyo (or any aerobic fitness program) remember this. BTW,  I suscribe to the "Garbage in = Garbage out" theory.  Since the theroitical basis of Butekyo ("breathing too much") is without basis, then the ’solution’ should be viewed with scepticism.

I think the above is correct. As there is no proven scientific basis for Buteyko, it should indeed be taken with a grain of salt.  Still, as long as you carefully monitor yourself, and do not believe it to be the ultimate cure, it can do no harm; on the contrary, it can significantly improve your life quality. — Gali

Response:

What the butekyo technique does is increase lung capacity and efficency.  This means that the _precieved_ symptons are less. Just about _any_ form of a physical fitness program will do this better than butekyo.  It will also provide better overall health benefits. Why don’t you try to do peak flow monitoring?  You will discover that the peak flows are dropping anyway.

I really don’t know why I find it necessary to reply whenever I see "Buteyko antagonism" in this group.  Maybe because I have tried it, and I get almost personally offended when it’s being spoken ill of. My lung function tests show very poor results, and I don’t believe this technique to be able to chnage that. But what’s wrong about "just" being able to breathe betterand even without meds? I attended Buteyko classes about a year ago. I haven’t practiced it long enough, and no, I’m not cured.  Still, I believe it to work. Again I offer to share with those of you who are interested my personal story – you can either e-mail me, or look at the Buteyko page, where they have included a detailed message I posted in alt.support.asthma about a year ago. (It’s too long to write it all over again, and the university system here doesn’t let me attach former messages to newsgroups). Gali, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Response:

The worst thing that one can do is to stop proven, effective therapy in such of a "cure" that doesn’t yet exist.

Actually the Buteyko method does not recommend stopping a proven effective method of therapy.  I was curious so I explored the web site and information there.  It is a breathing exercise.  It is recommended that you do not stop any medication without consulting your doctor. I have tried the breathing exercises.  Interestingly it did help the bronchspasm portion of my asthma attack a lot.  It did not prevent the inflammatory portion as I still get rebound attacks 4-8 hours after exposure to "amylcinnamaldehyde" a chemical common in fragranced products. If nothing else the controlled breathing is benificial because it trains the patient to panic less during an attack.  I don’t think anyone would argue that the calmer you can stay during an attack the better off you are.  I know for myself personally when I try to force air through already narrowed airways the asthma attack quickly escalates.  I had already discovered before reading about Buteyko that slowing down the depth and rate of respirations would lessen the severity of the attack. Of course my asthma situation is different than most.  I have a severe asthmatic reaction to a specific chemical.  If exposure is short once a way from the chemical the asthma subsides rather quickly.  So if I can ride through the attack for a few minutes then I don’t need to use my inhaler.  As I don’t tolerate asthma medications very well, this is difinitely a plus for me.  Buteyko has helped in this respect a great deal. It costs nothing, I certainly see no harm in someone giving it a try. But of course in all things a little common sense must be used.  If it doesn’t work use your inhaler. Betty Bridges

Response:

I really don’t know why I find it necessary to reply whenever I see "Buteyko antagonism" in this group.  Maybe because I have tried it, and I get almost personally offended when it’s being spoken ill of. My lung function tests show very poor results, and I don’t believe this technique to be able to chnage that. But what’s wrong about "just" being able to breathe betterand even without meds?

Basically, my concern is that all you are doing is hiding the symptoms.  You are simply suppressing the associated discomfort, without addressing the underlying problems.  The dead giveaway here is your statement that your lung function still shows poor results. I am a ‘poor preciever’ of my asthma symptoms.  This is generally attributed to the fact that my areobic capacity is large enough so that minor asthma symptoms are covered by the excess lung capacity. What this means is that I have to carefully monitor myself, and remember that just because I ‘feel good’ dosen’t mean that my asthma is under control.  I recommend that _anybody_ using Butekyo (or any aerobic fitness program) remember this. BTW,  I suscribe to the "Garbage in = Garbage out" theory.  Since the theroitical basis of Butekyo ("breathing too much") is without basis, then the ’solution’ should be viewed with scepticism.

Response:

One can hope such a trial of the "buteyko" method would be done. Until then, I would advise people with asthma to be skeptical of claims for alternative forms of treatment. The worst thing that one can do is to stop proven, effective therapy in such of a "cure" that doesn’t yet exist.

Buteyko is _not_ offering a cure, I had a course in Buteyko about two weeks ago, then I was using 1 puff pulmicort and 1 puff bricanyl a night..three days after the course first time in my life I had stopped my asthma attack without using a reliever medication like bricanyl, ventoline, etc.. and after 6 days I stopped my pulmicort puffs, and I had managed all my attacks via breathing exersizes for the last 10 days and used _no_ asthma madications so far.. during those 10 days I had about 5 asthma attacks and I’ve managed to avoid them without using relievers.. If I needed to use, I would use them, and if I need to use, I will use them, but it is great to be in control your asthma using the ability of your body.. To night about 2 hours ago I had the severest attack of the last 10 days, and I was thinking that this time I won’t be able to manage it by breathing exersizes, but after a 45 minute on and off exersizes I’ve found out that I have avoided this one as well.. my medications are not too far away from me, but why shall I use them if I can control my asthma with my bodily resources? I reccommend every asthmatics to learn and try these breathing exersizes who knows perhaps you may get amazed by the results you will get like I did. Believe me I was most suspicious even to try this a month ago, but when I heard that a friend of mine manages his asthma with this I had decided to try it anyway…I wish I had known these techniques 10s of years ago.. If anyone needs guidance, I am willing to help as much as I can, free just to let another one know this technique, and get a relief without taking a risk of side effects of the medications.. it will be you who will decide to choose a breathing exersize or ventoline, whichever way you choose it is your body;-)) |-| /- |-< |-< ||| Steve White, M.D. The University of Chicago Note: I can’t practice medicine over the internet, so I won’t.

Buteyko is offering _no_ medicine, but simple breathing exersizes, if it doesn’t work for you, you simply carry on your medications…actually do not stop your medications unless you feel confident that you can control of your asthma by those exersizes, it won’t take long to find out..

Response:

Buteyko helps asthmatics who help themselves in Scotland…

[rest snipped ] Sigh, I guess I’ll respond to this one too. The "buteyko" method has not been submitted to a proper clinical trial with published results, per a review of Medline (National Library of Medicine). The numerous testimonials cited in the index post in this thread unfortunately aren’t sufficient to make this method one that should be recommended. It should be noted that testimonials as to medical results are quite old in medicine, and are frequently the province of "proof" for the snake-oil salesmen. That is why properly-designed clinical trials are required to judge the effectiveness of a claimed treatment. One can hope such a trial of the "buteyko" method would be done. Until then, I would advise people with asthma to be skeptical of claims for alternative forms of treatment. The worst thing that one can do is to stop proven, effective therapy in such of a "cure" that doesn’t yet exist. Steve White, M.D. The University of Chicago Note: I can’t practice medicine over the internet, so I won’t.

Response:

Buteyko helps asthmatics who help themselves in Scotland…

Could someone please give a description of the Buteyko method of breathing for those of us who can’t cross the Atlantic to get lessons?

Response:

Buteyko is _not_ offering a cure, I had a course in Buteyko about two weeks ago, then I was using 1 puff pulmicort and 1 puff bricanyl a night..three days after the course first time in my life I had stopped my asthma attack without using a reliever medication like bricanyl, ventoline, etc.. and after 6 days I stopped my pulmicort puffs, and I had managed all my attacks via breathing exersizes for the last 10 days and used _no_ asthma madications so far..

What the butekyo technique does is increase lung capacity and efficency.  This means that the _precieved_ symptons are less. Just about _any_ form of a physical fitness program will do this better than butekyo.  It will also provide better overall health benefits. Why don’t you try to do peak flow monitoring?  You will discover that the peak flows are dropping anyway.

Response:

Buteyko helps asthmatics who help themselves in Scotland… Breathing Life into Medical Theories by Sally Magnusson The Herald, Scotland, Monday January 6 1997 When the BBC programme Frontline Scotland reveals the results of the two months it spent following the progress of asthma sufferers using the Buteyko breathing method, it will be reopening a medical controversy which has been simmering in Scotland for some months. Ever since the practitioners of the method, developed by the Russian professor Konstantin Buteyko, began their breathing classes in Glasgow, heralded by the astounding claim asthma can be corrected by shallow breathing, opinion has been sharply divided. Doctors by and large feel the theory that all asthmatics breathe incorrectly doesn

Question:

Hi,    My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? My fiancee and her son are probably emigrating to the UK and we are wondering whether the asthma rates are better in the UK than New Zealand despite the greater pollution in the UK? When Steven and his mum came over to the UK earlier this year Steven’s asthma was much improved. Are there any stats or information about why this should be? Thanks for any help,    Mark PS. Any references or useful www pages would be great too. PSS. I already have the Asthma FAQ. — The opinions and comments expressed herein are my own and do not in anyway represent those of BNR Europe or Northern Telecom.

Response:

My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? My fiancee and her son are probably emigrating to the UK and we are wondering whether the asthma rates are better in the UK than New Zealand despite the greater pollution in the UK? When Steven and his mum came over to the UK earlier this year Steven’s asthma was much improved. Are there any stats or information about why this should be?

Mark, I don’t know anything about the asthma rates in New Zealand or the UK. It may have nothing to do with living in New Zealand at all. It could be that your fiancee’s sons asthma was so greatly improved while he was visiting the UK was because he was away from whatever was causing his problem at home. Be it something he was allergic to or some kind of emotional stress that wasn’t present while visiting you. What he probably should do is take a close look at what was different between his situation at home and while he was in the UK. His living conditions, the food he was eating, the medicine he was taking, animals he was exposed to, level of stress he was under, conditions at school or work, ect. And try to determine what was different. I guess what I’m getting at, is moving to the other side of the world won’t help if he brings with him whatever is causing his asthma at home. Hope this helps. Robert Roehner

Response:

My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? My fiancee and her son are probably emigrating to the UK and we are wondering whether the asthma rates are better in the UK than New Zealand despite the greater pollution in the UK?

Certainly New Zealand is known, in the UK, for having a very high rate of Asthma. Almost certainly this means that the UK is better than NZ. Presumably it depends on where you are in each country – I’m sure if you lived right by one of the urban motorways in the UK then it would be worse than the NZ countryside. Average Asthma rates in the UK are:     1 in every 7 children     1 in every 20 adults No idea of the average rates in NZ. — BNR Europe Ltd, 140 Greenway, Harlow Business Park, Harlow,    Essex CM19 5QD, United Kingdom Tel: +44 1279 402372    Fax: +44 1279 405746

Response:

No idea of the average rates in NZ.

My sister, who’s a doctor in Australia, says it’s running at something like one in five children in both Australia and New Zealand. No-one seems to have any real idea _why_ it should be so high in such generally unspoilt countries, although lambskins are implicated. Me, having just discovered that milk aggravates my asthma, I wonder whether the vast quantities of dairy foods consumed there is relevant…? Louise Bremner, from grimy Tokyo

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi,   My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? My fiancee and her son are probably emigrating to the UK and we are wondering whether the asthma rates are better in the UK than New Zealand despite the greater pollution in the UK? When Steven and his mum came over to the UK earlier this year Steven’s asthma was much improved. Are there any stats or information about why this should be? Thanks for any help,   Mark PS. Any references or useful www pages would be great too. PSS. I already have the Asthma FAQ. — The opinions and comments expressed herein are my own and do not in anyway represent those of BNR Europe or Northern Telecom.

Since Steve already has asthma, the actual asthma rates in any give locale are not going to affect his case.  As to why his asthma got better, he moved away from his most common allergen set.  Whether or not this improvement would be permanent is something that only time can tell. Chris Owens

Response:

Certainly New Zealand is known, in the UK, for having a very high rate of Asthma. Almost certainly this means that the UK is better than NZ. Presumably it depends on where you are in each country – I’m sure if you lived right by one of the urban motorways in the UK then it would be worse than the NZ countryside. Average Asthma rates in the UK are:    1 in every 7 children    1 in every 20 adults

I’m not sure what the rate in adults is, but when I was born, the rate was 1 in every 6 children (this is 20 years ago). I’m informed (and I’m not sure whether to believe it or not) that the rate in children is now 1 in *3*.  I find this just a little bit distressing. I don’t know what causes it.  Maybe it’s all the different pollens being released by all the flora around here… Antony Sew Hoy is:    |"The two most common elements in the universe are fretless on IRC       | hydrogen and stupidity." – Harlan Ellison

Response:

I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? I don’t know anything about the asthma rates in New Zealand or the UK. It may have nothing to do with living in New Zealand at all.

No, its probably New Zealand.  You would not believe how many people I meet who have never suffered hayfever or asthma until they come here.  I have had to send a number of friends off to the doctor with what looked like one of these.  I’ve always been right. No, its not man-made pollution though.  I live in Wellington, where this high rate is definitely a problem.  Wellington is windy – our pollution gets blasted right on out of here. One theory I’ve heard is that it is a local fungus species.  Alternative theories are that its our high dairy product consumption, or that the construction of our houses encourages fungus and dust mites. The only place I’ve been where the pollution got me was Bombay on a bad day. Not Jakarta, not LA.  My asthma improves spectacularly on my trips overseas. Sue in Wellington

Response:

: Hi, :    My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) : suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate : of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of : this? It’s true, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world, as well as one of the highest rates of SIDS, which some researchers think may be related. The rate of SIDS has been lowered considerably in the last year (among whites, at any rate) through new advice – most notably "don’t put the baby to bed face down". : When Steven and his mum came over to the UK earlier this year Steven’s asthma : was much improved. Are there any stats or information about why this should : be? Asthma certainly is more of a problem here than in the UK, though no one is entirely sure why. One theory that is being examined at Auckland School of Medicine is the very low levels of selenium in NZ soil – the doctor who is examining this thinks adequate dietary selenium is essential, and that this may have some effect on both asthma and SIDS. I don’t remember the woman’s name, but if anyone is really interested, I could track her down. You should also post your questions to soc.culture.new-zealand as I’m sure people there could give you more up to date information. cheers dyan

Response:

: : Hi, : :    My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) : : suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate : : of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of : : this? : It’s true, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of asthma in the : world, as well as one of the highest rates of SIDS, which some : researchers think may be related. The rate of SIDS has been lowered : considerably in the last year (among whites, at any rate) through new : advice – most notably "don’t put the baby to bed face down". : : When Steven and his mum came over to the UK earlier this year Steven’s asthma : : was much improved. Are there any stats or information about why this should : : be? : Asthma certainly is more of a problem here than in the UK, though no one : is entirely sure why. One theory that is being examined at Auckland School : of Medicine is the very low levels of selenium in NZ soil – the doctor who : is examining this thinks adequate dietary selenium is essential, and that : this may have some effect on both asthma and SIDS. I don’t remember the : woman’s name, but if anyone is really interested, I could track her down. : You should also post your questions to soc.culture.new-zealand as I’m : sure people there could give you more up to date information. : cheers : dyan This is fascinating to me since my asthma worstens when I go to the UK from the US!! Marcy Tanter

Response:

: : Hi, : :    My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) : : suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate : : of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of : : this? This is fascinating to me since my asthma worstens when I go to the UK from the US!!

Reports indicate all sorts of paradoxes like this. Trouble is we always blame cars. What about gas fires and cookers? Common in the UK. Draughty houses? Not so common and now there is more asthma! James Miller

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My fiancee’s son Steven (they both live in New Zealand at the moment) suffers from asthma. I have heard that New Zealand has an unusually high rate of asthma even though pollution is quite low. Has anyone got some knowledge of this? My fiancee and her son are probably emigrating to the UK and we are wondering whether the asthma rates are better in the UK than New Zealand despite the greater pollution in the UK? Certainly New Zealand is known, in the UK, for having a very high rate of Asthma. Almost certainly this means that the UK is better than NZ. Presumably it depends on where you are in each country – I’m sure if you lived right by one of the urban motorways in the UK then it would be worse than the NZ countryside. Average Asthma rates in the UK are:    1 in every 7 children    1 in every 20 adults No idea of the average rates in NZ.

In NZ: Asthma rates a high _possibly_ because of the very high amount of rye grasses cultivated in NZ. This is a known factor in Australia – especially when in combination with the thunderstorm season. So depends if your children are allergic  to grasses, especially rye. This could be quite probable because of the tiny size of the rye pollen grains that get lodged in the passage ways of the lungs – people with allergies do not have much of a chance here! The problem with petrolleum based pollutants (I read this somewhere – probably in some dentist’s surgery! is that it makes a victim more sensitive to allergies and allergic reactions. Now:  I am severly allergic to rye grasses and similar, I am country born and bred  (in NZ), and now I live in the big smoke (city). I suffer little now form allergies, despite the pollution, though Sydney now has one of the highest asthma problems in the world – supposedly due to the high pollution levels. So what is true??? I think that it depends on the individual, and what they are specifically allergic to, or what triggers their asthma. You may have to conduct some allergy tests. Interesting to note that in the early days of colonisation of NZ, people used to come over from the UK if they were suffering from consumption so as to get some relief. Now the opposite seems to be true… Cheers John — John Visser & Ernestine Ryan       *  "Live today, for tomorrow Sydney, Australia                           *  never comes" -Epigrammitica Tel. +61 2 744 7726                       *  Best dive? Rowley Shoals, Mobile 0414 305 300                      *   200 NM off Broome, WA

Response:

is known, in the UK, for having a very high rate of Asthma. : Almost certainly this means that the UK is better than NZ. [snip] : In NZ: Asthma rates a high _possibly_ because of the very high amount of : rye grasses cultivated in NZ. This is a known factor in Australia – especially A local asthma-training public health nurse here in Christchurch (NZ) told me that when Captain Cook’s sailors came in sight of New Zealand, some of them developed asthma.  There was of course no industrial development, nor rye grass, nor any agriculture other than the kumara (sweet potato) cropping of the indigenous Maoris.  I haven’t read Cook’s Journals myself, so this is merely hearsay.  If true, it implicates other air-borne materials, such as mold spores or beech-forest pollen. Christchurch, New Zealand

Response:

In NZ: Asthma rates a high _possibly_ because of the very high amount of rye grasses cultivated in NZ.  This is a known factor in Australia – especially when in combination with the thunderstorm season.  So depends if your children are allergic to grasses, especially rye. This could be quite probable because of the tiny size of the rye pollen grains that get lodged in the passage ways of the lungs – people with allergies do not have much of a chance here!

In relative terms rye grass pollen grains are quite big compared with other common allergens such as fungal spores, cat dander and house dust mite excrement.  However, when these pollen grains get wet they explode into large numbers of small fragments.  This effect was discovered after several asthma "epidemics" associated with thunderstorms in an Australian city (Melbourne?).  It may also have been a factor in a big asthma "epidemic" in the London (UK) area in 1993(?).  Some hospitals were so packed with people, many experiencing their first ever asthma attack, that they ran out of asthma medication!  There is a study in progress investigating that incident but I don’t think they have produced a report yet. Another cause of thunderstorm related asthma in the UK during July and August is damp air fungal spores such as Didymella exitialis and Sporobolomyces.  If the thunderstorm occurs at night, especially after a long spell of hot dry weather, this can trigger a massive release of these spores.  Densities up to 250,000 and even 1 million spores per cubic metre have been recorded.  These spores are in the 4-8 micron size range which is about the most effective for getting deep into the lungs.  They’re also small enough that even a very heavy thunderstorm only washes a small proportion of them out of the air.  Most just slide past the raindrops. How did I become so knowledgeable about thunderstorms and asthma? Following a heavy thunderstorm in July 1992 I had a severe asthma attack which resulted in respiratory arrest and some time in an Intensive Therapy Unit.  Something like that tends to motivate a strong interest! All the best — John Connett Royal Mail: Concurrent Computer Corp., 227 Bath Road, Slough SL1 4AX, England

Response:

In NZ: Asthma rates a high _possibly_ because of the very high amount of rye grasses cultivated in NZ.   John Connett Royal Mail: Concurrent Computer Corp., 227 Bath Road, Slough SL1 4AX, England

   How did I become so knowledgeable about thunderstorms and asthma? John,    Quite a coincidence. I just got my first photomicrograph of an "exploding" grass pollen from dust on an HVAC grille. The pollen grain is about 20 microns and there are dozens of oval starch granules, about1.5 microns each, bursting out. Last week I read an article about the thunderstorm phenomenon.  The authors feel that the allergens coat the granules. (R.B. Knox, Clin. and Exp. Allergy, 1993,23, 354-359: Grass pollen,thunderstorms and asthma) Jeffrey C. May   see Couch Potato Asthma http://www.cybercom.net/~jmhi

Response: