I stand semi-corrected. Sulfites! Get with the times, people!
From the first link: “A nonparasitic antigen capable of stimulating a type I hypersensitivity reaction in atopic individuals is called an allergen.”
From the second link: “the term ‘allergy’ is increasingly being confined to denote type I hypersensitivity reactions” AND “allergy is defined as a condition triggered by a specific, acquired immune response to a harmless, non-pathogenic antigen.”
The last I referred to upthread, it’s “the term allergen refers specifically to nonparasitic antigens capable of stimulating type one hypersensitive responses in allergic individuals.” You can review it by using Google books here.
Depends on here you look for the definition. According to Websters an allergy is defined as “a medical condition that causes someone to become sick after eating, touching, or breathing something that is harmless to most people.” Using this definition, lactose would be considered an allergen. Obviously that’s not the case.
Using medical (specifically immunological) textbooks we see a more narrowly defined term as I have posted previously.
My original contention was that a protein is required to generate a true allergic response. Haptens still fit this category as the must be bound to the protein. No protein, no response.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that because something is theoretically in the realm of possibility that it positively exists.
Your cite discusses the presence of a tobacco allergy, specifically to the pollen of the plant. There is no evidence (that I can find) that this pollen would survive the manufacturing process of the tobacco into a cigarette or incineration during the process of smoking.
Again, I understand you point and stipulate that it’s possible, but there’s still no data proven to show it’s true.
I’m English and have always spelt it with the ‘ph’. I’ll switch to spelling it with an F when America goes metric, deal?
That wasn’t exactly your original contention. Your original contention was that the root cause itself had to contain a protein:
[QUOTE=Mgalindo]
You may want to avoid using that excuse considering cigarette smoke can’t actually cause an allergic reaction as it lacks any protein to cause an immune system response.
[/quote]
How is this a refutation of anything?
The SO2 allergy in question is being described as type I hypersensitivity.
How is that different? A protein is required to cause a reaction. Attached to a hapten or not, a protein is still required. It’s congruent with my original statement.
Did you see the second part I quoted from the same article? “Allergy is defined as a condition triggered by a specific, acquired immune response to a harmless, non-pathogenic antigen.”
The type one sensitivity to sulfites is still the issue in contention. Thus far the only evidence you’ve supplied is a PDF fact sheet without any references to any medical studies or reports.
You’ve moved the goalposts here. Your assertion was to the effect that the protein would have to be contributed by the smoke.
Yes, and I have to say, what you did there looks like something called Quote Mining - selectively quoting incomplete sentences from a passage to make it better fit your argument. Let’s take a look at the whole definition preamble from your link (your selection is graped - an important bit you omitted is in red):
And the citation provided by DSeid.
But frankly, I’m not hopeful you would accept the content of an in-depth report even if I did have access to one.
And it would. A protein would still have to be present. Again, how is that different?
If I was quote mining I wouldn’t have selected that cite. I can provide a dozen others that supply the same definition. I cropped for ease of reading. Meanwhile you’re still ignoring my other two cites.
Nowhere in his cite does it state that sulfites produce an IgE response. Unless I missed something, please feel free to point it out if I did.
You’re certainly welcome to provide one and find out. Neither you or DSeid have provided a reliable cite that an IgE response can be derived from a sulfite.
We’re really not getting anywhere. I have provided multiple cites with clear cut definitions of what an allergen is (in the medical community) and you appear to be purposely obtuse. You ignore my cites that don’t support your position and attempt to attack my credibility based on editing for ease of reading. And still you have provided nothing of substance to this conversation. Not one study, university research paper or medical journal article.
A protein would not have to be present in the smoke itself.
OK, from the first one (bolding mine):
and
Of course, we only have the abstract, which yes, does not include that specific terminology, however, it does mention life-threatening anaphylaxis, which in most cases is an immune response.
You’ve done quite enough to undermine your own credibility on your own. Including the fiasco of selective misreading in the other thread that you never properly acknowledged either. Pot. Kettle.
Here is a detailed case report of allergic reaction to metabisulphite (including positive skin tests):
Here is a discussion of adverse reactions to sulphites (which acknowledges that the mechanism is not known, but states positive skin test evidence and states that this suggests an immune response):
Protein is involved somewhere in the allergy response. Yes, that is always true since immunoglobulins are proteins. Proteins are always present and involved in almost every reaction in the body. The claim, as put forth in this op, however was that protein was required in the offending substance. That is clearly not true.
From my last cite: a strong correlation between IgE and skin prick positivity to tobacco and bronchial challenge with cigarettes.
Again, most people who react badly to passive tobacco smoke are not directly allergic, and in particular not an IgE mediated response, to an antigen in the smoke. But many do have an allergic reaction facilitated by it. And IgE responses are documented.
As far as how we physicians use the word, I am not sure that there is a clear consensus. There is an official definition though.This pdf illustrates that the official definitions by the official bodies use “allergy” to cover all the hypersensitivity classes and use “non-IgE allergy” for those that are not IgE mediated but that the practice of meaning only IgE reactions is very common. Still, this is the official line and how I’ve used it. Not restricted to Type I Hypersensitivity, not exclusively IgE, not exclusively to proteins. Can be IgG or cell mediated. Can be triggered by some carbohydrates.
Is this matter resolved to everyone’s satisfaction now?