johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
Keep your condolences. YOU need them more than anyone.

David Wright wrote:
David, why are you defaming cretins?

Gee...I wonder where I heard that....

janet-from-another-planet wrote:

What a maroon!

Mark Probert wrote:
In my view, schools receiving federal funds should not permit social or
religious organizations of any kind on school property. Doing so
encourages segregationist attitudes in the students.

Maybe your definition of "altie" is an example of bigotry. I don't
refer to you as a "pharma blogger" because I think it reflects your
personal views, I have no way of knowing. There are conservatives who
favor gun control (like me), liberals who support restrictions on
abortion (like me), and "alties" who favor access to mainstream
medicine (like me.) You demonstrate a narrow view of human behaviour
by remaining focused on the extremes, while pretending to remain
objective, even protesting prejudice in others. Your virtual
personality wreaks of fabrication.

No, but pharma bloggers have a need to polish their image.

You don't 'seem' to understand this term any better than "ad hominem."

PeterB

David Wright wrote:
Just thought that the world might want to take note that the science
guy just publicly stated that it is NOT normal to be allergy free.

What side of the planet do you live on Geek? Conventional medicine
hardly recognizes the existence of food allergies, let alone claims
that everyone has them. You truly are an idiot.

You have my condolences, Mr. Wrong, for you are WRONG yet again.

In article <1133639911.555169.286880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
So what? Just because an unpleasant truth is unpleasant doesn't stop
it from being a truth. You're very unpleasant, but that doesn't cause
you to just vanish. Unfortunately.

Who said anything about food allergies? Not I. But there are plenty
of known food allergies -- shellfish and peanut allergies are
particularly severe, and are well-known. A fact not known to you,
clearly. You have my condolences. But you probably don't eat peanut
butter -- it might pull your dentures out, O exemplar of perfect
health.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
Giving away your condolences is like giving away O2 for humans.

PeterB wrote:
For the most part, I agree, simply because the allowing of some
non-academic groups requires the allowing of others which I consider
inappropriate for a public school. Further, failure to give universal
access leads to lawsuits which divert public funds.

The schools' primary mission is to provide a quality education to the
students. However, ever since the Lambs Chapel case, school buildings
have become the target of all sorts of non-academic organizations.

In the next county over from me, several Christian churches rent out
school buildings on Sundays for services. They heavily advertise and in
their advertisements, they stress that they are using a public school
(larger type, bold type, etc.).

Nah...I define an "altie" (and use it the same way) as someone who
pushes alternatative medicine without regard for the truth. Someone
posted a URL (srry, cannot recall where I saw it) of a fellow who
supports alternative medicine, but also criticizes the lousy practices
in the industry. This fellow's blog was removed by his employers because
of that. I wish I could recall where the post was. The URL was to the
Google cache, and will be gone, soon.

I don't
Well, ask.

There are conservatives who
Same.

liberals who support restrictions on
Same.

and "alties" who favor access to mainstream
Agreed.


You demonstrate a narrow view of human behaviour
Sadly, NOT focusing on the extremes is dangerous. The middle will not
remove your rights nor will they kill you.

In the light of your other comments in this message, take a moment, or
two, and really think about what you just said.

I surely do understand ad hominem.

David Wright wrote:

Ditto!

Comments of the insect have been noted.

Perhaps, if you were to drop dead tomorrow I might spend more time
conversing with you in another dimension? Until then you should take up
a new hobby. Don't quit your day job, cause you really suck at ngs.

Just my opinion, as you already know too well.

I would have thought that the majority of people would choose to be
considerate having had the details of a life threatening illness
explained to them.

Selfish? So you avoid airlines that don't serve nuts and complain to the
management that you reserve the right to eat nuts on board because those
with allergies are just being selfish?

But as I clearly stated there are situations where I cannot control what
goes on around me and that is my problem but would hope that there are
other situations, particularly places I visit regularly such as work,
where a greater level of consideration would make a major difference to
my quality of life.

After all, you are claiming to be an MD yet hand out advice suggesting
that "Someone with peanut allergies is at little risk of a reaction
<snip> this woman is expecting too much to require *everyone* in her
workplace to abstain from eating nut products in her presence".

It's not exactly accurate advice now is it so my point is about others
being considerate and if that means a few people have to eat their
peanut butter sandwiches away from their desk so I don't die at work
it's not exactly infringing their rights a great deal is it?

In article <mike.edwards-5A6FA8.14172405122005@news.news.demon.net>,
Mike Edwards <mike.edwards@rocksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Show me the _law_ that bans peanuts (or whatever, other than cigarettes
and other burning tobacco products) from being consumed in the vicinity
of one of the Protected Persons.

This is the issue. Not "choose to be considerate," but "enforced by
law."

The person who has told me I am in violation of her legal rights by
consuming peanuts and scattering peanut dust near her cannot point to
any law making my action illegal.



The peanut haters and "allergic to scents, deodorants, clothing
detergents, and everything" are attempting to get others to stop using
these perfectly legal products.

Well, they aren't illegal, nor should they be. Those allergic to the
world have a tough time, but they should find environments which suit
them.

In any case, there are no laws stopping me from eating peanuts near
these people, no matter what they keep claiming.


--Tim May

"Mike Edwards" <mike.edwards@rocksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mike.edwards-5A6FA8.14172405122005@news.news.demon.net...
It's not that straight forward, actually. First of all, I don't know if
this whole peanut allergy thing is an escalating problem with either more
people have this problem or those who have it have an increased sensitivity,
or if were just not as well recognized in years past, or if we're not
getting the full stories. I have read about the girl who died allegedly
from kissing someone who ate peanut butter. Unless I had access to the
medical record and the investigation - if there was one - I do not buy it.
I think a more likely scenario is someone gave her a cookie and told her it
had no peanuts in it, she ate it and died because the kid who gave it to her
didn't realize her mother used peanuts or some peanut based cooking product
and is now terrified to tell anyone.

But I guess that's why I go by "skeptic".

Regardless, your issue comes down to, essentially, where to draw the line.

Flowers make me sneeze. I have pretty bad allergies. We don't ever have
real flowers in my home. But where I work (a hospital) they're all over the
place. Should my employer not allow flowers?

I know, flowers won't kill me. True. But to anyone with severe allergies,
it can be nearly disabling, especially in my line of work. Operating with
watery eyes and a runny nose simply sucks. Benadryl causes extreme
drowsiness and the other less sedating anti-histamines have little effect.
And I'm not alone.

What about latex? Latex is a ubiquitous product in hospitals. Many of my
patients are allergic to latex. But yet my hospital does not ban latex
products. It could - or at least a great many of them.

So on and so forth.

My opinion about what a company can and can not do, in the end, really has
little to do with the issue of allergies. I think this issue is a more
basic one... does a [private] company have the RIGHT to dictate what its
employees can and can not eat? The reason it makes that decision is really
not relevant.

I tend to think a private company can do what is wishes and if says "no more
peanut butter" then so be it. If someone doesn't like it, they can leave.

Now, SHOULD the company ban peanut butter or other peanut products? This is
more a philosophical/ethical question. If they have reasonable concern that
peanut products would be putting someone's life in danger, then yes. Is
that the case here? No. It is not at all reasonable to assume that a
proximity to peanut products is dangerous to anyone. Someone with peanut
allergies needs to be proactive and look out for themselves rather than rely
on a company ban of peanut products.

Airlines? No, of course they should not stop serving peanuts. That's
nothing short of ridiculous and so typical of the over-sensitive [yet often
hypocritical] American society we now live in. I can see an airline wanting
to cover its ass - so there are ways to minimize risk. Have peanut
allergies (or any other food) as a question when purchasing a ticket. Then
simply do not serve them in that particular row when there happens to be a
passenger with an allergy. There's no reason someone in row 28 can't have a
bag of peanuts even if someone in row 14 has a peanut allergy - ludicrous.

I have a good friend with peanut allergies. For my wedding, he gave me a
ring and commented on his peanut allergy - which I would have otherwise not
given a moment of thought to. We then contacted the chef and made very sure
there was nothing at all containing peanuts or peanut products. That is
what friends do for one another. To expect that society in general,
however, will simply bend over backwards to accomodate the last little quirk
is simply not practical.

An item does not need to be illegal for a certain use to be illegal.
Before there were specific laws to deal with stalkers, they could be
charged with trespassing, making nuisance phone calls, etc.

You can not possibly believe that if someone suffers harm from your
deliberate action, that there will not be legal consequences. Look up the
legal definitions of assault and negligence; either are broad enough to
include peanuts as the 'weapon'.

Which action, blowing peanut dust or making death threats against
children?

You should keep a list of the stuff you make up, so you don't forget it.
Your trolling has been slightly effective, but you need to refine your
technique more if you want to get a real flame war going.


Leonard

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:00:42 GMT, "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
I've also heard of (saw an interview with the mother) someone dying after
eating jam contaminated by trace amounts of peanut butter. Someone had
made a peanut butter and jam sandwich, using the same knife in both
containers.
Such extreme sensitivities are rare, but for myself I believe there is
enough anecdotal evidence to accept the possibility without access to the
autopsy results.


That depends on what the potential risk is, and the inconvenience or
possible cost it would cause others to accommodate the allergy sufferer.

Peanut butter is quick and easy, but peanut products are not essential in
a work environment, and there are plenty of alternatives. If it could
potentially kill someone, I would not have a problem being careful not to
bring peanuts into the work area.

Practically, I think it would be difficult to stop visitors from bringing
flowers, especially since there are new people being admitted
continuously. However, I think the hospital should make some effort to
limit where real flowers are placed (ie use fake flowers in common rooms)
and/or try to assign you to work in areas with the least exposure to
flowers.


<snip>
Can latex reactions be fatal? I believe they can cause bad rashes, at
least. Can latex particles be easily transferred?
If a patient can not react to latex products used for the previous person
in the room, or the person in the next bed, then it should be sufficient
to check for allergies before dealing with a patient.


<snip>
The problem with that is that some people can react to very small amounts
of peanut products, which it is impossible to look out for. That said, an
adult with a peanut allergy should be able to exercise enough common sense
to avoid problems in all but the most severe cases (assuming others
involved also exercise basic common sense).


The problem is if someone in row 14 on the previous flight had peanuts and
left trace dust on the tray or chair, or if anyone in the general vicinity
left peanut fragments caught in a pillow or blanket that someone allergic
to peanuts might use.


Letting people know if you have allergies should be sufficient in most
cases. I don't know if the woman mentioned in the original post (if she
exists) was being unreasonably over-cautious, or if she is actually at
risk from trace amounts of peanut products and has a legitimate reason to
try to ban them from the work environment.


Leonard

Tim May wrote:
I can. If you knowingly and intentionally expose her to a substance that
you know is toxic to her, you have, at the least, committed an assault.
It is not the substance, *but your actions* which are criminal in nature.

See above.

Leonard wrote:
Precisely. A licensed gun owner can still be prosecuted for murder if he
uses his licensed gun to intentionally take the life of a person.

He is one of the more amusing trolls.

Tim May wrote:
Tell that to the Judge when he throws you in jail. It should really
make an impression on him.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

You have my condolences.

You claim that if you talk to someone who has recently eaten a Snickers
bar, you will suffer an anaphylactic reaction and possibly die. That
means, then, that in *your* best interests, everyone you *might* come
into contact with should be prohibited from eating peanuts unless they
are home for the night...well, maybe not even then, see below.

People who take mass transit. Who knows? You might have to take the
bus one day.

Everyone who works at the mall. There still is time to do Christmas
shopping.

Everyone who *shops* at the mall.

Everyone who comes to your place of work.

Everyone who works at a hospital. You might fall and break your arm,
and if the nurse in the ER recently ate a PBJ for lunch...

All tow truck drivers, because who knows when you'll have a flat or a
breakdown?

People who go to the movies or sporting events. You might want to take
in a flick or see a baseball game, right?

Considerate behavior is one thing, but expecting the world to conform
to your personal situation is too much. If carried to the extreme,
your workplace cafeteria would become a non-food zone. Someone,
somewhere is allergic to just about any kind of food, so to be safe and
courteous, should we just ban all foods in the workplace?

If your allergy is indeed that bad, take responsibility for it
yourself. Carry your Epipen, take wet-wipes with you to clean the
table, and wear a mask if you're going to talk to someone with peanut
breath. Check the menu when you go out to eat. It would truly stink
to have an allergy as bad as yours, but it is unrealistic to assume
that the world can be made to conform to your individual situation.

Mark, MD

Mark wrote:
You left out:

Do not kiss an elephant.

"Leonard" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:8ve9p1h15s6vfed8ifecm7urn1eik2cpgs@4ax.com...
Just the work area? How about any public facility? Should the same person
endager her life while eating in the cafeteria during jury duty? How about
while holiday shopping? Should food stores be disallowed from selling
anything made from peanuts? Oh, we could argue that's purely social and the
person can avoid the mall, right? Internet shopping, ok..... how about
groceries? Have to get groceries. Should the local food mart stop stocking
peanuts? Should all employees there be banned from eating peanuts at work?
How at home to avoid bringing in "peanut dust"?

There are a countless number of scenarios, which is why this debate is about
where to draw the line. Eating peanuts at home - ok. Rubbing peanut
butter on someone, not ok. Somewhere between those two points is a fuzzy
line.

Not practical.

Yes.

Even when allergies are checked and double checked, mistakes are made
because latex is so available ... as in, on exam gloves.

Which gets right back to my above point of not being able to protect a
person from such a thing at all times.

Or worse, someone in row 14 next to peanut allergy man ate peanuts and a
peanut butter sandwich in the foodcourt before boarding. Right? Again,
where to draw the line? If it's unsafe for a person in row 28 to have
peanuts for fear of peanut dust getting to row 14, then clearly peanut
products can't be ANYWHERE in the airport. Or in the taxi on the way to the
airport (or bus, or subway, or whatever....).

As I said earlier, I have no problem with a company doing as it sees fit. I
think it likely that a company that goes around banning peanut products will
have a hard time getting and maintaining a quality work force, cause no one
wants to work for that kind of dictatorship - except maybe someone with
peanut allergies.