Originally published June 9 2005
Removing a pet from the home found more effective than asthma therapy
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Asthma therapy is not as effective as just removing a pet from the home, studies show. Although this seems obvious, no studies have specifically observed the effect of removing a pet from the home, according to the medical journal Chest. Half of the study participants gave away their pets and discontinued inhaled steroidal therapy, and the other half kept their pets and used inhalers. A year later, the group that gave up their pets had less of a tendency to experience airway constriction and difficulty breathing than did the group that kept the pets. Dr. Toshihiro Shirai, from Fujinomiya City General Hospital in Japan, said the study, "must be considered preliminary," due to the small size of the study.
People with asthma caused by allergies to a pet may have to choose between their furry friend or better health.
Removing the pet from the home is more effective than even optimal drug therapy in reducing wheezing and airway constriction, new research shows.
Although it may seem obvious that pet removal would improve the symptoms of pet-allergic asthmatics, very few studies have actually looked at the effect of doing so in terms of patients' airway function, according to the report in the medical journal Chest.
To investigate, Dr. Toshihiro Shirai, from Fujinomiya City General Hospital in Japan, and colleagues assessed airway function in 20 asthmatic pet owners.
Half of them gave their pets away and half did not.
A year later, the group that gave up their pets had a much greater reduction in the tendency of their airways to constrict and cause difficulty breathing than did the group that kept the pets.
In addition, none of the pet-removal participants required inhaled steroid therapy, while 9 of 10 patients in the pet-keeping group did.
Given the small size of the study and other limitations, the current findings "must be considered preliminary," the team notes.
They say more stringent studies "are needed for convincing evidence."
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml