Valgurikas, tervislik pitsa

Tsöliaakia, nisuallergia ja gluteenitalumatus avalduvad erinevalt:

http://www.tsoliaakia.ee/public/Kaisa_Rahuoja.pdf

Väljaheite analüüs maksab 490 €.

http://www.vianaturale.ee/taielik-valjaheite-analuus

Olen kursis, aga see on ka super analüüs ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″> Seda kasutatakse nö. viimase päästerõngana ja ega keegi ei teegi seda nii igaksjuhuks.

Kas Vianaturale on koht, mida võtta aluseks, kui soovid saada adekvaatset pilti, ilma lisaumbluuta?

Mõtlesin ise täpselt sama. Antud juhul aga oli nende veebileht ainuke mida Google välja pakkus, kui otsida “tsütotesti”. See on ise-enesest juba uskumatu. ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/biggrin@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>

Mis asja te ajate http://www.cytotest.net/

Ei taha mingit erafirma reklaamlehte lugeda. Seda mõtlesin. Kas mõni tõsiseltvõetav meditsiiniasutus või teadusajakiri ka sellise testi effektiivsust tõestab?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/cyto.html

Stay Away from Cytotoxic TestingSevere Criticism

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), the nation’s largest group of allergists, has concluded that cytotoxic testing is ineffective for diagnosing food or inhalant allergies [1]. Its position paper noted:

• One study found that white cells from allergic patients reacted no differently when exposed to substances known to produce symptoms than when exposed to substances to which the patients were not sensitive [2].
• Another study found that cytotoxic test results did not correlate with allergic and other untoward reactions to foods and that the results were inconsistent when repeated in the same patient [3].
• In a double-blind controlled study, positive cytotoxic tests were frequently obtained to foods that produced no clinical symptoms and negative reactions were obtained to foods that did produce symptoms [4].
• Another double-blind study found the test results varied from day to day [5].

Critical statements have also been issued by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the New York Academy of Medicine [6], the Royal College of Physicians [7], and even the American Chiropractic Association [8].

Government Actions

In the mid-1980s, investigators from the FDA and the New York health department mailed two blood samples to Bio-Health Centers. The first specimen was from a physician who had no allergies or health problems. The second was blood from a cow. In both cases, the lab reported allergies to a large number of foods [9]. In 1985, the attorneys general of New York and California subsequently obtained restraining orders against this lab, and the attorney general of Washington obtained one against another lab. During the same year, the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s Bureau of Laboratories banned cytotoxic testing within Pennsylvania and stated that any laboratory caught doing the test would have its permit revoked [10].

In 1985, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which administers Medicare, determined that cytotoxic testing be excluded from Medicare coverage. HCFA had proposed this policy in 1983 because the test “lacks an acceptable rationale” and does not correlate with clinical evidence of food allergy [11].

That same year, the FDA issued a Compliance Policy Guide stating that cytotoxic testing kits could not be legally marketed without FDA approval and that the agency would consider regulatory action if violative test kits were marketed [12].

These actions greatly stopped the blatant marketing of cytotoxic testing, but some practitioners still use the test. If you encounter a practitioner who claims that testing blood preparations with large number of food extracts is a useful diagnostic procedure, avoid further contact with that practitioner and report the matter to state licensing authorities.

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm123806.htm

FDA has determined that the cytotoxic test remains, in 1985, as an unproven diagnostic procedure unsupported by the scientific literature or well-controlled studies and clinical trials. While there are several reports of uncontrolled studies in the literature which advocate the use of the cytotoxic test, the consensus of scientific opinion is that the cytotoxic test is unreliable as a diagnostic tool and is not generally recognized by qualified experts as effective.

http://www.allergy.org.au/patients/food-other-adverse-reactions/food-intolerance

Unfortunately, a number of misleading tests have been promoted for diagnosing allergies, in the absence of any credible evidence of their reliability. Various methods such as cytotoxic food testing, Vega testing, kinesiology, allergy elimination techniques, iridology, pulse testing, Alcat testing, Rinkel’s intradermal skin testing, reflexology, hair analysis and IgG food antibody testing have all been proposed as being useful for diagnosing allergic conditions or food intolerances. Not only do these tests lack any scientific rationale, but have been shown to be inaccurate and poorly reproducible when subjected to careful study. Treatment based on inaccurate results is not only misleading, but can result in ineffective and sometimes harmful treatments, and delay more effective therapy.

http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/AllergyTesting.pdf

Cytotoxic test

This is a blood test where the white blood cells are mixed with the suspect food and if they swell this would indicate a problem with that food. There is no rational scientific basis for this test.

http://www.allergy.org.au/health-professionals/papers/unorthodox-techniques-for-diagnosis-and-treatment

Cytotoxic testing (also known as Bryans’ or ALCAT testing)

Use: Diagnosis of food sensitivity / allergy.

Method: A suspension of patient white cells is incubated with dried food extracts on a microscope slide. Changes in the appearance and movement of cells are interpreted as representing a sensitivity or “allergy” to that food. The ALCAT test is a variation, whereby a mixture of blood and food extracts is analysed in an automated Coulter counter.

Evidence Level: Level II

Comment: These results have been shown to not be reproducible, give different results when duplicate samples are analysed blindly, don’t correlate with those from conventional testing, and “diagnose” food hypersensitivity in subjects with conditions where food allergy is not considered to play a pathogenic role.

Ei taha mingit erafirma reklaamlehte lugeda. Seda mõtlesin. Kas mõni tõsiseltvõetav meditsiiniasutus või teadusajakiri ka sellise testi effektiivsust tõestab?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/cyto.html

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm123806.htm

http://www.allergy.org.au/patients/food-other-adverse-reactions/food-intolerance

http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/AllergyTesting.pdf

http://www.allergy.org.au/health-professionals/papers/unorthodox-techniques-for-diagnosis-and-treatment

Tead, mis – see, kuidas pealtnäha mõtlejad inimesed kukuvad tsiteerima ja soovitama totaalselt umbluud on lihtsalt hämmastav.

Vaata, või, seda vana kala, Otterit – telegrammee, alkeemiaee, jne. Kuidas selleni jõuab? Muidu nagu täitsa asjalik vana.

Beibed, kes siin sõna võtavad (kuna on tänu *trennidele* mingid hormoonid sedasi möllama saanud, et arvavad endid Cleopatrad olevat ning maailma juhtivad, neist saab veel aru..

Ja mis sul siis, Holger, jääb ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/wink@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″> Pidada dialoogi minusuguse napakaga, kes püsib jalgupidi maas ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/biggrin@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>

Holgeri artikkel avaldati naine24.ee -s. Kas ma edaspidi võin sellele viidata või pean suure häälega välja naerma?

Holgeri artikkel avaldati naine24.ee -s. Kas ma edaspidi võin sellele viidata või pean suure häälega välja naerma?

Vastatud – Holger. Aga sümpaatne huumor, tänan!