Warning: Parameter 2 to wp_hide_post_Public::query_posts_join() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 307
ALCAT - Response to Dr Pridgeon's letter - CAMcheck

Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_post_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-functions.php on line 2803

Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_portfolio_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/includes/theme-functions.php on line 819

ALCAT – Response to Dr Pridgeon’s letter


Warning: Parameter 2 to wp_hide_post_Public::query_posts_join() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 307

A letter written by Dr John Pridgeon dated February 18th, 2010, was circulated to his email list of clients and placed on the ALCAT South Africa website (www.alcatsa.co.za [no longer active]), where a number of allegations were made regarding the circumstances surrounding the closure of ALCAT South Africa. It is reproduced here, in the event that it was removed.

Many of the claims are either misleading, distortions or simply untruthful. Is Dr Pridgeon guilty of libel and defamation? (libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person) (defamation: To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.)

Here are the facts written in style where the reader can decide for themselves. 

Prior to the launch of ALCAT in South Africa, I was invited to meet with Roger Deutch (CEO ALCAT) and Mark Coppin, Dr Pridgeon’s partner. At the cordial meeting, I pointed out to Mark Coppin that there was inadequate scientific support for the ALCAT, that I had researched it some years back with dismal results, and that the test would to my knowledge have to be approved by the MCC, otherwise marketing the test could be considered fraud.

Roger Deutch then stated that I had not done any research on the test, except reproducibility studies. I was stunned, and tried to remind him how he and Samy Pucchio, his lab expert, had been made at home in the UCT lab and they processed the samples of the patients I recruited. I made it clear that the Allergy Society of South Africa had been the sponsor of the test, which was paid for by Dr Ian Shapkaitz who wanted to market the test, but only if ALLSA could confirm that it had merit.

What followed was initially a heated email from Dr John Pridgeon, but following a subsequent phone call from him, in his email  he reflected that he would do his best to prove that the test had merit by doing a small reproducibility trial, to start with, but also would engage with the Allergy Society of South Africa in order to “do the right thing”, i.e., confirm that the ALCAT could substantiate the claims being made for the test. Dr Pridgeon reneged on both, placing high profile adverts in the media, and launching the test claiming benefits for a range of conditions – most not even with one study to substantiate the claim. 

Therefore, as the initial researcher of the ALCAT in South Africa, I embarked on an advocacy through the ASA, to stop the marketing of this test. I personally felt that false promises were being made to the public. After 3 years, the ALCAT has closed its doors in South Africa, and Dr Pridgeon has attacked me and others in a letter sent by email to his colleagues and posted on the ALCAT website, for the demise of the product.

He has has not shouldered any blame for its demise. In response to his one sided letter, I am writing to respond by explaining the context in which this issue arose. I quote from the actual documents – which the readers can read for themselves and make a fair judgement.

NB: Compare the statements made in present statement with previous statements made by Dr Pridgeon 1-2 years back, and compare to actual statements from documents that Dr Pridgeon refers to. I have made a decision not to address every of Dr Pridgeon’s allegations but only those that are central to this issue.

1.      South African research on the ALCAT.

 Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

Steinman’s big lie, one that he will never be able to weasel out of, derives from the “supportive” early evidence that ALCAT is of no clinical use. Steinman co – authored four articles between 1992 and 1994 where ALCAT was thoroughly discredited, and its efficacy negated. When I asked Steinman for the data that was used to publish these articles, he replied that this had long ago been discarded. Steinman claimed telephonically (I have the recording) that TWO HUNDRED people were tested in this ‘trial’

Dr Steinman responds:

Dr Pridgeon neglected to state that at a later date that I pointed out that I had found the original data files stored in my archived backups (still on a 1.4 MB stiffy disc!). The studies referred to are mentioned below: I wrote that three groups of patients were studied: eczema, asthma and IBS. The results of the asthma and IBS research on the ALCAT were presented at conferences as posters but no publication followed the eczema study.

Dr Pridgeon also neglected to point out that I sent him an email dated 21/05/2007, where I wrote: “. . . am somewhat astounded that Roger (CEO of ALCAT) did not inform you that we had conducted three large studies (IBS, Asthma, Eczema) with extremely poor results, and also, had not informed you about Prof. Katelaris’s large study in Australia, nor on the consensus statements of a number of Allergy Societies around the world.” This email contained a long list of references in support of this statement, and which are similar to that of the ALLSA position statement below.

Dr Pridgeon – an email extract of 21/05/2007

“Like you I am a scientist, and the relative paucity of clinical studies is a big stumbling block for me” and that to satisfy your (Dr Steinman) concerns regarding the reproducibility of the ALCAT”, and that “I will get 10 patients who want to do the ALCAT Test and repeat the test 2-3 days later”.

This was never done. (See below regarding the reproducibility issue)

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“…Steinman wrote and signed a letter … openly praising ALCAT, and stating that only 2 of the trial participants had actually been subjected to the dietary restrictions ALCAT recommends as part of its process, and both had done well as a result. The ‘trials’ conducted by Steinman & Co were obviously bogus and non existent”

Dr Steinman responds:

There is overwhelming documentary proof (available on request for serious review) to confirm that a total of 200 participants were involved in 3 trials and that all were subjected to proper placebo controlled trials, as per the protocol submitted and accepted by the University of Cape Town Medical School’s Ethics committee.

Dr Pridgeon furthermore, neglected to inform the reader that in an email query to Prof Paul Potter, University of Cape Town on 05 July 2007 on whether the ALCAT had been researched in his department under his supervision by Dr Steinman. Prof Potter responded in the affirmative, stating: 

“Studies were performed in the dept of Clinical Science and Immunology on the ALCAT test when Prof Eugene Dowdle was head of that department and I was a consultant in the department. Dr Roger Deutch [of the ALCAT company] was involved with the provision of the apparatus and reagents for the test and also with some studies of reproducibility of the test. Dr Steinman supervised the clinical studies in collaboration with the dietetics department and respiratory clinics of Groote Schuur and also with the department of gastroenterology. One of the studies involved a Dietetics honours student [Ms Amanda Pitt] and her findings would be reported in her thesis. I do not have that a copy of her thesis.

Other the (sic) findings were reported at the allergy Society Congress [South African] in October 1995 and published in Current Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1994;7(3). The findings of the studies on irritable bowel syndrome were reported at the S A Gastroenterology Congress October 1993. My secretary will email you as an attachment a copy of the published ABSTRACT reporting the lack of correlation of the ALCAT with self reported food intolerance in asthmatic patients studied. Please find the titles of these presentations and publications which list all the authors involved below:

1. O’Keefe E, Steinman HA, Potter PC, O’Keefe S. Evaluation of the ALCAT test in reactions to food in the Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Poster: South African Gastroenterological Society Annual Congress. October 1993

2. Pitt A, Bateman ED, Steinman H, Potter PC. Lack of correlation between self-reported food intolerance, food challenge testing and results of the ALCAT system in chronic adult asthmatics. Allergy Society of South Africa Annual Congress. 1994;October

3. Pitt A, Bateman ED, Steinman H, Potter PC. Lack of correlation between self-reported food intolerance, food challenge testing and results of the ALCAT system in chronic adult asthmatics. (Abstract) Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology 1994;7(3)

I hope that this provides you with evidence that studies were indeed performed, as requested.”
[email 05/07/2007]


Therefore, it is evident that Dr John Pridgeon has called Profs. Potter, Bateman, O’Keefe, Dr Harris Steinman and Ms Pitt liars for claiming that studies were not conducted in South Africa on the ALCAT. 


2.      Reproducibility of the ALCAT

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“The only ALCAT study actually conducted in Cape Town was to determine the reproducibility of ALCAT, which Steinman himself found to be a creditable 94.94%!”

Dr Steinman responds:

I confirmed that this statement was true, i.e., that reproducibility of the ALCAT done on the same day is high, but I mentioned in a subsequent letter that a subsequent study evaluating reproducibility of the test, that the reproducibility of the test a few days apart (a hallmark of a credible allergy test), was very poor. (Email to Dr Pridgeon dated 18 May 2007. I wrote “[T]his is one of the ‘gold standards’ as opposed to the checking reproducibility the same day.” 



3.      Other blood allergy manufacturers

 Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

It is my personal opinion that ALCAT remains the best food and chemical delayed allergy / intolerance test on the market today, and it is for exactly this reason that the other blood allergy manufacturers are working so hard to shut it down.”

Dr Steinman responds:

Not a single national or international Allergy Society or organisation throughout the world supports the ALCAT – not because of pressure from blood analysis competitors, but simply because there is no robust scientific acceptable evidence to show that the ALCAT has any efficacy, i.e., can do what it claims to do – besides occasional anecdotal claims which may be no more than a placebo effect. I personally do not know of ANY blood allergy test manufacturers trying to shut down the ALCAT.*(see at end) 



4.      Advertising Standards authority ruling

 Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“ASASA have been by far and away Steinman’s most used tool. This most necessary institution (to protect the Public from unscrupulous advertisers) has been cunningly manipulated by a man who has used, and continues to use, his extensive knowledge of its most intimate processes with great skill” and, “[T]o date ALCAT SA’s many requests to know how the material ALCAT has supplied as substantiation for its advertisements has been judged, have been met with total silence. Do you the reader understand how confusing it is to have your evidence completely disregarded without any explanation”.

Dr Steinman responds:

The fact is that the ASA was faced with making a decision based on, on the one hand, Dr Pridgeon’s inadequate evidence of proof for the ALCAT’S claims, and on the other hand with evidence that all national professional allergy societies and organisations, including peer-reviewed articles in medical journals, argued that there was insufficient evidence to support their claims.

In fact in the ASA ruling, it was clearly indicated why Dr Pridgeon’s evidence was being disregarded: “… the respondent has not put anything before the Directorate as proof that the entities or individuals who conducted these studies qualify as independent and credible experts in the field to which the claims relate as per the requirements of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code” and “… the Directorate further notes that the other studies were done more than a decade ago, and there is nothing before the Directorate to show that these results are still “current” as required by Clause 4.1.2 of Section II.” 



5.      Competitions Commission

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“The Competitions Commission of South Africa decided that they ‘will not refer any part of the complaint by ALCAT South Africa to the Competition Tribunal’”.

Dr Steinman responds:

In a letter dated 25 June 2009, the Competition Commission stated:

Our view is that that, although Dr Steinman is involved in allergy market, he is not directly active as a producer of any allergy testing products which competes in the relevant market, but acts mainly as a consultant, thus cannot be a competitor.”

“Notwithstanding the above, even if Dr Steinmann (sic) was a competitor in the relevant market and one of these competing companies were dominant, the Commission does not find any indication that the behavior of Dr Steinman could constitute an exclusionary act or inducement. Our reasons are detailed below.”

“a. There is no evidence to suggest that ALCAT is being excluded from operating in the market. ALCAT is still operating and its products are available in the market, despite the alleged exclusionary or inducement acts.”

“b. There are other articles written by other sources other than Dr Steinman, which question the reliability of ALCAT products . . . [T]hus it seems there is a general concern about ALCAT products and the negative publicity is not only as a result of Dr Steinman as alleged.”

“c. Medical products in general, including allergy tests may first have to be registered with the Medical Control Council of South Africa (‘the MCC”). It has been established that the ALCAT products are not registered with the MCC, and as such the scientific benefits of the products have not been scrutinized before the products could be marketed. The Commission contacted the MCC to find out if the ALCAT product is to be registered with the MCC, and this was confirmed.3 According to the MCC any products that meets the provisions of the Medical and related substances Act (Act 101 of 1965) and that claim medicinal benefits are to be registered.”

“ . . . ALCAT attempted to register the ALCAT Test with the National Pathology Group (“NPG”) in 2006, which refused to accept the products. The reasons provided by the NPG are that “The Alcat test was previously evaluated by our Group and found not to have scientific merit or justification for inclusion in the pathology tariff. To my knowledge no new information has become available to justify the creation of a tariff for this test’5 This again confirms the general negative views about ALCAT in the market, which may not necessarily be as a result of Dr Steinman.” 



6.      HPCSA (The Health Professions Council of South Africa)

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“the HPCSA replied to my complaint against Steinman: “Please be advised that the best way to solve this matter would be to institute a civil claim against the practitioner, for sabotaging ALCAT”.

Dr Steinman responds:

The HPCSA suggested that I have not been unethical or unfair for they would have investigated me and referred me to the office of the Ombudsman for censure or worse. Contrast this with my complaint to the HPCSA against Dr Pridgeon’s role in marketing of the ALCAT, the initial HPCSA investigation has resulted in a referral of this to the office of the Ombudsman for further action. (Reference MP 0248746/432/2009) 

Update 13 March 2010: The HPCSA has agreed with my complaint regarding the ethics of Dr Pridgeon’s role and has referred this to the Undesirable Business Practices committee.



7.      Allergy Society of South Africa

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

ALLSA openly support the use of their products on their website, while denigrating ALCAT in a dubious ‘position statement’”

Dr Steinman responds:

Dr Pridgeon has maligned the Allergy Society of South Africa (ALLSA). ALLSA, similar to all other national and international professional medical societies and organisations, accept advertisements from all reputable products that have rigorous scientific proof of efficacy. The ALLSA position statement (http://www.allergysa.org/pdfs/intolerance_tests.pdf) is similar to that put out by other allergy societies and organisations throughout the world. The list of position statements and articles which was referenced in the ALLSA position statement is listed below and readers can decide for themselves if they have merit. 



8.      UPDATE magazine

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

Dr Pridgeon wrote that this monthly journal aimed at GPs, has Dr Joan Lewis as their editor, “and was the writer of their libellous March 2008 editorial, which compared ALCAT to the infamous Kubus Kwekery” and that “Steinman had obviously supplied everything she felt she needed for her slanderous writing. I hope she researches other topics she writes about better, or nothing she writes is then worth reading”, and, “Steinman denied that he even knows her, one of several lies he has been caught in”.

Dr Steinman responds:

Dr Joan Lewis obtained her information from the ALLSA position statement published in the SAMJ, and confirmed the details with leading South African allergy experts. A letter dated 30 January 2009, sent to the ASA and then onto Dr Pridgeon, in response to a similar allegation, I wrote: “I am informed that Dr Joan Lewis was at university with me, but I certainly don’t recall her at all, and have not had contact with her until recently when she approached me telephonically for advice following a threatening and abusive letter from Dr John Pridgeon, following an article she wrote for UPDATE based on the Allergy Society’s published position statement.” 



9.      Wikipedia

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

Wikipedia – this one startled even me – Steinman went ballistic here when he or his lackeys edited the ALCAT article something like 108 times in a period of a few days“ and “the content was easily recognisable as originating from Steinman being identical to, and copied verbatim from, earlier ASASA complaints submitted by Steinman.”

Dr Steinman responds:

I freely admit to having made one edit to this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCAT), under my own name, and I am unaware of the input or authors of the other 107 edits. The data would have been similar to that submitted to the ASA, for the data is the same as used and referred to by all other allergy societies and organisations throughout the world (we do access the same references!)

In conclusion, is will be clear to the reader from the above the reason why the SAMJ, noseweek and other organisations were not “giving my side of the story” according to Dr Pridgeon. This had more to do with the evidence at their disposal rather than my (Dr Steinman) influence. 



10.Dr Harris Steinman’s role in ALCAT’s closure.

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“. . . that he does not earn ‘one cent’ from his efforts as a ‘concerned consumer activist’ can possibly be sufficient or acceptable evidence that he is not a ‘competitor’ in the allergy arena.”

Dr Steinman responds:

Compare the statement above dated February 2010 with previous statements made by Dr Pridgeon.

Dr Pridgeon – an email extract of 17 May 2007

You obviously take your job as a self appointed quackery watchdog very seriously!”

Dr Pridgeon – an email extract of 18 May 2007

I realise now that you are genuinely concerned about the validity of the ALCAT Test, and that your involvement here does not have any less honourable origins.”


Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“Steinman turns out to be an arrogant, uncouth (he called me a liar twice to my face during the last ASASA hearing”

Dr Steinman responds:

The reader will have sufficient evidence after reading this letter to make a fair decision for themselves whether Dr Pridgeon is guilty of lying or not. Please note that Dr Pridgeon’s letter is dated February 2010 and the correspondence is dated 1-3 years previously.

Further, Dr Pridgeon, in a letter to the ASA, and at the ASA hearing, stated that I had given a talk in Durban where I had made defamatory statements regarding him and the ALCAT. This allegation continued to be made publicly in spite of the disclosure of the facts to him: an invitation had been circulated to Durban doctors by a pathology laboratory that I had been invited to give a talk on allergy diagnosis, but in actual fact, I did not attend, let alone talk against ALCAT – and did not even fly to Durban. 

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“Steinman was found to be a competitor by ASASA in early 2009 after my request / suggestion that he be regarded as such was upheld. Amazingly, this was reversed later last year”, and “Steinman, as you will see, is on a mission, for which I believe he is being handsomely paid”

Dr Steinman responds:

I was initially ruled to be a competitor based on Dr Pridgeon’s argument that I was also providing or involved in allergy testing, but on subsequent statement and evidence presented by me to ASA that I was not involved in human allergy testing but food manufacturing allergen testing (a very different field), this ruling was reversed. There is no evidence for the allegations that I am being handsomely paid, that was investigated by both ASA and the Competition Commission and of which there was found to be no evidence.

See above: Competition Commission.

Dr Pridgeon letter – an extract:

“Steinman has openly admitted to developing the Phadia allergy website he maintains. Apparently he must . . . “review over 400 allergy articles from 40 different journals on a monthly basis” to do this competently. How many hours a month does that take? IF he was able to adequately read, study and digest as many as ten allergy articles an hour (that is one every 6 minutes!) then, conservatively speaking, he would spend a minimum of forty hours A MONTH performing this task. This is, by any standards, a full week’s work! Do you the reader believe that he does not get “one cent” (his words) for his efforts?”

Dr Steinman responds:

Dr Pridgeon did not put this paragraph in the correct context. At the ASA appeal, I stated clearly, and as reflected in the ASA ruling, that I do NOT maintain or develop the Phadia allergy website. As an “allergen expert”, I write independent and non-partisan reviews of scientific and medical literature and information on allergens which are used by Phadia for patient and health professional education, which is used on their website. This information that I provide is not product specific and is also used by competitors to Phadia. I made it clear to the ASA that I am indeed paid for this non-product specific task by Phadia, and competitors, and I follow ethical and scientific standards that guide financial matters and as followed by scientific experts throughout the world. The ASA accepted this argument.

I will reiterate, I do not get “one cent” for the time I spend on activism against the ALCAT test and my efforts are based purely on my belief as an independent professional medical practitioner and researcher and reviewer of medical literature on allergy and allergens, that the ALCAT has inadequate proof of benefit. I am prepared to present an affidavit that no allergy companies, and in particular, Phadia, are even aware of my activism (not to my knowledge). 

My efforts “to shut ALCAT down” are based on my belief, and scientific and clinical experience, and supported by evidence from the scientific establishment – that the ALCAT has insufficient evidence for the claims being made for the product.



 11.ALLSA position statement references:

Below is a “Whos Who” of many of the world’s leading Allergy Specialists and their professional medical organisations. Are they all wrong about ALCAT?

Have they all been bought off by other allergy blood test manufacturers?

What will it really take to make Dr Pridgeon appreciate the symphony of diametrically opposed views by the world’s leading experts in the field?

O’Keefe E, Steinman HA, Potter PC, O’Keefe S. Evaluation of the ALCAT test in reactions to food in the Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Poster: South African Gastroenterological Society Annual Congress. October 1993

Pitt A, Bateman ED, Steinman H, Potter PC. Lack of correlation between self-reported food intolerance, food challenge testing and results of the ALCAT system in chronic adult asthmatics. Allergy Society of South Africa Annual Congress. 1994;October

Pitt A, Bateman ED, Steinman H, Potter PC. Lack of correlation between self-reported food intolerance, food challenge testing and results of the ALCAT system in chronic adult asthmatics. (Abstract) Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology 1994;7(3):7

European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology: Sections-Interest Groups – Allergy Diagnosis – Controversial diagnostic tests. http://www.eaaci.net/site/content.php?l1=91&sel=323 (06 November 2007)

Ortolani, C.; Bruijnzeel-Koomen, C.; Bengtsson, U.; Bindslev-Jensen, C.; Bjorksten, B.; Host, A.; Ispano, M.; Jarish, R.; Madsen, C.; Nekam, K.; Paganelli, R.; Poulsen, L. K.; Wuthrich, B. Controversial aspects of adverse reactions to food. Allergy. 54(1):27-45, January 1999

Position Paper: Controversial aspects of adverse reactions to food. EAACI Adverse Reactions to Food Subcommittee. http://www.eaaci.net/site/Adverse%20reactions%20to%20food.pdf (06 November 2007)

American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology: Allergy & Asthma Disease Management Center – Allergy Testing. http://www.aaaai.org/aadmc/ate/allergytesting.html. (06 November 2007)

Potter PC, Mullineux J, Weinberg EG, Haus M, Ireland P, Buys C, Motala C.The ALCAT test–inappropriate in testing for food allergy in clinical practice. S Afr Med J. 1992;81(7):384.

Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy: Cow’s Milk (dairy) allergy. http://www.medeserv.com.au/ascia/aer/infobulletins/hp_allergy_milk.htm (06 November 2007)

MedicDirect: Allergy Testing. http://www.medicdirect.co.uk/site_guide/default.ihtml?step=4&pid=2458 (06 November 2007)

Global Resources In Allergy (GLORIA™) – The Diagnosis of Allergic Diseases. http://www.3bel.dote.hu/oktatas2007/eload2007ang/ Nekam%20TOK%20eloadas%20Allergy.ppt (06 November 2007)

Teuber SS, Porch-Curren C. Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. Current Opinion in Allergy & Clinical Immunology. 2003;3(3):217-221.

Passalacqua G, Compalati E, Schiappoli M, Senna G.  Complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment and diagnosis of asthma and allergic diseases. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005;63(1):47-54.

Niggemann B, Grüber C. Unproven diagnostic procedures in IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Allergy. 2004;59(8):806-8.

Beyer K, Teuber SS. Food allergy diagnostics: scientific and unproven procedures. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;5(3):261-6.

Anderson JA. Food allergy and food intolerance. ASDC J Dent Child. 1985;52(2):134-7.

Senna G, Gani F, Leo G, Schiappoli M. Alternative tests in the diagnosis of food allergies. Recenti Prog Med. 2002;93(5):327-34.

Wüthrich B. Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2005;15(2):86-90.

ASCIA Position Statement: Unorthodox Techniques for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergy, Asthma and Immune Disorders. Dr Raymond J. Mullins on behalf of the Education Committee, ASCIA October 2004. http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm (accessed 6 November 2007)



* The leading blood allergy test manufacturers are global, mainstream, have scientifically validated and documented clinical efficacy, documented technical characteristics, and validated scientific & medical modus operandi. These manufacturers produce assays that measure allergen specific IgE antibodies; that are universally acknowledged by thousands of Allergists around the world and supported by thousands of clinical studies and hundreds of technical evaluations published in peer-reviewed mainstream medical journals (for example SAML, etc etc etc). In contrast the ALCAT system is based upon a clinical concept of change of size of neutrophils in blood when mixed with various allergens. Yes, the ALCAT system may indeed measure a change in cell size of certain cells when those cells come into contact with “allergens” but even then there is enormous variation from day to day in the technical parameters of the assay system. More importantly, there is absolutely no correlation between cell size and allergy; or even between cell size and intolerance; that link has simply never been proven or even supported by robust evidence. 

ALCAT is a completely different type of test from the measurement of allergen specific IgE, and is in no way comparable. In contrast to the tomes of documentation of the relevance of S-IgE to the diagnosis of allergy and identification of allergens, ALCAT has no independent supportive scientific validation of the clinical principle, and very little evidence indeed of the technical parameters of the assay system. 

In summary, ALCAT is just one company’s attempt to make money out of pseudo-science and the ignorance of it’s advocates and users.


 [note note_color=”#f6fdde” radius=”4″]CamCheck posts related to ALCAT



No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.