Doubt cast on many reports of food allergies

New study finds widespread overdiagnosis, misleading tests

"Many who think they have food allergies actually do not.

A new report, commissioned by the federal government, finds the field is rife with poorly done studies, misdiagnoses and tests that can give misleading results. "

<snip>

"For their report, Dr. Riedl and his colleagues reviewed all the papers they could find on food allergies published between January 1988 and September 2009 — more than 12,000 articles. In the end, only 72 met their criteria, which included having sufficient data for analysis and using more rigorous tests for allergic responses."


More:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37104569/ns/health-allergies_and_asthma/


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/suffer-food-allergies/story?id=10634044

And if you do question them, you are just ignorant and backwards... :evilgrin:

I thought scientist have proven everything that needs to be proven.

And if they cannot prove it exists off hand they spend a lot of money to try and prove it.

God, ghosts, Neutrinos (oops), etc don't exist until they observe such things.

So you're saying that scientists did not believe in neutrinos until they were proven to exist?

And the effort to prove they existed was misguided?

Saying they believed they existed first and then attempted to prove it.

Kind of like other folks.

I say we trust the chiropractors. And homeopaths.

.. is about as close to science as I am to the moon.

Because her chiropractor told her so. The same chiropractor once told her she was just out of adjustment and needed and alignment to fix her bladder infection.

If it's Airhead 101 woo woo medical, she believes it.

gluten sensitivity?

Gluten sensitivity isn't "woo woo medical." It's a serious and real condition.

for celiac disease, however they are highly liable to false negatives also.

on them it is extremely likely she has a real problem with gluten.

There IS the possibility of "false negatives" on the tests -- however that means that the tests may UNDERSTATE, not overstate, the likelihood of a gluten sensitivity.

biopsy is the confirmation.

what does gluten "sensitivity" mean?

it doesn't mean celiac disease.
it doesn't mean allergy.

what does it mean?

and came up with a list of "toxins" that needed to come out of her system. A spinal adjustment to cure a bladder infection should have been the tipoff.

In her case I stand by the woo woo claim.

It's amazing how many people are allergic to the food they eat only because they're allergic to the man made chemicals the food supply has absorbed. And what goes into us eventually comes out--it's mutating the aquatic life, but we don't know what it's doing to us yet.

both peanuts and what are called tree nuts -- walnuts, pecans, cashews, pistachios, etc.

If a piece of nut even touches her lips, the lips swell up, she gets hives, and is in danger of dying from anaphylaxis unless she gets an Epipen injection. In milder allergy attacks, she can apply liquid Benadryl to the location and take more orally.

Please don't try to tell her that her allergies don't exist. Even though she's careful, she's had a number of trips to hospital emergency rooms. Sometimes after exposure, she will have hives for weeks.

And people believing they have an allergy without any kind of proof.

but when i eat fish, my throat constricts and i trouble breathing, and sometimes i get hives. same with brazil nuts. i carry an epi pen because of my allergies. if something makes you ill, you should have the common sense not to eat it whether or not you get tested.

test to tell you the food isn't good for you.

the insistence of some on scientific verification vs. common sense is quite tiring. i would love to be able to eat fish, but i know that it makes me sick because: when i ate it made me sick. not exactly rocket science.

that's pretty strong proof.

But when someone claims they have an allergy when they never exhibit symptoms, I suspect something else.

and got tested again. Either she's grown out of it, or never had it in the first place. Now, strawberries are one of her favorite foods.

I have the feeling that many people might be in the same boat, thinking they're allergic to something, but scientific testing would prove otherwise.

but no longer does. However, she limits her intake because she doesn't want to develop a reaction in the future. She'd rather just enjoy them once in a while.

but it went away as i got older.

it's fun to watch her enjoy her strawberry margaritas! She also says she's 'allergic' to seafood, too bad for me, I love the stuff!

but not seafood. it is very annoying when people don't believe you have an allergy, btw.

"Peanut Allergy Cases Triple in 10 Years"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100513/sc_livescience/peanutallergycasestriplein10years

Their methodology: They called people on the phone and asked them if they were allergic. Doh! What kind of diagnostic standard is that?

Personally, I was VERY suspicious of that report. When "cases" TRIPLE in ten years you have to wonder where is the flaw in the study? Where they under-counted ten years ago, or are they being over-counted now? Or both? Triple in tens years is just not reasonable.

We already knew I was allergic to shellfish from having an anaphylactic shock reaction to popcorn shrimp at the age of 2. When I was skin-tested for a whole host of allergies in my late teens, for both foods and environmental allergens, the shellfish one swelled up to the size of one of those little Superballs. So given that the one for regular fish swelled up almost-but-not-quite as big, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to avoid all water-dwelling food animals.

to an expert, an allergy is specifically a strong histiminic reaction, with specific symptoms such as hives, rash, swelling, and possible anaphylaxis.

but many lay people commonly use the word "allergy" to also cover what the article calls "intolerances", or food sensitivities, where the adverse reaction is not histiminic but may lead to symptoms such as diarrhea or migraine.

people who "merely" have food intolerances (me, for instances -- alcohol, vinegar, soy sauce, and msg can all produce migraine) can't take much solace in the fact that experts don't define this as an "allergic" reaction. it just means the experts have a different word for what in my case is a horrifically painful reaction to certain foods.

produce antibodies that attack their own bodies, causing damage to the intestines and elsewhere. But it isn't a "classic" allergic reaction.

And having suffered the pain of lactose "intolerance" -- hard cramps that woke me up in the middle of the night -- no one is going to convince me that it matters whether I have an allergy or an intolerance to lactose.

he was allergic to garlic. He just wouldn't eat it because the Italians changed sides in the War.