Closing the evidence gap in integrative medicine

Whereas I am grateful to Heptonstall for pointing out the distinction
between intolerances and allergies, I should remind him that he it was who
brought up allergies orgionally, by citing the 1997 study by Krop et al
(1). This study was not about food intolerance, and a later study by some
of the same authorship did not replicate its findings (2). I could not
find on PubMed a single RCT of Vega testing for food intolerance.

It is beyond dispute that my original comment, that Heptonstall has
cited long lists of uncontrolled studies and anecdotal reports, is true. I
am not afraid to take context into account, but his claim that the CAM
community is interested in outcomes has to be seen in the light of what
they think really is an outcome. It too often differs from the definitions
used in mainstream science. I would refer him to Dr Flegg's erudite
comments above, which answer his points far better than I could have done.

As a scientist I am happy to be corrected when I am wrong, but I fear
that this dialogue will have lost its appeal for most readers (as well as
for me). I am not going to be goaded into a series of ad hominem attacks.
However I am deeply flattered to be repeatedly called a `dinosaur', a
group that dominated the earth for 160 million years.

References

1. Krop J, Lewith GT, Gziut W, Radulescu C. A double blind,
randomized, controlled investigation of electrodermal testing in the
diagnosis of allergies. J Altern Complement Med. 1997 Fall;3(3):241-8.

2. Lewith GT, Kenyon JN, Broomfield J, Prescott P, Goddard J, Holgate
ST. Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for
diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study. BMJ.
2001 Jan 20;322(7279):131-4.

Competing interests:
None declared