York Allergy Testing

[tarnalberry]

There are two different issues, the concept of the tests being bogus and the concept of the way the labs run the test being bogus. To say that two tests both run an IgG test means they run the same test is about as far from the truth as you can get, so it's not a simple thing. I've read that article, and a few others, that have done a number of comparison studies between results from different labs who do IgG testing. Some of them produced completely inconsistent results, some did not. I believe York's method came out fairly well, but don't quote me on that one. It is interesting to note that a recent study used IgG testing (the particular methodology of the testing was not described in the items I read) to see if eliminating certain foods would help IBS patients - and it did. There has been, in recent years, more credence given to the concept of identifying food issues through IgG testing (though you'll still find a LOT of older information on the web that paints it all as fraudulent). The big problem, however, is that the particular lab methodology used is vital in having accurate and precise results. I consider IgG testing to be "a work in progress" and that includes both figuring out how to properly do the testing and figuring out what exactly a "positive" test result means in the life of a patient.

[debmidge]

This must be where the confusion is coming into the conversation, the testing to which I am referring is ELISA, not IgG. Quackwatch.org was concerned about ELISA testing. They say that ELISA is dubious testing for delayed onset food allergies. ELISA is what York did.

My jury is still out on this one....

[Melanie]

ELISA is a fundamental method in science and is far from being bogus. It is one of the most used methods in science and many biology job postings require you to know how to do ELISA. It measures Antigen (food) Antibody (IgG in York's case) binding so it is going to measure how much and if you produce any antibody towards the food (a part of the food) they are testing for. Did they say why they thought these ELISAs were bogus? Maybe it was something else about what they were doing with the ELISA that was bogus? Even though your husband has not had nuts in years, he really may have had exposures to them. You know how wheat is hidden in everything; I think the same is true for nuts. He may have had just enough exposure to keep his antibodies stimulated and thus still present and detectible. ELISA is known to be really sensitive and is thus a preferred method for many things.

Anyways, I'm considering York as well because I want to get test for multiple things at once so I know if it is wheat or if it is lactose. Do you know if it destinguish between gluten and wheat? How does it compare to Entrolab? Do you think I should go with York over Entrolab?

What do you guys think about DNA testing?

Thanks, Melanie

[tom]

This must be where the confusion is coming into the conversation, the testing to which I am referring is ELISA, not IgG. Quackwatch.org was concerned about ELISA testing. They say that ELISA is dubious testing for delayed onset food allergies. ELISA is what York did.

My jury is still out on this one....

The article at quackwatch.org is talking about a diff method, i think.

Open Original Shared Link

It's called ELISA/ACT, and is not the same as just ELISA.

The last line of the paragraph about ELISA/ACT is :

"[Note: This test should not be confused with the ELISA test, which is a standard test for certain infectious diseases.]"

Admittedly, it doesn't say "for certain infectious diseases and food intolerances", but searching for the developer of the of ELISA/ACT anded w/ York produces only 13 results , and only 1 was york labs. And THAT one actually praises York.

Open Original Shared Link

Sample quotes:

"York Nutritional Laboratories; Uses the well-regarded ELISA test." - The Wall Street Journal, Friday, October 26, 2001

The August/September 2002 issue of the prestigious medical journal, The Townsend Letter For Doctors, published the British Allergy Foundation's (BAF) audit, which the BAF commissioned the Department of Health Studies at York University to oversee. This study involved over 1700 patients and validated the foodSCAN IgG ELISA Food Intolerance Test as a treatment for IBS, eczema and migraines.

According to Dr. P.J. Whorwell, Gastroenterologist, University Hospital of South Manchester, "This is the first time a commercially available blood test for food intolerance has been subjected to scientific scrutiny in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. In a controlled trial, patients eliminating foods to which they had antibodies as determined by Yorktest Laboratories experienced a significant improvement in their symptoms, providing evidence that this approach may be very valuable in treating this condition."

I think I'm convinced that it's worthwhile, and I'm a Doubting Thomas engineer-type, who's not easily convinced.

[jaycee30]

I had great results with York. Some of their findings were confirmation but some were a complete surprise, but explained so much.

My list is listed in my signature, so I won't list it here. But, for instance, the tomato was one I had no idea on. Its on my rotate list, so I avoid it now but it expalined why spaghetti would make me sick. When I found out about the gluten intolerance, I thought "ah-ha"....thats the problem. So I ran out, bought rice pasta (which was wonderful btw), organic gluten-free sauce and had spaghetti for the first time in years. The first fews times, no problem, but as I ate it more and more, I started feeling sick again. Then York reports I'm allerigc to tomatos and peppercorn.

I think it was well worth the money spent. Now I have a list that I adhere to religiously and feel so much better. IGG food allergies are so hard....they can be delayed, they can depend on the combination of foods you eat, etc. It really takes a comprehensive test to pin down the problem I think.