TREATMENT OF ASTHMA (June 6, 1970)

Sir: For many years I have observed with dismay and alarm the stagnation and lack of any positive progress in the contemporary medical management of asthma. My long-standing endeavour to divert the flow of medical scientific thought to more productive channels in relation to asthma problems is firmly based on the practical results (acknowledged as “notably successful” by the National Health and Medical Research Council) achieved by applying in practice the formulated principles of a concept of asthma cause which is significantly different from the orthodox hypothesis, conceived in confusion, nourished in medical teaching institutions, perpetuated by the medical profession, and fed to long-suffering asthmatics in a diet of useless, harmful, bronchodilatory anti-asthmatic drugs.

Strenuous efforts to awaken my medical colleagues to the futility and dangerous consequences to the patient of the contemporary management of asthma by palliative drugs, and to induce a more realistic attitude to the treatment of asthmatics through the use of a natural physical, drug-free system of methods (i.e. breathing exercises and mechanical vibratory stimulation) scientifically based on the discovery of the physiological cause of asthma conditions (see “Asthma in Children”, Journal, April 25, 1970; “Management of Asthma”, June 15, 1969; and “Vibrotherapy”, August 20, 1966) finally culminated in the following resolution issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council, 69 th Session, Canberra, 1969, as forwarded to me by Commonwealth Health Minister, Dr Forbes, and which reads as follows:

1. The available evidence suggests that the methods used by Dr James have been notably successful in cases of asthma treated by him . However, there is no evidence before the Council to suggest that greater success could be expected using Dr James' methods than could be achieved using other accepted methods, including physical methods, in treating asthma.

2. There was nothing sufficiently unique in Dr James' methods to warrant conducting a full scale, objective clinical trial.

3. The good results achieved by Dr James emphasized not only the value of physiotherapy in the treatment of asthma, but also the importance of gaining the patient's full confidence and cooperation.

4. Dr James' methods have now been well documented and could be made available to medical practitioners who may wish to use them. There should no longer be concern that the knowledge of Dr James' methods will be lost.

Because it reflects the opinion of the highest medical tribunal and because of its far-reaching effect on the current and future medical approach to asthma problems, this resolution should be made known to the medical profession, and I would like the opportunity, through these columns, of drawing attention to the anomalous character of its content and conclusion.

I question the accuracy of the basic tenets of this resolution, namely that there are other accepted methods of asthma treatment equal on result to my natural, physical, drug-free system which the Council acknowledges as “notably successful”, and which, contrary to Council's opinion, are unique in the medical management of asthma. A truly objective survey would confirm what is already obvious to over 600,000 asthma sufferers in Australia, that palliative drug therapy is the only accepted method of asthma treatment in general medical use; that physical methods are never used by physicians in the treatment of asthma; that only a very small percentage of asthmatics are treated by physiotherapy; that the type of physiotherapy given is useless in practice, entirely different and based on wrong hypotheses regarding asthma factors. I have never known of any asthma sufferer treated by orthodox conservative physiotherapy unaccompanied by the usual anti-asthmatic drugs!

My findings, based on the information of over 2,000 asthmatics, confirmed by statutory declarations, letters, testimonies, etc. and by the statements of leading asthma specialists in the medical and public Press admitting the failure of medical science to reverse the trend to increased asthma incidence, severity and mortality, give me the right to question the factual accuracy of Council's resolution, and to condemn it as a reactionary reflection of medical orthodoxy.

My system of asthma treatment is based on sound, scientific principles formulated from my discovery of the physiological cause of asthma conditions. The beneficial results achieved by these means are not accidental, or as inferred in the resolution, due to the ability to gain the “confidence and cooperation” of the patient, but are practical proof of the validity of my findings in the aetiology of asthma (I might add that my patients become confident and cooperative because they immediately feel the benefit of the treatment). How is it possible, in spite of acknowledging the
”notable success” of my methods, that the honoured members of Council fail to appreciate the significance of this discovery and ignore the potential value of its application in the treatment, cure, prevention and even eradication of asthma conditions?

7 Bourke Street, Alexander James.

North Wollongong, N.S.W. 2500.