If I tell someone who is allergic to nuts that a food they are about to eat does not contain nuts, and they eat that food despite the food containing

[Cla234]

I read a study on NIH where people's hands were rubbed with a poison ivy leaf. They were told it was a harmless leaf. They did not get a rash. When they were told a harmless leaf was a poison ivy leaf, and they were rubbed with it, they got rashes.

If you tell a person allergic to nuts that a food doesn't contain nuts, is it true they would not have a reaction if they ate something containing nuts, simply because they expected not to have a reaction? (Reactions to poison ivy, despite its name, are allergic, not toxic.)

I heard the brain is very powerful and stuff about mind over matter. I also read about Pavlovian (conditioned) allergic responses. The Japanese poison ivy study showed this effect can work both ways. The poison ivy study was a study on the placbo effect, which is generally accepted as being a legit thing. There's many people who think this could be ESP/psychic phenomena, as no biological mechanism exists for it.

 

[luiza]

Best medicine available to parents .

Take this and you will quickly feel better .

And they do .

Bound to work for Vaxxers . The Gullibles .

 

[Esdraelon]

I think it depends on the severity of the allergy. Allergic reactions can range from very mild to life threatening and I don't think the mind can override the body's reaction to an allergen.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am sure there are some who get a reaction because of psychosomatic reactions.

But many people have serious allergies that have nothing to do with their brain. I am VERY allergic to poison ivy/poison oak. And it has nothing to do with whether I think the leaf is harmless or not.

 

[okfine]

My grandsons face gets blotchy red after eating foods he's allergic to. If he's asked if he ate any of those foods his nose grows.

 

[WinterBorn]

I would think that if you were asked about the ingredients and told they have an allergy, lying to them and letting them eat the food would be costly for you. In addition to being prosecuted for any ill effects suffered by the person with the allergy, if there is any justice you would be sued into poverty.

 

[JohnDB]

Actually for all of my other allergies I don't seem to have an allergy to poison oak/poison ivy/sumac.

But giving nuts to someone who is allergic to nuts but claiming otherwise can be grounds for attempted murder charges.

 

[Foxfyre]

I read a study on NIH where people's hands were rubbed with a poison ivy leaf. They were told it was a harmless leaf. They did not get a rash. When they were told a harmless leaf was a poison ivy leaf, and they were rubbed with it, they got rashes.

If you tell a person allergic to nuts that a food doesn't contain nuts, is it true they would not have a reaction if they ate something containing nuts, simply because they expected not to have a reaction? (Reactions to poison ivy, despite its name, are allergic, not toxic.)

I heard the brain is very powerful and stuff about mind over matter. I also read about Pavlovian (conditioned) allergic responses. The Japanese poison ivy study showed this effect can work both ways. The poison ivy study was a study on the placbo effect, which is generally accepted as being a legit thing. There's many people who think this could be ESP/psychic phenomena, as no biological mechanism exists for it.

The fallacy in the argument is that probably most people who get reactions from poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac etc. don't realize they've been exposed until they get the rash.

My friend, an MD, has severe reactions to onions. She was told by a waiter that the soup she ordered didn't have onions. Turned out it did. She was sick for two days.

And thousands of bad, dangerous, even deadly reactions to peanuts have occurred in people who believed the product they were eating was peanut free.

The mind is a remarkable thing and can manage illness, pain, etc. in amazing ways. But I sure wouldn't want to take a risk that a person would not have a bad reaction to something just because he/she was told there was no exposure.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fallacy in the argument is that probably most people who get reactions from poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac etc. don't realize they've been exposed until they get the rash.

My friend, an MD, has severe reactions to onions. She was told by a waiter that the soup she ordered didn't have onions. Turned out it did. She was sick for two days.

And thousands of bad, dangerous, even deadly reactions to peanuts have occurred in people who believed the product they were eating was peanut free.

The mind is a remarkable thing and can manage illness, pain, etc. in amazing ways. But I sure wouldn't want to take a risk that a person would not have a bad reaction to something just because he/she was told there was no exposure.

I have gotten poison ivy rash when I did not know I was exposed. I'm allergic to the plant.

People with peanut allergies can die quickly if they eat peanuts. Unless an epi-pen is handy, the idea of feeding someone something ethy told you they were allergic to is simply depraved.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have gotten poison ivy rash when I did not know I was exposed. I'm allergic to the plant.

People with peanut allergies can die quickly if they eat peanuts. Unless an epi-pen is handy, the idea of feeding someone something ethy told you they were allergic to is simply depraved.

I don't know how allergic I am to the 'poison' plants but I've never had a reaction and I'm pretty sure I have stumbled across them unawares from time to time so I might be one of the lucky ones who is immune. I haven't chosen to test that theory though.

But yes, experimenting with poison ivy is probably pretty harmless with tolerable discomfort if a person has a reaction on their hands. But some other allergic reactions not so much.

A controlled experiment in a scientific study is one thing. People testing the theory on their own is probably not a good idea.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't know how allergic I am to the 'poison' plants but I've never had a reaction and I'm pretty sure I have stumbled across them unawares from time to time so I might be one of the lucky ones who is immune. I haven't chosen to test that theory though.

But yes, experimenting with poison ivy is probably pretty harmless with tolerable discomfort if a person has a reaction on their hands. But some other allergic reactions not so much.

A controlled experiment in a scientific study is one thing. People testing the theory on their own is probably not a good idea.

One thing about poison ivy/oak allergies is that they can come and go. My grandfather was very allergic. My grandmother used to tease him with it when they got the garden going every spring. It was after he died and she was in her 80s that she got her first case. It put her in the hospital.

 

[Innocynioc]

I am allergic to poison oak and ivy, and I also spend a lot of time out in woods and pastures. Sometimes when I have no idea I have touched the plants I will break out with the rash. I don 't find the OP's contention cogent.

 

[SweetSue92]

I read a study on NIH where people's hands were rubbed with a poison ivy leaf. They were told it was a harmless leaf. They did not get a rash. When they were told a harmless leaf was a poison ivy leaf, and they were rubbed with it, they got rashes.

If you tell a person allergic to nuts that a food doesn't contain nuts, is it true they would not have a reaction if they ate something containing nuts, simply because they expected not to have a reaction? (Reactions to poison ivy, despite its name, are allergic, not toxic.)

I heard the brain is very powerful and stuff about mind over matter. I also read about Pavlovian (conditioned) allergic responses. The Japanese poison ivy study showed this effect can work both ways. The poison ivy study was a study on the placbo effect, which is generally accepted as being a legit thing. There's many people who think this could be ESP/psychic phenomena, as no biological mechanism exists for it.

Never, ever, ever do this.

Never.

A family member almost died from a peanut allergy reaction. Do not do this. Ever.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Never, ever, ever do this.

Never.

A family member almost died from a peanut allergy reaction. Do not do this. Ever.

.




The OP was a bit irresponsible to suggest giving someone a deadly allergen.





.

 

[WinterBorn]

.




The OP was a bit irresponsible to suggest giving someone a deadly allergen.





.

I agree.

 

[Unkotare]

When I was a kid I never knew anyone - never even heard of anyone - allergic to peanuts. These days if you send your child to school with a snack that might have been made within 1000 yards of a peanut it is treated like chemical warfare.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

When I was a kid I never knew anyone - never even heard of anyone - allergic to peanuts. These days if you send your child to school with a snack that might have been made within 1000 yards of a peanut it is treated like chemical warfare.

.


How did we get this way?


.

 

[Ralph Norton]

If you tell a person allergic to nuts that a food doesn't contain nuts, is it true they would not have a reaction if they ate something containing nuts, simply because they expected not to have a reaction?

I strongly suggest that you don't try to conduct your own experiment.

 

[Unkotare]

.


How did we get this way?


.

 

[Muhammed]

I am sure there are some who get a reaction because of psychosomatic reactions.

But many people have serious allergies that have nothing to do with their brain. I am VERY allergic to poison ivy/poison oak. And it has nothing to do with whether I think the leaf is harmless or not.

I know several people who have had a very severe allergy to poison ivy/oak/sumac. Myself, I've never had any allergic reaction to it.