Originally Posted by
Skeptic Ginger
Technically correct or not, I've been hard pressed to find any research article that says technically anaphylactoid is not an allergic reaction.
Bottom line, who cares?
Not true. I have criticized a couple of your posts when you had things wrong like saying TB was droplet spread when it isn't. I didn't finish one of our other discussions because one of my two dogs was dying, and when he died there was no point in bumping the thread.
We come from different circles.
And that goes with my point, who cares about the molecular chain of events that cause the two different reactions? Making some complicated point that it wasn't an allergic reaction just confuses people. Describing the molecular mechanisms wasn't the issue. Insisting one was not really and allergic reaction was.
In this specific case, the report I read said they had symptoms the next day. I'll post it when I find it.
If/when these vaccine recipients get their second dose, they would be sensitized and could have an anaphylactic reaction. And the caution is legit about observing people after they receive the vaccine.
Hey SG could you just correct the CDC about this? On their web site they say,
Quote:
M. tuberculosis is carried in airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, of 1– 5 microns in diameter. Infectious droplet nuclei are generated when persons who have pulmonary or laryngeal TB disease cough, sneeze, shout, or sing.
https://www.cdc.gov/tb/education/cor...f/chapter2.pdf