2 ms·

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

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
This is really starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. I'm going to chronologically boil this down for you. 1. Person makes claim that an allergy was developed by ingesting meat. 2. I inform claimant that is not possible. 3. You declare that it is. 4. I debunk this declaration using well known and understood science. 5. You deny this science, while providing evidence that backs up the science. 6. I try to explain science again. 7. You change your stance from "it's possible" to "okay, it's not possible, but there's no difference." 8. I explain to you why there is a difference. 9. You not only disregard that difference, but all of a sudden decide that we're talking about public policy instead of debunking the original claim that a person developed an allergy by ingesting meat. Do you really not see how unreasonably difficult you're being? You have twisted things at every turn. My entire point from the beginning has been that allergies are not developed through exposure, which is a very important distinction. Just because you, personally, don't want to believe that the distinction is important, doesn't mean it isn't. Disinformation is always harmful, and I find your indifferent attitude toward perpetuating disinformation quite disturbing.

bryans 13y ago

This is really starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. I'm going to chronologically boil this down for you. 1. Person makes claim that an allergy was developed by ingesting meat. 2. I inform claimant that is not possible. 3. You declare that it is. 4. I debunk this declaration using well known and understood science. 5. You deny this science, while providing evidence that backs up the science. 6. I try to explain science again. 7. You change your stance from "it's possible" to "okay, it's not possible, but there's no difference." 8. I explain to you why there is a difference. 9. You not only disregard that difference, but all of a sudden decide that we're talking about public policy instead of debunking the original claim that a person developed an allergy by ingesting meat. Do you really not see how unreasonably difficult you're being? You have twisted things at every turn. My entire point from the beginning has been that allergies are not developed through exposure, which is a very important distinction. Just because you, personally, don't want to believe that the distinction is important, doesn't mean it isn't. Disinformation is always harmful, and I find your indifferent attitude toward perpetuating disinformation quite disturbing.