User talk:Neon1000

The article referenced to support the risk of SLIT therapy at home has no significant clinical value. To implicate a serious risk with a therapy that has been shown to be safe in scientific studies, shows bias and poor data selection. My deleted comments simply stated the referenced study was based upon a telephone interview with a non- medical person, and no measurements or direct observations were reported.

Please respond with your reasons to include such an article, to make an invalid point.

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Sublingual immunotherapy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The referenced article describes a woman calling from home after using sublingual immunotherapy and self-reporting symptoms. There were no medical observations made and the treatment vial was not obtained to measure how much was used. Moreover, the preparation of that treatment serum is 50 times more concentrated that what is normally used. How can a promising form of patient centered therapy be written off with such an article? The patient could have had a hypersensitivity to some element in the treatment not accounted for. Too many if's to use this article as a benchmark of risk for sublingual immunotherapy.Neon1000 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)