I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but it is your own fault for apparently misreading nearly everything that has been said. I plainly described relevant (and true) reasons for why sscheuller's statement was not only false but physiologically impossible. Everything I said is directly related to his statement. So your insistence that I've made no points relevant to the topic at hand is foolish, 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.
Read my previous post again. You missed the part where I acknowledged the distinction you think I'm not getting.
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.
This is really starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. I'm going to chronologically boil this down for you.
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.
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.