I became allergic to penicillin because of U.S meat. I ate McDonald's almost daily for about 3-4 years.
I hate to be so negatively argumentative, and I especially hate having to defend McDonald's, but I honestly think you are trying to make an association that does not exist based on information that was not factual. Or you're trolling, in which case congratulations are in order for getting me to type all of this.
It may be rare, but I don't think we can dismiss it just because it's rare.
Seems to me the salient question is whether any of the antibiotics that are used on livestock are even related to penicillin. I don't know the answer, but if they're not, that would certainly cast doubt on the claim.
If you have a noticeable reaction, it's because your immune system mistakenly (or properly) identifies the ingested substance as harmful and is being overzealous about fighting it. But how your immune system will react to any particular foreign body is already established prior to ingestion.
So, could someone develop a more severe reaction after such prolonged exposure and stress being put on their immune system? No doubt. But the over exposure did not create the intolerance, it just temporarily exacerbated it.
All that said, I just looked up whether antibiotics from the penicillin family are used in livestock. It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter.
Aren't they? I had no trouble finding an example to contradict you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins (first paragraph)
In general I'm not aware that we know all the causes of allergies.
> It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter.
What do you think "completely" means? It doesn't mean zero or even "undetectable"; it means there's some threshold level, anything below which is considered acceptable.
If you trust the people who are setting those thresholds, you have a lot more faith in the system than I do.
As for the livestock regulations, I completely agree with you. I'm still going to eat steak every day, but I agree nonetheless.
This is really quite frustrating. This whole argument is about you clinging to this pedantic distinction between "causing" an allergy and "exacerbating it to the point that you could notice it", as if that were somehow critical, when it has no practical impact at all.
As far as I can see, nothing you've said has had anything to do with the original hypothesis. 'sschueller said "I became allergic to penicillin because of U.S meat." We have no idea whether that's true -- as 'sschueller him/herself subsequently admitted -- but I still don't see that we can dismiss it out of hand. Your argument amounts to saying that the claim can be dismissed because it was improperly phrased. That's pointless pedantry at best.
The thing you're having trouble accepting is that we actually do know that his statement is false, because it's literally not possible, because that's not a physiological thing that happens. I don't understand how many different ways I can explain this to you.
It's not pedantry, it's a pretty important distinction. Spreading the disinformation that exposure can cause the development of allergies has potential to create confusion and even be harmful to the public. Take, for instance, the anti-vax movement. It was started by small bits of disinformation and ballooned into something with deadly consequences.
You are having a semantics argument that doesn't exist. I am explaining physiology to you, which you are not accepting. So you're right, this has been pretty pointless. But that doesn't make you any less wrong.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. For the purpose of setting public policy on how much of what antibiotics may be used in livestock, your precious distinction is of no consequence. It doesn't matter whether exposure to low levels of penicillin, or related compounds, causes a truly de novo allergy, or merely exacerbates an existing one that was so mild as not to be noticeable. The sufferer does not know the difference, and from the point of view of public policy, either outcome, in significant numbers, is unacceptable.
If you have a counterargument to this point, make it. Otherwise I will take it as agreed.
1. Person makes claim that an allergy was developed by ingesting meat.
2. I inform claimant that is not possible.
3. You declare that it is.
4. I debunk this declaration using well known and understood science.
5. You deny this science, while providing evidence that backs up the science.
6. I try to explain science again.
7. You change your stance from "it's possible" to "okay, it's not possible, but there's no difference."
8. I explain to you why there is a difference.
9. You not only disregard that difference, but all of a sudden decide that we're talking about public policy instead of debunking the original claim that a person developed an allergy by ingesting meat.
Do you really not see how unreasonably difficult you're being? You have twisted things at every turn.
My entire point from the beginning has been that allergies are not developed through exposure, which is a very important distinction. Just because you, personally, don't want to believe that the distinction is important, doesn't mean it isn't. Disinformation is always harmful, and I find your indifferent attitude toward perpetuating disinformation quite disturbing.
You are claiming that someone who develops an allergy must have had an allergy to start with. But the only thing that backs up this claim is your own definition.
I would suggest that allergy ought instead to have a clinical definition: if you can observe symptoms, you have an allergy. This definition is the only one that makes practical sense: if you could not observe symptoms, why would you care? The immune response definition that you give does not match up well with what medical professionals would call allergies - not at all.
It's clear that repeated exposure can cause an allergy in this sense, and you have presented no valid argument to debunk that.
Although parent's claim is difficult to confirm, it's not impossible.
This is an assumption I have which is in no way scientifically proven.
I read an article a few years ago about McDonalds drastically reducing the amount of Penicillin used in its cows which lead me to believe that my consumption prior to that may have caused it.
I may have just become allergic to Penicillin for no reason but I do find it coincidental.
We don't yet know all of the ways that allergies are "activated" but we've yet to record an antibiotic allergy developed from consuming meat. Antibiotics get metabolized by the organism they are given to, they don't get magical protection from oxidation or other chemical processes, and they sure as hell can't survive the insane heat meant to kill all living organism on it when it is cooked (especially at McDonalds).
I'd like to know the relationship there. I'm not knowledgeable in the area.
They have nothing to do with eating meat - especially because meat doesn't have any penicillin it in.