Interesting, and it makes sense. To summarize: 1964 theory: Allergies are caused by a misfiring reaction to generally harmless compounds that have a similar st

Interesting, and it makes sense. To summarize: 1964 theory: Allergies are caused by a misfiring reaction to generally harmless compounds that have a similar structure to proteins presented by parasitic worms. Medzhitov's theory: Allergies are caused by the body mounting an intense immune response to compounds that are actually harmful and need to be eliminated. ..or so the article says. I don't know how true that is. What I find much more probable is that the answer is somewhere in between. It's ridiculous to suggest that ALL allergens must look like worm proteins to the body. Why just worms? Why have such a specific restriction? However, I also don't agree entirely with Medzhitov. In order for his theory (as presented in the article) to be correct, he has to prove that every single allergen is actually harmful. How does this explain food allergies? Why do peanuts harm one person but not another? It's possible, but it's a big task to prove. So while I don't agree entirely with him, I think his theory is very close. I believe it more probable that some allergens are actually harmful, but that there are also harmless ones that are interpreted as harmful by the body and thus elicit an allergic response. The biggest question to answer is why different people have different reactions to allergens. We're all exposed to pollen, after all. But.. what if there's an (unknown) compound that looks like pollen to the body, but is actually harmful? It would rightfully train the immune system to react to a specific molecular signature to eliminate the threat, but simultaneously train it to wrongfully respond to a harmless element. No idea! I look forward to seeing the outcome of his research.