The study shows that about 1 in 6 did actually show a reaction at the start of the test. Only the few that showed a really strong, and potentially deadly, reaction were excluded from further testing.
The baby is obviously growing, so is getting its food source from something. Pretty sure that is the nutrients in the mother's blood. If the baby is getting the other proteins that are in the mother's blood, why would the peanut proteins be walled off?
I grew up on peanut butter, with or without the jelly.
I would open a new 5 pound pail of peanut butter, get a spoon, and eat until my throat closed off from the layer of peanut butter coating it. It was actually painful from the muscles trying to push it down to my stomach. Then I would eat another few spoonfuls for good measure.
Either on sandwiches (always with jelly/jam by the way) or by the spoonful, I went through a pail a week.
I read a story about this test yesterday, and it mentioned something this one only hints at.
All had been given skin-prick tests to make sure they were not already allergic to peanuts. They were put into two groups — 530 who did not show signs of peanut allergy and 98 others with mild-to-moderate reactions, suggesting an allergy might be developing.
They did do this test on kids with peanut allergies. 98 of the ~600 had "mild-to-moderate reactions". They were allergic to peanuts at the start of the test.
What this article doesn't say, that the other did, is that the children that showed a strong reaction to the peanut protein were excluded from the test. So the 10 or so kids whose allergy would possibly be deadly in larger doses of peanuts were not tested. No sense killing one to prove a point about the rest.
I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote above, but the word is 'sow', unless you are reaping clothing
Long ago, in middle school, we had an assignment to write a short story. I forget what the story was about, but there was some disagreement involved in it. I tried to write that one person sued another, but was drawing a blank on how to spell "sue". I think that I couldn't believe it was spelled the same as a girl's name. So I wrote something like "So Robert sewed him," which probably amused my teacher just a bit. And cost me several points on the grade.
Do you understand why "some people are not full people" in the Constitution?
in the same class as:
Is Banana?
?
See how that works? My question comes off as rude because I'm not asking for clarification on your statements.
My question was asking for clarification of your statement. It asked if you understand the portion you mention. The question is valid because of the many people who do not understand that portion, yet still use it in their arguments.
You did not apologize for your arrogance, you attempted to excuse it and deflect it.
First it is superciliousness, now it is arrogance. Because I don't automatically assume you are a Constitutional scholar? Because I am attempting to ascertain if you are in the camp that interprets Three Fifths Compromise in a manner opposite its intention? Because of some other reason known only to you?
Thank you for the wonderful demonstration of your personality.
Yes, inquisitive with a high tolerance of insolence in verbal sparring partners.
You must not have realized that I did ask a question.
And in counterpoint, I have no confidence in your understanding of the section under discussion. As the other response to my post shows, even well educated people misunderstand its meaning. Why should I assume you have not?
Specifically, it would seem that if that is the only part of the Constitution that displeases you, you do misunderstand it.
Obviously the Libertarian Party wouldn't accept this if their only contribution was a "bodyguard". It would be a coalition government, similar to how other countries' Parliaments occasionally have. There would be Cabinet positions chosen by Green Party officials, and Cabinet positions chosen by Libertarian Party officials. Whether it is random or specifically decided which party chooses which position would be up to them. E.g., it could be like boys picking two baseball teams from everyone present.
For example: Green Party get first choice, and chooses Attorney General. Libertarian Party then chooses Secretary of Defense. Greens choose State Dept and Libertarians choose Commerce Dept. Etc.
Each Party fields the candidates of their choice for the Cabinet positions they chose. If the Senate doesn't affirm one, the same party chooses another candidate.
Since that whole explanation can't fit in a signature line, I abbreviate it as follows:
I wish that swing in public opinion was feasible. I fear it isn't. But I have hope.
That's why i mention the two parties in my sig. They are far enough from the center that both want this to stop. Maybe they could make it happen, if given a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
After they had been tested to see what percentage were already allergic to peanuts, and then only excluding the most severe cases, you fucking moron.
FTFY
The study shows that about 1 in 6 did actually show a reaction at the start of the test. Only the few that showed a really strong, and potentially deadly, reaction were excluded from further testing.
Mainly they didn't allow idiots like you to run the study.
So, how does the fetus grow if the "good filter" doesn't allow proteins to pass through?
The baby is obviously growing, so is getting its food source from something. Pretty sure that is the nutrients in the mother's blood. If the baby is getting the other proteins that are in the mother's blood, why would the peanut proteins be walled off?
How many more times do you repeat this story on this page? This is the third so far.
I grew up on peanut butter, with or without the jelly.
I would open a new 5 pound pail of peanut butter, get a spoon, and eat until my throat closed off from the layer of peanut butter coating it. It was actually painful from the muscles trying to push it down to my stomach. Then I would eat another few spoonfuls for good measure.
Either on sandwiches (always with jelly/jam by the way) or by the spoonful, I went through a pail a week.
I read a story about this test yesterday, and it mentioned something this one only hints at.
All had been given skin-prick tests to make sure they were not already allergic to peanuts. They were put into two groups — 530 who did not show signs of peanut allergy and 98 others with mild-to-moderate reactions, suggesting an allergy might be developing.
They did do this test on kids with peanut allergies. 98 of the ~600 had "mild-to-moderate reactions". They were allergic to peanuts at the start of the test.
What this article doesn't say, that the other did, is that the children that showed a strong reaction to the peanut protein were excluded from the test. So the 10 or so kids whose allergy would possibly be deadly in larger doses of peanuts were not tested. No sense killing one to prove a point about the rest.
Fatal allergic reactions are very rare and even they are usually not lethal.
While I agree with you main point, please explain the logic of this sentence.
No, you don't get it. He must read /. to build up a tolerance for horsepucky.
We had cats on the farm, and we played with them all the time. Outside.
Cats were not allowed inside the house, unless it was a female giving birth. And not even all the time for them, usually during winter or bad weather.
My wife's family is Buddhist, and none of them are anything like you describe.
Yes, but the snake-oil salesmen would make a fortune while the people wait until after understanding before telling them to get lost.
I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote above, but the word is 'sow', unless you are reaping clothing
Long ago, in middle school, we had an assignment to write a short story. I forget what the story was about, but there was some disagreement involved in it. I tried to write that one person sued another, but was drawing a blank on how to spell "sue". I think that I couldn't believe it was spelled the same as a girl's name. So I wrote something like "So Robert sewed him," which probably amused my teacher just a bit. And cost me several points on the grade.
And the first thing liberals say is that scientists don't fake global warming data, because they're scientists.
It's thought to be due to the driver having to split up their attention while smoking. Much like cell phones.
Wait a sec.
Cell phones smoke?
I thought the point of a major version (not necessarily in the Linux kernel, but software generally), was to signal a major change
Look at the choices in the poll itself:
1. I like big versions, and I cannot lie
You other coders can't deny.
When a kernel boots up with an itty bitty place
And a round digit in userspace
You get sprung
Pardon me. How is:
Do you understand why "some people are not full people" in the Constitution?
in the same class as:
Is Banana?
?
See how that works? My question comes off as rude because I'm not asking for clarification on your statements.
My question was asking for clarification of your statement. It asked if you understand the portion you mention. The question is valid because of the many people who do not understand that portion, yet still use it in their arguments.
You did not apologize for your arrogance, you attempted to excuse it and deflect it.
First it is superciliousness, now it is arrogance. Because I don't automatically assume you are a Constitutional scholar? Because I am attempting to ascertain if you are in the camp that interprets Three Fifths Compromise in a manner opposite its intention? Because of some other reason known only to you?
Thank you for the wonderful demonstration of your personality.
Yes, inquisitive with a high tolerance of insolence in verbal sparring partners.
You must not have realized that I did ask a question.
And in counterpoint, I have no confidence in your understanding of the section under discussion. As the other response to my post shows, even well educated people misunderstand its meaning. Why should I assume you have not?
Specifically, it would seem that if that is the only part of the Constitution that displeases you, you do misunderstand it.
Think about the situation a bit deeper.
Obviously the Libertarian Party wouldn't accept this if their only contribution was a "bodyguard". It would be a coalition government, similar to how other countries' Parliaments occasionally have. There would be Cabinet positions chosen by Green Party officials, and Cabinet positions chosen by Libertarian Party officials. Whether it is random or specifically decided which party chooses which position would be up to them. E.g., it could be like boys picking two baseball teams from everyone present.
For example:
Green Party get first choice, and chooses Attorney General. Libertarian Party then chooses Secretary of Defense. Greens choose State Dept and Libertarians choose Commerce Dept. Etc.
Each Party fields the candidates of their choice for the Cabinet positions they chose. If the Senate doesn't affirm one, the same party chooses another candidate.
Since that whole explanation can't fit in a signature line, I abbreviate it as follows:
Well said.
Thank you for the link. Having just read it, I find it incredible that people can be that ignorant of what the matter actually meant.
I wish that swing in public opinion was feasible. I fear it isn't. But I have hope.
That's why i mention the two parties in my sig. They are far enough from the center that both want this to stop. Maybe they could make it happen, if given a chance.
Do you understand why "some people are not full people" in the Constitution?
Asperchlorians
My new favorite fake word.
Not to unseat my favorite real word: quintessential.