I have never written a letter to the editor that I have actually sent. Most of them wind up in the circular file (aka file 13, trash etc). I usually feel better having written them, but I do not have a track record in this regard. Perhaps doing this blog has emboldened me. After all it is an opinion, but sometimes we see things that we truly feel are wrong and we need to warn others about these wrongs.
The story goes as follows. I have subscribed to a newsletter called ‘Bottom Line Personal’. This publication has short articles on a variety of topics. For example, the last issue has quips on investing, real estate, psychotherapy, painkillers, career starting, bed sharing, and dangers in your garage (as I listed these it made me wonder why I subscribe). There is a page that talks about the purpose of the publication which is to bring to the reader the best information from the most knowledgeable sources in the world in helping the reader gain “greater wealth, better health, more wisdom, extra time and increased happiness” (this is a direct quote). Way at the bottom of the disclosure panel is the statement that they publish the opinions of expert authorities in the fields. I came across an article in the news column that started “If you think you are allergic to a certain food…..” That certainly caught my eye. As I read on my interest turned to rage (not really rage but my feathers were rattled). The first line continued “….. but you aren’t sure which food-consider having a blood test for the immunoglobulin IgG, says the author of a book called ‘The Source: Unleash Your Natural Energy, Power Up Your Health and Feel Ten Years Younger'”.
So I am concerned that my newsletter (one I subscribe to) which focuses on saving money and promoting health would promote this book specifically this concept of IgG to food as being something of value and something well established in health care. So I carefully composed a letter citing references from the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) and from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology. I also did a literature search on the author of the book using PubMed and OVID. My letter explained that the measurement of IgG to food is unproven as a diagnostic test and should be considered experimental. It is known that IgG to foods does not sort out a healthy from a sick population. The thought is that we see IgG to food in healthy people. To date, this is a test looking for a disease.
Thinking that I may have missed something, my search for published articles by the author on this topic in peer-reviewed journals came up with nothing.
I went on to point out that IgG to food is on a rather long list of unproven diagnostic tests for allergy. I pointed out that prior to publishing their review on the topic that they should have done more research on the topic, utilizing position statements from the major organization involved with allergy and perhaps used a literature review of evidence-based medicine to see the value of a test for IgG directed to foods. My bottom line was that this was not money well spent and could possibly lead to more harm for someone. I even went so far as to make some analogy to the use and sale of snake oil.
I carefully looked over my 750 word editorial, criticized the editors for violating their own standards and sent it off. Needless to say, I thought I was doing a service in pointing out my concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Leickly
Story continued- I got a response from ‘Bottom Line’- “Thank you for your email. We welcome your feedback. We find that on occasion even well-respected experts disagree and this appears to be one of those times. Again, I thank you for taking to the time to explore this topic with us.”
Ugh! I still feel better for the effort!
Leickly Stories 