Talk:Allergy

Caesarean section delivery and the risk of allergic disorders in childhood

It would seem appropriate to include a brief mention of the association between caesarian section deliveries and allergic disorders, which is well documented in the relevant scientific literature (e.g. Renz-Polster H, David MR, Buist AS, Vollmer WM, O'Connor EA, Frazier EA, Wall MA. Caesarean section delivery and the risk of allergic disorders in childhood. Clin Exp Allergy. 2005 Nov;35(11):1466-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02356.x. PMID: 16297144.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1227:D1F4:EC12:4B5F:672F:D28C (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Idiosyncracies

Editors of this page might consider including "idiosyncracies", which is what allergies were called in 1870. Sources on archive.org and newspapers.com . Also, there could be more attention to cerebral allergies, a problem that is underdiagnosed, resulting in the abuse of persons with psychiatric sequelae, including brain fog, depression, anxiety, learning and behavioral disabilities. When such patients are not identified, practitioners risk causing preventable harm. Liquidvisual (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Testing

The testing section should include a discussion on intradermal dilution testing and modified quantitative testing. Prophylax (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Details regarding controls, wheal size, and interpretation were added to the skin prick testing section. Prophylax (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Should there be a section discussing alternative medicine treatment for allergy (eg, herbal, traditional Chinese medicine)? Prophylax (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

These methods are unscientific and usually intentional quackery. No WP:MEDRS sources would justify discussing them in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Washing

Best treatment for contact allergens. Wash!!!!! Shower preferably. Get rid of the allergen. Never gets mentioned. So frustrating. 106.69.198.45 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is probably sensible that we rework the Management section a little, to address the acute, as well as the chronic factors of allergies. It is hard to find sources that talk directly about what to do if exposed to known allergens in such a simple manner as washing off the allergen, though maybe because it is presumed common sense? I note the Mayo Clinic suggests “Soak in a soothing cool bath” as a treatment for the symptoms of contact dermatitis,[1] but that may be beyond the remit of this article. Other more common advice could certainly be talked about, as it is common to see “don’t scratch the skin”, for example.

It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a medical guide though, and our primary job is not to provide treatment advice. — HTGS (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Throughout my life and with some research I have come to believe alcoholism is an allergy, should this be listed as part of the 'allergy' topic in Wikipedia.org? Marisha16 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This was suggested by the AA people, but is not discussed as a literal physical response to alcoholism by rational medical experts. The best source I could find discussing the idea is this 1972 psychiatric article, and it really doesn’t lead me to see it as appropriate for this article. — HTGS (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Pine nuts are not nuts

As clearly stated in Wikipedia they are seeds, adding them in the tree nut category is very wrong. 209.93.243.30 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Sort of. If this were an article focused on botany. However, this is an article on allergy. "Tree nut" is not a common botanical term. "Tree nut" is not a strict botanical term, but rather a culinary and regulatory classification.The FDA is a good authority https://snacksafely.com/2022/03/nuts-what-they-really-are-and-how-the-fda-classifies-them-as-allergens/ The FDA's classificaiton is probably designed to save lives. I am reluctant to endorse a choice designed to save lives as "very wrong". Jaredroach (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove paragraph under Causes

This paragraph under Causes is inconcise and poorly written and should be removed:

"When we think about how different we all look and perceive our surroundings, it becomes unimaginable to think about how different all the ways we are different on the molecular level. Everything from how we react to foreign bodies to how we respond to those bodies and why. This is all because of our genetic markup; our DNA, which is made up of genes that encode for specific molecules or whole complexes. Due to the variability in responses and how the disease manifests differently in individuals, a clear genetic basis for the predisposition and severity of allergic diseases has not yet been fully established. A lot of what causes the allergy is the way our body extremely reacts to the environment so the genes that cause these things are related to regulation of molecules." 98.42.211.85 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Improving top-importance medicine articles: Join the Vital Signs campaign 2026

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

1. Add yourself as a participant
2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 300 Scientific Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennie177 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jennie177 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the subject of this article?

I think reasonable people can agree that when we colloquially say "allergy" what we mean is "a maladaptive immune response to an exogenous agent".

Or, more simply: "A harmful immune response to a foreign substance."

We all agree that a fatal anaphylactic response to a mildly harmful substance would be an "allergy", yet sources define allergies as responses to "harmless" substances.

Honeybee venom hyaluronidase (Api m 2) is a major glycoprotein allergen, and yet it is not harmless. Hyaluronidase breaks down hyaluronic acid in the skin's extracellular matrix in order to help the rest of the venom spread faster. An enzyme which breaks down our connective tissue certainly causes us harm.

Why must we shackle ourselves to sources, when we have the means to free ourselves? Let us rewrite this to be an article about "A harmful immune response to a foreign substance." ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, most immune responses are "harmful" even if they are beneficial on the whole. This makes "harmful" an imperfect substitute for "maladaptive". A "maladaptive" response would also include a response which is inadequate, which does not capture the meaning of the word "allergy" as we understand it.

"A harmful overreaction of the immune system to a foreign substance" remedies this, but is less elegant. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer Review

The lead provides a concise definition of an allergy as well as an excellent summary of its symptoms, causes, and remedies. It is insightful and educational BUT, it’s very long and might be a pain to read if you really want to gain knowledge on allergies, but no one wants to be reading an article forever. Perhaps focus on the most important details rather than fluff we don’t need to know. The parts outlining the causes and the physiological mechanisms of allergic reactions are particularly thorough and pertinent which can be a good thing to many though.  AND it demonstrates excellent research. It is more difficult to follow, because some sections are really  filled with unnecessary information. I think it would be easier to read if longer paragraphs were broken up or some explanations were made simpler. For the most part, the tone is impartial and suitable for an informative piece. Although it doesn't feel prejudiced, general readers may find it more difficult to understand some of its very technical sections. Although the sources seem trustworthy , it's not always clear whether the most current sources were selected. Maybe the article would be strengthened by including more recent, peer-reviewed sources. The article IS well-structured overall. I think that it’s  primary strength is how thorough and educational it is even though its a bit long and the text should be easier for the average reader to understand.   Alvisha r (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole lead is a confusing mess. It uses "allergy", "allergic reaction", and "allergic disease" as synonyms and as words with different meanings. It defines an "allergy" as an allergic reaction at the start, before using "allergy" as an allergic disease throughout the rest of the lead.

I've been looking through sources, and they are just as confused. About half define allergy as a condition and the other half define it as a reaction. Really the first half represent how we actually use the word, and we should rewrite accordingly. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)