I would be skeptical of this lady's post if she's saying that specifically without further context. I'm especially skeptical of people who point at scientific studies (especially if they only list one or two supporting studies) saying "This is true!" The study she links regarding alma and rats says nothing about the study size (for example, did the study cover 10 rats, or 100?) and neither does the study with indigo and rats!
Anaphylactic shock is from histamine, this is true, but anyone can go into anaphylactic shock (including people with no previous record of allergies), it's not limited to people with mastocytosis. It's also my understanding that people can develop allergies to almost anything, including food and plant items described as antihistamines.
I also have a histamine related disorder, dermatographism. What this means is I am permanently (and sometimes severely) itchy no matter what I do. There is not a whole lot of research on non-allergy histamine disorders from what I've been able to suss out, and trust me, because of my itchiness, I've looked like crazy. You're real inspired to do your research if you're in discomfort or even pain because you itch. There are doctors out there who will say "histamine intolerance" is not a real diagnosis or real disease, it's made up by a bunch of people who believe in woo science (think Gwyneth Paltrow and her jade eggs). It's probably a real thing in some form or another (think on how fibromyalgia was considered a woo disease for a long time) but the research is not there yet... and trusting a lay person with no scientific background who is citing single studies instead of a lot of them, and who definitely doesn't have the training to interpret those studies?
Tread carefully.
Bookmarks