Very small doses of natural hormones, in this case HYDROCORTIZONE, can be effective without the dangerous side-effects of prednisone. It seems not all doctors have keep abreast of the latest information. Like I know something that stops shingles. It is injectible hydrogen peroxide. Maybe 3 shots will do it. I learned about it from some Jamaican friends. A nurse friend went to someone who would administer it. She was surprised it worked. She had to pay $75 a shot. Insurance won't pay for it. It is not on U. S. doctors' formulary. Something like less than 5 % of those who get shingles become afflicted with permanent severe and disabling pain. Do doctors know about it? Should these people and institutions be held liable (or sued) for rejecting a known cure? That results in such suffering? Just remember...it is an antiviral that cures smallpox.
There are reasons physicians and nonphysicians are held liable for practicing medicine outside the standards of care. Many have "theories" and have developed "cures" and promote these with pseudoscience, and poor research. This coupled with some stories of "I know someone who got better" shows a population bias which can be as dangerous as the poor studies. There are always conspiracy theories about the FDA, and there will always be a market for questionable medicinal alternatives.
I think each person should know the risks and rewards of such treatments and make educated adult decisions for themselves. I have an article about hydrogen peroxide, the guy who promoted it's use in questionable medical practices, and some conclusions through medical research about these treatments. http://www.sram.org/1101/charlesfarr.html
Here is the summary of the article
In summary, the evidence that IV H2O2 is a safe and effective therapy—for any disease—is lacking. There is no growing body of support from basic science, animal studies, or human studies. Specifically, there would need to be systematic animal studies showing real promise, followed by Phase I, II and III human trials to establish safety and efficacy of IV H2O2 for at least one indication. Instead there have been a few conflicting preliminary reports, without independent confirmation of the very few that appeared favorable.
Farr's opinions cannot be considered authoritative. His panacea claims for IV H2O2 are implausible and typical of medical quackery. He never published his purported findings in a peer-reviewed journal. He used his endorsement of this and other dubious treatments in an entrepreneurial fashion. His own state medical board disciplined him for substandard practice, and the FDA disciplined him for presiding over a bogus IRB.
Prudence dictates that informed, scientifically trained practitioners view IV H2O2 skeptically. Extracellular H2O2 in blood is rapidly broken down to oxygen and water by the enzyme catalase, which results in the formation of dangerous bubbles. Any intact H2O2 that comes into contact with a cell is not likely to enter the cell in an orderly fashion, but rather to damage the cell membrane because the molecule vigorously reacts with lipids. Thus it is unlikely that H2O2 given intravenously would have any significant intracellular role, which is where it would need to be in order to fulfill Farr's claims. Rather, it would result in the formation of oxygen bubbles in the bloodstream and in the destruction of cells, exactly as have been reported. 3–7
Farr claimed that his regimen was safe because the H2O2 was sufficiently diluted. But even with a regimen that reportedly "had followed [the] 'well-established' protocols" of Farr's organization, the IOMA, a woman died in 2004 shortly after a single infusion; the coroner subsequently reported that her death had been due to hemolytic crisis and gas emboli.7 Thus Farr's claim of safety cannot be accepted as reliable.
In conclusion, the information that "oxidative medicine" practitioners rely upon as the basis for their prescribing intravenous hydrogen peroxide is wholly inadequate to justify such treatment.