Talk:Food allergy

Real
Food allergies are 'real enough' for a percentage of people. Most of us won't know if we are allergic to foods we are unlikely to encounter; and some 'food allergies' may be a mild dose of food poisoning/a reaction to something other than the obvious (eg viruses and moulds rather than mayonaise and peanuts).

How much do the 'real tests' indicate 'an allergy' without indicating 'how much of the stuff experienced for how long' will cause a problem?

The flaw with many 'test-yous' is the fail-basic-science tecnology: has anyone done a blind test with samples of hair that have been brought into contact with a range of hair dyes, shampoos, ocnditioners and other materials (so 'a 3D matrix' - hair, product and testers). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm ... not quite following your line of questioning here. What do hair and hair products have to do with food allergies again? --Tracer (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, as to blind test with just hair: you can't test for allergies without, ya know, the immune system involved; hair samples fail this condition. PacWalker 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Hypothesis
Is there a study out there on this, or some research? --Castaigne (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis
Erm, while there may be non-immunological causes of anaphylaxis, it itself is an allergic reaction... I'm fairly sure... biology is really not my thing though. Can anyone help with this? PacWalker 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Question
There is the statement 'the dead do not have allergic reactions.[citation needed]' - which is the 'Zombie Medicine/Pathology' department providing papers to be cited from? Anna Livia (talk)