shoes

[macliam]

Sorry bb, individual cases do not make trends, nor are all "diagnoses" honest.

There are two watchwords that were drummed into me when I studied physiology and biochemistry - these are individual variations and specificity. This is specifically about drugs and their effects and side-effects, but carries over into everything else (most things boil down to the impact of a chemical reaction on a human being). What this means is firstly, that any one person will react to a given substance in an individual way - but not everyone will react in the same way; and secondly, that anything will have a range of effects, both good and not so good. One person will tolerate a substance better than the next, but equally the reaction to the substance may not be for the same reason. Only by looking across very large samples can the overall impact be judged (unless, of course, it's something like Curare or Arsenic!). However, even with these last two, there are circumstances where their effects can be used positively (e.g. the use of miniscule amounts of Curare to temporarily paralyse the heart during surgery).

Secondly there is the "fashion" effect and miscategorization. The former explains why some "issues" seem to become very "popular"... as an example, in France people believe that their liver affects their well-being far more than in the UK - and there is a massive disparity between the number of people diagnosed with liver problems there and here. The latter is where a "popular" category is used to cover some effects which don't really belong there.... the growth of the Autism "spectrum" over the last 40 years is one example.

So the best you can hope for is that you are given a treatment that relieves the symptoms you exhibit - but trying to generalize this into things being "good" or "bad" is meaningless.

[Chadwick]

I don't think these intolerances have particularly increased over time. I think what has increased is our ability to give them a name and identify them. The further back in history we go, the less able we were to accurately test for the same allergic response and recognise common results.

As we have been identified repeating results from tests, we've narrowed down the test criteria, grouped ranges of responses together and then given it a label. That label makes the condition accessible to the public and we 'suddenly' hear of more cases. They were there all along, just not tested for in a consistent way, diagnosed with the same label, or reported to the public with that label.

The other consequence of not having a label is that many people didn't realise there was anything to check for. We just thought someone was a 'sickly child'. A poor reader at school might nowadays be tested for dyslexia, but a few decades ago would just have been 'remedial' or 'a bit slow'. Older iMutuallers might remember the awkward kid with no friends who would get totally absorbed in art class and produce amazing drawings. Now we'd consider whether he fitted the criteria for Aspergers Syndrome, or was on the autism spectrum. But back then we'd not heard of those terms so he was just a weirdo.

[macliam]

.... and things were simpler then.

An aspirin cured everything but death.

[blythburgh]

I am still amazed that some people are so concerned about "germs" that they use antibacterial stuff everywhere and worry about what shoes will leave on the carpet but are happy for children to sit or stand in shopping trolleys where we place out food.

The one thing they should worry about they ignore and do but make the home "safe and clean" meaning the baby/toddler has little chance of building up immunity in the way I did. I was brought up in a clean home but antiseptic was not routinely used everywhere and animals abounded.

The only allergies I have are to bog standard "elastoplast" and cigarette smoke. And I am not sure allergy is the right word as I might get some unpleasantness from the above but they will not kill me

[Sarah]

Perhaps they're using antibacterials to sanitise food packaging when they get their shopping home!

[blythburgh]

Perhaps they're using antibacterials to sanitise food packaging when they get their shopping home!

I do not give a damn about their shopping but I irks me the rest of us have to put shopping in to that trolley after them

[Sarah]

Yes, I sympathise with that view. You could try complaining to the store manager, if you haven't already; but getting other shoppers to change their behaviour is obviously difficult and unlikely to happen. The easiest mitigation might be to bag your shopping within the trolley.

[Chadwick]

I am still amazed that some people are so concerned about "germs" that they use antibacterial stuff everywhere and worry about what shoes will leave on the carpet but are happy for children to sit or stand in shopping trolleys where we place out food.

The one thing they should worry about they ignore and do but make the home "safe and clean" meaning the baby/toddler has little chance of building up immunity in the way I did. I was brought up in a clean home but antiseptic was not routinely used everywhere and animals abounded.

I'm confused. You don't mind a bit of dirt in the home, but you want the trolley clean enough to eat your dinner off it.

If you were worried about cleanliness, then I'd say a clean home was more important than the trolley.
If you're not worried, then I think the trolley is less of a risk than the home that you're already comfortable with.

[blythburgh]

Our home is clean but we do not feel the need to use antibacterial wipes on everything that cannot move. And we do remove our shoes but more for comfort than worrying about germs in the rugs or on the uncarpeted floor.

It is not just us who have to put stuff in a trolley remember. And we use the shallow ones that children are very rarely in. It is the deep ones we never need that the children are standing in.