Talk:The Alcat Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)