Talk:ALCAT test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Awesome

Awesome, guy-with-some-IP-I-forgot, you added the clean tag while I was cleaning up the article :-) It looks a lot better now.. I think. I added some references, and added the "controversy" part. I added references to the homepage of a Danish TV channel with text and videos of a program they did regarding the Alcat controversy. Is that okay? Help me learn :) Bobber0001 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Test technique, nature of food intolerance

The article reads: "Food intelerance is a digestive system response rather than an immune system response." - Isn't this a misleading sentence? As far as I know, you can't distinguish "digestive problems" from "immune system problems" in this context. It would be like saying contact dermatitis is not an immune response, but a "skin problem". Or, when your house burns, is it a "house problem" or a "pyrotechnical problem"? Obviously absurd. Instead, the article should explain the difference between food allergy and food intolerance, the different immune reactions which are triggered, and the various types of antibodies (IgG, IgE ...). Also, I miss an explanation of the difference between the Alcat test and the ELISA IgG test which is also widely used for testing food intolerance, but likewise questioned by mainstream medicine. (I had the latter said test done myself, and the result was helpful, but not perfect). I am not an expert on these complicated issues so I hope someone with a medical or microbiological background can improve the article. --Sasper (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Ok with the first paragraph of this Wikipedia entry. However, references 1, 2 and 3 are false in that they claim that ALCAT is used to diagnose and treat allergies. First, ALCAT and Cell Science Systems make no claims for diagnosing a food allergy. The test measures cellular reactions to a specific item (food, mold, etc.). There is no way for this test to say X food causes Y symptom. However, there are many studies that show that The ALCAT Test has been helpful in alleviating symptoms associated with food intolerance.

Second, there is a clear difference between food intolerance and food allergy. Food allergy is an IgE mediated response (think peanut and shellfish) that can be deadly. ALCAT is very clear in distinguishing that it does not measure IgE reactions. It is focused on food intolerance, not allergy. Inflammation (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

Re your first: Do you have sources responding to refs 1,2,3 to cite? Re your second: please cite your source, as the claims are certainly out there. If ALCAT Worldwide has repudiated those claims in a reliable source we should cite that.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no resources or that say ALCAT does NOT do something. However, in the company labelings and filings it specifically says what the company does, which is measure cellular reactivity of the blood after exposure to various test agents.

According to James Li, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, "in a food allergy, your immune system mistakenly identifies a specific food or a component of a food as a harmful substance. Your immune system triggers certain cells to produce immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to fight the culprit food or food component." (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-allergy/AN01109) Cell Science Systems, The ALCAT Laboratory, clearly states on its test results that if you already have a pre-diagnosed food allergy that you are to strictly avoid that food regardless of what your ALCAT test results say.

Additionally, according to Li, "far more people have a food intolerance, unpleasant symptoms triggered by certain foods. Unlike a food allergy, a food intolerance doesn't involve the immune system. It's important to distinguish food intolerance from food allergy.....If you have a food allergy, eating even the tiniest amount of the food may trigger a serious allergic reaction. By contrast, if you have a food intolerance, you usually can eat small amounts of the food without a reaction."

According to a Cell Science Systems brochure, "The core technology is a blood test that measures the body's cellular response to challenges from a wide array of substances including various foods, additives, colorings and chemicals. The individuals cellular reactivity after exposure of teh blood to various agents, versus the person's own baseline control, tells the healthcare provider which substances may be causing a sensitivity-related response in the body. Following testing, a 4-day rotational diet is recommended to the patient" (Fell P, Brostoff J, et. al. (1998). ALCAT - "A new Test For Food Induced Problems in Medicine?" Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Otoalryngic Allergy on Oct. 1 1988).

It's clear that there is a difference between food allergy and food intolerance. It's also clear that the company makes no claims to diagnosing patients based off their ALCAT results. There is no information in the ALCAT test results that says "if you have X reaction to food then you have Y symptom". Inflammation (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

If you go to their website at "ALCAT - Food Allergy & Chemical Sensitivity/Intolerance Test" you are greeted with an orange box inviting you to "Order Your Food Alergy Test NOW!" Please abandon these ridiculous assertions that they make no such claims.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not like that anymore. There are still remaining uses of the word "allergy" that are continually being removed. ALCAT still claims that it is not an allergy test. Inflammation (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

The reference "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis" by B. Wüthrich is a purely opinion based article based off the interpretation of a handful of articles, rather than base an opinion off clinical outcomes. It is an invalid reference. Inflammation (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

As of this google query I get 137 hits for "allergy test" at the alcat.com site. I'm glad to hear that you are cleaning that up. There are also four more at the alcatsa.co.za site. Other international representatives may do the same. If you can cite a direct statement from Alcat Worldwide that Alcat is not an allergy test published in a reliable, verifiable source, we'd be happy to include it in the article. Likewise, if you can find a high quality source challenging the Wüthrich paper that too could be included. But we don't make up content, we simply rephrase the best available secondary sources. And we don't sensor valid content just because an editor doesn't like it. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

According to a reproducibility study conducted by WML Neetling PhD, F.A.C.A. & AM Kachelhoffer, Mmed, titled "Reproducibility of the Antigen Leucocyte Cellular Antibody Test (ALCAT), (which is already referenced on this page), "ALCAT is a relatively new blood test, developed as a screening test for adverse reactions to specific foods, food additives, pharmacoactive agents or environmental chemicals and food colorants" Further, "This study was organized by the University of the Orange Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, Jan-April, 1998. Dr. Neetling is a professor of Biochemistry in the Faculty of Health Science at the University and Dr. Kachelhoffer is a professor of Medicine in the Faculty of Health Science." Even further, this study found The ALCAT Test to be 92.0678% reproducible, which makes it acceptable as a screen model for testing allergy reactions in humans. This study is based off statistical outcomes, not opinion.

While Cell Science Systems has determined that The ALCAT Test is a food intolerance test, the terms allergy and intolerance are often used interchangably. Cell Science Systems prefers (I know, opinion) the term "intolerance" or "sensitivity" because it does not measure IgE reactions.

According to a study by Krzysztof BUCZYLKO, Tadeusz OBARZANOWSKI, Krzysztof ROSIAK, Grzegorz STASKIEWICZ, Anita FISZER, Slawomir CHMIELEWSKI, Jan KOWALCZYK, from the Department of Facio-maxillary Surgery, Military Medical Academy of Lodz and *Centre of Allergology, Lodz, titled PREVALENCE OF FOOD ALLERGY AND INTOLERANCE IN CHILDREN BASED ON MAST CLA AND ALCAT TESTS, "Comparison of allergenic extracts inducing cytotoxic reactions (measured with the ALCAT test), and their counterparts, inducing chemiluminescence after specific IgE binding in the MAST test, disclosed the following relationships: of the 14 investigated foods three induced strong and frequent undesirable reactions – intolerance as well as allergy. They included barley, nuts and cod. This indicates a possibility of simultaneous allergic and toxic actions of the same products, which is not always appreciated in practice. Strangely enough, food commonly recognized as allergenic, such as fish and nuts, also has cytotoxic actions. However, such a double correlation was not observed too frequently in individual patients. Instead, as a rule, the clinical harm was confirmed in provocative tests, regardless of the disclosed pathogenic mechanism. Frequently, only the ALCAT test-oriented diet gave an improvement, which was not obtained in a significant degree with the use of a s-IgE panel."

Finally, a study by Kaats, Gilbert R, Pullin, Dennis and Parker, Larry K from Health and Medical Research Foundations, Baylor Sports Medicine Institute and Womens Total Health Care, all in Texas, titled The Short Term Efficacy of the ALCAT Test of Food Sensitivities to Facilitate Changes in Body Composition and Self-reported Disease Symptoms: a Randomized Controlled Study, was published in The Bariatrician in Spring 1996. According to the study, "These data provide compelling evidence for the short term efficacy of the ALCAT test and diet plan in producing a positive change in body composition and self-reported disease symptoms. No matter what parametric or nonparametric statistically was used, the differences between the improvement in all parameters of body composition (weight, lean weight, fat weight, percent body fat or body composition improvement (BCI)), was far greater in the group that followed the ALCAT program than in a control group that chose their own program. The same conclusion must be drawn from comparison of baseline and post-study changes in 20 disease symptoms where the ALCAT group achieved much greater improvement in these symptoms than did the control group."

According to the authors of this study, none of the investigators have financial interests or involvement in American Medical Testing Laboratories or in the marketing of the ALCAT test, the food sensitivity test used in this study. It must be noted that this study was funded by AMTL. Inflammation (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

Congratulations, you've managed to get the number of google hits down from 137 to 131. Please let us know when you get rid of the rest so that we can revise the article text to say that they no longer claim to test for allergies.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we both know that just because the term "allergy" or "allergies" is on the ALCAT website doesn't mean that it's an allergy test. There are direct statements on the ALCAT website as to exactly what the test is and how it works. People are often mistaken when they call it an allergy test because it's such a common term. It's like calling a tissue a Kleenex. Just read the unedited, unsolicited testimonials. There are also statements on the site comparing The ALCAT Test to other standard allergy tests. Oops, I just used the word allergy! It looks like ALL of Wikipedia is an allergy test now. Inflammation (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

It's not just on the website, it's the TITLE of the website homepage. Just now, it reads

<title>ALCAT – Food Allergy / Intolerance, Chemical & Gluten Sensitivity Testing, IgG & Casein Test, Chronic Fatigue, Arthritis, Asthma, Diarrhea & Obesity Treatment</title> <meta name="description" content="For over 20 years, the ALCAT Test has provided both patients as well as healthcare professionals with a tool to successfully overcome a wide variety of conditions which result from food & chemical intolerances/sensitivities. Take a look at the symptoms & treatment for some common problems such as chronic fatigue, arthritis, asthma, diarrhea, obesity and more. Contact us now at (954) 426-2304." /> <meta name="keywords" content="food allergy symptoms, food allergy testing, food allergy test, food allergy treatment, food intolerance, food intolerance test, food intolerance symptoms, food sensitivity, gluten sensitivity, igg test, casein test, adhd symptoms, ibs symptoms, chemical sensitivity, inflammation symptoms, chronic fatigue symptoms, migraine headache symptoms, anti aging skin treatment, rheumatoid arthritis symptoms, osteoarthritis symptoms, asthma treatment, eczema symptoms, leaky gut syndrome, candida symptoms, diarrhea treatment, fibromyalgia symptoms, autism treatment, obesity symptoms, weight loss management, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, add symptoms." />
Now will you please drop this line of argument? LeadSongDog (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you guys consider writing a balanced article? There are studies for and against the alcat test. Clear arguments can be made both ways. But the real questions is...Have you ever taken an ALCAT Test? I'm willing to bet that if you had one you would change your mind. It works and there are reproducible, published studies to back it up. Oh, and thousands of doctors and 10s of thousands of people who have taken the test who can verify that as well. Inflammation (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

Just find some quality sources that meet WP:MEDRS and WP:V and people will gladly include them. I've already put way too many hours into chasing down bogus sources on this article, but why stop now. But you don't help your case by advocating that editors should engage in WP:OR.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A study by Kaats, Gilbert R, Pullin, Dennis and Parker, Larry K from Health and Medical Research Foundations, Baylor Sports Medicine Institute and Womens Total Health Care, all in Texas, titled The Short Term Efficacy of the ALCAT Test of Food Sensitivities to Facilitate Changes in Body Composition and Self-reported Disease Symptoms: a Randomized Controlled Study, was published in The Bariatrician in Spring 1996. According to The Bariatrician, "The American Society of Bariatric Physicians is a leading national professional organization providing physicians and other health professionals with education in the medical management of weight loss and related medical conditions."

That was published in a peer-reviewed journal (verifiable source) and is not original research (though funded by AMTL, they provided no influence on the results (as stated in the study)). Inflammation (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view needs to be fixed. That came from Wikipedia. THIS IS A BIASED ARTICLE. Present both sides of the discussion and I will stop making changes. Inflammation (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

Yes, that study is already listed. I just now improved the reference, adding in an ISSN and OCLC for the (quite obscure) periodical. Following the OCLC, it does appear that there are a very few libraries that hold the journal (nine, to be precise). It's possible that one of them holds the Spring 1996 issue. The url furnished is for an ALCATSA site, which can hardly be viewed as independent or reliable, but on its face it looks like a decent article. That doesn't tell us that the periodical is peer-reviewed or that the referees are reliable. You might wish to have a look at what this source has to say about the ASBP before hitching your wagon to that star. Still, if we accept that article, we would once again be going back to the allergy discussion. (See what it has to say on the subject.) But for clarity, which statements in that source would you like to see used in the article? LeadSongDog (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Even though I am clearly biased I only want what's fair. There are two sides to this and, despite what some people have to say, this is an excellent product that will eventually become mainstream and accepted. The things we hear from doctors and patients are absolutely phenomenal. We hear the bad stuff too. The test isn't perfect - nothing is. But the results speak for themselves. Ideally, I'd like there to be something along the lines of "There are conflicting studies on the efficacy of The ALCAT Test. Some studies say The ALCAT Test is a useful tool for helping with weight loss or improvement in body composition (reference) and gastrointestinal complaints (reference). Other studies, however, dispute the usefulness of The ALCAT Test and say that relying on in it may result in inappropriate advice and treatments (reference)." Does that seem fair? If you want to put the negative stuff first, OK. The statement I made can be inferred from the conclusion of the Baylor study in The Bariatrician. But both sides of the story need to be told. I think similar edits should be made to the "Effectiveness" section to explain both sides.

Another study in a peer reviewed journal was done by Douglas H. Sandberg titled Gastrointestinal Complaints Related to Diet. Published in International Pediatrics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1990, pg 23-29.

Honest question - Have you ever taken an ALCAT Test? Inflammation (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

The article Sandberg Douglas H (1990), "Gastrointestinal complaints related to diet", International pediatrics : the journal of the Miami Children's Hospital, 5 (1): 23–29, ISSN 0885-6265, OCLC 12690449, PMID collection gapped) (NLM collection gapped) {{citation}}: Check |pmid= value (help); External link in |journal= (help) was listed and removed in this edit. The edit summary indicates he was unable to find the article in a database search. I managed to find an Italian article by Kontis et al. from 2005 that listed it as a reference, but it seems to be a pre-print, full of errors that an editor would catch. PDF images, apparently of the Sandberg article, are hosted on ALCAT marketing sites cuch as mc-clelland.com and alcat.com but are not on the Int Pediatr site. Eighteen years is a long time for a significant paper to be ignored, but see if you can track it down. This journal is held by quite a few libraries, so I'm not sure why the article would not have been catalogued with a PMID. As to your personal question, no, I've no reason to have the test, but that's not relevant to building an encyclopedia, LeadSongDog (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just figured out why there's no PMID. this query of the NLM's Locator Plus shows that the NLM has a gap in its holdings: It is missing the exact volume and issue. It'll have to be confirmed by another way.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"low grade paper doesn't belong in head"???? What the hell does that mean? You claim that you want to write an unbiased paper but then refuse to actually accept a scientific paper that has merit. Why don't you post the studies that were conducted which resulted in the conclusions made in the first 3 references of this paper? Oh wait, there are none. They did not publish studies. They are OPINION PAPERS!! To summarize, you claim to be unbiased but post biased, OPINION based papers as references. Then, when you get a legitimate study that concludes there is scientific merit to the test, you totally dismiss it and claim it is bogus. What's it going to be? Finally, who are you to decide what qualifies as "low grade"? Inflammation (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

I agree with LSD. A pilot study, with poor methodology, does not belong in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. Please respect WP:CIVIL. Verbal chat 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but the three papers that are cited in the first paragraph of this article are clearly biased and not based off scientific studies. They are only opinion papers. Where's the validity in that? Just because they were published in reputable journals in no way makes them the law of the land. I could give you a thousand doctors who have high opinions of the ALCAT Test and have patients whose symptoms "magically" disappear because of this "awful, no good test" that has "ZERO credibility". And, to dismiss the studies that I have presented in this discussion section only proves ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflammation (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And, if the ALCAT Test is totally bogus, why is it FDA registered and inspected, CLIA licensed, CE Marked and been in business for over 20 years? Inflammation (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Inflammation

By now you've had ample time to study WP:MEDRS. You should realize that reviews such as ref 2 are what we seek. Refs 1 and 3 simply support that one. The new article is mildly interesting, but it in no way supports the assertion that was removed from the lead. It discusses weight loss and conjectures that the ALCAT test for what the article calls "food sensitivity" was responsible. When we have a reliable source review of the methodology and results it might gain some credence, although my read of the article tells me that any impartial reviewer is certain to be critical of the methodology. To do it properly, the ALCAT results would have to be randomized and blinded. They were not. The good news is that the diets were effective in losing weight. The bad news is there's nothing that ties that weight-loss to the ALCAT results. The FDA registration as a class I medical device says that the device has little chance of causing harm, not that it is efficatious. I haven't seen anything on the test having a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments license or CE mark, but by the track record, I'm not going to vault to the assumption that the company has cleaned up its act just yet. LeadSongDog come howl 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy (Danish TV programme)

About the programme sent yesterday on Danish TV2: I found it utterly tendentious. The main issue of the show was to prove (by hidden camera) that a doctor fails to inform her patients that the test isn't endorsed by scientific evidence. The journalists also tried to add on to their claims by petty envy: they mentioned that this doctor had earned so-and-so many million kroner during a ten-year period by selling this test (which is performed in her own lab). To make the message clearer, graphics of a lot of money bills were shown during the programme. In my opinion, the amounts mentioned are nothing different from what an average specialised doctor with his/her own clinic can earn. The programme also thought she received double payment because she billed the public healthcare for the consultation fee, and the patient for the test fee. I think it is quite normal to bill these things separately. It was clear, however, from the programme that she didn't tell the patients the test wasn't scientifically proven. So maybe this makes her a bad doctor. I don't mind since I am not interested in the person. I was more interested in knowing something about the test, but the programme gave absolutely no information about the product she sells, whether it is good or bad.

Another critique which the programme focused on was some patients having known allergies, which were not detected in the test. Thus, one patient had a well-known allergic reaction against hazel nuts, but the Alcat test allegedly told her hazel nuts were OK to eat for her. Obviously, the programme ignores the difference between allergy and intolerance. Maybe the Alcat test said she tested negative for hazel nuts, but that is not the same as saying hazel nuts are OK to eat for her.

The programme didn't tell one word about the actual principles behind the test. The difference between food allergy and food intolerance was NOT explained. They showed pictures of a skin test being performed, saying it is much more scientific and better for you, but they did NOT explain what the skin test does. I would believe some doctors find the skin test inadequate since it tests only the skin response (thus allergies, not slow responses due to food intolerance), and it tests only for approx. 20 common allergenes (such as pollen and ingredients in cosmetics, typical for contact dermatitis or hay fever). They also interviewed some doctors from the medical establishement, and representatives of the Danish "FDA" (Sundhedsstyrelsen) who said what they are expected to say. One of them was Prof. Arne Astrup, a well-known face in Danish media thought to have great prestige on nutritional issues, but I never heard he had any specific knowledge about allergies. A few years ago, he was responsible for inventing the Letigen pill for treating severe overweight, a combination pill of ephedrin and cafeine, which eventually caused numerous deaths and was withdrawn from the market. But interestingly, Arne Astrup survived as a doctor, being a professor. Generally in our society, titles and hierarchies are not what they used to be, but medical issues are one field where the public (and journalists) still bow and scrape, when there is a professor saying something stolid, even if it is something he doesn't know more about than the common medical student. --Sasper (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article is Biased

The way the controversy section is worded implies that even though there was an unfavorable report on Danish TV that they really didn't "understand" the test. Neither is scientific evidence to support or disprove the claims of this test. Where is the real data? Article seems to be in favor of this test - should present real information without editorial comment -tb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.136.240 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That section explains the TV report. And yes, they didn't really understand the test, as the article explains, but that does not mean the article is biased. I think the article, as a whole, gives a fairly balanced account. I agreee there should be more scientific information, but I am not able to add that. Feel free to do the reasearch. --Sasper (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to make some sense of the madness

I have been working on this article since my son pointed out the first few lines on the search page to me: ALCAT IS A BOGUS TEST AND HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. IT IS A SCAM.

My pedigree is as follows: I am Dr John Pridgeon, Johannesburg based General Medical Practitioner and local agent for the ALCAT Test in South Africa. Obviously any reader will understand that I DO have a vested interest in this test, and they will then need to take what I say with the proverbial pinch of salt...hopefully you will also understand that I am totally committed to being open and transparent at all times....wherever possible though I will revert to an unbiased third party or a scientific article for confirmation of my script.

I am new to this so bear with me, I also welcome any communication off the SA website www.alcatsa.co.za . Any person reading this should know that there is a strong, well funded and very active anti ALCAT lobby, and that dreadful and libelous comments like the comments in upper case quoted above (that absolutely cannot be unsubstantiated) come from people who I can prove are trying to discredit this test because of their own financial involvement with other allergy tests. These people work for the makers of these other allergy tests currently on the market, ALCAT's commercial competition. It is quite obvious these people lack ethics, scruples and any semblance of professionalism. I have been fighting this battle for 2 years now and any reader can contact me to obtain further information.

In fact I welcome it.(Dr John Pridgeon (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Since opinion and original research are not relevant to the article, we can't use this opinion. However, there are a lot of reliable medical sources that confirm what you write. We need to use them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"That absolutely cannot be unsubstantiated" ?? Verbal chat 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed my sarcasm apparently.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

It's huge, it's a mess. I propose it is deleted, with perhaps some selected pubmed articles and any other very good further sources. Verbal chat 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hangon, I just added it this afternoon. Sure, it's oversized, but until we can clean up the content, removing the list of available sources is counterproductive. As an example, many of them relate to an advertising standards complaint that hasn't even been touched in the content yet.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok sorry :) It's a good resource that can feed into the article. Wouldn't here be better for the non-pubmed stuff? I should take my own advice and be more sensual in my editing. We can work on it. Sorry for being flippant above - I was surprised I missed it, and now I know why :) Verbal chat 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. I suspect that the promoter may wind up regretting his choice of WP for advertising though.:-) LeadSongDog (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing speedy prod

There is enough in the article to warrant at least a discussion on the article. IMO, both sides seem represented, and this could serve as good information for someone considering the test. Everything is well referenced, and the article is balanced. It seems a touch spammy on the pro side, but it also seems actively edited.Vulture19 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hangon

The asserted rationale for speedy doesn't bear examination. The references and bibliography include several papers produced by authors at AMTL, later (after ownership change) at Cell Science Systems or Alcat Worldwide. The CSS website hosts many of these studies, mirrored on or linked from the websites of many of their national distributors such as ALCAT South Africa. It is obvious on these sites that the company promotes the test for allergies and sensitivities. Their distributors make further sketchy claims regarding weight loss, anti-aging, even cancer prevention. Note also the user contributions for the user proposing the speedy.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. There seems to be some intellectual battle in South Africa that was added into the article, but wasn't very relevant. Also, I removed several articles that couldn't be read, which were "unpublished", which couldn't be confirmed as ever being published, etc. The article shouldn't be deleted, so anyone who's digging up information on this test, will realize that it lacks clinical usefulness. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hangon (again)

The SPA that created the article is now unhappy that other editors insist on playing by the rules.His allegations are baseless and more than a little offensive. I have no COI. I don't have allergies or intolerance of foods. I'm not a practitioner of any branch of medicine. Certainly I'm no vandal, my track record should clearly demonstrate that.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a COI. I despise mushrooms. I do not like them. I do not like them on my green eggs and ham. LSD, you are a vandal. You keep putting funny stuff on my user talk. Oh, you're being serious. Someone actually accused of being a vandal???? Where????OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Only indirectly, but here. Resolved.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

One editor has radically changed this article today, even pagemoving it and deleting excellent wp:MEDRS sources, after three years of stability. I've invited discussion here to explain those edits.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Does use by athletes represent Use in Athletics?

The section I've linked in the header above appears to be a series of claims of effectiveness for medical uses masquerading as "use in athletics" simply because the people using the product are athletes. I suggest deleting that whole section (which could currently be retitled "Testimonials"), because use of a product by famous people is a marketing ploy, not encyclopedic. Claims of effectiveness require WP:MEDRS, and belong in the "Effectiveness" section. -- Scray (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the section to "Use by athletes" with an explanatory summary. -- Scray (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In athletics

I tried to find a middle ground between versions because things started to look like edit-warring. I don't see any value in saying "athlete X made health claim Y". Athletes aren't reliable sources of medical information. Biosthmors (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current version

For what it's worth, I'm OK with this version. Biosthmors (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)