Send letter to journal:
Re: Feingold revisited and acknowledged

Dear Editor

I remember the days of cramming for exams, working part-time and checking off the remaining days to the end of the torture in my diary.

I am talking about the seventies, when petrol crises alternated with political disasters like the Nixon Gate. It was then that we first heard of Dr Feingold's revolutionary findings: Apparently, colourings and other chemicals in food and environment could cause behaviour problems and learning difficulties. A very sexy and down to earth psychology professor persuaded many of us to forego the Hostess Twinkies, the Hot Dogs and the beautifully coloured licorice twists, fig Newtons and Oreo cookies. Of course, being mature beyond our years, we aimed to please and soon found other staples. And there was no doubt about it, the therapy was effective. Having only read the abstract I can't say whether credit was given where credit is due but suffice it to say that Feingold was ahead of his time. May he rest snugly.

Send letter to journal:
Re: Where's the effect?

Dear Editor

Having been an interested observer to the Feingold Hypothesis many years ago, I was startled to see it rise from the dead (highlighted in many medical excerpting services).

I eagerly downloaded this article, and shortly thereafter, my thoughts could be paraphrased in a well-done American advertisement: "Where's the meat?"

Figure 3 screamed at me one obvious conclusion: "Parents are sensitive to knowing something was to be changed in their child's environment." The withdrawal phase, placebo phase, and challenge phase ALL seemed to cause identical responses in both experimental orders. Imagine if the two groups (e.g., placebo-challenge vs challenge-placebo) had instead been a repeat experiment done at a different time. For a clinical study, the obvious conclusion was "wow, really tight, repetable findings."