I'm alittle confused about
I'm alittle confused about something here. Even if this isn't a true allergy if you get anaphylaxis, that is life threatening regardless of if it is an allergy, is it not? Whether it is or isn't an allergy, if multiple times you've had your throat close up on you and this is treatable with an epi pen wouldn't it be best to carry it regardless of the cause of the anaphylaxis?
Perhaps that is what the allergist is getting at. That even though according to him there is zero percent chance of this being an actual allergy in the technical sense it is still causing a life threatening condition and therefore needs to be treated with an epi pen. Or is he claiming that not only is it not an allergy, but that there is no risk of anaphylaxis occuring again and so don't worry about avoiding the food? In that case maybe his is just telling you to carry the epi pen so that in the rare case that it does occur again 1) you are treated and don't have the possibility of being with O2 long enough to cause damage so that 2) you won't sue him. Basically the philosophy of better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I'm alittle confused about something here. Even if this isn't a true allergy if you get anaphylaxis, that is life threatening regardless of if it is an allergy, is it not? Whether it is or isn't an allergy, if multiple times you've had your throat close up on you and this is treatable with an epi pen wouldn't it be best to carry it regardless of the cause of the anaphylaxis?
Perhaps that is what the allergist is getting at. That even though according to him there is zero percent chance of this being an actual allergy in the technical sense it is still causing a life threatening condition and therefore needs to be treated with an epi pen. Or is he claiming that not only is it not an allergy, but that there is no risk of anaphylaxis occuring again and so don't worry about avoiding the food? In that case maybe his is just telling you to carry the epi pen so that in the rare case that it does occur again 1) you are treated and don't have the possibility of being with O2 long enough to cause damage so that 2) you won't sue him. Basically the philosophy of better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.