Author Topic: Is the water molecule really an allergen?  (Read 8487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5965
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2018, 11:58:35 AM »
A lot of people say a lot of things.
Big Mike
Grande Prairie AB Canada

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2447
    • jt512
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2018, 12:23:34 PM »
She could be lying. She could be mistaken. She could be suffering from mental illness. She could be suffering psychosomatic symptoms. She could be suffering from other reactions, such as malnutrition or any number of other diseases. the tabloids could be lying (since that's the only reference for her case thus far). All of these are more likely than the story she gives.

Why is that? A lot of people say it's possible to be allergic to anything

Your skepticism is amazing.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6336
    • My Page
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2018, 12:29:41 PM »



Sorry to mix politics in the science section.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline Shrooborb

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2018, 04:58:02 PM »



Sorry to mix politics in the science section.

Does that also include all the doctors and reputable news journalists/sources who think water allergy is plausible?

Offline Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6336
    • My Page
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2018, 07:49:05 PM »



Sorry to mix politics in the science section.

Does that also include all the doctors and reputable news journalists/sources who think water allergy is plausible?
I have yet to see any evidence of any reputable doctors or news journalists that think so...so yeah.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2018, 10:50:43 AM »
(click to show/hide)

Sorry to mix politics in the science section.

Does that also include all the doctors and reputable news journalists/sources who think water allergy is plausible?

I have yet to see any evidence of any reputable doctors or news journalists that think so...so yeah.

Yeah, where are these doctors and reputable journalists and news sources?

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8401
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #51 on: October 15, 2018, 03:34:20 PM »
People are mostly water. If someone was allergic to water they'd probably be dead already. Granted that W.C. Fields made comments that could be taken as water allergy, but only to make a point about his preference for alcohol. "Lips that touch water will never touch mine."

Now, I could believe someone having a psychological condition that causes unpleasant symptoms when drinking a glass of water. And I find tap water to taste pretty horrid in most of the places I've lived. But note that you would die of dehydration if you consumed no H2O.

So I call BS on the "water allergy."
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #52 on: October 15, 2018, 06:06:49 PM »
Granted that W.C. Fields made comments

"Don't you know that fish fuck in that stuff?"

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8401
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #53 on: October 15, 2018, 06:24:22 PM »
I'm going to drink a big glass of water right now...

Ahhhhh, that was good!

(I did check to make sure there were no fish in it first.)

Last week I was swimming in water that had fishes in it. Some of them were really pretty. I didn't drink any of it, though. Too much salt in that water.

OTOH, I suppose that every molecule of water in that glass I just drank probably passed through the bladders of a million different animals before it reached my glass.

Off topic: A Mexican comic book called Condorito had this gag: A guy says to his friend, "When I die, I want you to pour a bottle of the best tequila over my grave." The friend relies, "Okay. You don't mind if it goes through my kidneys first, do you?"
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Shrooborb

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #54 on: October 17, 2018, 03:46:45 PM »
People are mostly water. If someone was allergic to water they'd probably be dead already. Granted that W.C. Fields made comments that could be taken as water allergy, but only to make a point about his preference for alcohol. "Lips that touch water will never touch mine."

Now, I could believe someone having a psychological condition that causes unpleasant symptoms when drinking a glass of water. And I find tap water to taste pretty horrid in most of the places I've lived. But note that you would die of dehydration if you consumed no H2O.

So I call BS on the "water allergy."

Ah I get it, so basically all these separate news organizations are posting articles about water allergy for a big 'inside joke'?

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #55 on: October 17, 2018, 04:08:53 PM »
Ah I get it, so basically all these separate news organizations are posting articles about water allergy for a big 'inside joke'?

A big 'inside joke'? Has somebody said that?

I mean, you might consider capitalism to be just a big 'inside joke,' but some of us don't see much humor in it.

Offline Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6336
    • My Page
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2018, 04:12:57 PM »
People are mostly water. If someone was allergic to water they'd probably be dead already. Granted that W.C. Fields made comments that could be taken as water allergy, but only to make a point about his preference for alcohol. "Lips that touch water will never touch mine."

Now, I could believe someone having a psychological condition that causes unpleasant symptoms when drinking a glass of water. And I find tap water to taste pretty horrid in most of the places I've lived. But note that you would die of dehydration if you consumed no H2O.

So I call BS on the "water allergy."

Ah I get it, so basically all these separate news organizations are posting articles about water allergy for a big 'inside joke'?
Literally thousands of people print stories about their magical friend in the sky that loves everyone, but will send a lot of us to burn in hell for all eternity for failing to believe in him.  I don't think that's an "inside joke".  I also don't believe they are right.  For hundreds of years, maybe thousands, news organizations wrote articles about the superiority of the white man and how the African savage was destined to slavery, to his betterment and the betterment of all Christendom.  Also not an "inside joke"...also wrong.  What about news articles about bicycles leading to hysteria in women...or birth control leading to lasciviousness...or trains moving too fast for the human to survive.


Christ man, news articles are wrong all the damn time.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline Shrooborb

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2018, 04:30:21 PM »
Ah I get it, so basically all these separate news organizations are posting articles about water allergy for a big 'inside joke'?

A big 'inside joke'? Has somebody said that?

I mean, you might consider capitalism to be just a big 'inside joke,' but some of us don't see much humor in it.

No. You're being way too literal.

I just find it hard to believe that several reputable newspapers (The Independent included) would run separate stories about people saying they're allergic to water, with actual doctors being cited. Are the doctors in on the joke too? For what reason? Why would an immunologist tell the papers that the patient is allergic to water?

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2018, 04:36:44 PM »
Sorry for the snark, but I guess I just tend to assume that most people on the SGU forums are at least vaguely aware of the problems with science reporting in the popular media. It's one of the most common themes of the podcast. 

The discipline of science and news reporting in the Internet age tend to work at somewhat crossed purposes. Science is all about determining the truth about the natural world, whereas news organizations are more concerned with finding and delivering novel and compelling stories to the public. The news business has become exceedingly competitive, and is primarily motivated by the economic pressure to garner more clicks and therefore more ad revenue. Consequently, science reporters operate under editorial pressure to 'punch up' their stories to make them more fascinating (read: "less boring") to the average readership. Then once the story is written, the editors tag on headlines crafted to 'sell' the story rather than accurately represent its contents. This is a very common problem, even among top-level journalistic outlets.

Here's a decent opinion piece from the Washington Post:

     
Quote
The media is ruining science

By Robert Gebelhoff | August 17, 2016

A year ago last week, researchers from Drexel University released a study about the benefits of “sexting” in relationships, which included a figure that suggested that the vast majority of adults — around 82 percent — had sexted at some point in the past year. As expected, the surprising statistic was widely covered online, including by CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Slate, the Huffington Post and here at The Post.

What was rarely mentioned in these media articles, though, was that the research had not been published in any academic journal. Instead, the data was compiled through an Internet survey as part of a presentation to the American Psychological Association’s annual convention. Sure, the results were interesting, but the research is simply not generalizable to the entire public.

Unfortunately, examples like this are legion in the world of science journalism. As a result, the scientific community has lately been making an effort try to end the stream of misleading articles — going so far as to redesign the way academic journals review and publish studies.

Part of the problem is that there’s a lot of adverse incentive for people to distort scientific studies. Science and health media writers are constantly in need of new, sexy studies (preferably ones that somehow mention “sex” in the headline). Meanwhile, scholars and academic journals face pressure to produce work that gets attention from media outlets — doing so can elevate the stature of their research, which in turn promotes their funding. At the same time, researchers have become very good at playing with data — such as shifting the length of their experiments or picking and choosing which variables to control for — in order to come out with the results they want. (FiveThirtyEight has a great tool that allows you to play with different economic variables to show that the economy had statistically done better under both Republicans and Democrats.)

In between, media agents for research institutions have become adept at turning complicated scientific jargon into compelling press releases — usually at the expense of accuracy. Reporters crop down those releases even further, stretching, exaggerating and torturing academic papers until their original meaning of the study has been completely lost.

Without a doubt, the rising demand for more studies has taken a toll on science’s credibility. In the past decade, researchers have been debating ways to free their work of so-called “publication bias,” including “preregistration” or “results-free” peer review. In this concept, scientists submit their work to academic journals and peer reviewers without the results included. That way, academics would only be allowed to review the methodology and the questions posed at the onset of each study. Theoretically, journals would free themselves of the tendency to only publish papers with exciting findings.

Problem solved, right? Well, it’s a good idea, but it’s not perfect. The academic journal Comparative Political Studies recently pulled together a special issue made up entirely of these “results-free” submissions. In an essay reviewing the resulting papers, CPS editors highlighted some major pitfalls: First of all, studies don’t always go as planned. In peer reviewing methodology first, scientists risk becoming too rigid in their experimental design, making it difficult to carry out their study as promised if they have to adapt to unexpected variables.

Secondly, the results-free model seems to favor some study designs over others — such as quantitative over qualitative designs. There’s also the legitimate concern about what happens if methodologies come out with null results — that is, if the only result a study can produce is to prove the hypothesis incorrect. Such a paper could end up being extraordinarily boring or not answering the essential question at issue. Imagine a headline like: “We don’t know which gene puts you at a greater risk of depression, but we’re pretty sure it’s not the gene we thought it was.”


That’s not to say the “results-free” model is worthless — it does have potential. In fact, the editors lauded the model for incentivizing researchers to focus on theory and research design. The problem is that it simply doesn’t solve all the problems facing scientific publication.

What’s more, it shouldn’t be up to scientists to fix them.

As the CPS essay shows, scientists can only reform themselves so far; a lot of the blame must be put on reporters and the general public. The main problem with scientific studies is not how they are conducted; it’s how they’re consumed. Both the general public and members of the media alike tend to treat studies as if they’re infallible. If a newspaper or a politician cites a newly published scholarly work, rarely do we ever hear someone challenge it.

In all honesty, the best way to challenge scientific findings is simply to find the time and read the original study. Evaluate the methodology for yourself. Are there legitimate limitations to the research? Does the sample size seem large enough? If at any point the answers to these questions seem way over your head and the long gobbledygook of equations looks like another language, try Googling it. Check out other articles on the topic, or simply start with the basics.

The unfortunate reality is that some scholarly research cannot be simplified without giving up essential nuance. The general public can’t blame science for being too hard — it can only blame reporters for not having the intellectual rigor or, more likely, the time to work through the difficult questions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/08/17/the-media-is-ruining-science/?utm_term=.9acd8a4add9d
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 05:57:02 PM by John Albert »

Offline Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6336
    • My Page
Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2018, 04:37:29 PM »
What "several reputable newspapers"? You've posted, at best, three sources; a tabloid from 1996, The Daily Mail and SocialNewsDaily (whatever that is)...all of whom, btw, refers to it as aquagenic urticaria in the body of the articles...which is not an allergy to H2O. 


None of your sources are stellar, none of them are exactly bastions of scientific endeavors...and none of them actually support your question.


"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking