June 1971


Author Affiliations

San Francisco

Am J Dis Child. 1971;121(6):544-545. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1971.02100170125026

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.—In the December issue (Amer J Dis Child120:578-582, 1970) Wittig presented a good review of the history of hyposensitization therapy in allergy. He discussed five criticisms of hyposensitization therapy, three of which we feel are misleading and unjustified, and a fourth questionable:

  1. 1. The doubtful outcome of some double-blind studies on the use of hyposensitization. Wittig presented four double-blind studies on the value of hyposensitization in pollen allergy. Three of the four studies showed hyposensitization to be effective for pollen allergy. The only study which showed hyposensitization to be of no statistical value was conducted by Fontana, who continues to use hyposensitization even after publication of his findings.

  2. 2. Scattered reports of serious illness resulting from prolonged injection therapy. Wittig quoted an article by Zenoni, who found amyloidosis in some hyperimmunized horses in 1902. This finding has not been supported in later studies and

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview