From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Construction work 2 Critique of Article Tone 2.1 Research 2.1.1 Later Research 2.2 Multiple Symptoms 2.3 Feingold Association != Feingold Program

[edit] Construction work

Do we really need to go into great detail on the whole history of the science -- the good, the bad, and the ugly? I can, but I don't know if this is the place, or if it is right for Wikipedia. I have already linked to the collections of studies, several times. I can also link to a critical review of studies .... and there are lots of other good reviews so I don't know if this is the place for me to do another one, just because Quackwatch brought it up.

I would suggest that a brief summary of the points be made, with links to valid support or criticism. Not everything needs to be rewritten in the article. -- Tmassey 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of Article Tone

There are a ton of unsupported statements throughout the article. I've tried flagging them with citeneeded tags. Feel free to add more, where necessary. Better yet, feel free to add relevant cites! -- Tmassey 03:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

You may wonder, why is the citeneeded tag on a spot where there are a zillion cites? Because it seems that each of those cites are the datapoints on your "graph". However, I'm assuming that none of them draw the exact conclusion you are: that challenge dose is related to response. That's also why the original research tag was put on the "graph". You can't have original research in Wikipedia. It must be published (and backed) by someone else. (See WP:NOR) -- Tmassey 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Without further support of these conclusions, this information *must* be removed. I will wait on this for a short period; however, if it is not supported, it will be removed.

The graph was removed. I've added an original research tag to this section. It really just needs very little: something that spells out the conclusions drawn in the article. You can't draw conclusions without the proper cites to back it up! -- Tmassey 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later Research

More slash-and-burn. I've cut the opening sentence down to this: "Recent studies show that between 50% to 85% of children placed on an additive-restricted diet show improvement." Improvement in what? Behavior? Or something else? This is an area where we *really* need to be clear what is being improved... -- Tmassey 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Symptoms

I have modified this section. It ends like this: "While the underlying physiological reason is not understood, when a patient eliminates the additives to which they are sensitive, many or even most of the symptoms contained within the profile are improved. Research supports dietary intervention for each of the symptoms in turn.^{[citation needed]} ". I've removed the link to the FA website. What we VERY MUCH need here is a nice, substantial series of cites to different articles NOT on the FA website that back this statement up. -- Tmassey 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A cut-n-paste from something you wrote above:

There are actually a couple of studies that show that these symptoms go together -- one that tells a doctor to look for ADHD later on in a child who has enuresis (bedwetting) and another that suggests that the more frequent the ear infections at a young age, the more severe the ADHD problems later on. Other studies tried to link asthma and ADHD together genetically, but failed to do so; yet the perception is that they frequently "go together" ... yes, indeed, they do, whether because their cause is at the same level where the additives cause damage, or whether because the colorings themselves are broncho-constrictors, is not known. Some of our asthmatic kids are highly sensitive to salicylates and cannot go on to Stage Two ever. It has been known since the 1930's or 1940's that there is cross-sensitization between tartrazine and aspirin. -- Shulae 12:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

These studies would be *perfect* for this section! In addition, if you've got non-FA, non-highly-technical websites that outline the above information, that would be *fantastic*. -- Tmassey 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still could use these studies... This is more uncited conclusion material in the article that would be backed up nicely by this information. -- Tmassey 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feingold Association != Feingold Program

There's too much Feingold Association material sprinkled throughout the article. A single section talking about the association would be good, but it needs to be minimal. If you want, start a FA article, but it doesn't belong here. That's what the FA website is for!  :) I think that a FA-related section is probably not overly necessary. It *is* the first external link...

Well, I've somewhat changed my mind. I've created a FA section. I'm not sure it will stay, but I've carved out material from other sections and put it in a more properly labelled place. -- Tmassey 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted more FA information from throughout the article. I like the fact that the support info is now in a properly-labelled section, easy to find, and not distracting throughout the entire article. -- Tmassey 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)