There appears to be a difference of opinion as to the efficacy of this method between writers of textbooks on allergy and those workers reporting the results of treating single or series of cases. The latter are of one accord in stating that oral desensitization has a real place in one's therapeutic armamentarium. Of the former, Tuft7 comnments favourably, but most others are of Vaughan's8 opinion, who states in his" Practice of Allergy", 1939," The results of oral desensitization, like those following parenteral treatment, have not been startlingly good. Even when success is achieved a long time is required." Our experience with 13 cases, together with Keston's wider experience with 50 cases, would lead us to believe that this method of treatment is to be viewed with a great deal of optimism and enables patients to consume normal amounts of important foods many months or years earlier than would otherwise occur were they left to desensitize themselves spontaneously. Anin-teresting observation that has been made is the frequency with which mothers will volunteer the information that the child is" better in himself". They find that the desensitized patient has more vitality, the appetite improves, fatigue becomes a thing of the past, and disposition and colour are greatlyimproved. It is a commonexperience to find that the mother who has been relieved of the worry of an elimination diet and the constant fear that her child will unwittingly be fed his food poison becomes among one's most grateful parents. Moreover, as Tuft points out, the oral method is safe, easier for both doctor and patient, and greatly to be preferred over the injection method.

The details of the diagnosis of food allergy are beyond thescope of this paper. The history of the patient is probably one's most valuable aid. Protein skin tests, elimination diets, and trial and error methods all have their place, although the lmt is not safe when the history of the allergic upset has been one of an alarming nature.