Talk:Allergy

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 (http://library-catalogue.rockhampton.qld.gov.au/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/CF05WrKL5v/268040137/9)[1] (http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/0207157316/249-7487789-3205123). 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)

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 (http://bcs.whfreeman.com/immunology5e/) 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)

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] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4420249.stm)

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)

"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)