Jump to content

Talk:Allergy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Allergists

Allergist redirects here but the concept is never introduced.


ya i was gonna mention the same thing! What's up with that, i need information on what the difference between an allergist and an immunologist is, but this pointless redirect tells me NOTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.148.101 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

vote for a rewrite

Added a bit on specific immunotherapy 28/5

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)

Can you add new articles? If you can and you think one is needed, make one. Wiki will be all the better for it.

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.

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)

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
I concur. Resent tests suggest that having a germ free environment at early Stages of body development is a factor in the cause of allergies. Andy831 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

  • I just thought I'd point out that some of your practical cow-milking statements aren't exactly correct, at least as far as the dairies I have been to are concerned. You can still milk cows after they have been given antibiotics. You cannot, however, sell that milk; it's generally either thrown away or used for calves (depending on the location and management style). Imagine how uncomfortable a high-production cow would be after not being milked for two days straight! It would be pure agony. Also, I would be careful of the sources you use for amounts of pesticides, antibiotics, and other such things in milk, as the numbers can vary widely both from where you get the information and simply from a cow-to-cow basis. There are guildelines as to acceptable levels of such things, however. Maybe those would be useful to your future research as to whether or not dairy-related additives have any impact on allergies? 192.211.25.9 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes, as such they should not be in a subheading, in my opinion.Doctorsclinic 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 May;73(5):501-2. Doctorsclinic 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Footnote 61 does not support the statement that "150 deaths per year from anaphylaxis are attributable to food allergies." The source includes no information about the number of deaths. Moreover, any statistic like this should come from a direct government source rather than a non-profit/NGO. This number is based on a poorly designed study of a small population and has been debunked. Suggest deleting the statistic altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


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)

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the Prevalence section that increases in prevalence data can also be due to introduction of more sensitive diagnostic techniques and also to overdiagnosis. Kay Dekker (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
An excellent source of imformation on the chemical sensitization issue can be found in the gluten sensitivity article. Basically Exercise, Aspirin, NSAIDS, possibly benzoate and sodium glutamate can cause w-gliadin and HMW-glutenin to enter the blood stream, this can cause an IgE mediated Wheat dependent exercise induced anaphylaxis and/or urticaria. I can add this information if you want to the page along with references.Pdeitiker 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not Type I Hypersensitivity (allergy), please add such information to the correct article.--ZayZayEM 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Treatment section

Wondering why the recent addition on 'lifestyle' changes for Treatment was deleted. The information included is likely to be an accesible and helpful treatment in addition to the ones also included in the article. It seems that the direction of this article is under discussion; however, an explanation for the deleted paragraph would be much appreciated. --TinyE 07:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about alleviating allergy suffering would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because most of the information comes from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=40 please consider it. Jrosenfe 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite way in which you proposed adding this link. I'm sorry someone didn't reply earlier. I found the MedlinePlus link at the bottom of the AMW.com link that you provided, and I'm adding that to this article because it's an authoritative source. Thanks again, Antelan talk 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Allergies

Nobody knows exactly how allergies got started. I think it goes back to our ancestors. I believe that if you had ancestors that got extremely sick for a long time and avoided a lot of things that made them feel worse, allergies would run through your family. 66.191.115.61 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen

  • I'm really gonna throw a ball out there; but don't non-primates get allergies too?--ZayZayEM 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Adaptive immune memory effects (including allergy) are not conserved across generations. There are probably a number of genetic elements to allergy and hence inheritable factors but these are not specific to any given allergy, they just broadly increase the likelyhood of general allergy development if the environment is appropriate. DoktorDec 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I was at an immunology conferece about two weeks ago at which several of the speakers speculated about the development of allergy and asthma and their reletively recent increase in prevalence. The current speculative thinking, which fits in with the hygiene hypothesis, is that the immune systems of many individuals co-evolved in the presence of persistent parasitic infestation. The immune system therefore evolved to "over-compensate" along the TH2 axis in order to deal with new parasitic infection on top of the un-clearable persistent infection. At the same time our persistent parasites evolved to evade our TH2 response (or push our immune response along Treg, TH1 etc axes), further requiring TH2 over-compensation. This co-evolution has probably been ongoing since our pre-mammalian ancestors- time on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. Suddenly, in the space of a mere 100 years, the western world eliminates everyday parasitic infection. Individuals who previously had an evolutionary edge suddenly have a disadvantage. This is a wonderful example of the importance of context in evolutionary traits, allergy is now seen as some sort of genetic "defect". In African countries where the trypanosome and schistosome problems are starting to be reduced, allergy is starting to emerge. If this thinking is correct, allergy and asthma will increase considerably there (assuming the western world gets off its seat to help do something about schistosomiasis etc.). DoktorDec 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Accumulated Knowledge

An encyclopedia is supposed to reference accumulated human knowledge. That is why Wikipedia prohibits original research, weasel words, and other such behaviors. Because the core reason for any encyclopedia, wiki or not, is to reference published, factual information.

When every single statement in a section is proceeded by a 'citation needed' tag, original research -or more usually, just plain bullshitting- has occurred. These sections do not need to be re-written. They need to be removed.

I think this article needs to be re-rewritten in its entirety, section by section, until an actual encyclopedic article exists. For the time being, it might be useful to base each section on information already referenced by other wikipedia articles. Not duplicating those articles, but using using them as a springboard to aggregate relevant, consistent information.

The name of the game is not 'find a citation for this cool thing you once heard from your cousin and HAS to be in the article'.

Information should only be added to the article as a response to publish information. There should never be another citation needed tag. There is no reason to make up information, or to include information off the top of your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.157.219 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Brain tumors

PMID 17182979 - gliomas are much less common in people with allergies. I haven't checked whether this extends to other malignancies, but may well be worth mentioning if it does. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Animals?

Hi. Can animals other than humans have allergies? Can someone say this in the article? Can we also get a source? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Food Intolerance

Food intolerance should also be discussed as a different subject and not as allergy. The example "Lactose Intolerance" simply means that the person with such condition doesn't have the enzyme "Lactase" which is vital to digest the "Lactose" content of milk. On the other hand, allergy is an immune condition where the antibodies attack a so called foreign material-allergen. In food intolerance, the body simply cannot digest the food causing upset stomach, which is a way to expell the undigestable food. In allergy, for example, people allergic to nuts have the right enzymes to digest the food, that is why the chemical in the nuts can be absorbed by the body. Unfortunately, there is/are chemical/s that are being considered by our immune system as foreign incompatible body causing the allergic reaction which is a way to "kill" it. ≈≈Marc Andrew Tuang Mallari≈≈

Another skin testing photo

Skoch3 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC):I uploaded another photo...it's pretty low resolution, but is of the more common testing in US done on the patient's back. Not sure if it should replace or supplement the arm photo.

Active and passive smoking as allergies causes

Hi Jfdwolff,
thanks for your contribution to the wikipedia editing!
I notice that with your revision that took place at 6:26 am on the 7th of September 2008 you have cancelled:

"(...) (active and passive smoking) (...)"

from the causes of allergies, a revision that I added at 12:06 AM, 6th september 2008.
You motivated your change with:

"(does the source comment on smoking? what is the evidence for allergies attributable to smoking?) "

Well the answer is YES.
You can check yourself googling with "allergies" "smoking" keywords (4,620,000 results that is FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND RESULTS).
Is that enough for you as "EVIDENCE FOR ALLERGIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SMOKING" or do you wish something more "specific"?
Please let's discuss this topic on the "allergy" talk page.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You added that active and passive smoking cause allergies. I removed this contribution, because the edit summary did not indicate whether this was mentioned in Janeway's book, to which the rest of the sentence is sourced, or whether this is an observation made in other sources.
You now state that "smoking" and "allergy" together yield over 4 million Google hits. With respect, this does not resolve the problems I have with the addition. Please clarify which one of these sources provides reliable evidence that smoking causes allergy. We can then decide whether this can be added to the article. JFW | T@lk 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Primum non nocere"

Hi administrator Jfdwolff,
thanks for finally motivating in a broad way your removal to my contribution at the allergy article after I kindly asked why you did it!
I would like you to notice that I am NOT a doctor NOR a volunteer (NOT payed) paramedic worker.
I am just a humble english wikipedia editor in my spare time.
I am also a NON-smoker and I do NOT care in a particular manner about other people's health (especially adult smokers that "decide to slowly kill themselves"): finally right NOW I have some other stuff in mind to get accomplished with my spare time rather than checking some of the over 4 million google hits (like you are "kindly suggesting me") to see whether "Janeway's book" is "incomplete" or not.
I may come back in two-three months IF I am in the mood to see IF I feel like contributing to this "allergy" wikipedia article, but no promise obviously because this is starting to look like original research to me.
If you are so overmeticulous about medical wikipedia articles (like it is starting to seem to me) I kindly suggest you to remove also my other contribution on the Health effects of tobacco smoking wikipedia article where I stated that:

"(...) in particular smoking being a major risk factor for the insurgence of allergies, (...)"

Who knows?
I may harm someone!
Or you could consider editing in your spare time the "Drug policy of the Netherlands" wikipedia article that is missing citations and/or is missing footnotes!
And that is clearly stated by a "citations missing" template too!
 Maybe that's far more important than "deciding together whether smoking causes allergies or not" ... Huh?
What do you think about it?
By the way I wonder if you have ever heard of the latin phrase "Primum non nocere" ?
It is...

"(...) one of the principal precepts of all medical students that are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for the emergency medical services. It reminds the physician and other health care providers that she or he must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do . This is most often mentioned when debating use of an intervention with an obvious chance of harm but a less certain chance of benefit . Since at least 1860, the phrase has been for physicians a hallowed expression of hope, intention, HUMILITY , and recognition that human acts with good intentions may have unwanted consequences ".

Please continue enjoying your Wikipediholic life (as "some sources" state...) because maybe for you is more important the number of edits that you do over time (54406 edits (including deleted edits) in 54 months (about 1,000 edits a month) than doing quality edits and respecting with good netiquette other's wikipedian contributions.

P.S.: Please also notice that in my humble opinion I honestly think that for witiquette reasons it would have been nicer to remove my contribution and to promptly discuss it on this "allergy talk page" or on my discussion page other than posing philosophical questions about the addition "(does the source comment on smoking? what is the evidence for allergies attributable to smoking?)" .
But no problem, I can stand these kinds of "constructive discussions".
Even if these behaviours come from a wikipedia administrator.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your comments brief, and try not to lecture me. In particular, don't let the discussion get personal. I want a reliable source from you that smoking increases the risk of allergies. JFW | T@lk 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Maurice: pasting the phrase 'smoking increases the riks of allergies' into the google bar seems to bring up a few relevant publications.[3], about active as well as passive smoking. Guys, I thought this was common knowledge. Still, one needs sources. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Guido. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine Guido den Broeder,
so if "ONE" needs sources, let this "ONE" search for them... then, right?
Maybe this SOMEONE should write a letter to Santa Claus? Xmas is approaching!
Oh, by the way is this "ONE", "some-ONE", "any-ONE" OR "no-ONE"?
I guess nONE of you TWO or am I wrong?
Greetings and you both keep having fun mobbing around.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the point. Please see WP:TALK about appropriate use of talk pages. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has a scientific subject matter. The most appropriate sources to cite are either primary research papers or journal reviews. Also, given that the material may be taken (inappropriately) by some as health or medical advice, there is a very strong need here for accurate and well-sourced information. And of course, it is very important for us to discuss significant additions or changes here. Jfdwolff is acting entirely appropriately. Please provide sources or do not make these additions. DoktorDec (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


this is useful linkwe use at the corps:

http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/hearings_and_decisions/ftp/20080403_ftp_panel_wolff.asp

It says a lot about the stuff on this page and those who edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.122.24 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Disambiguation page for sensitivity

This page is listed under the disambiguation page for Sensitivity, but I'm not entirely sure if it belongs there. It should be listed un hypersensivity for sure, but I recommend it be removed from the sensitivity disambig page. 71.14.67.229 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good for the human race in the long-run?

The following discussion is just for the sake of a discussion I would enjoy, not meant to improve the article. I don't really know much about the subject scientifically, but I can usually catch a glimmer of how things fit together. I recently saw a show about cooking with peanuts (Good Eats on the Food Network). They mentioned the high rate of peanut allergies, and casually proposed that there may have been a dramatic increase in cases of the allergy, correlating with the dramatic increase of its popularity, thanks to George Washington Carver.

Why?

(I'll remind that none of this is strictly factual, it just makes sense to me) Assumption: the more popular a food is in a culture, the more members of that culture will develop an allergy (or intolerance) to that food. While this is generally a nuisance, as there are usually good reasons for food to become popular (peanuts are tasty!), this may be due to a survival mechinism hard-coded into our DNA. A culture wholly dependent on a single food source has a much greater chance of dying out, or at least great hardship; ie: the Irish Potato Famine. This makes sense for other animals in general, too; if a disease were to ravage Gazelles, while their environment would still house plenty of other life (in the short-term anyway), Cheetahs would lose the majority of their dietary intake, which would unsurprisingly lead to their extinction. I think you get my point; If we had depended on Dodos for food, we may have died with them.

How?

Hypothetical: What if humans suddenly decided to make peanuts their main food source? Well, if nobody was allergic, all would go well until a peanut famine. But that's not the case; our genes want us to keep a diverse diet. There would suddenly be countless people suffering from either starvation or a sooner death from ingesting far too many peanuts. An unintelligent animal in our shoes would lose a big chunk of its population, possibly stubbornly continuing to eat peanuts, and the remaining few would simply have an altered digestive system to process peanuts at a high efficiency, and may be an endangered species for a long time. But on top of an almost unfathomably long genetic heritage leading back to primordial soup, humans have a second layer of protection from exctinction; a powerful brain and tool-wielding hands. We might develop medicine to help the body cope with the allergy, or new strains of peanuts that sort of "get around" the allergies (which if possible would still be nice).

For the sake of concision:

I think allergies and food intolerance is a way for our DNA to remind us to keep our diets diverse. Like someone forced to eat 2 eggs every morning, they'll grow up loathing the existence of eggs. NightChime (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely different diagnoses

Although individuals with atopy usually also suffer allergic symptoms, only a small minority of people with allergies have atopy. Until more is known about the origins of atopy, it would be a significant mistake to lump the two together. Dratman (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Change Needed

Just so you people know, someone turned the Allergy article into a gag page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.4.62 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

link Allergy & Immunology Society of Sri Lanka This site contains many original articles about allergy and immunology. Please be kind enough to link after reviewing.--Kasun Seneviratne 01:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkasuns (talk • contribs)

--222.67.207.200 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.207.200 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.207.200 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.207.200 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Epidemiology: Almond is not a tree nut

In the chart under epidemiology, one of the "tree nuts" listed is almond. However, my understanding is that an almond is not a tree nut because it isn't a true nut at all. The almond tree is considered to be in the peach family, and the "nut" is a different kind of seed, and not considered a nut. Also, from what I understand, almond allergies are not related to the typical "tree nut" allergies. I'm going to delete "almond" from the chart. --SCooley138 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that cashew was also listed as a "tree nut" which it isn't, since it is also not considered a nut. A look at the cashew article explains possible allergies (which are unrelated to "tree nut" allergies) --SCooley138 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2

I want a new article named Super-allergy

What about super-allergy? Why not mention anything about it? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000 What is it meant to mean? JFW | T@lk 21:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Allergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allergy/Archive_1&oldid=1056977124"