Multiple allergens in immunotherapy shots

[nuclearpowerpants]

I have been taking allergy injections for the past month in an accelerated protocol. The response has been fantastic, with improvements in nasal airflow, sleep patterns, asthma, headaches, etc.

Despite having tested positive to a dozen different allergens, my vaccine currently only contains two: ragweed and dust-mite.
A friend in the States is receiving a rush protocol for many dozens of different allergens. I mentioned this to my doctor who explained to me that putting many different allergens into the mixture would require lowering the strength of the other allergens and it would take longer to work overall. He also explained that the major allergens might be triggering the minor ones, so treating the major ones should take care of all my reactions.
Yet, many doctors in the States seem to disagree.

How is there such opposing views in the field regarding this issue?
All I want to find is the *optimal treatment regime*.

My question: Is it typical to start off with only two allergens then add others later on? Or should I seek a second opinion?
What is the *standard practice* and what does *the evidence support*?
Thanks!

[Slamilton]

I took allergy shots for three years. I got tested, and was allergic to 46 out if the 54 things they tested me for. I had 2 types with each infection as well. And now I rarely get allergies. Not even a sinus headache. Trust me. It works you just have to do it 2 types in a shot at a time. That's all they can put in there I do believe because if you put more types with less power then it would take longer to get your immune built to those rather than a high power dose of two types.

[nuclearpowerpants]

Thank you. I was asking this question in the hope of *optimizing* my treatment. Meaning that my question is whether or not the treatment could be *better* if I added additional allergens to the mixture. (I'm not getting a rush treatment, that was my friend in the US)
Yes, the treatment is going well, but my question was: can it be *even better*?
I certainly don't want to be impertinent, but I don't think it's selfish or unreasonable to want to *optimize* a medical treatment.
Also, I paid $15 to post this question and did expect something better than "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it".
Thanks

[David Tinkelman, M.D.]

There is obviously some controversy within the medical community with respect to what to include in rush immunotherapy.  The fact that you have experienced such a significant response would indicate that your physician has chosen the best approach for you.  I would not suggest any changes unless the effectiveness changes in the future.