This is What's Wrong with America

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:17 pm

Mns wrote:

This whole debate hinges on whether or not the parents are overstating the child's peanut allergy. Once again, the reporter asked that one hot mom as to what would happen if she got her way and the kid was actually as allergic to peanuts as bad as her parents said she was and died, only to have that same milf completely dodge the question after her whole rant on how washing your hands is destructive to the educational structure and eliminates one doodle a day.

If they didn't do anything, the same school would be roasted by the same parents picketing now for failing to protect the child. Its a lose/lose to an over-opinionated and short-sighted public.

And, seeing the above, we've vacillated that scenario. So yes, the parents are just being hypochondriacs.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:18 pm

So apparently I need to really walk you through this.

The kid is severely allergic.

The danger in allergic reactions is not the damage done by the allergen, but by the body's response.

A string enough reaction to an allergen can cause extreme harm and/or death.

Allergic reactions differ from person to person.

Now, you suggested that:

Quote:

notice that in item seven he says the student - singular, probably because in item five, the only serious threat is if the kid gets peanut traces on his hands and puts his hands in an orifice. He's not arguing that whole classrooms should have to wash hands on behalf of any one child. If that were his intent he would have so stated explicitly given the precise language used in the document as a whole.

So, in your case little billy eats his pb&j in the cafeteria and, as kids do, gets messy. He doesn't even have to get sloppy messy, all he needs is a little peanut butter or even a little oil from the peanut butter. It could be on his hands or his clothes. The little girl eats in her classroom and washes her hands. Little billy doesn't wash his hands BECAUSE MAKING HIM DO SO CLEARLY VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS. Billy transfers some of the butter/oil on his way back to his seat. The little girl inadvertently touches whatever it was billy got his butter/oil on. She then rubs her eyes, picks her nose etc, and suddenly:

Quote:

a dangerous reaction

You guys talk about common sense in politics and yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to picket a school because kids are being forced to wash their hands?

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:21 pm

Mns wrote:

This is most definitely true. However, I don't think that pecans are that essential to any dish (besides pecan pie) and he made a specific note to point them out as if he's toting some sort of brand of authenticity.

I mentioned pecans in reference to your query about the integrity/quality of the ingredients, as opposed to simply flavoring the food with sugar and grease. That the pecans were so vividly good suggests that peanuts, which are cheaper, would be "real" as well. Although pecans are not vital for any cuisine, peanut oil is singularly useful for many dishes not only because of its unique flavor but also because it has a very high flashpoint which means food can be cooked at much greater temperatures.

Quote:

9. My child is inviting friends to a birthday party at a restaurant. Can children with peanut
allergies eat in restaurants? What should I do to make sure the food is safe for them?

Restaurants can be safe as long as precautions are followed. Accidental exposures are most common in desserts and in buffets and salad bars, where cross-contamination can easily occur. Cross-contamination can also be difficult to avoid in food preparation, particularly in a busy kitchen. Because certain cuisines (such as Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Ethiopian and some others) use peanut products as staples in their cooking, it may be easier just to avoid those restaurants. Again, it is vital to have the allergic child’s emergency medications on hand and an emergency plan in place in case there is a problem. It is prudent to call in advance and speak to the restaurant manager in order to plan the menu and to prepare the wait staff and kitchen for your party. This should ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for everyone.

Mns · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:23 pm

Aestu wrote:

And, seeing the above, we've vacillated that scenario. So yes, the parents are just being hypochondriacs.

If by "we" you mean that you read the data, came to your own conclusion, and now you're reinforcing your own conclusion, then sure. I digress though because apparently the burden is on me to prove that the allergy is legitimate whereas you have the same amount of proof (read: zero) that this is all made up just for some attention.

Whatever, Aestu, you win. If it shuts you up, I'll give this to you.

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:28 pm

Dvergar wrote:

Quote:

notice that in item seven he says the student - singular, probably because in item five, the only serious threat is if the kid gets peanut traces on his hands and puts his hands in an orifice. He's not arguing that whole classrooms should have to wash hands on behalf of any one child. If that were his intent he would have so stated explicitly given the precise language used in the document as a whole.

So, in your case little billy eats his pb&j in the cafeteria and, as kids do, gets messy. He doesn't even have to get sloppy messy, all he needs is a little peanut butter or even a little oil from the peanut butter. It could be on his hands or his clothes. The little girl eats in her classroom and washes her hands. Little billy doesn't wash his hands BECAUSE MAKING HIM DO SO CLEARLY VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS. Billy transfers some of the butter/oil on his way back to his seat. The little girl inadvertently touches whatever it was billy got his butter/oil on. She then rubs her eyes, picks her nose etc, and suddenly:

Quote:

a dangerous reaction

You guys talk about common sense in politics and yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to picket a school because kids are being forced to wash their hands?

If such a scenario were realistic it would have been alluded to in the otherwise comprehensive materials and the appropriate precautions recommended. Also note that in the section about peanut butter, the author is talking about external exposure to the genuine article.

I mean, what's the probability that any given kid, peanut allergic or not, is going to get peanuts in his eyes from another student? This is where we descend into the "bubble boy" routine.

Mns wrote:

If by "we" you mean that you read the data, came to your own conclusion, and now you're reinforcing your own conclusion, then sure. I digress though because apparently the burden is on me to prove that the allergy is legitimate whereas you have the same amount of proof (read: zero) that this is all made up just for some attention.

Dvergar dug up an informative and authoritative pamphlet by an expert that explicitly addressed this issue and said the threat is unreal. The pediatrist said that external exposure to peanut butter is not a problem for those with a SEVERE allergy. Even so, note that he says peanut butter - not secondary exposure to those who have handled peanut butter.

If the genuine article is marginal then why would we believe secondary exposure could possibly present a threat when the literature (elaborated on the Wikipedia page with citations) suggests that such fears are overblown? Why do we second-guess all this in favor of your supposition?

Dvergar · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:38 pm

Quote:

If such a scenario were realistic it would have been alluded to in the otherwise comprehensive materials and the appropriate precautions recommended.

He explicitly states that peanut butter (and oils as those oils can carry the protein that cause the reactions) in those areas can cause dangerous reactions. You are simply refusing to accept what you are reading.

Quote:

I mean, what's the probability that any given kid, peanut allergic or not, is going to get peanuts in his eyes from another student? This is where we descend into the "bubble boy" routine.

Not all that likely, but given that most kids have no reaction, trace amounts could be getting into one's eyes and you'd never know. This is over a rather long time-frame and only needs to occur once for the child to potentially die.

Quote:

Dvergar dug up an informative and authoritative pamphlet by an expert that explicitly addressed this issue and said the threat is unreal.

Nowhere did he say the threat was unreal. Frankly, reading the words "Severe Reaction" and coming to the conclusion that they mean the "threat is unreal" tells me that you are either profoundly stupid, or have just hit the wall in this argument and refuse to believe anything contrary to your incorrect beliefs.

Edit: Cognitive Dissonance. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:44 pm

Am I the only person here who washes their hands to get them clean Soap or no soap my goal is to either just wash them or remove dirt. Fuck the germs, if they were there when I washed my hands and they made it through the washing process they deserve to be there. If said germs get out of control I'll let my body handle them.

I don't wash my car because it's covered in germs, I wash it because it's dirty. Soap removes dirt and sometimes even just water will work. I take hands the same way with a few exceptions.

"HOLY FUCK MY HANDS HAVE GERMS ON THEM, NUKE THEM! NUKE THEM! NUKE THEM!"

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:45 pm

Dvergar wrote:

He explicitly states that peanut butter (and oils as those oils can carry the protein that cause the reactions) in those areas can cause dangerous reactions. You are simply refusing to accept what you are reading.

WHAT HE SAID:

Quote:

but a dangerous reaction will not result

Who's refusing to accept what they're reading?

Dvergar wrote:

Not all that likely, but given that most kids have no reaction, trace amounts could be getting into one's eyes and you'd never know. This is over a rather long time-frame and only needs to occur once for the child to potentially die.

Ludicrous. This is just your own imagination at work.

Immune disease doesn't work that way. This isn't heavy metal or radiation poisoning. In fact in immunology it works exactly the OPPOSITE way you are describing, which is the principle behind vaccination - exposure to small, non-threatening amounts of an allergen will cause gradual tolerance to greater amounts that would have initially been dangerous.

Dvergar wrote:

Nowhere did he say the threat was unreal. Frankly, reading the words "Severe Reaction" and coming to the conclusion that they mean the "threat is unreal" tells me that you are either profoundly stupid, or have just hit the wall in this argument and refuse to believe anything contrary to your incorrect beliefs.

Then what is your basis to believe the threat is real? Do we believe three doctors with professional experience in this very field or some redneck parents who are struggling with an issue that threatens many children?

Dvergar · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:02 pm

Aestu wrote:

WHAT HE SAID:

Quote:

but a dangerous reaction will not result

Who's refusing to accept what they're reading?

Nice, unfortunately:

Quote:

but a dangerous reaction will not result unless the peanut butter enters the mouth, nose, or eyes.

Helps if you read the whole thing.

Quote:

Immune disease doesn't work that way. This isn't heavy metal or radiation poisoning. In fact in immunology it works exactly the OPPOSITE way you are describing, which is the principle behind vaccination - exposure to small, non-threatening amounts of an allergen will cause gradual tolerance to greater amounts that would have initially been dangerous.

We should all know how well a school classroom full of 9 year olds functions as a precise laboratory, so I went ahead and bolded the part that makes what you said irrelevant.

Quote:

Then what is your basis to believe the threat is real? Do we believe three doctors with professional experience in this very field or some redneck parents who are struggling with an issue that threatens many children?

I see you've sunk to name-calling now. At what point did "three doctors" declare this patient had nothing to worry from peanuts? The child was tested by professionals and found to have a severe and life-threatening allergy. But hey, I'm sure the doctor who didn't see her (and the other two you made up?) has a much better grasp of her personal situation.

Weena · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:19 pm

I'm going to picket my rights to not wash my hands before returning to work.

Battletard · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:52 pm

Weena wrote:

I'm going to picket my rights to not wash my hands before returning to work.

Right after you picket your right to sneeze all over the customers' food?

ignayshus · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:06 pm

Not sure what the shit storm is about.

Parents, your kids SHOULD be washing their hands regularly anyway. Not necessarily with soap all the time, but rinsing and drying before and after meals or communal activities is just good hygiene.

Fact of the matter is that:
The kid has a fatal allergy that is easily aggravated.
A child cannot be required to protect themselves from others, let alone other children (hell I can't protect myself from other children smearing their snot/slobber/etc on me).
The kid has a constitutional right to a public education in his district.
The school has a duty to protect all the students in their care.

If they don't take precautions to show they exercised due care, they'd get their asses handed to them in court when some classmate with a PBJ gave this kid a hug inducing anaphylactic shock.

So they're stuck with a kid that has special needs... tough shit. If it were just something like a religious observance then they'd be right to be pissed, but a parent's right to feed their kids pbjs doesn't trump another child's right to life.

The ironic thing is these same outraged parents would also go apeshit at the administrators for not taking proper precautions to safe guard the kid after the school faced program cuts due to litigation.

dek · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:18 pm

I didn't wash my hands all the time when I was a kid, unless I actually got them, you know, dirty (and with something more than just dirt). Yeah, I'm sure I got a few colds that I wouldn't have otherwise, yet I survived and my immune system is pretty strong these days.

We live in such a germaphobic society, yeesh.

ignayshus · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:17 pm

Do you wash your hands after using the bathroom?

dek · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:21 pm

Quote:

I didn't wash my hands all the time when I was a kid

Quote:

when I was a kid

Quote:

a kid

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

This is What's Wrong with America

Who is online