On 17 May 2007 08:43:52 -0700, in uk.politics.misc Mark
<mlowry3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wrote
>On May 15, 5:48 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Researchers have discovered that about one third of children who
>> returned a positive result in a skin-prick test were actually able to
>> eat peanuts safely.
>>
>> Sydney Children's Hospital immunologist and University of New South
>> Wales researcher Brynn Wainstein said the results show parents should
>> not automatically accept a nut allergy diagnosis.
>>
>> "Because peanut allergies are potentially serious, requiring all sorts
>> of restrictions, families can become very anxious when, in fact, some
>> of these families may be worrying unnecessarily," Dr Wainstein said.
>
>
>>From these three paragraphs, I fail to see how you can come to the
>conclusion that all those who suspect that they (or their children)
>are allergic to peanuts are merely suffering from a delusion.
>
>A 33% false positive rate on peanut allergy skin testing doesn't mean
>the condition is fictitious.
>
>I do agree with you in part about parental over-concern with their
>children's allergies. I occasionally run into a child in my clinic
>who is supposedly allergic to penicillins, cephalos****ins, macrolides,
>tetracyclines, sulfa drugs, etc., etc. The chances that a person
>would be allergic to basically the whole gamut of antibiotics is
>vani****ngly small, but you there are parents who will insist, to the
>point of refusing recommended therapy, that antibiotic-associated
>diarrhea = allergy.
>
>Regarding something you said elsewhere in this thread, I agree with
>you *fully* about the misinformed dingbats who refuse to vaccinate
>their children.
>
>Mark, MD
Does it matter to your frenzied "point" that no where in this article did
it
say "all those"?
Dr. FACE, LS MFT
|
