[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
January 20, 1951


Author Affiliations

602-4 Professional Building, Detroit 1.

JAMA. 1951;145(3):174. doi:10.1001/jama.1951.02920210046020

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  The excellent article by Leibowitz and his co-workers (J. A. M. A., Nov. 18, 1950) clarifies much of the confusion that exists on this subject. In any investigation of this kind, two points should be stressed, which, according to my experience, constitute the key to the problem: Sensitivity to food, as indicated by feeding experiments and by skin tests, is subject to frequent change. Furthermore, the reliability of skin tests hinges on the freshness of the extracts employed in the tests. For obvious reasons all extracts used in a clinic or office cannot be prepared at the same time; some are older and, therefore, less potent than others. This undoubtedly explains the fact that the authors obtained only minor skin reactions to nuts and fish. This is in contrast to their results from feeding these foods and to the observations of other allergists in intradermal testing.The

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview