[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
November 5, 1982

Controversial Practices in Allergy-Reply

Author Affiliations

St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center New York

JAMA. 1982;248(17):2113. doi:10.1001/jama.1982.03330170021011

In Reply.—  I am pleased that Dr Miller has chosen to comment on the intradermal provocative-neutralization method. The text of my review of "Controversial Practices in Allergy" clearly indicated that the method outlined by Rinkel et al1 in 1964 was summarized in Table 5. It is unlikely that this method was abandoned before publication. My article in The Journal did not state that Miller's positive double-blind study results were followed by four controlled studies unable to support the efficacy of this method. The text stated "However, four controlled studies were unable to support the efficacy of this method." There is no indication of the priority of publication.Dr Miller's suggestion that his study of the therapy for eight patients published in 19772 that used his version of the technique is adequate support for this procedure is unacceptable. Multiple and reproducible studies designed to eliminate bias must remain the