Comments on: Responses to the New York Times article downplaying the number of people with food allergies http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/ Side Dish: Your Allergy Friendly Restaurant Blog Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:08:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Heather http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/comment-page-1/#comment-470 Heather Tue, 18 May 2010 18:16:29 +0000 http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/?p=409#comment-470 This article has taken away the seriousness of those of us with allergies and intolerances. People who don't have either a food allergy, or a food intolerance, and don't have a family member/friend that has one, they need to shut their pie hole. Even if it isn't an intolerance, there is still unwanted symptoms that person is trying to avoid by not eating the food. Then, there's people like my grandmother who says she's allergic, and her allergies change by the day (lately, it's tomatoes, and only fresh tomatoes, not cooked; I have anaphylactic reaction to any tomato, even in the tiniest amounts). People like that make those of us with real allergies/intolerances look like lying idiots who are trying to get special treatment. I don't respect people who say people with illnesses are 'faking it'. I've had too many ER doctors tell me I'm not having an allergic reaction because I don't have outward signs. I don't have any hives when I react, and my throat closes up lower down, where one cannot see. Then, they see my stats drop by 20% and they believe me. People who say they have allergies and don't are the ones who want attention and special treatment. Not those of us with real allergies. Sorry about the rant, but it just gets me so angry when the allergic/intolerant community is not taken seriously about our own health. This article has taken away the seriousness of those of us with allergies and intolerances. People who don’t have either a food allergy, or a food intolerance, and don’t have a family member/friend that has one, they need to shut their pie hole. Even if it isn’t an intolerance, there is still unwanted symptoms that person is trying to avoid by not eating the food. Then, there’s people like my grandmother who says she’s allergic, and her allergies change by the day (lately, it’s tomatoes, and only fresh tomatoes, not cooked; I have anaphylactic reaction to any tomato, even in the tiniest amounts). People like that make those of us with real allergies/intolerances look like lying idiots who are trying to get special treatment. I don’t respect people who say people with illnesses are ‘faking it’. I’ve had too many ER doctors tell me I’m not having an allergic reaction because I don’t have outward signs. I don’t have any hives when I react, and my throat closes up lower down, where one cannot see. Then, they see my stats drop by 20% and they believe me. People who say they have allergies and don’t are the ones who want attention and special treatment. Not those of us with real allergies.

Sorry about the rant, but it just gets me so angry when the allergic/intolerant community is not taken seriously about our own health.

]]> By: AEPaul http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/comment-page-1/#comment-464 AEPaul Tue, 18 May 2010 12:27:22 +0000 http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/?p=409#comment-464 Pammy -- Wonderful comments and a great outlook as well! You'll certainly never be on the Jerry Springer show, that's for sure (quite a loss, huh?). One thing I want to clarify however, which I don't think I made clear in the text of the entry and only realized after reading your comments. The JAMA article doesn't address intolerances at all. I can't recall if the word "intolerance" is even mentioned. In fact, the JAMA article only mentions the % of the population with food allergies once, as background. It is not a focus of their piece. The Times, on the other hand, decided to make this the focus of their story, despite the lack of a correlation with the JAMA article. They cite two comments made by one of the authors of the JAMA piece during an interview with them, which likely caught their attention and caused them to go the route they did. By citing JAMA, however, they tried to give their story more credibility... credibility which is not warranted given the information in the actual JAMA article. I'd like to think the ultimate goal of the Times was knowledge. It certainly was for JAMA. For the Times, however, I think the goal was an extreme headline to capture attention. Maybe I'm too skeptical of the media. Regardless, they succeeded. Rounding back to your comments, this doesn't diminish your points about the value of the knowledge that can be gained from the debate over the Times article. Those are great points and a great perspective, in my opinion. However, I felt the need to clarify that I don't believe the Times was quite as diplomatic and that their comment certainly weren't supported by the JAMA article they cite. Thanks Pammy for another great Comment on this blog. I hope you'll keep 'em coming. Pammy –

Wonderful comments and a great outlook as well! You’ll certainly never be on the Jerry Springer show, that’s for sure (quite a loss, huh?).

One thing I want to clarify however, which I don’t think I made clear in the text of the entry and only realized after reading your comments. The JAMA article doesn’t address intolerances at all. I can’t recall if the word “intolerance” is even mentioned. In fact, the JAMA article only mentions the % of the population with food allergies once, as background. It is not a focus of their piece.

The Times, on the other hand, decided to make this the focus of their story, despite the lack of a correlation with the JAMA article. They cite two comments made by one of the authors of the JAMA piece during an interview with them, which likely caught their attention and caused them to go the route they did. By citing JAMA, however, they tried to give their story more credibility… credibility which is not warranted given the information in the actual JAMA article.

I’d like to think the ultimate goal of the Times was knowledge. It certainly was for JAMA. For the Times, however, I think the goal was an extreme headline to capture attention. Maybe I’m too skeptical of the media. Regardless, they succeeded.

Rounding back to your comments, this doesn’t diminish your points about the value of the knowledge that can be gained from the debate over the Times article. Those are great points and a great perspective, in my opinion. However, I felt the need to clarify that I don’t believe the Times was quite as diplomatic and that their comment certainly weren’t supported by the JAMA article they cite.

Thanks Pammy for another great Comment on this blog. I hope you’ll keep ‘em coming.

]]> By: Tweets that mention The AllergyEats Blog » Blog Archive » Responses to the New York Times article downplaying the number of people with food allergies -- Topsy.com http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/comment-page-1/#comment-456 Tweets that mention The AllergyEats Blog » Blog Archive » Responses to the New York Times article downplaying the number of people with food allergies -- Topsy.com Tue, 18 May 2010 02:48:03 +0000 http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/?p=409#comment-456 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tano Welch D.C., AllergyEats. AllergyEats said: Responses to the New York Times article downplaying the number of people with food allergies (http://bit.ly/d4gqxd) [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tano Welch D.C., AllergyEats. AllergyEats said: Responses to the New York Times article downplaying the number of people with food allergies (http://bit.ly/d4gqxd) [...]

]]> By: Pammy http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/comment-page-1/#comment-454 Pammy Tue, 18 May 2010 02:34:02 +0000 http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/?p=409#comment-454 I'm not sure how to react to this article. At first, anger does fill your mind as I am definitely one who has to constantly explain my unusual intolerance to tomatoes and peas. It is not life-threatening, but as the woman with a son afflicted with migraines due to corn intolerance states, does that mean my intolerances have to be diminished or deemed not important as others'? The article does make me rethink my plight, and perhaps "allergy" is a strong word that has been used haphazardly at times. My fiancee has an allergy to whey (found in milk). His reaction to the slightest consumption of it is extreme hives, breathing difficulties, and throat swelling that can cause him to suffocate. That is definitely an allergy. The same reaction happens to me when a doctor injects me with penicillin. With that said, I know that a migraine is not life-threatening, but it does cause extreme sensitivity to light and sound, nausea and vomiting, and an entire body ache that renders me numb and lifeless. "Allergy?" I guess by definition, its not. But serious? YES it is. I get scoffs at my tomato intolerance. I don't want to be "special." Who wants to give up spaghetti or pizza? Not me! But, again, with that said, I understand what this article and the JAMA are trying to do: shed light on the differences of allergy vs intolerance in order to further the study and understanding of both. As much as it arises passion and defenses, we need articles and studies like these. We may not like it, but knowledge is power. And the ultimate goal is knowledge. Maybe soon we can learn how to live with intolerances, how to not exaggerate as to not diminish others' real problems, and a better understanding of what others' may need. Its not special treatment. The study of intolerance is needed to find tolerance with each other and ultimately a knowledge of how we can learn to understand, appreciate, and live tolerantly with each others' differences. Maybe I'm over-reaching, over-analyzing, or just over emotional. But in the end, all any of us really want to do is live safely and comfortably without having to defend how we live. And any study that can help us understand how to do that should be taken seriously. I’m not sure how to react to this article. At first, anger does fill your mind as I am definitely one who has to constantly explain my unusual intolerance to tomatoes and peas. It is not life-threatening, but as the woman with a son afflicted with migraines due to corn intolerance states, does that mean my intolerances have to be diminished or deemed not important as others’? The article does make me rethink my plight, and perhaps “allergy” is a strong word that has been used haphazardly at times. My fiancee has an allergy to whey (found in milk). His reaction to the slightest consumption of it is extreme hives, breathing difficulties, and throat swelling that can cause him to suffocate. That is definitely an allergy. The same reaction happens to me when a doctor injects me with penicillin.

With that said, I know that a migraine is not life-threatening, but it does cause extreme sensitivity to light and sound, nausea and vomiting, and an entire body ache that renders me numb and lifeless. “Allergy?” I guess by definition, its not. But serious? YES it is. I get scoffs at my tomato intolerance. I don’t want to be “special.” Who wants to give up spaghetti or pizza? Not me!

But, again, with that said, I understand what this article and the JAMA are trying to do: shed light on the differences of allergy vs intolerance in order to further the study and understanding of both. As much as it arises passion and defenses, we need articles and studies like these. We may not like it, but knowledge is power. And the ultimate goal is knowledge. Maybe soon we can learn how to live with intolerances, how to not exaggerate as to not diminish others’ real problems, and a better understanding of what others’ may need. Its not special treatment. The study of intolerance is needed to find tolerance with each other and ultimately a knowledge of how we can learn to understand, appreciate, and live tolerantly with each others’ differences. Maybe I’m over-reaching, over-analyzing, or just over emotional. But in the end, all any of us really want to do is live safely and comfortably without having to defend how we live. And any study that can help us understand how to do that should be taken seriously.

]]> By: Debbra Valasek http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/index.php/responses-to-the-new-york-times-article-downplaying-the-number-of-people-with-food-allergies/comment-page-1/#comment-452 Debbra Valasek Tue, 18 May 2010 00:41:52 +0000 http://www.allergyeats.com/blog/?p=409#comment-452 I thought this was a brief yet amazing article! Thanks! I thought this was a brief yet amazing article! Thanks!

]]>