Exploring the maze of adverse reactions to foods.
Nowhere in medicine is a test or battery of tests more needed than in the diagnosis of adverse reactions to foods. Such tests are not at present a reality. Research produces tests that individually appear to show validity, but when challenged with the entire range of possible adverse reactions and their results, the tests fall short. Considering the range of mechanisms involved in adverse reactions to foods, this is to be expected. There is a tendency to discount positive test results when they fail to cover all of the parameters desired. The inherent weakness in any test is that all available formats explore a single or limited reaction route. The reality is the presence of multiple routes, multiple target organs, and multiple external variables not subject to programming into a single test. Considering the range of possibilities, it is amazing that any existing tests show any clinical validity at all. We as scientists should not denigrate any study that shows a significant degree of reliability, even within a limited range. This simply halts progress. An encouraging study should be used as a stepping stone to a more comprehensive format for evaluating the overall range of adverse reactions and providing us with at least some inroads in coping with this most difficult problem. To quote Sir Peter Medawer on receiving the Nobel Prize in Science: "Nothing must be said or written that diminishes the likelihood that someone else will get at the truth."
King
H C
HC
D000485:Allergens; D005512:Food Hypersensitivity / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000276:immunology*; D006632:Histamine / Q000276:immunology; D006801:Humans; D007073:Immunoglobulin E / Q000276:immunology; D007159:Immunologic Tests
D000485:Allergens; D007073:Immunoglobulin E; D006632:Histamine