From a paper at http://www.alpacas.com/ (you’ll have to register to gain access):
I also found this comment at http://www.epicmenswear.com/drestrousfaq.html#3:
And why am I providing cites? Shouldn’t you provide a cite stating that some people are allergic to wool? In other words, wool is innocent until proven guilty. 
And from MSG symptom complex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia,
The author just didn’t want to make an absolute statement. I contend that no one is allergic to wool (i.e. the wool itself). Please provide evidence to the contrary and I’ll eat my words.
BTW: I would also like to state that no one is allergic to water.
I am looking for a cite. Please be patient.
Apparently some people are allergic to facts.
Even if it were imaginary, which it’s not, it would be a disorder, not a disease. It’s Attention Deficit Disorder.
What facts are those, Guinastasia. At least he has come up with some cites for his claims. What have you provided?
Fine with me. I didn’t look at it. I don’t have a dog in that race.
Just wanted to point out Guinastasia’s allergy to making meaningful posts.
I didn’t see anyone saying that. Crafter_Man said it was a “behavioral disease”, not that it doesn’t exist.
Now I don’t know what he means by “behavioral disease”, or if ADHD would fit that definition, whatever it is, but you might consider finding out before getting all indignant.
Unless you just want to indulge your outrage fetish, then by all means, knock yourself out.
About Crafter_Man’s cites:
www.epicmenswear.com…yup, I’d find that authoritative. :rolleyes:
www.alpacas.com - who knows?
NIH is a strong source; too bad Crafter_Man just shows the parts most favorable to him, and not parts like this:
I’ve managed to avoid tangling with C_M lately, but like a bottle of Ripple or Boones Farm, he doesn’t seem to have improved with time.
Oh yeah, gotta mention his original cite, and his more recent comment:
Dig out the catsup, friend:
That’s from your cite, so eat hearty.
And don’t say, “that’s just the extract from the wool, not the wool itself.” Because that makes about as much sense as saying, “It’s the THC that makes you high, not the marijuana itself.”
I’d guess that behavioural disease would be a disease that is modifiable by changing behaviours and environment.
Thing is though that most paeds, psychs and psychiatrists have already thought of that and one of the diagnostic issues for ADD and ADHD is that the behaviour remains constant in different environments.
And I’m in the Crafter Man’s OP was jerkish camp. Sure misdiagnosis happens, sure people adopt conditions as their own special fetish when those conditions are fashionable but it doesn’t make the disease or the syndrome imaginary.
I’d call it a syndrome. It is a constellation of symptoms that cause one to have significant difficulty in one’s daily life (as part of the definition) that responds to a particular mode of treatment and not very well to anything else.
IMO, that’s enough; whether or not it has an underlying organic cause is irrelevant (unless that knowledge can lead to better treatment). I treat diabetics every day, but I rarely think about their pancreases or the mechanism of their beta-cell dysfunction.
Dr. J
It could be both, as certain misfirings in various chemical reactions occur in a persons with ADDs brain, a disorder of the brain function, thus causing a syndrome of symptoms.
RTFirefly: Must I dig up research reports? How dense are you? Besides, the onus is on you to prove wool is guilty. Cite, please?
Good grief. All you people who have taken offense at Crafter_Man’s posts on this subject need to pull the sticks outta your asses. Not once did he suggest that every occurence of the diseases was imaginary, merely that some, or occassionally most, are. And I’m looking squarely at you who merely came by to call him an asshole or asshat or other name without providing any evidence to back up your position.
Some people are just not happy unless they have something to get offended about, and most of you in this thread fall into that category, it seems. Jesus Christ, get over yourselves.
Why is the onus on him? You’re the one who first claimed that wool allergies are imaginary. If you come in here claiming that the sky is green and chickens come from Mars, we’re not going to bother digging up cites to prove you wrong. You made an assertation, back it up.
Is there a Cites for Dummies book I can refer you to? I thought my post was a pretty good start, but obviously not enough. It shouldn’t even take the IQ of a kumquat to realize that Epic Men’s Wear isn’t an authoritative cite.
Apparently pretty dense, in your eyes. But since the feeling is mutual, that doesn’t particularly bother me.
I cited your cite. Problem?
You leave Gary alone!
Thanks Q.E.D.
The vast majority of people are ignorant about the scientific process (RTFirefly, for example). While I would expect such ignorance on a lesser board, this is the Straight Dope fercryingoutloud.
There are those who claim “MSG gives them headaches.” There are also people who believe the Holy Ghost is talking directly to them. Both of these are considered abnormal conditions. The onus is not on me to prove them wrong; the onus is on them to prove they’re right. Alas, I contend there is no credible scientific evidence to substantiate either claim. I do not need evidence; they do. Ditto for wool.
I came into this thread with an open mind, in fact my first post is a request for Crafter_Man to clarify his position. I hoped that his OP was poorly worded and he did not mean to imply that the diseases themselves were imaginary, only that some people imagined having them, as you said. After reading his further posts this is not what he appears to be saying.
There are cites in this thread that show Chinese Restaurant Syndrome is real, in fact Crafter_Man’s own cite says this. DoctorJ has stated that ADD is real, and there is evidence to back him up. Even the idea that no one is allergic to wool has been shown to be false - at least, that people are allergic to a component of wool (to me that’s close enough for people to say they are allergic to wool. No one wants to take 10 minutes to break it down every time they have to say why they can’t wear wool.)
It doesn’t seem to me like he is saying some people really do have these diseases at all.
Considering that he’d said “I contend that no one is allergic to wool” six hours earlier, I must ask you to retract this wholly inaccurate statement.
This from the great defender of the scientific process. Yup.
If we were sitting here, doing the science for the very first time, that would be the case.
But we are not in the lab, or presenting evidence in scientific journals. And evidence has already been presented in those fora. We are, or were, debating what the current state of scientific knowledge is on these questions.
You have now gone beyond that and made an assertion, not about the state of scientific knowledge, but about the underlying fact: "no one is allergic to wool ". Given that, according to your own cite, the professionals have concluded otherwise, the onus is on you to show why your knowledge is superior to theirs. Ditto for any other afflictions you claim do not really exist, but that scientists recognize.