Method for testing for immune responses to food

A device for the detecting of an individual's Gell-Coombs Types I, II, III and IV immune response reactions to edible substances includes a mixture of an edible substance and a solution of non-toxic aprotic solvent, such as DMSO and water. The solvent acts as a carrier transporting the food beneath the skin. The device holds the mixture against the skin and prevents evaporation of the solution. The method includes the preparation of a plurality of mixtures of different edible substances and a solution of non-toxic aprotic solution, the application of the mixture to the skin of the individual and the holding of the mixture on the skin for a predetermined period of time. The mixture is subsequently removed, and the site is inspected to determine whether a Type I, II, III or IV Gell-Coombs immune response reaction has occurred. Control sites containing the solvent only and a control site containing a food substance which causes the skin to fluoresce upon exposure to an ultraviolet light may also be used. Fluorescence indicates whether the mixtures have been in sufficient contact with the skin for the required period of time.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
The present invention relates to the testing of an individual for immune 
reactions to ingestants, including foods, and in particular, to a unique, 
simple and relatively inexpensive device and method for determining food 
hypersensitivity and for identifying different types of immune reactions 
against specific foods and chemicals. 
There are four generally recognized types of immune responses to foods 
which are commonly referred to as Gell-Coombs Types I, II, III and IV. 
Type I is characterized by the involvement of immunoglobulin "E" (IgE) 
antibodies which are produced by specific B-lymphocytes in response to the 
particular food. It was known that sensitized IgE antibodies were resident 
under the skin, as well as many other tissues and organs. Foods producing 
a Type I immune response could be tested through the skin by injecting 
into cutaneous layers of skin an aqueous solution of the food producing 
the Type I response. Prick tests could also be employed with aqueous food 
solutions. Therefore, food producing a Type I reaction could be tested 
intradermally. The immune response could be detected for a given food if 
redness or swelling appeared at the injection or prick test site. Type I 
responses may also be tested by Radio allergo sorbent testing (RAST). 
Gell-Coombs Types II and III are characterized by the involvement of 
immunoglobulin "G" (IgG), immunoglobulin "M" (IgM), and some special IgE 
antibodies. Heretofore, intradermal tests were unable to produce a 
reliable immune response in the skin to foods producing a Type II or Type 
III immune response. This was largely true for the fat-soluble foods 
producing a Type II or Type III response. Fat-soluble foods being 
insoluble in water and, of course, not adaptable to the introduction 
through or into the skin in aqueous solution by means of a prick test or 
injection. This was also true for water-soluble foods producing a Type II 
or Type III immune response. 
Consequently, when an individual was suspected clinically to have a Type II 
or Type III reaction to a particular food, an elimination diet was 
typically prescribed to detect the suspect food. An elimination diet 
involves initially restricting a patient's intake to foods which usually 
are hyporeactive. Pure foods are then introduced one-by-one as challenges 
into the diet to assess whether the person is hypersensitive to the added 
foods. The elimination diet can also be used for the detection of Type I 
immune responses. 
The problems with the elimination diet are multiple. First, the elimination 
diet depends upon the patient experiencing discomfort or obvious organ 
dysfunction, usually a subjective evaluation. Any immune responses not 
producing discomfort or obvious organ dysfunction would not be detected by 
the elimination diet technique. Second, the elimination diet will detect 
discomforts or organ dysfunctions which are not related to immune 
responses to foods. For instance, the individual may have duodenal ulcers, 
colitis, gout, or gall bladder problems which produce discomfort when 
certain foods are eaten. These discomforts and dysfunctions are, however, 
not related to the individuals immune responses to the particular food. 
Therefore, the elimination diet may have misleading results. Thirdly, the 
elimination diet is very time consuming. An individual having to be on the 
elimination diet for several months is not at all unusual. 
Finally, human weaknesses undermine accurate determination of an 
individual's immune response to given foods. It is difficult for some 
patients to eliminate from their diets certain foods to which they may be 
sensitive. Such foods are widespread in our food supply; they include 
chicken, beef, pork, chocolate, eggs, milk, coffee, peanuts, tomatoes and 
wheat, to name a few. Immune responses to foods not on the patient's diet 
can mask immune responses to foods under study or mislead the practitioner 
into believing that a food under study produces an immune response when in 
fact the food produces no such response. 
If the elimination diet fails to lead to the detection of an immune 
response to a given food, there are a number of alternative tests which 
can be employed. For Type II immune responses, the hemaglutinations test, 
the complement depletion test, or a tissue biopsy can be performed. All of 
these tests are indirect, time-consuming, expensive and often inaccurate. 
These same tets can also be used to detect a Type III reaction. In 
addition, the Raji-Cell Test or a nephelometry test can be used to detect 
a Type III reaction. These tests are also time-consuming, expensive and 
often inaccurate because of technical intracacies. 
The Type IV Gell-Coombs reaction involves sensitized lymphocytes or T-cells 
which respond to a specific food and which are believed to be at least as 
specific as an antibody to the food producing the immune response. Two 
tests have heretofore been available, namely, the migration inhibition 
factor test and the lymphoblastogenesis test. These tests are extremely 
expensive, each food presently costing approximately $2,000 to test. The 
tests are time-consuming as well, taking approximately 3-4 weeks. 
As should be apparent, the diagnosis and treatment of immune reactions to 
ingestants has involved relatively expensive and complicated diagnostic 
tests. The laboratory tests are sophisticated and impractical for use in 
the average office facility. There has been a longfelt and unfulfilled 
need for a relatively simple, accurate, and inexpensive test which may be 
readily used by the practitioner. 
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
In accordance with the present invention the aforementioned needs are 
fulfilled by providing an inexpensive, simple and quick test for detecting 
an individual's Type I, II, III and IV Gell-Coombs immune responses to 
various foods. Essentially, the test involves the application to the skin 
of a mixture of an ingestible substance (either food, chemical or drug) to 
be tested and a solution of a non-toxic aprotic solvent and water. One 
known solvent is dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO). The mixture is held against 
the skin to prevent the solvent from evaporating or absorbing excessive 
amounts of atmosphere water. The mixture is applied to the skin in a 
sufficient amount and concentration such that an immune response reaction 
can be detected if the individual is sensitive to the edible substance 
tested. 
A solvent such as DMSO has the ability to penetrate the skin and act as a 
carrier. DMSO is a solvent of both fat and water soluble food products and 
will carry the antigen from the food through the skin. The lower layers of 
the skin have been found to have certain sensitized immune structures 
which will produce Gell-Coombs Type I, II, III and IV immune responses. 
A prime advantage resulting from the present invention is that immune 
responses to a plurality of foods can be tested in just several days. The 
procedure is much less expensive than any other known techniques. 
Furthermore, the results correlate well with standard test results and 
clinical responses. 
In one embodiment of the present invention, a DMSO-food mixture is applied 
to the skin by means of a cotton-gauze patch held in place by an adhesive 
strip. In another embodiment, the mixture is applied to the skin by means 
of a test patch with a plurality of cells, each of which contains a 
quantity of DMSO solution or an equivalent solvent and a quantity of a 
dried food. In still another embodiment, the mixture is contacted with the 
skin by means of a stainless steel cap in which cotton and the mixture is 
placed. The stainless steel or aluminum cap is held on the skin by means 
of an adhesive strip. In each of the above embodiments, methyl-cellulose 
can be used in place of cotton. 
In a further embodiment, a test strip with a plurality of cells is applied 
to the skin, each cell containing a food-solvent mixture, wherein at least 
one cell contains a food which, after several days of exposure to the 
skin, will cause the skin to fluoresce under an ultraviolet light 
providing an indicator of whether or not the test patch has remained on 
the skin securely for the required period of time.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
A test strip in accordance with the present invention is shown in FIGS. 1 
and 2 and designated 10. Test strip 10 includes a plurality of cells 12 on 
a sheet 14. Each cell extends through a hole 16 in sheet 14, as shown in 
FIG. 2. Holes 16 are not essential. The sheet can extend over cells 12. An 
absorbent material 18, such as cotton or methyl cellulose is placed in 
each cell 12. The absorbent material is impregnated with an amount of the 
solution-dried food mixture. An adhesive 20 is applied to the underside of 
sheet 14 on the areas between cells 12. A backing sheet 22 is employed to 
retain the mixtures within the cells during storage. It should be 
understood that the strip 10 may include more than the four cells 
illustrated in FIG. 1. 
When patch test kit 10 is applied to the skin, the DMSO can dissolve the 
adhesive and carry adhesive products through the skin. As a result, an 
annular or O-ring 24 made from a resilient material is placed around the 
periphery of openings 16 of each cell 12. The resilient rings are, in 
turn, wrapped in a DMSO-insoluble material 28 to prevent the DMSO from 
dissolving the rings and carrying the dissolved material through the skin. 
Metal foils, especially aluminum foils, have been found to be particularly 
useful wrapping materials. Cells 12 can be made from a foil such as 
aluminum foil. The foil defining the cell also serves as the wrapping 
material to prevent the DMSO from dissolving resilient rings 24. However, 
cells 12 can be made from any material substantially insoluble in DMSO. 
Non-toxic, hypoallergenic soluble materials could also be used. 
Another structure for applying the solvent-food mixtures is shown in FIG. 3 
and designated by the numeral 32. Device 32 includes a semi-spherical 
stainless steel cap 34 and an adhesive coated strip 36. A quantity of 
absorbent material such as methyl cellulose or cotton 38 is placed inside 
cap 34 before application to the skin. Absorbent material 38 contains a 
small amount of the food-solvent mixture. The absorbent material helps to 
keep the mixture within the cap. 
Any absorbent material used in the manner described herein should be of a 
type which will not dissolve in the solution and be transported through 
the skin. It has been found that cotton or methyl cellulose do not 
dissolve in DMSO. Furthermore, neither of these materials typically cause 
an immune response when contacted with the skin which could be confused 
with an immune response due to food antigens. 
It is believed that any non-toxic aprotic solvent can be used consistent 
with the teachings of the present invention. However, DMSO is the 
preferred solvent because of its demonstrated ability to penetrate the 
skin and its ability to dissolve both fat soluble and water soluble 
material which is characteristic of aprotic solvents. 
The DMSO solution need not be pure DMSO. A ninety percent (90%) by volume 
DMSO solution works well for this application. It is believed that a DMSO 
solution of only about twenty percent (20%) by volume, the balance being 
essentially water, would work as well. The food-DMSO solution mixture may 
consist of five milliliters of DMSO solution for every gram of dried food. 
The DMSO-dried food mixtures can be mixed in large batches in the same 5:1 
ratio if mass production is desired. The 5:1 ratio is not believed to be 
critical, however. Other ratios will probably be as effective in producing 
the desired immune responses to the tested foods. The mixtures must be 
stored in glass or metal containers, as contrasted with plastic or other 
synthetic material which may be partially dissolved by the DMSO. 
Usually, only about a drop or about 0.05 milliliters of the 5:1 DMSO-food 
mixture need be applied to the skin in order to produce a localized, 
detectable reaction. Thus, if the test strip shown in FIG. 1 is used, a 
drop of a food-DMSO mixture should be applied in each of cells 12 in 
absorbent material 16. A similar quantity would be used in the device 
shown in FIG. 3. A drop of 5:1 DMSO-food mixture is sufficient to produce 
a localized immune response on the skin of either Gell-Coombs Types I, II, 
III or IV. 
Alternatively, the mixture could be prepared as a gell to simplify storage 
and application. Methyl cellulose would be mixed with water until in gell 
form. The food antigen and DMSO solution in the ratio of 1 gram of food to 
5 milliliters of DMSO would then be thoroughly mixed into the gell. The 
resulting preparation may be stored in a tube and dispensed for testing 
merely by squeezing the tube. The gell preparation may be dispensed into 
the cells of the patch test strip 10 or the cup of device 32. 
Before applying the solvent-food mixture to the skin, the practitioner 
should thoroughly clean the surface of the skin on which the mixture is to 
be applied. Only water should be used, however. If the skin is not 
thoroughly cleaned with water before the mixture is applied, perfumes, 
soaps, and the like on the skin may be carried through the skin by the 
DMSO and may produce a confusing immune reaction. It should be apparent 
that no soap should be used in cleaning the skin, as it will be carried 
through the skin as well. 
Once the DMSO-food mixture is applied to the skin in any one of the above 
methods, the evaporation prevention means (e.g. the adhesive bandage, the 
patch test or the stainless steel cap) is removed after about thirty (30) 
minutes. Any Type I immune response reactions can be observed on the skin 
at such time. Types II, III and IV are delayed reactions, so the 
evaporation prevention means should be replaced after checking for Type I 
reactions. 
Types II, III and IV reactions can be observed on the skin after a mixture 
has been in contact with the skin for about three (3) days. Therefore, 
after three (3) days, the evaporation prevention means is removed and the 
Types II, III and IV reactions can be observed. 
Typically, Types I, II, III and IV immune responses on the skin have been 
found to manifest themselves in erythema, edema, vessicles or bullae. 
Slight immune response reactions are typically characterized by minimal 
erythema. Moderate response reactions are typically evidenced by erythema 
and edema, perhaps in conjunction with early vessicle formation. An 
intense immune response reaction will be characterized by significant 
erythema, significant edema, vessicles, and bullae. Five grades can be 
assigned to skin immune response reactions, accordingly: 
Tr--Minimal erythema 
1--Significant erythema 
2--Significant erythema and edema (palpable elevation) 
3--Significant erythema, significant edema and early vessicle 
4--Significant erythema, significant edema, vessicle and bullae 
Based upon initial studies, the DMSO itself can produce erythema, 
particularly if a more concentrated DMSO solution is used (e.g. 90 
percent). Therefore, the practitioner should run a control test with the 
DMSO solution and no food to determine whether part or all of the immune 
response reactions observed in other test areas exposed to various 
DMSO-food mixtures are caused by the DMSO solution. Erythema due to the 
DMSO solution itself can be "subtracted" from the results observed in 
other test areas, and the results from the other test areas can be graded 
accordingly. 
For example, if an individual has been found to have a grade 3 immune 
response to chocolate and the control test for the DMSO solution produces 
significant erythema corresponding to a grade 1 immune response, the 
individual can be characterized as having a grade 2 immune response 
reaction to chocolate. 
The DMSO "reaction" can be minimized by using a less concentrated DMSO 
solution. As mentioned above, an extremely concentrated DMSO solution 
(90%, for instance) is not essential. Less concentrated DMSO solutions can 
also be used. Rimso brand solution, a 50% solution of DMSO, is an 
available agent approved for instillation into the human urinary bladder. 
It is an example of other utilizable dilutions of DMSO. 
It has been determined that certain foods will cause the skin to fluoresce 
after several days of contact with the skin if the area of the skin 
exposed to these foods is exposed to ultraviolet light. For instance, when 
a coffee-DMSO mixture, mixed according to the present invention, is 
applied in 1-drop quantities to the skin for 2-3 days, the skin will 
fluoresce after the coffee-DMSO solution is cleaned off the skin upon 
exposure to an ultraviolet light (approximately 365 n.m. frequency). If, 
however, the DMSO-coffee mixture has not remained in sufficient contact 
with the skin for the required period of time, the skin either will not 
fluoresce or its fluorescence will be significantly reduced. This 
indicates that the mixture was improperly applied or did not remain in 
contact with the skin for the required period of time. Of all the foods 
tested, coffee appears to cause the greatest fluorescence. However, 
orange, sweet potato, carrot, apple, lettuce, beets and tomatoes have also 
been found to cause the skin to fluoresce. There are probably other foods 
not yet tested which also cause the skin to fluoresce. Where a plurality 
of cells are applied to the skin in a fashion shown in FIG. 1, the 
"fluorescent" foods should be scattered randomly among the cells 12 so 
that it is possible to detect whether a portion of the test strip did not 
remain in contact with the skin for the required time. The reasons for the 
skin fluorescence in the manner described are not fully understood. A 
local photosensitivity persists for 10-30 days, and the patient will 
sunburn in these test sites. The individual must be warned to avoid 
sunlight to the area. 
The foods used in the procedure of the invention can be prepared in two 
general ways. If the food is eaten after cooking, the food should be 
cooked and then dried and ground to a powder. It is believed that if the 
food is eaten after cooking, it should be tested against the skin after 
cooking as well. Thus, if new chemicals are produced during cooking, they 
can be tested. 
If the food is typically eaten raw, the food should not be cooked. Such 
foods can simply be dried and ground to a powder. Most fruits and some 
vegetables can be prepared in this manner for testing. Drying is not 
essential in either method of preparing the food. Drying simply increases 
the shelf life of the food and makes it easier to make a DMSO-food 
mixture. 
As mentioned above, when foods are applied to the skin in the manner 
described above, Types II, III and IV Gell-Coombs reactions can be 
observed. Heretofore, it was not thought that antibodies associated with 
Types II and III reactions, namely, IgG and IgM, immune serum globulins 
were resident under the skin and were sensitized to the foods producing 
the immune responses. Fluorescent staining, radio labelling, and 
Hematoxylin and Eosin staining of biopsy materials revealed that IgG, Igm 
and IgE were present in larger amounts in positive test sites than in 
untouched sites on the skin. This evidence indicates that Types II and III 
reactions can be tested intradermally in accordance with the present 
invention. 
It was also surprisingly observed that lymphocytes or T-cells believed to 
be sensitized to the specific food producing the immune response also 
became resident under the skin. Therefore, type IV Gell-Coombs immune 
response could be tested through the skin as well. The DMSO-food mixture 
method has detected immune response reactions, both to water and fat 
soluble foods which produce Types II, II and IV Gell-Coombs immune 
response reactions. This has been found to be particularly useful because 
only five to ten percent (5-10%) of individuals having immune responses to 
foods have the Type I reaction. Heretofore, Type I responses were the only 
reactions which could be satisfactorily tested by means of an intradermal 
test. As noted above, these tests typically involved either injecting an 
aqueous solution of the food into the subcutaneous layers or pricking the 
skin and exposing it to the aqueous mixture. Of course, the present 
invention requires no injection or prick test. Therefore, it is even 
simpler than prior intradermal tests. 
EXAMPLES 
Much practical information concerning the sensitivity and limitations of 
the DMSO-food mixture method was obtained by selecting patients in whom 
the ingestant intolerances were already known. Test results using the 
method of the present invention were compared with results from 
elimination diet and RAST technique for seventy-four (74) patients. Each 
patient was subjected to elimination diet testing, RAST and the DMSO-food 
mixture test method. On the average, for every one hundred (100) positive 
elimination diet reactions, there were only 5.38 positive RAST reactions. 
Thus, the RAST test was only 5.38% sensitive. By contrast, the DMSO-food 
mixture method was 74.41% sensitive. Less sensitivity was expected from 
the RAST test because it tests only Type I reactions which only ten to 
fifteen percent (10-15%) of individuals having immune responses to foods 
experience. However, the 5.38% figure is less than the expected ten to 
fifteen (10-15%) figure. 
The fact that the DMSO-food mixture method produced only 74.41% positive 
reactions for every 100 positive elimination diet reactions is not 
entirely unexpected either. The elimination diet technique frequently 
produces ingestant intolerances not caused by immune responses. For 
example, ulcers and colitis sometimes result in patients experiencing 
ingestant intolerances to specific foods and it is obvious that no immune 
response is involved. Therefore, the 74.41% figure may mean that for every 
100 positive elimination diet reactions, 28.59 reactions on the average 
are non-immune response reactions. It could also mean, however, that the 
DMSO-food mixture method does not detect all immune response reactions. 
These non-immune response ingestant intolerance reactions may also 
partially explain the lower than expected RAST results. 
The present method appears to be increasingly sensitive as the age of the 
patient increases. From the clinical testing, the sensitivity of children 
aged 12 was only 35.29%. However, this figure dramatically increased to 
71.05% for individuals aged 13-27, and increased further still for 
individuals older than 57 years to 78.31%. 
Patients suffering from certain conditions also had statistically 
significant increased sensitivity to the DMSO-food mixture method. 
Individuals suffering from joint diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, 
musculoskeletal disease, gout, and osteoarthritis were about 86.6% 
sensitive when compared to the elimination diet test results. Individuals 
experiencing enuresis were also sensitive to the DMSO-food mixture method. 
Sensitivity was 75% for these individuals. This corresponds with results 
from previous studies which are associated in enuresis with type I 
Gell-Coombs allergies. 
Individuals experiencing gastro-intestinal problems, including 
post-cholecystectomy syndrome, duodenal ulcer, chronic and acute 
gastritis, colitis, and crohn's disease were 76.9% sensitive to the 
DMSO-food mixture method using the elimination diet as a comparative 
standard. 
Tests were also performed to determine whether certain foods might be more 
or less effectively tested by the DMSO-food mixture method. Specially 
prepared, sterile, freeze-dried, pure food products were individually 
suspended in 90% DMSO solution (1 gram food to 5 milliliters solution). 
Each mixture was applied to the upper arm as a patch for three (3) days. 
Patch test results were recorded by a technician who was unaware of the 
patients specific ingestant intolerances as determined by elimination diet 
and/or RAST techniques. The test results were graded as Grades TR, 1, 2, 
3, or 4. The following table sets forth data obtained by comparing the 
results from elimination diet tests with the DMSO carrier method test for 
given foods. The numerator is the number of positive DMSO carrier method 
tests that concur with positive elimination diet tests for the given food. 
The denominator is the total number of positive DMSO carrier method tests 
checked against elimination diet tests. The fractions are also reported as 
percentages. 
______________________________________ 
FOOD RATIO PERCENTAGE 
______________________________________ 
Apple 8/22 36.36 
Aspirin 33/58 56.9 
Banana 9/24 37.5 
Barley 3/27 11.11 
Bean 11/26 42.3 
Beef 11/21 52.38 
Beet 0/2 0. 
Beet Sugar 0/1 0. 
Blueberry 0/2 0. 
Cabbage 1/5 20. 
Carrot 0/1 0. 
Chicken 5/24 20.83 
Cinnamon 11/32 34.38 
Cocoa 16/28 57.14 
Coconut 1/9 11.11 
Coffee 14/29 48.28 
Corn 16/37 43.24 
Cucumber 5/15 33.33 
Egg 6/18 33.33 
Fish 8/22 36.36 
Garlic 3/15 20. 
Grape 1/2 50. 
Honey 0/1 0. 
Lactaid 0/2 0. 
Lamb 0/15 0. 
Lettuce 1/3 33.33 
Oats 4/23 17.39 
Onion 14/32 43.75 
Orange 20/33 60.60 
Pea 7/24 29.17 
Peanut 9/25 36. 
Pepper 3/17 17.64 
Pineapple 0/2 0. 
Pork 13/25 52. 
Potato (White) 
4/52 7.69 
Rice 7/48 16.67 
Rye 3/26 11.54 
Soy 8/26 30.77 
Sweet Potato 1/12 8.33 
Strawberry 1/3 33.33 
Tea 3/17 17.64 
Tomato 16/30 53.33 
Vivonex 2/5 40. 
Walnut 2/6 33.33 
Wheat 10/34 29.41 
Yeast 1/5 2.0 
______________________________________ 
The foods with the lowest numerators are generally classified as 
hypoallergenic because they typically produce very few elimination diet 
test reactions (i.e., three or fewer). From the above table, it can be 
seen that the foods with numerators 3 or less include apricot, barley, 
beet, beet sugar, blueberry, cabbage, carrot, coconut, garlic, grape, 
honey, lamb, lettuce, rye, sweet potato, strawberry, cherry, tea, 
Vivonex.RTM., walnut, and yeast. These results agree with results obtained 
by earlier researchers and with current medical practitioners who 
consistently choose from among the above foods to construct their 
patients' basic elimination diets. Foods of intermediate antigenicity as 
indicated by the DMSO-food mixture method, would be those with numerators 
between 3 and 8. These foods include chicken, cucumber, egg, oats, pea, 
potato and rice. This range of numerators was selected because it 
corresponds with putative knowledge among food allergists that these foods 
are of intermediate antigenicity. Foods of high allergenicity, i.e., with 
numerators 8 or greater, are apple, bananas, bean, beef, cinnamon, 
chocolate, coffee, corn, fish, milk, onion, orange, peanut, pork, soy, 
tomato, and wheat. 
A food with a very low percentage is a food which gives a positive 
DMSO-food mixture method reaction much more often than it will give a 
positive elimination diet reaction. This possibly means that certain foods 
may produce false positive reactions when tested by the present method. 
These foods include apricot, barley, coconut, rye, sweet potato and white 
potato. This may also mean that immune responses produced by these foods 
do not produce discomfort or obvious organ dysfunction symptoms on which 
positive elimination diet tests are based. 
High percentages, on the other hand, (i.e., those greater than about 17%) 
indicate substances which can be tested using the DMSO-food mixture method 
with great accuracy. These substances include: orange, chocolate, aspirin, 
tomato, beef, pork, grape, coffee, milk, onion, corn, bean, banana, fish, 
apple, peanut, cinnamon, egg, cucumber, soy, wheat, pea, chicken, garlic, 
tea, pepper, oats and rice. Substances listed in the above table having a 
percentage greater than 17% not mentioned in the preceding sentence were 
not statistically significant because the number of individuals tested 
were small. 
Adverse reactions produced by the DMSO-food mixture method have proven to 
be localized to the area of exposure to the DMSO-food mixture. Routine 
topical aqueous cortico-steroid spray and cool normal saline soaks control 
any inflammation in two to three days. In 400 patients tested with the 
DMSO-food mixture method, none had systemic reactions. Thus, the DMSO-food 
mixture method is extremely safe. 
The data set forth above indicates that the dimethyl sulphoxide food test 
method in accordance with the present invention is a sensitive and 
reliable method for assessing immune reactions to foods. The tests detect 
all four types of Gell-Coombs reactions to food antigens. Based upon the 
test data, the dimethyl sulphoxide method in accordance with the present 
invention is probably the most sensitive and most reliable in vivo test 
for screening food intolerances of immune etiology. 
It should be clear from the above tests that the instant method is not 
restricted to the testing of immune responses to foods, but can be used to 
detect immune responses to any ingestible substance, including 
pharmaceuticals, food ingredients such as yeast, or food additives such as 
Lactaid or Vivonex brand food substitutes. 
In view of the foregoing, those of ordinary skill in the art may envision 
various modifications which would not depart from the inventive concepts 
disclosed herein. It is intended therefore that the above should be 
considered only as descriptive of the presently preferred embodiments. The 
true spirit and scope of the present invention may be determined from the 
appended claims.