Talk:ALCAT test

This page violates WP:MEDRS
Both the recent reliable medical sources I've found say that ALCAT is not clinically reliable:
 * Gerez et al, 2010 : The antigen leucocyte antibody test (ALCAT), a test for cellular  responses  to  foreign  substances,  has  been used  in  some  countries  for  the  diagnosis  of  non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. This is a modified version of the leucocytotoxic testing, in which changes in the white cell diameter are measured after the white cells are challenged with specific food allergens. (51)  Several investigators  have  reported  that  the ALCAT  test  is  an inappropriate modality for testing food allergy in clinical practice mainly because of its poor reproducibility, as well as its a lack of scientific and clinical proof of efficacy. (52,53) It is therefore not recommended to be used for diagnosing allergies of any form.
 * Kleine-Tebbe and Herold, 2010 : These methods lack both the technical and clinical validation needed to justify their use.

The citations on which this page is currently based do not satisfy WP:MEDRS. It smells of POV pushing and/or conflict of interest. The subject is of dubious notability anyway. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistly -- those sources are duly noted in the effectiveness section. Please explain which other studies you believe may not fulfill WP:MEDRS and why. I made some significant changes recently because of the terrible condition of the page, which has been WP:OWNed by user LeadSongDog for years. Looking at the page recently, it appears that LeadSongDog had grossly misrepresented sources. A rundown:
 * Use of unreliable sources:
 * Used letters-to-the-editors as sources. To my understanding, this does not qualify as WP:RS. See "The ALCAT test--inappropriate in testing for food allergy in clinical practice," ""ALCAT and IgG allergy and intolerance tests". Then falsely characterized these letters "official position statements".
 * This source only mentioned ALCAT in passing in a footnote. Does not seem appropriate as RS. "Food allergy diagnostics: scientific and unproven procedures"
 * Misrepresentation of sources:
 * Characterized this source as an official statement. False. "ASCIA position statement: unorthodox techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of allergy, asthma and immune disorders". Same with this source: "Controversial aspects of adverse reactions to food".
 * ALCAT was not even mentioned in these article which were used as a sources: "American Academy of Allergy: position statements--controversial techniques"; "Cytotoxic testing for food allergy: evaluation of reproducibility and correlation".
 * Interested to hear your thoughts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the last point, it's not necessary to mention a brand name for the statement to be applicable. For example, if a source says "Antibiotics do not kill the virus responsible for the common cold, so don't prescribe them", then there would be no problem including that information in any antibiotic article.  It's not necessary for the source to say "Antibiotics like Zithromax® brand antibiotics do not kill the virus responsible for the common cold, so don't prescribe them" for us to be able to mention that fact in the article about a particular antibiotic.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are the two recent reliable medical sources I've been able to examine. According to Wikipedia medical guidelines, only that second paragraph deserves any real weight. It currently starts Journal articles [a rather strange turn of phrase!] have characterized the ALCAT as an "unproven method" for diagnosing allergies. The weight given to the lengthy opening paragraph paragraph, announcing Studies have shown... Research has also shown... Other studies have shown... Neetling and Kachelhoffer have concluded that "the ALCAT test is reliable and reproducible in a scientific point of view is entirely undue. The section needs to be completely reframed, imo. Plot Spoiler's allegation that this page "has been WP:OWNed by user LeadSongDog for years" is inappropriate and tendentious. LSD regularly screens recent additions to medical articles to weed out inappropriate claims which don't satisfy WP:MEDRS. I'm not surprised that he's found work to do over the years on this bloated page. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're describing sounds exactly like WP:Original research.
 * You have not at all clarified at all why the studies referenced in the first paragraph of "Effectiveness" don't fulfill WP:MEDRS. What you're speaking about seems to be a matter of language and not content.
 * I apologize for my uncalled for remarks but it's just as uncalled for to make baseless accusations of POV pushing and COI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the studies cited in the first paragraph fully satisfy WP:MEDRS. In particular: both the Berardi et al papers were published in supplements to a journal not listed by NLM on PubMed; Fell et al (1998) and Mylek 1995 are old primary sources; Solomon (1992) appears to have been originally published in a journal not listed on PubMed at the time (20 years ago!); Mohammed (2009) was published in a journal not listed on PubMed; etc, etc. None of these is WP:MEDRS, and this is wasting my time. I'm going to remove the entire paragraph. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:BITE users new to your topic area. Additionally, nowhere on WP:MEDRS does it say that a journal article has to be listed on PubMed or NLM to be considered a reliable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:MEDRS: "Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review". Biomedical journals that aren't indexed by MEDLINE (now searchable via PubMed) rarely receive any independent peer review. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this source qualify for MEDRS ? I don't see any evidence of it being peer-reviewed or listed on PubMed? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See para 2 of wp:MEDRS, which begins "Ideal sources". LeadSongDog come howl!  12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"In popular culture"
I don't understand why "Pulmonological" insists on renaming the section "Use by athletes" to "Use in popular culture". The section is clearly explains the use of the ALCAT test by a number of athletes in reliable sources. Nothing is mentioned about popular culture. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC:Neutrality and reliable sources
Is the lead neutral? It seems to be excessive in dismissing the ALCAT test and objectively labeling it as "not supported by research". Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * Are all these sources worthy of dismissal? Sources like these, which suggest there is any merit to the ALCAT test, have all been removed.
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Use by athletes" section has been systematically reduced even though the material is based on WP:RS. If an article relates to a medical subject, does every source have to conform to WP:MEDRS or do the standards for WP:RS broadly still apply? Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Each of those ten papers is a primary source. We do not use primary sources to impeach secondary ones. That is particularly but not exclusively true for medical content. Further, using a biased list of papers selected by the manufacturer is clearly not helpful.
 * The "Use by athletes" sources are adequate for supporting that those athletes used the test. They are not however adequate for building a one-sided stack of anecdotes as a backdoor way of using WP for advertising a useless product. How do we establish how many tried it without finding value? The fact that the company actively pursues athletic endorsements in no way argues for including them in the article. LeadSongDog  come howl!  03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Celebrity endorsements (whether of anti-cellulite lotions, or whatever) are completely irrelevant to health claims, but very relevant to marketing strategies. Oh... It also occurs to me, if it works for athletes, there is reason to suggest the whole country should participate. This is one big, fat country, God love every pound. The procedure is called the ALCAT... —MistyMorn (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try to maintain a pretense of WP:AGF ("backdoor way of using WP for advertising") or WP:NPOV ("useless product"). Not very constructive otherwise. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have not looked back at the early history of this article. That's exactly what the company and its vendors tried to do. The assessment of the product as useless isn't mine, I simply summarize that of every independent expert group who has published a review. Can you show equivalent quality evidence that contradicts it? LeadSongDog come howl!  05:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire "Use by Athletes" section should be removed as non-notable in this context (or refactored to represent the mainstream view) if there's a reliable source stating that these testimonials represent a misleading marketing message. The preceding section on Reliability or the test (or lack thereof) is much more encyclopedic.  -- Scray (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that this non-notable section should be removed. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The company's website has a page which shows their direct marketing to athletes and trainers. Of course they link this to images on their Facebook page, but the content their is definitely not usable. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the section is not based on a policy but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reliable sources state that certain notable athletes have used ALCAT and that is in no way in dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources show many things that are not notable. In this case, the testimonials are notable because they are used so heavily in marketing this test.  They should not be presented in a non-neutral way to promote the product on WP.  We could achieve this (as I suggested above) by refactoring (and probably retitling) it to reflect mainstream views regarding these claims.  -- Scray (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the removal of that section as WP:UNDUE weight to testimonials. We don't include celebrity endorsement of fad diets in an encyclopedia article for the same reason. Yobol (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only two sentences in the whole article on this subject. This is not grounds for undue, especially as they are based on four reliable sources. They are not testimonials either - there is no quotes of endorsement from either of these individuals. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is grounds for undue, as we should not be putting weight to idle speculation. Just because something is mentioned somewhere doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't be using sports pages for sources for medical content. Yobol (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment. first, a general comment about "food intolerance" The  Mayo summary relied on by the proponents of the test certainly says food intolerance is different from food allergy. But if you actually read the item, it goes on to say that food intolerance is due to a number of quite disparate things, which do not have a common cause or mechanism of action (e.g. lactose intolerance is a specific enzyme deficiency, completely unrelated to anything that this test might conceivably measure; food poisoning is a specific acute toxic response to known toxins where no  conceivable pathophysiology would relate the test to the condition. Second, the lede did need some improvement; I've clarified the first paragraph to be a little less ambiguous in saying that the medical consensus is that the test has no known usefulness.  It would be too negative to say that it could not in the future possibly be found to do so. MEDRES-reliable sources are sufficiently clear to show that it is not considered to have such status at this time.
 * As for the athletic endorsements, that famous people have used it is a matter of fact, and is relevant to the notability of the test--after all, it is not notable for being medically valuable, but for being widely promoted. We must assume that our readers have enough sense to realize not only that that such endorsements are irrelevant to the medical value of the test, but that reliance on such endorsements is characteristic of worthless products for which no rational claim can be made; the only question is whether it might be a question of blp, in showing the celebrity to be a fool. But given they're adult public figures who voluntarily choose to advertise the matter, there is no actual BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Should our ham sandwich article include an endorsement from Michael Phelps? Where's the encyclopedic value?LeadSongDog come howl!  12:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lightly edited the opening sentence to salvage the key concept  that the test has not been appropriately validated -- an essential methodological step for any proposed medical procedure (and there's been plenty of time since the 1990s for this to be done appropriately). Regarding the celebrity endorsements, I fully concur with LSD. The assumption that a general readership, such as Wikipedia's, can recognize that such endorsements are characteristic of worthless products doesn't seem to be shared by the marketing people. Is it right for Wikipedia to reinforce their strategy at the potential expense of "patients" who are "medically" advised to control their diet for no sound reason?  —MistyMorn (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: Cell Science Systems marketing campaign for ALCAT is shamelessly aggressive (as likely reflected in the history of this page). One of their advertising messages is an open call to arms: If you see patients who suffer from migraine headaches, IBS, asthma, chronic inflammation, ADD, fatigue, eczema or simply can’t lose weight, call us today! Needless to say, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that dietary changes based on the ALCAT test will provide any benefit beyond placebo. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking good. Good job everyone. Maybe a couple WP:CITEBUNDLEs for the sentences with multiple citations and then it'll be even more pleasing to the eye. Biosthmors (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I think DGG's initial version was more NPOV and should be restored. There are also a lot of complaints about a "shamelessly aggressive" "marketing campaign" for the ALCAT Test but when I first came upon the page, it was POV mess against the test with a variety of unreliable sources (it was under the category "pseudoscience" for Pete's sake). So I haven't seen any evidence of this campaign -- if anything there is a campaign by certain editors to deride the test as objectively "worthless."
 * Not "shamelessly aggressive"? Well I'll certainly make sure not to let you (or any ALCAT prescriber) have any of my personal details or confide in any chronic health issue I might have... For fear of receiving the personal attentions of the ALCAT men. Ugh! —MistyMorn (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me. Please WP:AGF and behave more civilly. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I don't understand why the cases of athletes using the product are labeled as "celebrity endorsements". This is inaccurate. Nowhere in the sources provided are Ortiz or Morneua imploring the audience to use the product. There aren't even any quotes of them directly praising the test. So let's get those facts straight please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It also occurs to me, if it works for athletes, there is reason to suggest the whole country should participate. This is one big, fat country, God love every pound. The procedure is called the ALCAT... Effectively, a celebrity endorsement channeled by the Star, which along with ESPN is one of the two media outlets cited here. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is your own personal interpretation not based on any Wikipedia policy. Screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT and doesn't pass muster. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, unclear to me if the "Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy" qualifies as a MEDRS. See WP:MEDRS: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy has not been established to be a reputable major medical or scientific body. The length of the quoted statement also points to WP:UNDUE. Think it should be removed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS, "ideal sources". See for example this position paper in the MJA--the official journal of the Australian Medical Association. Any other questions? —MistyMorn (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not clear to me why that webpage from the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy qualifies. That particular source is not in a medical journal. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you read again my carefully linked reply alongside the second paragraph of WP:MEDRS (the one LSD also pointed you too above ) instead of wasting everyone's time with your spurious POV pushing about a commercial product whose advertising targets a range of problematic chronic complaints without the slightest evidence of clinical efficacy for the dietary interventions. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop making spurious COI claims and abide by WP:No personal attacks. Really out of line. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What "personal attacks"? I just asked you a straight and legitimate gf question, which you declined to answer, thereby increasing my quite genuine concerns. In good faith, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you put some BS template on my talk page without any evidence except your personal frustration you're not getting exactly your way. There is no COI. The condition of the page was horrible when I first came upon it. At least there's been some very marginal improvement since. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when has using the correct template to inquire about the possible existence of a COI been a "personal attack"? I now understand your answer is: There is no COI. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy is neither notable nor respected? Of course, not having a Wikipedia article yet does not qualify. Biosthmors (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
The edit war has to stop. Let's look at what is under debate here. I'd strongly recommend cutting "currently" and removing the dross about baseball players. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the test "designed" or "intended" to measure adverse reactions? I don't see any evidence in the sources of how the test was designed, although the manufacturers seem to make claims that speak to the intent of the test. On balance "intended" is supportable - although I'd prefer "claimed" as that is at least verifiable.
 * 2) "The test is not currently supported by research ..." Absolutely no way that "currently" can be used as it draws the inference that in the future it may be supported. This is standard POV for any fringe claim, and has been tried in innumerable articles in the past. The test is either supported or it's not. It's not - and that's what the article must say.
 * 3) I looked hard at these sources: New Jersey.com, ESPN Boston, Star Tribune January 22, 2012 and Star Tribune June 19, 2012. I have to ask what have they to do with this article? Each one is a couple of anecdotes (at most) about some fat people losing weight after going on a diet. We really do not write articles based on anecdote, especially medical ones. Nor do I recommend quoting four pieces from sports papers and then drawing the conclusion that celebrities are endorsing a particular product. We ought to be letting a reliable source draw that conclusion and then reporting that. I can see no reason whatsoever that the paragraph and those four sources should be in this article.
 * Good points. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That famous people have endorsed it is its principal notability. I thought I had a neutral version, but the present one is an attempt to destroy the article by removing content. This is an over-reaction to the attempted promotion of the theories. The repeated presence of such over-reactions in   articles in this field is why I do not work in it much. I yield to none in my distrust of alternative medicine, but i think even it should be presented fairly with whatever claims it may have. For one thing, the actual state of affairs is clearer that way.  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not have a neutral version and I explained the reasons above. I understand any editor's attachment to their work, but you have to examine whether a couple of baseball players who lost weight as reported in sports magazines is sufficiently encyclopedic to warrant inclusion. I maintain it is not. I accept your desire to establish notability of this test, but that cannot rule the content of an article. Once we go down the route of including anecdotes about 'famous people', we have moved away from our standards of medical sourcing. The claims in those sources are simply unusable, and the only way to incorporate those sources in a medical article is to avoid their medical claims. That leaves us with a bland statement along the lines of "Justin Morneau and David Ortiz have used the test [ref x4]". Is that of any value to anybody (except those trying to prove notability)? Finally, you may wish to reconsider your attack on me when you characterised my argument as 'over-reaction' - it does nothing to improve your position in this debate. A simple apology will suffice. --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That famous people have endorsed it is its principal notability. Really? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * agree Soosim (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion of a single sentence in the page still does not seem to be based on any solid WP policy. These are verifiable reliable sources. It should be an issue of wording and not wholesale content removal on specious grounds. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with PS here. By principle notability I mean, informally, the principal reason someone is likely to have heard about it. People foolishly pay attention to such endorsements. He should not himself have restored the sentence, but I do not think there is consensus for its removal. The prolonged edit-warring has had the accidental byproduct of causing some duplication, which I combined.  DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have to disagree with PS here. We include sources which have something relevant to say about the subject. No source has reported that any celebrities have endorsed the test, so there's no grounds for including that piece of WP:OR. The fact that Ortiz and Morneau have taken the test is a simple anecdote as I explained above. Surely you have read WP:MEDRS and understand that those sources are unusable to support any medical claim or inferences? Why does this article need to tell readers that two baseball players took the test? So what? It's no more significant than any Joe Bloggs taking the test. Let's face it, the only reason why you want to include the sources is to establish notability, not to present the reader with useful information, and that is insufficient reason to put content into a medical article. --RexxS (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we can't use general reliable sources to establish notability, and the page thereby fails notability, do you recommend deleting the page? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like some sort of a déjà vu . In its current version, the page is sourced per WP:MEDRS, thereby presumably confirming its notability. (Btw, the usual way to provide a negative response to a standard COI question  is simply to state something like "I have no conflict of interest to declare.") —MistyMorn (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you still harping on this conflict of interest? I don't think you would be all too pleased if I accused you of having a COI without any hint of evidence. By the way, please clarify if you have a COI based on you special fascination with this subject. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have no problem at all responding to your legitimate question:
 * I have no financial conflict of interest to declare. My involvement in this page stems directly from participation in WikiProject Medicine.
 * How about you? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already responded NO. This is becoming WP:Harassment so please be WP:Civil and cease and desist. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. So we can understand from this and a recent post in which you said, en passant, "There is no COI" can be interpreted as "I (ie User:Plot Spoiler) have no financial conflict of interest to declare"? (If so that's good to know; for the record, I did not find your previous responses to my legitimate questions wholly transparent.) —MistyMorn (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already answered all your questions. You don't have the right to continue interrogating and harassing me. Keep digging yourself in your own hole though - your uncivil behavior, lack of good faith and harassment will not go unnoticed and violates Wikipedia policies. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making some serious allegations there. FYI, in the world of medical publishing, where conflict of interest statements are routine, if such a statement isn't clearly worded it's considered meaningless. I just asked you a straightforward, clear question which required (and still requires, imo) a straightforward, clear reply (eg ), instead of evasive denials couched in emotive language  . That's all. Nothing insulting or complicated. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a nice cup of wp:TEA? In general it is not a good idea to discuss editors or their behaviour on article talkpages. Please try and address the substance of edits instead. Wp:TPG and wp:Edits not editors pertain. Discussions of COI don't belong here either. That's why we have wp:COIN. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Biosthmors (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the question asked, I don't advocate deleting the article. The topic is clearly notable, not least because of the interest shown by the popular press = it's been 'noticed'. Your error is in thinking that the demonstration of notability has perforce to be included in the article: too trite to be not worth mentioning is still too trite. If anybody questions notability, point them to this discussion, and remember that talk pages have uses beside arguing. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are wrong there. The article must include references to sufficiently RSs to show the notability--this is absolutely part of the basis of WP:V--How else will anyone know? Talk pages are not the encyclopedia. They're ancillary devices for discussing it. If you really feel this way, that you can say it's notable without showing it, I suggest you do an RfC on the question, though I think I can predict the response. AsI said earlier, the interest in the popular press is one of the bases of the notability .  And even with pseudoscience, and this is merely an unproven hypothesis, not pseudoscience,  there has to be enough sourced information to know what is being talked about. That the sources are not reliable for medical evidence of their usefulness--and i agree completely that they aren't-- is irrelevant to whether  they have to be included, as long as the article makes clear what the scientific consensus position is on that, which it does.  Notable things don't have to be useful or true or valid; they can be complete nonsense, but we still have to reference the sources that support their being notable. I refer back to the long discussion at Requests for arbitration/Fringe science.   DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's you who is wrong, and there you go again aiming at the editor instead of intelligently addressing the argument - incidentally, I still haven't received your apology for the last attack. You really need to understand the difference between notability which determines whether an article should exist and verifiability which determines whether content should be included in an article. Talk pages actually are part of the encyclopedia and we use them for meta-purposes that supplement articles. An obvious example is when a non-English source is challenged; for as many years as I can remember, we have used the talk pages to hold direct translations of foreign-language sources. There is no requirement in policy that insists we have to write the sources that demonstrate notability into an article. That misunderstands the purpose of the article, which is to inform, and would substitute an arbitrary exception to our content policies simply to satisfy your need to see notability demonstrated in a particular way. In fact WP:GNG states simply "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list", not "... and you have to put those sources in the article". The requirement is encapsulated in WP:NRVE thus: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." If you feel differently about that, then the onus is on you to "do" an RfC and get it changed. That would also have a predictable response.
 * Please tell me you're not serious about asking us to insert "complete nonsense" into our articles simply because you have decided that "we still have to reference the sources". Unusable sources are unusable. Wikipedia won't come to an end if we use the talk pages. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Afd
If you'd like to participate in the afd, please go here: Articles for deletion/ALCAT test Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a good-faith request for deletion. It is clear that the subject is notable, in that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:V). This talk page contains many examples of the test being brought to the attention of the public - there is even a section here on a Danish TV programme which covered it . These sources that have been shown to be unsuitable for inclusion in the article, nevertheless demonstrate more than enough coverage:
 * This talk page alone contains more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page alone contains more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page alone contains more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page alone contains more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page alone contains more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Worried about bias and misinformation
I'm new to this... let me know what I'm doing wrong here, etc. I just wanted to point out some concerns I have over this article.

On the subject of objectivity, I see that there was a lengthy discussion previously about the wording of the first sentence of the article, concluding in the use of "claims to". In terms of denotation this is perfectly accurate however when someone says that another person/entity "claims to" the obvious connotation is that this is an incorrect statement. I do not believe that this is an unbiased or appropriate way to word things. Would it not be better to say something along the lines of "The Alcat Test is a laboratory method for identification of non-IgE mediated reactions to foods, chemicals, and other categories of substances according to the literature of its proprietor, Cell Science Systems."

On the subject of misinformation, 6 out of the 7 'verifiable references' listed (all except number 4) are in reference to allergies. The ALCAT test is not designed to identify allergies and states this often on their website: after a quick bit of clicking it is mentioned in bold on the 'the technology' tab, and also addressed in 'FAQ'. There is no reason a test would be considered 'a reliable medical diagnostic tool' (as stated in the article) for a condition it is not intended to diagnose.

One further concern is the integrity of the only source that is not about allergies. I clicked through to the article because I was very interested to read it and found that it is written in Polish with no authors listed.

Just for clarity's sake, I have taken and am a proponent for the efficacy of the ALCAT, however I am also passionate about the idea of having unbiased information. I am not intending to merely dismiss claims that the ALCAT is fake medicine (there are many legitimate studies/sources that question the entire theory behind it) but I would very much like the argument against this test a. to be accurate b. to be balanced by information that conflicts it so that readers may make their own judgements. I feel that I cannot add anything to this article until it is made accurate.

Jessicannel (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)jessicannel_09/09/15
 * Thank you for your clarity. Are there now wp:MEDRS sources to support what the manufacturer says, or are we to just take them at their word? If you look back in the history of this article and of this talkpage, you will find that the maker and various vendors have a long and sordid record of attempting to push low-quality research into Wikipedia. Such attempts usually boomerang. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On revisiting their website, it does appear that they have recently rephrased things to avoid the explicit allergy claims. You can see the old claim by searching e.g., . Some licensee/vendor sites still make it. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)