12 ms·

> Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. Aren't they? I had no trouble finding an example to contradict you: http://en

> Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. Aren't they? I had no trouble finding an example to contradict you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins (first paragraph) In general I'm not aware that we know all the causes of allergies. > It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter. What do you think "completely" means? It doesn't mean zero or even "undetectable"; it means there's some threshold level, anything below which is considered acceptable. If you trust the people who are setting those thresholds, you have a lot more faith in the system than I do.

bryans 13y ago
That paragraph doesn't contradict me. The contrast in percentages is actually showing the true number of people with latex allergies. The allergy presents itself more often in healthcare workers because the prolonged exposure is exacerbating an existing mild allergy. This causes the immune system to produce and maintain a greater amount of the relevant antibodies, at which point a latex allergy test will return positive. The latex itself, however, is not what caused the allergy to develop in the first place. As for the livestock regulations, I completely agree with you. I'm still going to eat steak every day, but I agree nonetheless.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  And that couldn't happen in the case of repeated low-level exposure to penicillin? I don't see the difference.
  - bryans 13y ago
    It can happen, but increased presence of symptoms is not the same thing as developing an allergy. Exposure does not cause a nonexistent allergy to become existent, it causes a mild allergy to become an aggravated mild allergy. The allergy was already there, it just wasn't presenting noticeably until exacerbated by prolonged exposure.
    - ScottBurson 13y ago
      For the person suffering from the allergy, this seems to be a distinction without a difference. The allergy wasn't severe enough to notice, and then later, it was. This is really quite frustrating. This whole argument is about you clinging to this pedantic distinction between "causing" an allergy and "exacerbating it to the point that you could notice it", as if that were somehow critical, when it has no practical impact at all. As far as I can see, nothing you've said has had anything to do with the original hypothesis. 'sschueller said "I became allergic to penicillin because of U.S meat." We have no idea whether that's true -- as 'sschueller him/herself subsequently admitted -- but I still don't see that we can dismiss it out of hand. Your argument amounts to saying that the claim can be dismissed because it was improperly phrased. That's pointless pedantry at best.
      - bryans 13y ago
        I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but it is your own fault for apparently misreading nearly everything that has been said. I plainly described relevant (and true) reasons for why sscheuller's statement was not only false but physiologically impossible. Everything I said is directly related to his statement. So your insistence that I've made no points relevant to the topic at hand is foolish, at best. The thing you're having trouble accepting is that we actually do know that his statement is false, because it's literally not possible, because that's not a physiological thing that happens. I don't understand how many different ways I can explain this to you. It's not pedantry, it's a pretty important distinction. Spreading the disinformation that exposure can cause the development of allergies has potential to create confusion and even be harmful to the public. Take, for instance, the anti-vax movement. It was started by small bits of disinformation and ballooned into something with deadly consequences. You are having a semantics argument that doesn't exist. I am explaining physiology to you, which you are not accepting. So you're right, this has been pretty pointless. But that doesn't make you any less wrong.
        ScottBurson 13y ago
        Read my previous post again. You missed the part where I acknowledged the distinction you think I'm not getting. Let me say this as clearly as I can. For the purpose of setting public policy on how much of what antibiotics may be used in livestock, your precious distinction is of no consequence. It doesn't matter whether exposure to low levels of penicillin, or related compounds, causes a truly de novo allergy, or merely exacerbates an existing one that was so mild as not to be noticeable. The sufferer does not know the difference, and from the point of view of public policy, either outcome, in significant numbers, is unacceptable. If you have a counterargument to this point, make it. Otherwise I will take it as agreed.

bryans 13y ago

That paragraph doesn't contradict me. The contrast in percentages is actually showing the true number of people with latex allergies. The allergy presents itself more often in healthcare workers because the prolonged exposure is exacerbating an existing mild allergy. This causes the immune system to produce and maintain a greater amount of the relevant antibodies, at which point a latex allergy test will return positive. The latex itself, however, is not what caused the allergy to develop in the first place. As for the livestock regulations, I completely agree with you. I'm still going to eat steak every day, but I agree nonetheless.

ScottBurson 13y ago
And that couldn't happen in the case of repeated low-level exposure to penicillin? I don't see the difference.
- bryans 13y ago
  It can happen, but increased presence of symptoms is not the same thing as developing an allergy. Exposure does not cause a nonexistent allergy to become existent, it causes a mild allergy to become an aggravated mild allergy. The allergy was already there, it just wasn't presenting noticeably until exacerbated by prolonged exposure.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    For the person suffering from the allergy, this seems to be a distinction without a difference. The allergy wasn't severe enough to notice, and then later, it was. This is really quite frustrating. This whole argument is about you clinging to this pedantic distinction between "causing" an allergy and "exacerbating it to the point that you could notice it", as if that were somehow critical, when it has no practical impact at all. As far as I can see, nothing you've said has had anything to do with the original hypothesis. 'sschueller said "I became allergic to penicillin because of U.S meat." We have no idea whether that's true -- as 'sschueller him/herself subsequently admitted -- but I still don't see that we can dismiss it out of hand. Your argument amounts to saying that the claim can be dismissed because it was improperly phrased. That's pointless pedantry at best.
    - bryans 13y ago
      I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but it is your own fault for apparently misreading nearly everything that has been said. I plainly described relevant (and true) reasons for why sscheuller's statement was not only false but physiologically impossible. Everything I said is directly related to his statement. So your insistence that I've made no points relevant to the topic at hand is foolish, at best. The thing you're having trouble accepting is that we actually do know that his statement is false, because it's literally not possible, because that's not a physiological thing that happens. I don't understand how many different ways I can explain this to you. It's not pedantry, it's a pretty important distinction. Spreading the disinformation that exposure can cause the development of allergies has potential to create confusion and even be harmful to the public. Take, for instance, the anti-vax movement. It was started by small bits of disinformation and ballooned into something with deadly consequences. You are having a semantics argument that doesn't exist. I am explaining physiology to you, which you are not accepting. So you're right, this has been pretty pointless. But that doesn't make you any less wrong.
      - ScottBurson 13y ago
        Read my previous post again. You missed the part where I acknowledged the distinction you think I'm not getting. Let me say this as clearly as I can. For the purpose of setting public policy on how much of what antibiotics may be used in livestock, your precious distinction is of no consequence. It doesn't matter whether exposure to low levels of penicillin, or related compounds, causes a truly de novo allergy, or merely exacerbates an existing one that was so mild as not to be noticeable. The sufferer does not know the difference, and from the point of view of public policy, either outcome, in significant numbers, is unacceptable. If you have a counterargument to this point, make it. Otherwise I will take it as agreed.