Talk:Allergy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Natsci.

Contents 1 vote for a rewrite 2 Hypersensitivity 3 The hygiene hypothesis 4 Food Intolerance 5 fungal 6 Genetic? 7 Metal Allergies? 8 household pets? 9 Request external link allergymatters.com 10 Milk 11 Nuts subtree portion of common alergies 12 Airborne or food allergy? 13 Possible improvements to the article 14 POV tag and relevance of increasing prevalance sections

[edit] vote for a rewrite

This article is unscientific and plainly wrong.
I vote for a rewrite !

I concur. Alex.tan 06:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

That's fine to make it more "scientific," but to remove the entire last 2 paragraphs is something I object to. Are you saying that 50 years of environmental medicine is unscientific? Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive of viewpoints. Please replace these paragraphs. Feel free to make them more "scientific" if it pleases you. heidimo 15:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

- Another theory is the exponential use and abuse of chemicals in affluent nations since the second world war. Vast numbers of chemicals are introduced into our indoor and outdoor environments with little or no testing regarding their toxicity to living beings. Many believe that air quality is getting worse rather than better, particularly if one considers indoor air quality as well as outdoor. (Indoor air quality has become significantly worse since building codes changed in the 1970s to make buildings more air-tight and therefore to conserve energy. This affects buildings built since this time.) Adverse reactions to toxins vary considerably from one person to another, and can involve extremes in symptoms including the neurological and endocrine systems as well as the more commonly recognized allergy symptoms listed above. +

- Allergies are also viewed by some medical practitioners as a negative consequence of the use and abuse of antibiotics and vaccinations. This mainstream Western approach to treatment and prevention of infectious disease has been used in the more affluent "First world" for a longer period ot time than in the rest of the world, hence the much greater commonality of allergies in the First world. Little effort has been made to research the long-term negative effects of antibiotic use or of the use of vaccinations. There can be no doubt that these medicines affect the immune system, and that allergies are typically viewed as a dysfunctional immune response. Without the necessary research to prove or disprove this theory, much is left to speculation. +

Heidimo, you are correct, but I suggest all this goes in a seperate section on alternative views. Personally I'm quite pleased Alex has introduced the "hygiene hypothesis" in this article!
JFW | T@lk 15:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The hygiene hypothesis has been in this article for months. It is not any less "alternative" than the theories that were removed. I think all reasonable viewpoints should be included in this article. Anything not "scientific" can be described as such if that makes people happier. heidimo 15:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Alex, Heidimo:
I have updated, expanded and categorised the article. Please offer your comments. I have put the "hygiene hypothesis" under a seperate header, as it is still a hypothesis (although evidence abounds), and reintroduced the alternative explanations for the rise in allergies.
JFW | T@lk 18:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW, thanks, I think it's good. heidimo 22:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Good compromise. I deleted the paragraphs because of very obvious claims that weren't really substantiated. In particular, the phrase "There can be no doubt that these medicines affect the immune system, and that allergies are typically viewed as a dysfunctional immune response. Without the necessary research to prove or disprove this theory, much is left to speculation." strongly suggests allergies are 'caused' by antibiotics or vaccinations, a point which does not have much (if any) published evidence behind it. I hope my revised version can stay. Alex.tan 12:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I must I haven't read through the section. I just put it back. You're correct that the language is rather firm and might be hard to corrobate with research data. For the sake of NPOV, I think some corrections ought to be made, but the section itself does belong in the article.
JFW | T@lk 12:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Is the hygeine hypothesis different from Ecological Illness/Environmnetal Health. I just read Why do I Feel so Awful[1]. Both seem a load of crap, at least scientifically. They might be correct, but they just leap to conclusions (WDIFSA tries to convince the reader the immune system consists of only 3 cell types, and all true-allergies are IgE related). Personally I was environmnetally sensitive to dairy when I was 15, but thank Word that's over. I think TLRs may play a part in all this non-IgE reactions. I think I also heard a thing about 5th form of allergy-proper recently discovered, I'll find some info on that later.--ZZ 06:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why didn't they say anything about the medical specialty Allergy/Immunology? I cant find anything for young people considering a career in Allergy.

[edit] Hypersensitivity

Anyone seen the Hypersensitivity article.

A lot of the information here should be moved over there, and this page given a huge rework.

My textbook calls the 5 classes hypersensitivity - while "allergy" is classically reserevd for IgE-mediated hypersensitivity (type I).

I have two proposals:

1. This article deals with IgE-mediated allergy in its current form, and all hypersensitivity related information shifted over to that page.
2. This article primarily deals with IgE-mediated allergy, as well as historical allergy theories, and the general history of allergology.

I'm adding the {{clean up}} tag

Thoughts?--ZayZayEM 03:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check Allergy/proposed change for what I'm thinking of (Now in main article)--ZayZayEM 05:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking at this and the hypersensitivity article for a while, along with my good friend, Viki. There is a lot of merit in what you say. For example, I think specific information on the various other hypersensitivity reactions should not be here. I think the proposed change would be a large improvement. There are a few bits that I feel could do with rewording, but I would be in favour of the changes. --Mike C 15:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The hygiene hypothesis

This article just negate the paragraph with above heading. Its however a research, so not good to include it in the front page [2]

The hygiene hypothesis has not been rejected. One BBC news article does not change matters. JFW | T@lk 00:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the absence of references in the two sections on the hygiene hypothesis. For example, who has backed this hypothesis and who injected gutworms into himself? It seems inappropriate to include controversial work without citing its proponents, maybe even a paper or two in the references section. -- KarlHallowell 02:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur. References need to be cited here. Who did this research and where is it published? 66.17.118.207 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Gutworms"??? This needs some serious scientific cleanup. -71.2.192.103 06:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Try PMID 11964470 and PMID 12239261. Of course no large-scale prospective trials have been performed, which is why it is called the "hygiene hypothesis" and not the "hygiene fact".

Bach's article does not go into worms much, but the Yazdanbakhsh reference is quite thorough, and eminent enough to be published in Science. JFW | T@lk 12:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Should the text in this section be moved to hygiene hypothesis? Hardin MD 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) T@lk

I know many Chinese will develop hay fever after moving into USA for several years. It may be caused by many factors like: cleaner environment, always staying in rooms with air-conditioning, lack of exercise (driving instead of walking and cycling), etc. --Leo 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be that the local irritants are different to the ones that the sufferer grew up with, and therefore has no familiarity or immunity to them. Graham 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. Because hay fever will not happen until they stay in USA for 3 or more years. If it is the change of irritants, it should happen immediately. Just my 2 cents. --Leo 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hygiene Hypothesis is a total joke. It doesn't explain the physiology of the disorder in stark contrast to more scientific ideas about IgE and viruses. My reference "Is there a link between hygiene and allergic disorders" was written by Salvi and Holgate who are big names in Allergy research.

I don't understand how this putative fact supports the "Hygiene Hypothesis": "One supporting fact is that many Chinese will develop hay fever after moving into USA for three or more years." The hypothesis, at least as currently described on the page, claims that the predisposition to allergic reactions develops due to excessive cleanliness during childhood development.

Also, with respect to the discussion above, note that some allergic responses are thought to develop only after repeated or sustained exposure. So this assertion is at least not categorically true: "If it is the change of irritants, it should happen immediately." -- User:DanM 3 March 2007

[edit] Food Intolerance

It might be good to contrast allergies with food intolerance. Sometimes they have similar symptoms, but they are different phenomena. And people often speak of food intolerances as "allergies" when they are not precisely allergies.

I agree that food intolerance should be contrasted briefly with food allergies on this page, and I definately think that food intolerance should not redirect to food allergy. Food intolerance needs its own page, since the redirect gives people the impression that these conditions are synonymous. I cannot describe how annoying it is for me to say "No thanks, I'm allergic to milk," and then have the other person to respond, "Oh, so you're lactose intolerant?" jf 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fungal

I dropped that. A news article is not appropriate as a source for a medical article. When it comes out in a refereed journal then add it, but put it in context of other info. Also, animal work needs corroboration in humans. S Holland, MD Kd4ttc 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic?

Of the people who have looked at the research, maybe you can tell me if they have controlled for this hypothesis: (1) Parent is allergic to X, (2) Parent avoids X, (3) Child is always/mostly with parent at young age, (4) being exposed to X at young age increases probability of hypersensitivity (allergy) to X, (5) from 2 and 3, child is not exposed to X, (6) therefore from 4 and 5, child is also hypersensitive to X. I guess all it would take is a decent adoption study. -- RealGrouchy 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Allergies?

Not much to say, but this page doesn't seem to cover allergies to metals. Unfortunately, I don't know enough on the topic to add anything meaningful.

http://allergies.about.com/cs/skin/a/blaad032403.htm --Evan L. Kester 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] household pets?

I heard somewhere that some had therorized that those who had household pets in their household at a very young age are less likely to develop allergies than those that don't. (Under the theory that pets help keep the place from being TOO clean). I'm not sure how reliable it is though. Jon 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request external link allergymatters.com

We are an allergy company that provides an allergy learning centre, allergy product ratings and reviews. Our site is recommended by top practitioners in the field. We would like to know whether our site (allergymatters.com)is qualified. so that more allergy sufferers can benefit from this valuable resource. Thank you very much.217.36.223.45 10:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite request on this and other pages (thus following WP:SPAM guideline re not directly inserting external links to website one is directly involved with), but no not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directories listings and a commericial site is therefore not an appropriate external link (see WP:EL for policy). As your site introduces itself "Allergymatters is a unique One Stop Allergy Shop selling...". Please do stay though and improve our articles (if you sign up, it will be easier to direct you to relevant help & policy pages). Yours David Ruben ^Talk 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milk

The text I added about milk, which was done in a real rush, was removed from this version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allergy&oldid=84287158#Increasing_use_of_chemicals

I have now found some sources, after a quick scan.

First: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/3/T032100.asp#T032107 "Cow feed undoubtedly contains pesticides, and cows are given antibiotics to keep them from getting sick and hormones to increase their milk production."

It then goes on to say: "Whether or not these substances show up in standard milk (which is supposed to be tested for detectable residues) is uncertain." And ofcourse, they have to say this, because there is a huge amount of investments in the Milk-industry.

Second: http://www.newstarget.com/010443.html

"Milk allergies may sometimes be penicillin allergies

Antibiotics, most commonly penicillin, are given to cows for the treatment of mastitis, an inflammation of the udders. Cows are not supposed to be milked for forty-eight hours after receiving penicillin. Often this precaution is not followed and then penicillin appears in the milk in small quantities. People allergic to penicillin-an estimated 1 percent of the United States population-may develop symptoms of penicillin allergy after drinking milk contaminated with this antibiotic. The allergic reaction may take the form of hives, sneezing, asthma, or an unexplained rash. Don't Drink Your Milk by Frank A Oski MD, page 55"

This all points towards the theory that all the penecilin and antibiotics, which are abused alot, damages the immune-system. So the common thing for allergies is that they are not genetical, but damaged immune-system. This is why there has been an explotion in the amount of people getting allergies now a days, compared to before. It's not a sudden mutation in our genes that has become widespread.

In the same way that you are told to avoid antibiotics when ill, because it causes resistance and damaged immune-system. The same way, you get all these antibiotics indirectly from your parent intake of antibiotic-filled milk and maybe also meat.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=66 "Food allergies are reactions that involve the immune system. Typically reactions to the casein in dairy products will involve a full-fledged immune response, manifesting as specific as a skin rash, or as general as fatigue. What happens during an allergic reaction is that your immune system cells treat the certain "offending" molecules, casein for example, as if it were foreign and dangerous. Some immune system cells will bind to the offending molecule in the food, triggering a cascade of physiological events that will activate other components of the immune system. This would then harness chemical messengers such as histamine to 'alert' the body that there is 'danger'. Inflammation and the creation of immune complexes that disrupt normal physiological functioning may ensue as a result."

http://www.enlink.org/pt/re/nestle/abstract.00130832-200302000-00003.htm;jsessionid=FL3L0LCzcHCvf2NMzlHsqCb5k2mvwCT21sgHtmRKSKvrYJBmmLJp!1408571515!-949856144!8091!-1?nav=forward&basedoc=00005176-200210000-00028&article=3 Allergy, immune system, milk and more.

Here is more basic data for the connection between allergies and execive amount of exposure to antibiotics: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001678.html

More: http://healthandenergy.com/avoiding_allergies.htm

It's all I have for now. I'll keep searching.

[edit] Nuts subtree portion of common alergies

The "nuts" subtree portion of common alergies with "nuts" itself as a child node of the "nuts" category is a bit odd. At the very least the child section of "nuts" below peanuts should be rephrased as "other nuts", but it would be far better to instead be replaced by a list of the other nuts that are common alergies. 168.166.196.40 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airborne or food allergy?

Is it ever documented that an allergy sufferer may react to a food that has been prepared in an allergic enviornment? For instance if their food is prepared in a poorly ventilated room full of animal dander that they are allergic to... the air circulation from the cooked food possibly allowing airborne allergens to easily attach to it. Peoplesunionpro 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible improvements to the article

Just looking at this article I feel that a few improvements are required, particuarly regarding medical implications.

differences between Hypersensitivity vs allergie vs adverse drug effects in medical situations

An adverse drug reaction (eg nausea and vomiting) IS NOT the same as an allergic reaction. Nausea and vomiting following penicillin consumption can be common but is not an allergic reaction and therefore could mean that penicillins cold still be used where appropriate. Similarly, a latex allergy involves typical allergic symptoms, and if you use condoms for example you're unlikely to allergic to latex. In surgery this is an important difference due to the need in surgery to use non-latex gloves and a latex free zone. Therefore determining the difference is important for both therapeutic and surgical reasons.--Mofs 12:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• this article is not for disambiguation. This article clearly states at the start it is about ONLY IgE-mediated hypersensities. Whether the article is actually following this is another question though.--ZayZayEM 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between hypersensitivity and allergies, but the point i was making that in a clinical setting this clarfification needs to be made. the Hypersenitivity article is little more than a list of the different types of reactions whereas the allergy article (which most people without a clinical or biological background would head for initially) focuses on wider topics. In this sense, I felt that this was a relevant title to insert because of the need in a clincal setting to differentiate the two--Mofs 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article does not focus on wider topics. It focuses on IgE mediated hypersensitivity. Anything you feel is appropriate for this page should most likely be moved to the Hypersensitivity main article.--ZayZayEM 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag and relevance of increasing prevalance sections

These sections seem very POV and under sourced.

Additionally I am worrying about their relevance to this article. This article is about IgE mediated allergies ONLY. It is not a general hypersensity article. The hygeine hypothesis in particular seems directed at all forms of hypersensity. I'd be inclined to say the same about increasing chemicals (the journal cited seems to be dealing with IgE mediated among other forms). Increasing prevalence should be mentioned (if sourced). But discussion about general "theories" as to why - if broad spectrum about all hypersensitities are not suited to here.--ZayZayEM 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)