Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Skepticism / Science Talk => Topic started by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 01:18:46 PM

Title: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 01:18:46 PM
Allergen - a substance capable of binding to IgE antibodies and triggering an allergic reaction. Lately I keep coming across headlines where people are saying that they've been diagnosed with an allergy to the water molecule, but is this true?

Woman with an allergy to the H20 molecule who cannot even drink water without her throat swelling shut and reacts to her own tears is writing a ''long awaited'' book about her allergy called ''It's Only Water''

https://socialnewsdaily.com/75296/woman-possesses-fatal-water-allergy/

Here's an earlier article on her from when she was 8 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595

She not only reacts to her own sweat and tears but she also has an extreme internal reaction to water when she drinks it, such as her throat closing up. There are news articles on her since she was eight years old, such as the second article I provided.

Here is a very recent separate case which is nearly identical and it made the headlines https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6185043/Teenager-19-allergic-TEARS-breaks-hives-touches-water.html

She also cannot drink water, because when she does, it causes ''agonizing sores'' in her mouth, so she only drinks milk. Her own tears cause her to break out in hives because her immune system sees the H20 molecule as foreign.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 01, 2018, 01:32:30 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 01:38:59 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 01:55:53 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.

Quote from the ncbi article -

'' He also complained of pruritic erythematous changes, with swelling of the lips and oral cavity, after drinking water.''
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shibboleth on October 01, 2018, 02:02:08 PM
Sometimes water literally oozes out of my skin. That doesn't happen with soda.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 01, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.

Quote from the ncbi article -

'' He also complained of pruritic erythematous changes, with swelling of the lips and oral cavity, after drinking water.''

Which is not agonizing sores.

It seems like you've made up your mind and are not asking a question, but rather telling us all about the wonderful thing you read in the tabloids.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 02:09:45 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.

Quote from the ncbi article -

'' He also complained of pruritic erythematous changes, with swelling of the lips and oral cavity, after drinking water.''

Which is not agonizing sores.

It seems like you've made up your mind and are not asking a question, but rather telling us all about the wonderful thing you read in the tabloids.

Whose to say they don't have a much more severe case?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 03:08:08 PM
Sometimes water literally oozes out of my skin. That doesn't happen with soda.

Pardon?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 01, 2018, 03:32:23 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.

Quote from the ncbi article -

'' He also complained of pruritic erythematous changes, with swelling of the lips and oral cavity, after drinking water.''

Which is not agonizing sores.

It seems like you've made up your mind and are not asking a question, but rather telling us all about the wonderful thing you read in the tabloids.

Whose to say they don't have a much more severe case?

Show me the medical literature on more severe reactions instead of tabloids and we'll have something to go on.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 01, 2018, 03:35:33 PM
https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50465.0.html

I doubt it's a hoax because there's government medical websites saying that it's a real thing https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

That article does not describe any of the symptoms from the tabloids. That is akin to saying aliens from Mars are real because pilots report UFOs.

Quote from the ncbi article -

'' He also complained of pruritic erythematous changes, with swelling of the lips and oral cavity, after drinking water.''

Which is not agonizing sores.

It seems like you've made up your mind and are not asking a question, but rather telling us all about the wonderful thing you read in the tabloids.

Whose to say they don't have a much more severe case?

Show me the medical literature on more severe reactions instead of tabloids and we'll have something to go on.

I already showed you a Biomed site case report which included swelling of the mouth, lips and throat after drinking water. I don't see why someone couldn't have a more severe version of this. Can you explain why the patient in the Biomed Institute case report had swelling of the throat after drinking water?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 05, 2018, 08:54:29 PM
bumping cause it hasnt got many good replies so far
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: haudace on October 07, 2018, 08:49:39 AM
Isn't everything in the body made up of 70% and more of water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 07, 2018, 08:24:12 PM
Isn't everything in the body made up of 70% and more of water.

This is the first thing I thought of. An allergy to water seems like a ridiculous concept.

More likely it's a reaction to some substance dissolved within the water, or maybe some sort of autoimmune reaction.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: bachfiend on October 08, 2018, 12:49:50 AM
The only thing I can think of that would make it possible is cold urticaria, in which low temperatures cause the degranulation of mast cells, resulting in swelling.  If the water was very cold, then I suppose drinking water could produce it in a susceptible person.  But it wouldn’t be an allergic reaction.  No allergen is involved.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 09, 2018, 01:34:40 AM
She says that doctors have diagnosed her with an allergy to the H2O molecule.

Not to 'cold, or to contaminants in the water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 09, 2018, 02:40:59 AM
Not a true allergy, but a real condition:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria#mw-head
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 09, 2018, 02:48:44 AM
That article mentions nothing about anaphylactic shock from ingesting water or receiving a water based drip.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 09, 2018, 04:16:07 AM
That article mentions nothing about anaphylactic shock from ingesting water or receiving a water based drip.


The article zou posted says she has the exact condition that the wikipedia article is about.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 09, 2018, 01:42:02 PM
That article mentions nothing about anaphylactic shock from ingesting water or receiving a water based drip.


The article zou posted says she has the exact condition that the wikipedia article is about.

Let's forget about the name of the condition because this isn't what I'm talking about.

We're assessing her specific case.

Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

Her case is not limited to just her skin but she has life threatening internal body reactions when she ingests water.

Bolded for emphasis.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 09, 2018, 03:53:28 PM
That article mentions nothing about anaphylactic shock from ingesting water or receiving a water based drip.


The article zou posted says she has the exact condition that the wikipedia article is about.

Let's forget about the name of the condition because this isn't what I'm talking about.

We're assessing her specific case.

Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

Her case is not limited to just her skin but she has life threatening internal body reactions when she ingests water.

Bolded for emphasis.

Do you have a medical report or case study for the above that isn't a tabloid reporting?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 09, 2018, 03:56:21 PM
That article mentions nothing about anaphylactic shock from ingesting water or receiving a water based drip.


The article zou posted says she has the exact condition that the wikipedia article is about.

Let's forget about the name of the condition because this isn't what I'm talking about.

We're assessing her specific case.

Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

Her case is not limited to just her skin but she has life threatening internal body reactions when she ingests water.

Bolded for emphasis.

I feel like you are fishing for something very specific from us here.  Why not say explicitly what the conclusion is that you've already drawn?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 09, 2018, 04:47:50 PM
Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

I don't know, but it seems silly to presume water as the cause of the reaction, given that human blood itself is something like 50% water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 06:55:20 AM
Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

I don't know, but it seems silly to presume water as the cause of the reaction, given that human blood itself is something like 50% water.

Someone on Reddit said this and he got mostly downvotes, someone else replied and said 50% makes a big difference and her blood wouldn't trigger a reaction because the water is mixed in with other stuff, which makes it not water anymore.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 07:38:11 AM
Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

I don't know, but it seems silly to presume water as the cause of the reaction, given that human blood itself is something like 50% water.

Someone on Reddit said this and he got mostly downvotes, someone else replied and said 50% makes a big difference and her blood wouldn't trigger a reaction because the water is mixed in with other stuff, which makes it not water anymore.
As soon as you add a water drip it is now "mixed with other stuff"....like blood.  It's not like it goes through your system as a big chunk of pure water with blood on each side.


If the water molecule cases an actual allergic reaction, 50% is plenty for that reaction to come about.  People with a peanut allergy can just catch a whiff of peanut dust and have a reaction...how many ppm do you think that is?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 08:08:16 AM
Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

I don't know, but it seems silly to presume water as the cause of the reaction, given that human blood itself is something like 50% water.

Someone on Reddit said this and he got mostly downvotes, someone else replied and said 50% makes a big difference and her blood wouldn't trigger a reaction because the water is mixed in with other stuff, which makes it not water anymore.
As soon as you add a water drip it is now "mixed with other stuff"....like blood.  It's not like it goes through your system as a big chunk of pure water with blood on each side.


If the water molecule cases an actual allergic reaction, 50% is plenty for that reaction to come about.  People with a peanut allergy can just catch a whiff of peanut dust and have a reaction...how many ppm do you think that is?

Someone mentioned osmosis, where purer water would be able to 'diffuse' into the connective tissues where mast cells are (remember the receptors on mast cells are located outside of the cell, along its surface, so they'd only react to water outside of the cell) and trigger a reaction, but water in the blood wouldn't diffuse into tissues because it isn't pure water (by comparison).

When she had a drip, the drip was purer than her blood, so it diffused into her connective tissues where mast cells were now exposed to water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 08:32:58 AM

Purer water does not diffuse any differently than mixed water.  We are talking about molecules here, there's no such thing as a pure vs. tainted water molecule.  There's only water molecules and PPM.  If you jack up the amount of water in your blood it could lead to capillary exchange (which goes on all the time anyway)...but that's how water is delivered throughout your system regardless of you getting a drip or not.  If she had never had capillary exchange before the drip she wouldn't currently be alive.  What about all the water currently stored in her fat cells?  When that moves in and out (gaining and losing weight) does she go into shock?


I understand you are leaning on a reddit thread for info here...and that might be part of your problem.  Crowd sourcing doesn't particularly work if the crowd isn't made up of experts.  I wouldn't go to my family reunion full of 80 year old rednecks and ask about how to solve the Travelling Salesman problem via evolutionary algorithms.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 10, 2018, 11:06:31 AM
Why did she suffer an extreme whole body reaction from getting a drip that was 'water based'?

A drip is having a needle inserted into your vein and water goes into your veins, bypassing the skin.

So why did she still have a systematic reaction?

I don't know, but it seems silly to presume water as the cause of the reaction, given that human blood itself is something like 50% water.

Someone on Reddit said this and he got mostly downvotes, someone else replied and said 50% makes a big difference and her blood wouldn't trigger a reaction because the water is mixed in with other stuff, which makes it not water anymore.
As soon as you add a water drip it is now "mixed with other stuff"....like blood.  It's not like it goes through your system as a big chunk of pure water with blood on each side.


If the water molecule cases an actual allergic reaction, 50% is plenty for that reaction to come about.  People with a peanut allergy can just catch a whiff of peanut dust and have a reaction...how many ppm do you think that is?

Someone mentioned osmosis, where purer water would be able to 'diffuse' into the connective tissues where mast cells are (remember the receptors on mast cells are located outside of the cell, along its surface, so they'd only react to water outside of the cell) and trigger a reaction, but water in the blood wouldn't diffuse into tissues because it isn't pure water (by comparison).

When she had a drip, the drip was purer than her blood, so it diffused into her connective tissues where mast cells were now exposed to water.

That is not how blood works and not how water works. When an IV solution is put into the bloodstream the liquid (at least .9% saline, plus lactated ringers or medicine) mixes with the blood plasma instantly and becomes part of it. Plasma is just water with didsooved proteins carrying other chemicals around the body. The blood plasma will just diffuse the solution into itself and then the water in the solution becumrs part if the blood, no more or less "pure" than the blood itself.

Trying to figure out how an unlikely thing happened comes second. First we still need to prove that it even happened, and so far we haven't done that.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 11:15:33 AM
Quote

That is not how blood works and not how water works. When an IV solution is put into the bloodstream the liquid (at least .9% saline, plus lactated ringers or medicine) mixes with the blood plasma instantly and becomes part of it. Plasma is just water with didsooved proteins carrying other chemicals around the body. The blood plasma will just diffuse the solution into itself and then the water in the solution becumrs part if the blood, no more or less "pure" than the blood itself.

Trying to figure out how an unlikely thing happened comes second. First we still need to prove that it even happened, and so far we haven't done that.

Except immunologists have seen this girl and concluded she's allergic to the H2O molecule.

Quoting from one of the articles on this girl -  (this one to be exact https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595 )

''Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne.

Wendy said: "The surgeons had to think very fast about what they were going to do. They were marvellous."

"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

I searched Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne, and I can confirm he's a real immunologist.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 11:39:17 AM
Quote

That is not how blood works and not how water works. When an IV solution is put into the bloodstream the liquid (at least .9% saline, plus lactated ringers or medicine) mixes with the blood plasma instantly and becomes part of it. Plasma is just water with didsooved proteins carrying other chemicals around the body. The blood plasma will just diffuse the solution into itself and then the water in the solution becumrs part if the blood, no more or less "pure" than the blood itself.

Trying to figure out how an unlikely thing happened comes second. First we still need to prove that it even happened, and so far we haven't done that.

Except immunologists have seen this girl and concluded she's allergic to the H2O molecule.

Quoting from one of the articles on this girl -  (this one to be exact https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595) )

''Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne.

Wendy said: "The surgeons had to think very fast about what they were going to do. They were marvellous."

"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

I searched Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne, and I can confirm he's a real immunologist.
https://www.swbh.nhs.uk/services/immunology-and-allergy/ is the immunology department for Birmingham City Hospital.  Name doesn't appear.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 11:44:15 AM
Also, your source is an article from 1996 in the "Sunday People" tabloid which, as far as I can tell, cites no sources at all.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 12:10:32 PM
Quote

That is not how blood works and not how water works. When an IV solution is put into the bloodstream the liquid (at least .9% saline, plus lactated ringers or medicine) mixes with the blood plasma instantly and becomes part of it. Plasma is just water with didsooved proteins carrying other chemicals around the body. The blood plasma will just diffuse the solution into itself and then the water in the solution becumrs part if the blood, no more or less "pure" than the blood itself.

Trying to figure out how an unlikely thing happened comes second. First we still need to prove that it even happened, and so far we haven't done that.

Except immunologists have seen this girl and concluded she's allergic to the H2O molecule.

Quoting from one of the articles on this girl -  (this one to be exact https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595) )

''Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne.

Wendy said: "The surgeons had to think very fast about what they were going to do. They were marvellous."

"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

I searched Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne, and I can confirm he's a real immunologist.
https://www.swbh.nhs.uk/services/immunology-and-allergy/ is the immunology department for Birmingham City Hospital.  Name doesn't appear.

This was in 1996. Check the publication date of the article.

It's possible he traveled to the clinic to research this girl.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 12:20:09 PM
Yes, I noted that it's an article from 1996.  In an uncited tabloid with little to no specifics.  That's plenty of time for this super doctor to have written something in the journals for this ground breaking affliction.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 01:13:06 PM
Yes, I noted that it's an article from 1996.  In an uncited tabloid with little to no specifics.  That's plenty of time for this super doctor to have written something in the journals for this ground breaking affliction.

Good point, I did try searching National Biomed site as well but couldn't find anything on 'water allergy'. I found some stuff about bring allergic to additives in the water but not the H2O molecule like this woman's claiming
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 10, 2018, 06:22:34 PM
So why do you think the whole ''I'm SO allergic to the H2O molecule that if I take a sip of water I die'' thing has blown up in recent years? I swear every week I see a new 'case' in the headlines of someone claiming they're allergic to the water molecule and die if they drink a sip of water even so they have to survive by drinking only [insert substitute here]
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 10, 2018, 08:13:18 PM
So why do you think the whole ''I'm SO allergic to the H2O molecule that if I take a sip of water I die'' thing has blown up in recent years? I swear every week I see a new 'case' in the headlines of someone claiming they're allergic to the water molecule and die if they drink a sip of water even so they have to survive by drinking only [insert substitute here]
The problem is whatever that substitute is...it's mostly water.  Otherwise they wouldn't be drinking it.  Hell, most whiskey is over half water.  I mean, I have some cask strength bourbon that's 120 proof which makes it closer to 40% water.  Still, that's a lot of water.  If someone with a allergy to peanuts has to have separate equipment that's never even touched a peanut, I would think that 40% peanut would kill them dead.  The reaction has little to nothing to do with purity, the molecule itself reacts to the immune system, it doesn't matter what you mix it up in.  Someone allergic to eggs can't eat Mayonnaise (unless it is vegan and prepared without eggs).


I actually haven't seen the allergic to water claim all that often.  But recently I've seen an uptick in people who claim they live off of nothing but air or sunshine.  They can claim their butt is a jetpack, but until I see them fly...
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 11, 2018, 06:02:42 AM
So why do you think the whole ''I'm SO allergic to the H2O molecule that if I take a sip of water I die'' thing has blown up in recent years? I swear every week I see a new 'case' in the headlines of someone claiming they're allergic to the water molecule and die if they drink a sip of water even so they have to survive by drinking only [insert substitute here]
The problem is whatever that substitute is...it's mostly water.  Otherwise they wouldn't be drinking it.  Hell, most whiskey is over half water.  I mean, I have some cask strength bourbon that's 120 proof which makes it closer to 40% water.  Still, that's a lot of water.  If someone with a allergy to peanuts has to have separate equipment that's never even touched a peanut, I would think that 40% peanut would kill them dead.  The reaction has little to nothing to do with purity, the molecule itself reacts to the immune system, it doesn't matter what you mix it up in.  Someone allergic to eggs can't eat Mayonnaise (unless it is vegan and prepared without eggs).


I actually haven't seen the allergic to water claim all that often.  But recently I've seen an uptick in people who claim they live off of nothing but air or sunshine.  They can claim their butt is a jetpack, but until I see them fly...

She implies she still has a reaction to orange juice/milk, because she says she only drinks 4 150 ml glasses of milk or orange juice/milk and orange juice mixed together (ew) a day. That works out to about 500 ml worth of water a day.

She says she cannot eat ice cream, have ice lollies, and she lives on dry foods for example biscuits and cereal without the milk.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 11, 2018, 07:53:03 AM
I think Orange Juice contains more water than Ice Cream
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 11, 2018, 07:55:26 AM
Also, I have a great uncle that's convinced that he was healed from a flu by the touch of Jesus.  You can't possibly talk him out of it.  It wasn't the anti-virals the doctors gave him, or his own immune system...it was Jesus.




What I'm saying is, I really don't care what this woman says as it pertains to the actual science behind her symptoms.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 11, 2018, 08:12:34 AM
Also, I have a great uncle that's convinced that he was healed from a flu by the touch of Jesus.  You can't possibly talk him out of it.  It wasn't the anti-virals the doctors gave him, or his own immune system...it was Jesus.




What I'm saying is, I really don't care what this woman says as it pertains to the actual science behind her symptoms.

Then what's causing her symptoms? Or are you implying she and her family have been lying since she was five/eight?

In the recent article she says she's trying to publish a book about her life called ''Its Only Water''. She's 31 or 32 now so it seems like very high effort if this woman's been trolling us all along.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 11, 2018, 08:36:11 AM
I don't think my uncle is lying about Jesus healing him.  I also don't think people who believe in Alien Abductions are lying.  I don't even think my old friend from High School who's now a Reiki healer is lying.


Doesn't mean I believe in Reiki healing, alien abductions, or jesus.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 11, 2018, 08:38:13 AM
I don't think my uncle is lying about Jesus healing him.  I also don't think people who believe in Alien Abductions are lying.  I don't even think my old friend from High School who's now a Reiki healer is lying.


Doesn't mean I believe in Reiki healing, alien abductions, or jesus.

Then what's causing her symptoms? The doctors also diagnosed her as being allergic to H2O when she was five. Why?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 11, 2018, 09:48:46 AM
I don't think my uncle is lying about Jesus healing him.  I also don't think people who believe in Alien Abductions are lying.  I don't even think my old friend from High School who's now a Reiki healer is lying.


Doesn't mean I believe in Reiki healing, alien abductions, or jesus.

Then what's causing her symptoms? The doctors also diagnosed her as being allergic to H2O when she was five. Why?
Then who's healing all those people in southern Alabama that go visit Jennifer?


What am I, her doctor? 




Speaking of which, do you have any evidence that an actual doctor diagnosed her as being allergic to H2O?  Outside of a tabloid article from 1996?  Aquagenic urticaria is the closest thing that exists to that in the DSM...and it's not an allergy to H2O.


There are tons of doctors here in the U.S. that diagnose people with all kinds of bullshit to give them an oxy prescription.  There's an entire industry here called Pill Mills.  There's also iridologists who will stare into your eyes and diagnose you with bunions or some such shit.  There are people here with doctorates in homeopaty. 


I don't know what a doctor told her family 30ish years ago, and I honestly don't give a shit.  The facts on the ground are that nobody in the history of the planet has been verified as being allergic to H2O.  Your body is 70% H2O...do the math.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 11, 2018, 10:39:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 11, 2018, 11:51:30 AM
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
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 11, 2018, 11:58:35 AM
A lot of people say a lot of things.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 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.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 11, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160809103644-many-people-are-saying-trump-twitter-illustration-mullery-exlarge-169.jpg)


Sorry to mix politics in the science section.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 12, 2018, 04:58:02 PM
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160809103644-many-people-are-saying-trump-twitter-illustration-mullery-exlarge-169.jpg)


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?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 12, 2018, 07:49:05 PM
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160809103644-many-people-are-saying-trump-twitter-illustration-mullery-exlarge-169.jpg)


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.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert 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?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: daniel1948 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."
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert 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?"
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: daniel1948 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?"
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb 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'?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert 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.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus 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.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb 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?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert 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 (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/reframing-sexting.pdf) 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 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/08/11/is_affirmative_consent_difficult_not_for_people_who_sext_which_is_most_people.html), including by CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Slate, the Huffington Post and here at The Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/08/04/sexting-is-widespread-so-why-is-it-still-taboo/).

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 (https://bit.ly/23Bdznr) 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 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#part2) 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 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-farts-dont-prevent-cancer-claims-dont-pass-smell-test-n156136).

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 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/2016-findley.pdf) 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
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus 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.


Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 04:52:37 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.

Then why does it say in this article that her body went into shock after drinking a mouthful of water by mistake, requiring an epi pen (adrenaline) to save her life?

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595

It's mentioned near to the beginning of the article.

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 17, 2018, 04:56:14 PM
Off the top of my head, a small visual representation of probabilities

1.........2.......................................(many many many more .....)............................3

1) Someone somewhere is mistaken, and the mistake is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
2) Someone somewhere is deliberately lying, and the lie is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
3) Everything we know is wrong
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 17, 2018, 04:57:14 PM

You mean the uncited article from a 1996 British Tabloid?  I have no idea why they said anything they said.


It does say...right there in that article, in the first segment:
Quote
The condition - known as aquagenic urticaria - is incurable. It is not genetic but a fluke of nature.




Again...not an allergy to H2O.  Do you want another link (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10901/aquagenic-urticaria) to a definition of aquagenic urticaria?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 17, 2018, 06:24:55 PM
Here, from the National Institutes of Health:

Quote
Aquagenic urticaria

Summary

Aquagenic urticaria is a rare condition in which urticaria (hives) develop rapidly after the skin comes in contact with water, regardless of its temperature. It most commonly affects women and symptoms often start around the onset of puberty. Some patients report itching too. It is a form of physical urticaria. The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is currently unknown.  Due to the rarity of the condition, there is very limited data regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments; however, various medications and therapies have been used with variable success.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Symptoms

Aquagenic urticaria is a rare condition in which itchy urticaria (hives) develop rapidly after the skin comes in contact with water, regardless of its temperature. The hives associated with aquagenic urticaria are typically small (approximately 1-3 mm), red- or skin-colored welts (called wheals) with clearly defined edges. The rash most commonly develops on the neck, upper trunk and arms, although it can occur anywhere on the body. Some people have itching too. Once the water source is removed, the rash generally fades within 30 to 60 minutes.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Cause

The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is poorly understood. However, scientists have proposed the following theories:
  • A substance dissolved in water enters the skin and triggers an immune response. In this theory, the hives are not caused by water, specifically, but rather an allergen in the water.
  • An interaction between water and a substance found in or on the skin generates a toxic material, which leads to the development of hives.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Inheritance

Most cases of aquagenic urticaria seem to occur sporadically in people with no family history of aquagenic urticaria. However, familial cases have been reported on several occasions, with one report describing the disease in three generations of a single family. Some familial cases have been reported in association with other conditions, some of which can be familial. In other words, the family members who had aquagenic urticaria also had another potentially inherited medical condition. However, to our knowledge, no specific inheritance pattern has been definitively associated with aquagenic urticaria.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Diagnosis

A diagnosis of aquagenic urticaria is typically suspected based on the presence of characteristic signs and symptoms. A "water challenge test" may then be ordered to confirm the diagnosis. During this test, a compress of 35ºC water is applied to the upper body for 30 minutes. The upper body is chosen as the preferred site for the test because other areas, such as the legs, are affected less commonly.  It is important to tell the patient to not have any antihistamines for several days before the test.

In some case reports, rinsing specific areas of the body with water or giving a direct bath and shower challenges has been attempted. Use of these tests may be needed when the usual water challenge test using a small water compress is negative, although it should be avoided in patients who have a history of serious symptoms.

Last updated: 6/20/2016

Treatment

Due to the rarity of the condition, there is very limited data regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments for aquagenic urticaria. The following have been used to treat aquagenic urticaria with variable success:
  • H1 antihistamines (http://dermnetnz.org/treatments/antihistamines.html)
  • Propranolol (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682607.html)
  • Ultraviolet B (UVB) light treatments (also called phototherapy)
  • Stanozolol (an anabolic steroid (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/anabolicsteroids.html))
  • Creams that serve as a barrier between water and the skin
  • A low dose of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/ssris/ART-20044825?p=1), in combination with cyproheptadine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682541.html) and methscopolamine
  • Bath with sodium bicarbonate (0.1–0.5 kg/bath).
Please speak with your doctor if you have any questions about your personal treatment plan.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Research

Research helps us better understand diseases and can lead to advances in diagnosis and treatment. This section provides resources to help you learn about medical research and ways to get involved.

Clinical Research Resources
  • ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=physical&recr=&rslt=&type=&cond=urticaria&intr=&outc=&lead=&spons=&id=&state1=&cntry1=&state2=&cntry2=&state3=&cntry3=&locn=&gndr=&rcv_s=&rcv_e=&lup_s=&lup_e=) lists trials that are related to Aquagenic urticaria. Click on the link to go to ClinicalTrials.gov to read descriptions of these studies.

    Please note: Studies listed on the ClinicalTrials.gov website are listed for informational purposes only; being listed does not reflect an endorsement by GARD or the NIH. We strongly recommend that you talk with a trusted healthcare provider before choosing to participate in any clinical study.

Organizations

Support and advocacy groups can help you connect with other patients and families, and they can provide valuable services. Many develop patient-centered information and are the driving force behind research for better treatments and possible cures. They can direct you to research, resources, and services. Many organizations also have experts who serve as medical advisors or provide lists of doctors/clinics. Visit the group’s website or contact them to learn about the services they offer. Inclusion on this list is not an endorsement by GARD.

Social Networking Websites
  • Visit the Aquagenic Urticaria - Water Allergy (https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/38295171380/) group on Facebook.

Living With

Living with a genetic or rare disease can impact the daily lives of patients and families. These resources can help families navigate various aspects of living with a rare disease.

Financial Resources
  • The HealthWell Foundation (http://www.healthwellfoundation.org/urticaria) provides financial assistance for underinsured patients living with chronic and life-altering conditions. They offer help with drug copayments, deductibles, and health insurance premiums for patients with specific diseases. The disease fund status can change over time, so you may need to check back if funds are not currently available.

Learn More

These resources provide more information about this condition or associated symptoms. The in-depth resources contain medical and scientific language that may be hard to understand. You may want to review these resources with a medical professional.

Where to Start
  • DermNet NZ (http://www.dermnetnz.org/reactions/urticaria-like.html) is an online resource about skin diseases developed by the New Zealand Dermatological Society Incorporated. DermNet NZ provides information about this condition.
  • MedlinePlus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000845.htm) was designed by the National Library of Medicine to help you research your health questions, and it provides more information about this topic.
  • The National Organization for Rare Disorders (http://www.rarediseases.org/rare-disease-information/rare-diseases/byID/250/viewAbstract) (NORD) has a report for patients and families about this condition. NORD is a patient advocacy organization for individuals with rare diseases and the organizations that serve them.

In-Depth Information
  • Medscape Reference (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/762917-overview) provides information on this topic. You may need to register to view the medical textbook, but registration is free.
  • The Monarch Initiative (https://monarchinitiative.org/disease/OMIM:191850) brings together data about this condition from humans and other species to help physicians and biomedical researchers. Monarch’s tools are designed to make it easier to compare the signs and symptoms (phenotypes) of different diseases and discover common features. This initiative is a collaboration between several academic institutions across the world and is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Visit the website to explore the biology of this condition.
  • PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Aquagenic%20urticaria%5Bti%5D) is a searchable database of medical literature and lists journal articles that discuss Aquagenic urticaria. Click on the link to view a sample search on this topic.

News & Events

News
  • NCATS Rare Diseases Are Not Rare! Challenge (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/news/633)
    October 9, 2018

  • The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Network Expands (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/news/632)
    September 26, 2018

GARD Answers

Questions sent to GARD may be posted here if the information could be helpful to others. We remove all identifying information when posting a question to protect your privacy. If you do not want your question posted, please let us know.
https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10901/aquagenic-urticaria
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 17, 2018, 06:38:40 PM
Sure hope not, because if it is—we're all hosed.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 07:12:43 PM
Here, from the National Institutes of Health:

Quote
Aquagenic urticaria

Summary

Aquagenic urticaria is a rare condition in which urticaria (hives) develop rapidly after the skin comes in contact with water, regardless of its temperature. It most commonly affects women and symptoms often start around the onset of puberty. Some patients report itching too. It is a form of physical urticaria. The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is currently unknown.  Due to the rarity of the condition, there is very limited data regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments; however, various medications and therapies have been used with variable success.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Symptoms

Aquagenic urticaria is a rare condition in which itchy urticaria (hives) develop rapidly after the skin comes in contact with water, regardless of its temperature. The hives associated with aquagenic urticaria are typically small (approximately 1-3 mm), red- or skin-colored welts (called wheals) with clearly defined edges. The rash most commonly develops on the neck, upper trunk and arms, although it can occur anywhere on the body. Some people have itching too. Once the water source is removed, the rash generally fades within 30 to 60 minutes.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Cause

The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is poorly understood. However, scientists have proposed the following theories:
  • A substance dissolved in water enters the skin and triggers an immune response. In this theory, the hives are not caused by water, specifically, but rather an allergen in the water.
  • An interaction between water and a substance found in or on the skin generates a toxic material, which leads to the development of hives.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Inheritance

Most cases of aquagenic urticaria seem to occur sporadically in people with no family history of aquagenic urticaria. However, familial cases have been reported on several occasions, with one report describing the disease in three generations of a single family. Some familial cases have been reported in association with other conditions, some of which can be familial. In other words, the family members who had aquagenic urticaria also had another potentially inherited medical condition. However, to our knowledge, no specific inheritance pattern has been definitively associated with aquagenic urticaria.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Diagnosis

A diagnosis of aquagenic urticaria is typically suspected based on the presence of characteristic signs and symptoms. A "water challenge test" may then be ordered to confirm the diagnosis. During this test, a compress of 35ºC water is applied to the upper body for 30 minutes. The upper body is chosen as the preferred site for the test because other areas, such as the legs, are affected less commonly.  It is important to tell the patient to not have any antihistamines for several days before the test.

In some case reports, rinsing specific areas of the body with water or giving a direct bath and shower challenges has been attempted. Use of these tests may be needed when the usual water challenge test using a small water compress is negative, although it should be avoided in patients who have a history of serious symptoms.

Last updated: 6/20/2016

Treatment

Due to the rarity of the condition, there is very limited data regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments for aquagenic urticaria. The following have been used to treat aquagenic urticaria with variable success:
  • H1 antihistamines (http://dermnetnz.org/treatments/antihistamines.html)
  • Propranolol (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682607.html)
  • Ultraviolet B (UVB) light treatments (also called phototherapy)
  • Stanozolol (an anabolic steroid (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/anabolicsteroids.html))
  • Creams that serve as a barrier between water and the skin
  • A low dose of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/ssris/ART-20044825?p=1), in combination with cyproheptadine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682541.html) and methscopolamine
  • Bath with sodium bicarbonate (0.1–0.5 kg/bath).
Please speak with your doctor if you have any questions about your personal treatment plan.
Last updated: 6/20/2016

Research

Research helps us better understand diseases and can lead to advances in diagnosis and treatment. This section provides resources to help you learn about medical research and ways to get involved.

Clinical Research Resources
  • ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=physical&recr=&rslt=&type=&cond=urticaria&intr=&outc=&lead=&spons=&id=&state1=&cntry1=&state2=&cntry2=&state3=&cntry3=&locn=&gndr=&rcv_s=&rcv_e=&lup_s=&lup_e=) lists trials that are related to Aquagenic urticaria. Click on the link to go to ClinicalTrials.gov to read descriptions of these studies.

    Please note: Studies listed on the ClinicalTrials.gov website are listed for informational purposes only; being listed does not reflect an endorsement by GARD or the NIH. We strongly recommend that you talk with a trusted healthcare provider before choosing to participate in any clinical study.

Organizations

Support and advocacy groups can help you connect with other patients and families, and they can provide valuable services. Many develop patient-centered information and are the driving force behind research for better treatments and possible cures. They can direct you to research, resources, and services. Many organizations also have experts who serve as medical advisors or provide lists of doctors/clinics. Visit the group’s website or contact them to learn about the services they offer. Inclusion on this list is not an endorsement by GARD.

Social Networking Websites
  • Visit the Aquagenic Urticaria - Water Allergy (https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/38295171380/) group on Facebook.

Living With

Living with a genetic or rare disease can impact the daily lives of patients and families. These resources can help families navigate various aspects of living with a rare disease.

Financial Resources
  • The HealthWell Foundation (http://www.healthwellfoundation.org/urticaria) provides financial assistance for underinsured patients living with chronic and life-altering conditions. They offer help with drug copayments, deductibles, and health insurance premiums for patients with specific diseases. The disease fund status can change over time, so you may need to check back if funds are not currently available.

Learn More

These resources provide more information about this condition or associated symptoms. The in-depth resources contain medical and scientific language that may be hard to understand. You may want to review these resources with a medical professional.

Where to Start
  • DermNet NZ (http://www.dermnetnz.org/reactions/urticaria-like.html) is an online resource about skin diseases developed by the New Zealand Dermatological Society Incorporated. DermNet NZ provides information about this condition.
  • MedlinePlus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000845.htm) was designed by the National Library of Medicine to help you research your health questions, and it provides more information about this topic.
  • The National Organization for Rare Disorders (http://www.rarediseases.org/rare-disease-information/rare-diseases/byID/250/viewAbstract) (NORD) has a report for patients and families about this condition. NORD is a patient advocacy organization for individuals with rare diseases and the organizations that serve them.

In-Depth Information
  • Medscape Reference (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/762917-overview) provides information on this topic. You may need to register to view the medical textbook, but registration is free.
  • The Monarch Initiative (https://monarchinitiative.org/disease/OMIM:191850) brings together data about this condition from humans and other species to help physicians and biomedical researchers. Monarch’s tools are designed to make it easier to compare the signs and symptoms (phenotypes) of different diseases and discover common features. This initiative is a collaboration between several academic institutions across the world and is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Visit the website to explore the biology of this condition.
  • PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Aquagenic%20urticaria%5Bti%5D) is a searchable database of medical literature and lists journal articles that discuss Aquagenic urticaria. Click on the link to view a sample search on this topic.

News & Events

News
  • NCATS Rare Diseases Are Not Rare! Challenge (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/news/633)
    October 9, 2018

  • The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Network Expands (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/news/632)
    September 26, 2018

GARD Answers

Questions sent to GARD may be posted here if the information could be helpful to others. We remove all identifying information when posting a question to protect your privacy. If you do not want your question posted, please let us know.
https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10901/aquagenic-urticaria


In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water. In the excerpt you posted, there's no mention of life threatening internal symptoms when water is drunk.

So while it seems aquagenic urticaria is a ''best guess'' diagnosis, it seems to go a lot further than that considering they go into anaphylactic shock if they drink as little as a ''sip'' or ''mouthful'' of water - and it's the sufferers claiming all of this, not the journalist(s).
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 07:15:21 PM
Off the top of my head, a small visual representation of probabilities

1.........2.......................................(many many many more .....)............................3

1) Someone somewhere is mistaken, and the mistake is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
2) Someone somewhere is deliberately lying, and the lie is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
3) Everything we know is wrong

Why would you and your family be lying about you being allergic to water since the age of eight, even going so far as to cite actual immunologists, exposing where you live, and keeping it up nonstop for 23 years? She had a recent article made on her a few months ago, at 31 or 32 years old..
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 17, 2018, 07:16:26 PM
In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water.

Every time I've drunk water water I've died, too.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 17, 2018, 07:21:12 PM
In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water.

Can you not see the inherent problem with that claim?

Just think about it for a minute.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 07:22:51 PM
In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water.

Can you not see the inherent problem with that claim?

Just think about it for a minute.

Heidi Falconer claims she goes into anaphylaxis if she drinks a mouthful of water by accident, she needs to carry adrenaline shots with her 24/7.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 17, 2018, 07:24:39 PM
In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water.

Can you not see the inherent problem with that claim?

Just think about it for a minute.

Heidi Falconer claims she goes into anaphylaxis if she drinks a mouthful of water by accident, she needs to carry adrenaline shots with her 24/7.

I hate that, too.  Every time I accidentally drink water, I have to shoot up.  Damn accidental water drinking!
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 17, 2018, 07:28:35 PM
All this information has come from tabloid newspaper and unverified Internet sources, yet you're taking it all as the Gospel truth?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 17, 2018, 07:33:28 PM
Off the top of my head, a small visual representation of probabilities

1.........2.......................................(many many many more .....)............................3

1) Someone somewhere is mistaken, and the mistake is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
2) Someone somewhere is deliberately lying, and the lie is being passed along forward by well meaning credulous reporters
3) Everything we know is wrong

Why would you and your family be lying about you being allergic to water since the age of eight, even going so far as to cite actual immunologists, exposing where you live, and keeping it up nonstop for 23 years? She had a recent article made on her a few months ago, at 31 or 32 years old..

Mental disorder? Some sort of insurance scheme? Shits and giggles? Misanthropy? A weird hobby?

Mistake..........Deception......................................(etc)............................................Physics doesn't work
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 07:34:02 PM
All this information has come from tabloid newspaper and unverified Internet sources, yet you're taking it all as the Gospel truth?

Because even reputable news sources have took her story seriously -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thieves-shatter-allergy-girls-life-1317690.html
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 17, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
All this information has come from tabloid newspaper and unverified Internet sources, yet you're taking it all as the Gospel truth?

Because even reputable news sources have took her story seriously -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thieves-shatter-allergy-girls-life-1317690.html

"She is one of 30 people in the world who have aquagenic urticaria and she was the first person to be born with it. "

The writer misidentified it as an allergy. There is no independent verification of her claim to have an anaphylactic reaction.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 17, 2018, 07:54:02 PM
Every single source you provided lists it as Aquagenic urticaria.  Every.  Single.  One.


Yet, here you are claiming it's not that based on some claims by the patient in the very article that says you are wrong.


Well, my wife (a nurse) had a patient who thinks they caught the sugar but are doing fine with it because they eat Poke Berries daily.  Why would they say that if it wasn't the truth?  Maybe because they are just wrong.



Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 17, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
Just so we're clear, this is a thread about whether one can have a reaction like this:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. It typically causes more than one of the following: an itchy rash, throat or tongue swelling, shortness of breath, vomiting, lightheadedness, and low blood pressure. These symptoms typically come on over minutes to hours.

from drinking water—and more specifically, it is an allergic reaction? I'm just trying to make sure it's not some of that recreational I've gotten on my hands on...

In the cases I provide, the sufferers claim they die if they drink water.

Can you not see the inherent problem with that claim?

Just think about it for a minute.

Heidi Falconer claims she goes into anaphylaxis if she drinks a mouthful of water by accident, she needs to carry adrenaline shots with her 24/7.

But it's OK if she drinks water mixed with small amount of macronutrients and flavoring compounds? Do you believe this? What, do you believe, is the mechanism of action?

Just to be clear, by definition an allergen is something that stimulates an antibody response. Antibodies are basically proteins floating around in...well they are hydrophilic (meaning water soluble) so you figure it out.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 08:20:59 PM
Every single source you provided lists it as Aquagenic urticaria.  Every.  Single.  One.


Yet, here you are claiming it's not that based on some claims by the patient in the very article that says you are wrong.


Well, my wife (a nurse) had a patient who thinks they caught the sugar but are doing fine with it because they eat Poke Berries daily.  Why would they say that if it wasn't the truth?  Maybe because they are just wrong.

This isn't about the name the condition may be interpreted as, we're looking at this from the symptoms they're reporting.

Anaphylactic shock sure seems like an allergy doesn't it? Since epi pens are literally used for life threatening allergic reactions.

Doctors do not prescribe epi pens (AKA adrenaline) for a non life threatening skin condition which says her condition goes a lot further than a skin condition considering it can kill her.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 17, 2018, 08:36:34 PM
Every single source you provided lists it as Aquagenic urticaria.  Every.  Single.  One.


Yet, here you are claiming it's not that based on some claims by the patient in the very article that says you are wrong.


Well, my wife (a nurse) had a patient who thinks they caught the sugar but are doing fine with it because they eat Poke Berries daily.  Why would they say that if it wasn't the truth?  Maybe because they are just wrong.

This isn't about the name the condition may be interpreted as, we're looking at this from the symptoms they're reporting.

Anaphylactic shock sure seems like an allergy doesn't it? Since epi pens are literally used for life threatening allergic reactions.

Doctors do not prescribe epi pens (AKA adrenaline) for a non life threatening skin condition which says her condition goes a lot further than a skin condition considering it can kill her.
Doctors around here will prescribe oxycontin for a sore throat.  Don't assume a condition based on what a doctor will prescribe.


Again, if a doctor prescribed her an epi for an allergy...where's the diagnosis?  Can you point to the entry in the DSM for an allergy to H2O?  Can you find a single actual medical journal article that shows evidence of an anaphylaxis reaction to H2O?  Your own articles claim it's not what you are saying it is.  No article anywhere is saying its an actual allergy to water.  Just you and this one patient.  There are more people that believe the Earth is flat than believe she has an allergy to water...and they may have better evidence.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 17, 2018, 08:46:36 PM
So, what percentage of the epineprhine shot is H2O by mass? I'm guessing 90+%.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 09:12:39 PM
So, what percentage of the epineprhine shot is H2O by mass? I'm guessing 90+%.

Presumably the epinephrine would cancel out the allergic effects of the water present in the shot.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Every single source you provided lists it as Aquagenic urticaria.  Every.  Single.  One.


Yet, here you are claiming it's not that based on some claims by the patient in the very article that says you are wrong.


Well, my wife (a nurse) had a patient who thinks they caught the sugar but are doing fine with it because they eat Poke Berries daily.  Why would they say that if it wasn't the truth?  Maybe because they are just wrong.

This isn't about the name the condition may be interpreted as, we're looking at this from the symptoms they're reporting.

Anaphylactic shock sure seems like an allergy doesn't it? Since epi pens are literally used for life threatening allergic reactions.

Doctors do not prescribe epi pens (AKA adrenaline) for a non life threatening skin condition which says her condition goes a lot further than a skin condition considering it can kill her.
Doctors around here will prescribe oxycontin for a sore throat.  Don't assume a condition based on what a doctor will prescribe.


Again, if a doctor prescribed her an epi for an allergy...where's the diagnosis?  Can you point to the entry in the DSM for an allergy to H2O?  Can you find a single actual medical journal article that shows evidence of an anaphylaxis reaction to H2O?  Your own articles claim it's not what you are saying it is.  No article anywhere is saying its an actual allergy to water.  Just you and this one patient.  There are more people that believe the Earth is flat than believe she has an allergy to water...and they may have better evidence.

Unfortunately because Aquagenic Urticaria is colliqually dubbed 'water allergy' it seems true allergies to H2O are being lumped in with Aquagenic Urticaria. So it's kind of become an umbrella diagnosis for people who have reactions to water, be it on their skin only, causing harmless but annoying hives, to full blown anaphylactic shock if water enters the bloodstream or elsewhere inside the body.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 17, 2018, 09:36:46 PM
So, what percentage of the epineprhine shot is H2O by mass? I'm guessing 90+%.

Presumably the epinephrine would cancel out the allergic effects of the water present in the shot.

(https://i.imgur.com/miTXmyW.gif)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 09:40:43 PM
So, what percentage of the epineprhine shot is H2O by mass? I'm guessing 90+%.

Presumably the epinephrine would cancel out the allergic effects of the water present in the shot.

(https://i.imgur.com/miTXmyW.gif)

Well an epi pen still stopped her from dying.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: daniel1948 on October 17, 2018, 09:47:21 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'?

Not a joke. Just general incompetence in science reporting. It's really shocking how scientifically illiterate most journalists are. Do you ever actually listen to the SGU podcast?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 09:56:27 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'?

Not a joke. Just general incompetence in science reporting. It's really shocking how scientifically illiterate most journalists are. Do you ever actually listen to the SGU podcast?

It isn't the journalists saying she cannot drink water.

It's Heidi herself and her family.

In every case of 'I can't drink water or I die' it's always the sufferer saying it, not the journalist. They then elaborate they have to drink substitutes for water because drinking water is so dangerous to them.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 17, 2018, 10:07:12 PM
In every case of 'I can't drink water or I die' it's always the sufferer saying it, not the journalist. They then elaborate they have to drink substitutes for water because drinking water is so dangerous to them.

Yeah, they're suffering from something all right...
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 17, 2018, 10:44:49 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'?

Not a joke. Just general incompetence in science reporting. It's really shocking how scientifically illiterate most journalists are. Do you ever actually listen to the SGU podcast?

It isn't the journalists saying she cannot drink water.

It's Heidi herself and her family.

In every case of 'I can't drink water or I die' it's always the sufferer saying it, not the journalist. They then elaborate they have to drink substitutes for water because drinking water is so dangerous to them.

And why are we assuming that the individual self-reporting is correct and not lying, wrong, misinformed, or suffering from any of a number of mental illnesses?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 17, 2018, 10:49:38 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'?

Not a joke. Just general incompetence in science reporting. It's really shocking how scientifically illiterate most journalists are. Do you ever actually listen to the SGU podcast?

It isn't the journalists saying she cannot drink water.

It's Heidi herself and her family.

In every case of 'I can't drink water or I die' it's always the sufferer saying it, not the journalist. They then elaborate they have to drink substitutes for water because drinking water is so dangerous to them.

And why are we assuming that the individual self-reporting is correct and not lying, wrong, misinformed, or suffering from any of a number of mental illnesses?

Because being allergic to the H2O molecule just seems so oddly specific to be lifelong obsessed about, to the point of citing actual doctors and the family being in on it.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 18, 2018, 02:09:03 AM
And why are we assuming that the individual self-reporting is correct and not lying, wrong, misinformed, or suffering from any of a number of mental illnesses?

Don't forget "misdiagnosed". She could be suffering from some allergy to something else, which happens (coincidentally or otherwise) to coincide in time with instances of drinking water, and someone somewhere along the line has made a spurious connection. This would unfortunately mean that she is continuing to suffer from some untreated condition.

That is, of course, assuming that the reports of her symptoms are accurate, which has by no means been conclusively demonstrated.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 18, 2018, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: NIH
The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is poorly understood. However, scientists have proposed the following theories:[1][2]
A substance dissolved in water enters the skin and triggers an immune response. In this theory, the hives are not caused by water, specifically, but rather an allergen in the water.
An interaction between water and a substance found in or on the skin generates a toxic material, which leads to the development of hives.

https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10901/aquagenic-urticaria

On the Wikipedia: "This seems to not be affected by different temperatures of water, such as cold or hot, or chemicals such as fluorine and chlorine, since it is reproduced with distilled water and medical saline.". And this is the source for it: " "Physical urticarias". www.uptodate.com. UpToDate, Inc. March 31, 2016. Retrieved 2016-10-14." Doesn't seem to be posted online anywhere. Also, not a medical journal I have heard of before?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 18, 2018, 06:30:21 AM
Quote from: NIH
The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is poorly understood. However, scientists have proposed the following theories:[1][2]
A substance dissolved in water enters the skin and triggers an immune response. In this theory, the hives are not caused by water, specifically, but rather an allergen in the water.
An interaction between water and a substance found in or on the skin generates a toxic material, which leads to the development of hives.

https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10901/aquagenic-urticaria

On the Wikipedia: "This seems to not be affected by different temperatures of water, such as cold or hot, or chemicals such as fluorine and chlorine, since it is reproduced with distilled water and medical saline.". And this is the source for it: " "Physical urticarias". www.uptodate.com. UpToDate, Inc. March 31, 2016. Retrieved 2016-10-14." Doesn't seem to be posted online anywhere. Also, not a medical journal I have heard of before?

It's a government medical journal that's a very reputable source.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 18, 2018, 09:43:58 AM
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'?

Not a joke. Just general incompetence in science reporting. It's really shocking how scientifically illiterate most journalists are. Do you ever actually listen to the SGU podcast?

It isn't the journalists saying she cannot drink water.

It's Heidi herself and her family.

In every case of 'I can't drink water or I die' it's always the sufferer saying it, not the journalist. They then elaborate they have to drink substitutes for water because drinking water is so dangerous to them.

And why are we assuming that the individual self-reporting is correct and not lying, wrong, misinformed, or suffering from any of a number of mental illnesses?

Because being allergic to the H2O molecule just seems so oddly specific to be lifelong obsessed about, to the point of citing actual doctors and the family being in on it.

Psychiatric conditions are rarely so kind as to make the point of obsession logical or reasonable. The family being in on it is not hard at all to believe, family often enable mental illness.

Which actual doctors have made direct statements to the media confirming the symptoms not typical of urticaria? Can you show me an actual doctor confirming the anaphylactic reaction to water?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 18, 2018, 09:52:22 AM
It's a government medical journal that's a very reputable source.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about the NIH, but "uptodate.com". That's where this claim comes from: "This seems to not be affected by different temperatures of water, such as cold or hot, or chemicals such as fluorine and chlorine, since it is reproduced with distilled water and medical saline." I want to know what kind of test & methodology was used. Observing this with distilled water is the only evidence that aquagenic urticaria is even real.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: bimble on October 18, 2018, 12:04:22 PM
So, what percentage of the epineprhine shot is H2O by mass? I'm guessing 90+%.

Presumably the epinephrine would cancel out the allergic effects of the water present in the shot.

(https://i.imgur.com/miTXmyW.gif)

Well an epi pen still stopped her from dying.

not only that... but there's obviously something in that orange juice (which is primarily water) that has the same affect...
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shibboleth on October 18, 2018, 12:19:03 PM
It's a government medical journal that's a very reputable source.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about the NIH, but "uptodate.com". That's where this claim comes from: "This seems to not be affected by different temperatures of water, such as cold or hot, or chemicals such as fluorine and chlorine, since it is reproduced with distilled water and medical saline." I want to know what kind of test & methodology was used. Observing this with distilled water is the only evidence that aquagenic urticaria is even real.

Maybe it is angry water attacking people. Gweneth Paltrow who is the utmost expert on life, love, and the power of egg shaped objects has this to say.

Quote
"I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter," Paltrow writes. "I have long had Dr. Emoto's coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/06/gwyneth-paltrow-water-feelings_n_5459634.html

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: seamas on October 18, 2018, 01:28:54 PM


In the cases I provide,

Cases?

Those aren't cases. they are stories.

There is zero  support for what the stories allege any more than the one about bears coming home and finding some blonde girl broke into their home ate porridge, broke a chair and slept in their beds.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: seamas on October 18, 2018, 01:30:36 PM

It isn't the journalists saying she cannot drink water.

It's Heidi herself and her family.


Jeez, THAT sounds legit!
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 18, 2018, 03:11:14 PM
OK Shrooborb, you've foiled all our previous attempts at reasonable explanations for this alleged phenomenon.

So what do you think is going on in this case?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shibboleth on October 18, 2018, 03:35:59 PM
People can have very real psychosomatic allergic reactions. I am not sure if anyone has brought this up in the topic. Important point, just because something is psychosomatic doesn't mean that the effects are not real and the person isn't suffering.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 09:16:54 AM
People can have very real psychosomatic allergic reactions. I am not sure if anyone has brought this up in the topic. Important point, just because something is psychosomatic doesn't mean that the effects are not real and the person isn't suffering.

If it's psychosomatic, how come doctors operated on her appendix in a ''world first'' (quote) where they used no water-based products during the operation? Surely if she was unconscious, she wouldn't have a psychosomatic reaction and the doctors would have had no need to re-innovate surgery as we know it just for one girl?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 09:18:27 AM
OK Shrooborb, you've foiled all our previous attempts at reasonable explanations for this alleged phenomenon.

So what do you think is going on in this case?

Her body has mistakenly produced IgE antibodies to the H2O molecule. Antibodies are coated on the outside of mast cells which are found in connective tissues. Whenever these antibodies are exposed to water molecules, it signals the mast cell to release histamine which is why she goes into anaphylactic shock if she gets an IV that contains water or she drinks a mouthful of water.

This is the official story, since an allergy is strictly defined as an IgE-mediated reaction to a molecule. Be it a peanut protein molecule, egg protein molecule, etc.
In this case it is the water molecule.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 09:36:23 AM
People can have very real psychosomatic allergic reactions. I am not sure if anyone has brought this up in the topic. Important point, just because something is psychosomatic doesn't mean that the effects are not real and the person isn't suffering.

If it's psychosomatic, how come doctors operated on her appendix in a ''world first'' (quote) where they used no water-based products during the operation? Surely if she was unconscious, she wouldn't have a psychosomatic reaction and the doctors would have had no need to re-innovate surgery as we know it just for one girl?
Says who?  Where did this happen?  Who were the doctors?  This wasn't in any of the already dubious links you're provided.


I'm extremely skeptical that this took place.  Everyone put under starts with an IV with a saline drip which is 99.1% water.  The drugs they gave her to put her under were also 90ish% water.  To do surgery on someone without any "water-based products" means doing it without anesthetic to a fully conscious patient.  Nobody is doing this.


OK Shrooborb, you've foiled all our previous attempts at reasonable explanations for this alleged phenomenon.

So what do you think is going on in this case?

Her body has mistakenly produced IgE antibodies to the H2O molecule. Antibodies are coated on the outside of mast cells which are found in connective tissues. Whenever these antibodies are exposed to water molecules, it signals the mast cell to release histamine which is why she goes into anaphylactic shock if she gets an IV that contains water or she drinks a mouthful of water.

This is the official story, since an allergy is strictly defined as an IgE-mediated reaction to a molecule. Be it a peanut protein molecule, egg protein molecule, etc.
In this case it is the water molecule.
She is exposed to the water molecule 24/7 and has been since the moment of conception.  Her body is made up mostly of water molecules (mostly as measured by weight).  If she had this reaction to the water molecule she would have died in the womb.  If she developed it later, she'd be dead.


Also, every IV contains water.  Every single one.  Every drink she's ever drank in her life contained water.  Every piece of food she's eaten has contained some water.  The air around her that she breathes every day contains water.  Here at my house this morning it's cool and 96% humidity.  At room temp there is approx 0.016ml of water in every liter of air in the room I'm sitting in.  If I had a peanut allergy and the air was .016% peanut dust, I'd be as dead as disco.


Water inundates every facet of our lives.  People die without it.  Milk is 85-95% water.  OJ is 85-88%.  The list goes on and on.  I don't know why you are buying this line about her having this allergy but it is physically impossible that she can drink milk and not water.  There are very few fluids on Earth that aren't water based that won't harm or kill a human on ingestion.  If I'm wrong, name them.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 10:36:06 AM
People can have very real psychosomatic allergic reactions. I am not sure if anyone has brought this up in the topic. Important point, just because something is psychosomatic doesn't mean that the effects are not real and the person isn't suffering.

If it's psychosomatic, how come doctors operated on her appendix in a ''world first'' (quote) where they used no water-based products during the operation? Surely if she was unconscious, she wouldn't have a psychosomatic reaction and the doctors would have had no need to re-innovate surgery as we know it just for one girl?
Says who?  Where did this happen?  Who were the doctors?  This wasn't in any of the already dubious links you're provided.


I'm extremely skeptical that this took place.  Everyone put under starts with an IV with a saline drip which is 99.1% water.  The drugs they gave her to put her under were also 90ish% water.  To do surgery on someone without any "water-based products" means doing it without anesthetic to a fully conscious patient.  Nobody is doing this.


OK Shrooborb, you've foiled all our previous attempts at reasonable explanations for this alleged phenomenon.

So what do you think is going on in this case?

Her body has mistakenly produced IgE antibodies to the H2O molecule. Antibodies are coated on the outside of mast cells which are found in connective tissues. Whenever these antibodies are exposed to water molecules, it signals the mast cell to release histamine which is why she goes into anaphylactic shock if she gets an IV that contains water or she drinks a mouthful of water.

This is the official story, since an allergy is strictly defined as an IgE-mediated reaction to a molecule. Be it a peanut protein molecule, egg protein molecule, etc.
In this case it is the water molecule.
She is exposed to the water molecule 24/7 and has been since the moment of conception.  Her body is made up mostly of water molecules (mostly as measured by weight).  If she had this reaction to the water molecule she would have died in the womb.  If she developed it later, she'd be dead.


Also, every IV contains water.  Every single one.  Every drink she's ever drank in her life contained water.  Every piece of food she's eaten has contained some water.  The air around her that she breathes every day contains water.  Here at my house this morning it's cool and 96% humidity.  At room temp there is approx 0.016ml of water in every liter of air in the room I'm sitting in.  If I had a peanut allergy and the air was .016% peanut dust, I'd be as dead as disco.


Water inundates every facet of our lives.  People die without it.  Milk is 85-95% water.  OJ is 85-88%.  The list goes on and on.  I don't know why you are buying this line about her having this allergy but it is physically impossible that she can drink milk and not water.  There are very few fluids on Earth that aren't water based that won't harm or kill a human on ingestion.  If I'm wrong, name them.

Sure, there's water in cells, but what about free, unbound water (not mixed or combined with anything - salt water for instance is H2ONaCl, not H2O) outside of cells? Since those mast cell receptors are coated along the exterior of the cell, not inside of it.

(http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/chemistry/solutions/sol1.gif)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 10:55:54 AM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.



Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 11:06:31 AM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.

Why does she only drink 4 tiny glasses of pure OJ and whole milk a day? That's a tiny amount for a 32 year old woman. It's implied she still has a reaction but not as bad as plain water.

She had a massive reaction to an IV drip.

As for an epi shot, presumably the adrenaline would cancel out the effects of the water in the shot as epinephrine blocks the production of histamine.

As for air, it's only a small amount of water. The concentration of allergen is important.
Some people allergic to eggs are OK eating a product with traces of egg, but will go into shock if they eat a boiled egg.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 20, 2018, 11:42:44 AM
The antibodies are floating around in water (blood) all of the time. Amino acids and other things in antibodies do not chemically react with water, so there is no mechanism for it to have the effect as described.

Also, as has been pointed out, there is no medical evidence for any of those claims.  seems to be simply copied around as this story moves through various non-journalistic "news" sites. By the way, where is the documentation for the water-less appendix surgery? Seems like this is all fabricated.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 11:44:17 AM
The antibodies are floating around in water (blood) all of the time. Amino acids and other things in antibodies do not chemically react with water, so there is no mechanism for it to have the effect as described.

Also, as has been pointed out, there is no medical evidence for any of those claims. By the way, where is the documentation for the water-less appendix surgery? It seems to be simply copied around as this story moves through various non-journalistic "news" sites.

Antibodies do not chemically react, ie covalently bond with allergens. The binding is via electrostatic interactions or hydrogen bonding.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.

Why does she only drink 4 tiny glasses of pure OJ and whole milk a day? That's a tiny amount for a 32 year old woman. It's implied she still has a reaction but not as bad as plain water.


No idea...why didn't that kill her?  OJ is mostly water...by 85%.


I'm still waiting on evidence for any of this stuff you keep claiming as fact (like the surgery without IV).  Nice distraction technique though, cherry picking your favorites and replying with "Well, why do you think she <insert crap here>?"  I don't know, I can't know, neither can you.  Why do people spend money on psychics if they are fake?  Why do people go to church if there is no god?  Why ask why, try Bud Dry.



Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 01:21:21 PM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.

Why does she only drink 4 tiny glasses of pure OJ and whole milk a day? That's a tiny amount for a 32 year old woman. It's implied she still has a reaction but not as bad as plain water.


No idea...why didn't that kill her?  OJ is mostly water...by 85%.


I'm still waiting on evidence for any of this stuff you keep claiming as fact (like the surgery without IV).  Nice distraction technique though, cherry picking your favorites and replying with "Well, why do you think she <insert crap here>?"  I don't know, I can't know, neither can you.  Why do people spend money on psychics if they are fake?  Why do people go to church if there is no god?  Why ask why, try Bud Dry.

She still reacts to OJ, but not as bad as 100% water. Same reason some people are OK eating products with some peanuts in, but can't eat a whole peanut without having a serious reaction. Everybody's allergy threshold is different.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 20, 2018, 01:29:13 PM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.

Why does she only drink 4 tiny glasses of pure OJ and whole milk a day? That's a tiny amount for a 32 year old woman. It's implied she still has a reaction but not as bad as plain water.


No idea...why didn't that kill her?  OJ is mostly water...by 85%.


I'm still waiting on evidence for any of this stuff you keep claiming as fact (like the surgery without IV).  Nice distraction technique though, cherry picking your favorites and replying with "Well, why do you think she <insert crap here>?"  I don't know, I can't know, neither can you.  Why do people spend money on psychics if they are fake?  Why do people go to church if there is no god?  Why ask why, try Bud Dry.

She still reacts to OJ, but not as bad as 100% water. Same reason some people are OK eating products with some peanuts in, but can't eat a whole peanut without having a serious reaction. Everybody's allergy threshold is different.

And I thought the ancient art of trolling was dead!
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
You mean all those free, unbound molecules in that IV drip?  Or in the epi shot, or anesthesia? Or the ones in the OJ she drinks?  Or the damn air she breathes?  If something is literally 85% water (OJ) there aren't enough molecules of other things to "bind up" the water whatever difference that would make.

Why does she only drink 4 tiny glasses of pure OJ and whole milk a day? That's a tiny amount for a 32 year old woman. It's implied she still has a reaction but not as bad as plain water.


No idea...why didn't that kill her?  OJ is mostly water...by 85%.


I'm still waiting on evidence for any of this stuff you keep claiming as fact (like the surgery without IV).  Nice distraction technique though, cherry picking your favorites and replying with "Well, why do you think she <insert crap here>?"  I don't know, I can't know, neither can you.  Why do people spend money on psychics if they are fake?  Why do people go to church if there is no god?  Why ask why, try Bud Dry.

She still reacts to OJ, but not as bad as 100% water. Same reason some people are OK eating products with some peanuts in, but can't eat a whole peanut without having a serious reaction. Everybody's allergy threshold is different.

And I thought the ancient art of trolling was dead!

Not trolling. Look it up.

Some people allergic to milk can drink a glass of milk and only get an upset stomach. Others can eat a product that contains traces of milk and have a full blown anaphylactic reaction.
No two people with the same allergy will be exactly the same, some people have different thresholds of what concentration of allergen will trigger a serious reaction.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 20, 2018, 02:47:47 PM
OK Shrooborb, you've foiled all our previous attempts at reasonable explanations for this alleged phenomenon.

So what do you think is going on in this case?

Her body has mistakenly produced IgE antibodies to the H2O molecule. Antibodies are coated on the outside of mast cells which are found in connective tissues. Whenever these antibodies are exposed to water molecules, it signals the mast cell to release histamine which is why she goes into anaphylactic shock if she gets an IV that contains water or she drinks a mouthful of water.

This is the official story, since an allergy is strictly defined as an IgE-mediated reaction to a molecule. Be it a peanut protein molecule, egg protein molecule, etc.
In this case it is the water molecule.

OK, so what's your evidence for this conclusion?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: PSXer on October 20, 2018, 03:05:44 PM
You didn't get any answers the first 10 times you asked this question?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=858039
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=858309
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=858309
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 05:47:42 PM
The papers, Heidi herself, the immunologists cited and Heidi's family who've all said the exact same thing for years.

An allergy has a very strict definition, so by definition alone an allergy to water would mean the body producing IgE antibodies against the water molecule so whenever the mast cell receptors (which are located outside of the cell, coated on its surface) see water, it signals the mast cell to release histamine, causing anaphylaxis, etc.

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 20, 2018, 05:56:45 PM
Which immunologists were cited?

Heidi and her family are not specialists in immunology. Their opinions don't constitute scientific evidence that it is.

The human body is more than 50% water. If a person's body really did reacted in that way against water molecules, it stands to reason that the patient would be constantly suffering from anaphylaxis.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 05:57:36 PM
Except that definition doesn't exist anywhere outside of your posts and the misuse of medical terminology by headline writers.  Even in the body of their own works they make sure to say it's not actually an allergy.


The papers you've cited don't match the statements you are making.  You've named one immunologist who isn't actually quoted in any of your sources (outside of the family's say so) and you can't take what Heidi or her family say as actual scientific definition of allergy.  They don't have the expertise to make that call.


You've given no evidence to back up your pet definition and none of the sources you've listed actually use your pet definition.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 20, 2018, 06:01:36 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 06:09:46 PM
Which immunologists were cited?

Heidi and her family are not specialists in immunology. Their opinions don't constitute scientific evidence that it is.

The human body is more than 50% water. If a person's body really did reacted in that way against water molecules, it stands to reason that the patient would be constantly suffering from anaphylaxis.

''"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne.
'

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 06:11:08 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 06:14:24 PM
Except that definition doesn't exist anywhere outside of your posts and the misuse of medical terminology by headline writers.  Even in the body of their own works they make sure to say it's not actually an allergy.


The papers you've cited don't match the statements you are making.  You've named one immunologist who isn't actually quoted in any of your sources (outside of the family's say so) and you can't take what Heidi or her family say as actual scientific definition of allergy.  They don't have the expertise to make that call.


You've given no evidence to back up your pet definition and none of the sources you've listed actually use your pet definition.

Given that a number of people lately have come out saying they're allergic to water (to the point they cannot even drink it), namely Barbara Ward, Lindsay Corburay, Michella Dutton (who lives off of Diet Cola, which her body tolerates), Rachel Warwick, and Katie Dell, I'd say there's some weight to the idea people can be allergic to the water molecule.

Unless this is some kind of big conspiracy to try and convince people that the water molecule is an allergen, which I doubt. Why go through all that trouble?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 20, 2018, 06:38:43 PM
Still, you're inferring all of this from a poorly cited news article.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 20, 2018, 07:05:58 PM
Still, you're inferring all of this from a poorly cited news article.

Not one article.

More like dozens.

Over the span of 22 years.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 07:30:47 PM
Still, you're inferring all of this from a poorly cited news article.

Not one article.

More like dozens.

Over the span of 22 years.
You've quoted like one, not dozens.


Also, I'm not even going to go into the amount of water in a Diet Coke.  There doesn't seem to be a point.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 20, 2018, 07:32:21 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 20, 2018, 07:45:46 PM
I am just surprised we don't have a homeopathic remedy for water allergy yet.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 10:52:47 AM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.

Define documentation.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 21, 2018, 11:50:32 AM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.

Define documentation.
Really?  Evidence.  Medical journal entries, news reports not from a tabloid or conspiracy website that actually says it's not aquagenic urticaria...you know, documentation.  The statement you keep parroting about her waterless surgery is from a 1996 tabloid article and isn't repeated anywhere else that I could find. Every one of the articles you can find make sure in the body to say that "scientists don't believe this is actually an allergy"...and that includes every article you've posted here (as well as the ones you've posted on reddit and other sites).  Aquagenic urticaria is listed as the actual diagnosis in every news article, even the ones in the tabloids.


You keep listing names...but no links.



Michaela Dutton's immunologist Thomas Casale says "It's not a problem with water in the body. It's when [water] is applied on top of the body"...so, topical, not allergy.


Katie Dell has an article in Daily Mail (shitty tabloid that it is) that specifically says she was diagnosed with aquagenic urticaria.  Again not an actual allergy.


I can't be bothered to google your entire list. You've made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.  I've given it as fair a listen as I can be bothered to and you have presented nothing to support your claim that it's an actual allergy to H2O and not aquagenic urticaria.  You could claim it was an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in their house that hates water so it burns them for all you've given evidence of.





Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: bimble on October 21, 2018, 02:04:04 PM
Still, you're inferring all of this from a poorly cited news article.

Not one article.

More like dozens.

Over the span of 22 years.

But from papers like the Daily Mail and Sunday People... which are less than reliable when it comes to actual facts.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 21, 2018, 03:09:32 PM
Still, you're inferring all of this from a poorly cited news article.

Not one [poorly cited news] article.

More like dozens [of poorly cited news articles].

Indeed.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 05:39:27 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.

Define documentation.
Really?  Evidence.  Medical journal entries, news reports not from a tabloid or conspiracy website that actually says it's not aquagenic urticaria...you know, documentation.  The statement you keep parroting about her waterless surgery is from a 1996 tabloid article and isn't repeated anywhere else that I could find. Every one of the articles you can find make sure in the body to say that "scientists don't believe this is actually an allergy"...and that includes every article you've posted here (as well as the ones you've posted on reddit and other sites).  Aquagenic urticaria is listed as the actual diagnosis in every news article, even the ones in the tabloids.


You keep listing names...but no links.



Michaela Dutton's immunologist Thomas Casale says "It's not a problem with water in the body. It's when [water] is applied on top of the body"...so, topical, not allergy.


Katie Dell has an article in Daily Mail (shitty tabloid that it is) that specifically says she was diagnosed with aquagenic urticaria.  Again not an actual allergy.


I can't be bothered to google your entire list. You've made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.  I've given it as fair a listen as I can be bothered to and you have presented nothing to support your claim that it's an actual allergy to H2O and not aquagenic urticaria.  You could claim it was an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in their house that hates water so it burns them for all you've given evidence of.

How do you explain the fact Michella Dutton has to survive by drinking Diet Cola and she cannot tolerate water going inside her body (via drinking)?

The same applies to Katie Dell. She cannot drink water either.

Note that it's Katie Dell and Michella Dutton themselves saying how they cannot drink water, not a claim by the journalist(s). There's another girl with water allergy and she can only drink milk because water, when she drinks it, causes ''agonizing sores'' in her throat.

As for Aquagenic Urticaria, it seems to be a blanket diagnosis for any reactions to water. This can include a skin condition but also cases where people go into full blown anaphylaxis from ingesting water (water going inside of their body - bypassing the skin).
Because Aquagenic Urticaria is colloquially known as 'water allergy' I can see how someone having a true, IgE-mediated reaction to the H2O molecule would be lumped in with Aquagenic Urticaria patients.

We're not focusing on the name of the condition, but their symptoms. Mainly the inability to ingest water without suffering severe internal symptoms, and in Heidi's case life-threatening anaphylactic symptoms.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 05:56:18 PM
Right now I doubt that this person named Heidi even exists.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 06:03:56 PM
Right now I doubt that this person named Heidi even exists.

Why's that? If you Google her name there's many sources spanning 22 years, including photos of her. She's currently trying to publish a book about her life struggles called ''It's Only Water''.

If Heidi doesn't exist, then that means Michella Dutton, Lindsay Corburay, Katie Dell, Rachel Warwick and Barbara Ward also do not exist as their cases and symptoms are exactly the same as Heidi's.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 21, 2018, 06:52:14 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.

Define documentation.
Really?  Evidence.  Medical journal entries, news reports not from a tabloid or conspiracy website that actually says it's not aquagenic urticaria...you know, documentation.  The statement you keep parroting about her waterless surgery is from a 1996 tabloid article and isn't repeated anywhere else that I could find. Every one of the articles you can find make sure in the body to say that "scientists don't believe this is actually an allergy"...and that includes every article you've posted here (as well as the ones you've posted on reddit and other sites).  Aquagenic urticaria is listed as the actual diagnosis in every news article, even the ones in the tabloids.


You keep listing names...but no links.



Michaela Dutton's immunologist Thomas Casale says "It's not a problem with water in the body. It's when [water] is applied on top of the body"...so, topical, not allergy.


Katie Dell has an article in Daily Mail (shitty tabloid that it is) that specifically says she was diagnosed with aquagenic urticaria.  Again not an actual allergy.


I can't be bothered to google your entire list. You've made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.  I've given it as fair a listen as I can be bothered to and you have presented nothing to support your claim that it's an actual allergy to H2O and not aquagenic urticaria.  You could claim it was an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in their house that hates water so it burns them for all you've given evidence of.

How do you explain the fact Michella Dutton has to survive by drinking Diet Cola and she cannot tolerate water going inside her body (via drinking)?

The same applies to Katie Dell. She cannot drink water either.

Note that it's Katie Dell and Michella Dutton themselves saying how they cannot drink water, not a claim by the journalist(s). There's another girl with water allergy and she can only drink milk because water, when she drinks it, causes ''agonizing sores'' in her throat.

As for Aquagenic Urticaria, it seems to be a blanket diagnosis for any reactions to water. This can include a skin condition but also cases where people go into full blown anaphylaxis from ingesting water (water going inside of their body - bypassing the skin).
Because Aquagenic Urticaria is colloquially known as 'water allergy' I can see how someone having a true, IgE-mediated reaction to the H2O molecule would be lumped in with Aquagenic Urticaria patients.

We're not focusing on the name of the condition, but their symptoms. Mainly the inability to ingest water without suffering severe internal symptoms, and in Heidi's case life-threatening anaphylactic symptoms.
I don't have to explain any of it.  I don't have any actual evidence that it's a fact.  What I do have is articles saying it's not an allergy to H2O, which you have yet to actually refute so there you are.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 07:03:36 PM
It seems far more likely that it's an allergic reaction to some substance dissolved in the water, or (even more likely) a psychosomatic condition.

Nope. She also reacted to an IV drip if you read the 1996 article.
Drips (medical saline) use distilled water as their base, and add sodium chloride. But she still had a massive whole body reaction to it.

Psychosomatic condition can also be ruled out as she had her appendix removed using no water based products, in a (quote) ''world first''. If her condition was psychosomatic, the doctors wouldn't have been freaking out over not exposing her insides to any medical grade water during the surgery while she wasn't conscious.

She also still reacts to pure orange juice and whole milk, albeit not as bad as pure water.
Where is this documentation?  I've asked once and was ignored.

Define documentation.
Really?  Evidence.  Medical journal entries, news reports not from a tabloid or conspiracy website that actually says it's not aquagenic urticaria...you know, documentation.  The statement you keep parroting about her waterless surgery is from a 1996 tabloid article and isn't repeated anywhere else that I could find. Every one of the articles you can find make sure in the body to say that "scientists don't believe this is actually an allergy"...and that includes every article you've posted here (as well as the ones you've posted on reddit and other sites).  Aquagenic urticaria is listed as the actual diagnosis in every news article, even the ones in the tabloids.


You keep listing names...but no links.



Michaela Dutton's immunologist Thomas Casale says "It's not a problem with water in the body. It's when [water] is applied on top of the body"...so, topical, not allergy.


Katie Dell has an article in Daily Mail (shitty tabloid that it is) that specifically says she was diagnosed with aquagenic urticaria.  Again not an actual allergy.


I can't be bothered to google your entire list. You've made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.  I've given it as fair a listen as I can be bothered to and you have presented nothing to support your claim that it's an actual allergy to H2O and not aquagenic urticaria.  You could claim it was an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in their house that hates water so it burns them for all you've given evidence of.

How do you explain the fact Michella Dutton has to survive by drinking Diet Cola and she cannot tolerate water going inside her body (via drinking)?

The same applies to Katie Dell. She cannot drink water either.

Note that it's Katie Dell and Michella Dutton themselves saying how they cannot drink water, not a claim by the journalist(s). There's another girl with water allergy and she can only drink milk because water, when she drinks it, causes ''agonizing sores'' in her throat.

As for Aquagenic Urticaria, it seems to be a blanket diagnosis for any reactions to water. This can include a skin condition but also cases where people go into full blown anaphylaxis from ingesting water (water going inside of their body - bypassing the skin).
Because Aquagenic Urticaria is colloquially known as 'water allergy' I can see how someone having a true, IgE-mediated reaction to the H2O molecule would be lumped in with Aquagenic Urticaria patients.

We're not focusing on the name of the condition, but their symptoms. Mainly the inability to ingest water without suffering severe internal symptoms, and in Heidi's case life-threatening anaphylactic symptoms.
I don't have to explain any of it.  I don't have any actual evidence that it's a fact.  What I do have is articles saying it's not an allergy to H2O, which you have yet to actually refute so there you are.

The cases of Aquagenic Urticaria where they say it isn't an allergy only makes reference to harmless skin hives. There's no references on the cases of anaphylactic shock when water is ingested (internal symptoms) or introduced into the bloodstream via an IV so while one type of ''Aquagenic Urticaria'' isn't an allergy (just skin irritation not caused by water directly, but some chemical on the skin reacting with water) the same can't really be said for people who have anaphylactic reactions (ie airways closing, throat blistering, and falling unconscious - which Heidi has said happens to her if she drinks just a mouthful of pure water) to ingesting water. Anaphylaxis by very definition is a severe allergic reaction and requires an epi-pen to reverse the symptoms, such as in Heidi's case, as epinephrine (AKA adrenaline) blocks histamine, a product from mast cells when they've been activated.

If someone has an IV of water, then the water wouldn't be making contact with the skin, but Heidi still had a massive internal and external (''giant blisters'' appearing all over her body) reaction to the water being present in her veins.

Heidi's case of'' Aquagenc Urticaria '' is not a conventional case, especially as doctors have said her problem is water and immunologists have researched her and concluded she's allergic to the H2O molecule - her body sees H2O molecules as foreign by mistake. If it isn't an allergy why would immunologists be interested in her case?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 07:45:27 PM
How do you explain the fact Michella Dutton has to survive by drinking Diet Cola and she cannot tolerate water going inside her body (via drinking)?

It's not anyone's responsibility to explain that alleged detail. The burden of proof is on the claimant, The Daily Fail, which presented those claims without evidence. In the lack of credible evidence there's no reason to believe it ever happened in the first place.

Besides that, other more credible sources have specifically pointed out that the condition is not an allergy.


The same applies to Katie Dell. She cannot drink water either.

Note that it's Katie Dell and Michella Dutton themselves saying how they cannot drink water, not a claim by the journalist(s). There's another girl with water allergy and she can only drink milk because water, when she drinks it, causes ''agonizing sores'' in her throat.

Katie Dell and Michella Dutton saying they cannot drink water is a claim made by Katie Dell and Michella Dutton.

Claims are not evidence. The fact that some tabloid rag has reported that Katie Dell and/or her relatives have said a thing, that does not make it credible. People make false statements all the time, and unreliable news sources like The Daily Mail are known to report unverified claims for the sake of sensationalism.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you want to convince a skeptic then you'll need to find evidence that it's true.


As for Aquagenic Urticaria, it seems to be a blanket diagnosis for any reactions to water.

"Seems to be" are 'weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word).'

It 'seems' to whom? A layperson with no medical expertise, who's come to an Internet message board seeking medical opinions from other non-professionals?


We're not focusing on the name of the condition, but their symptoms. Mainly the inability to ingest water without suffering severe internal symptoms, and in Heidi's case life-threatening anaphylactic symptoms.

If you're claiming it's an allergy (as you've repeatedly stated), then you need to provide evidence for the specific mechanism of action. Just saying that you believe it's an allergy is not enough to convince scientific skeptics.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 07:51:23 PM
How do you explain the fact Michella Dutton has to survive by drinking Diet Cola and she cannot tolerate water going inside her body (via drinking)?

It's not anyone's responsibility to explain that alleged detail. The burden of proof is on the claimant, The Daily Fail, which presented those claims without evidence. In the lack of credible evidence there's no reason to believe it ever happened in the first place.

Besides that, other more credible sources have specifically pointed out that the condition is not an allergy.



The same applies to Katie Dell. She cannot drink water either.

Note that it's Katie Dell and Michella Dutton themselves saying how they cannot drink water, not a claim by the journalist(s). There's another girl with water allergy and she can only drink milk because water, when she drinks it, causes ''agonizing sores'' in her throat.

Katie Dell and Michella Dutton saying they cannot drink water is a claim made by Katie Dell and Michella Dutton.

Claims are not evidence. The fact that some tabloid rag has reported that Katie Dell and/or her relatives have said a thing, that does not make it credible. People make false statements all the time, and unreliable news sources like The Daily Mail are known to report unverified claims for the sake of sensationalism.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you want to convince a skeptic then you'll need to find evidence that it's true.


As for Aquagenic Urticaria, it seems to be a blanket diagnosis for any reactions to water.

"Seems to be" are 'weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word).'

It 'seems' to whom? A layperson with no medical expertise, who's come to an Internet message board seeking medical opinions from other non-professionals?


We're not focusing on the name of the condition, but their symptoms. Mainly the inability to ingest water without suffering severe internal symptoms, and in Heidi's case life-threatening anaphylactic symptoms.

If you're claiming it's an allergy (as you've repeatedly stated), then you need to provide evidence for the specific mechanism of action. Just saying that you believe it's an allergy is not enough to convince scientific skeptics.

Why were immunologists interested in researching Heidi if her symptoms aren't allergy symptoms? Why was she prescribed epi pens? Epi pens are for the treatment of life threatening allergic reactions.

And I already gave the mechanism. An allergy has a very strict definition. It is defined as an IgE (immunoglobulin E, which are coated along the exterior of mast cells in connective tissues) mediated reaction to a molecule. In this case her body has mistakenly produced antibodies that react with water when they're attached to mast cells. When she drinks water, there is now water present outside of the cells, where the antibodies are located (on the cell). Because they'd now be exposed to water, the mast cells would degranulate in the same manner a peanut allergy sufferer who eats a peanut would have a reaction, except instead of peanut proteins, it's the water molecule.

Here's a diagram of a mast cell and its receptors -

(http://www.mastcell-basophil.net/uploads/pics/fig1_08.png)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 07:59:13 PM
Right now I doubt that this person named Heidi even exists.

Why's that? If you Google her name there's many sources spanning 22 years, including photos of her. She's currently trying to publish a book about her life struggles called ''It's Only Water''.

If Heidi doesn't exist, then that means Michella Dutton, Lindsay Corburay, Katie Dell, Rachel Warwick and Barbara Ward also do not exist as their cases and symptoms are exactly the same as Heidi's.

Anyone can make a claim on the internet. There are literally millions of unevidenced claims on the internet. I've seen nothing to disabuse me of the notion that it is all a big publicity stunt, Heidi and the others are actors, and they're all just doing it for the money.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:03:53 PM
Why were immunologists interested in researching Heidi if her symptoms aren't allergy symptoms?

Because that's their job.

I never said that the reported symptoms were inconsistent with those of an allergy.

But just because she reported symptoms consistent with allergy, that doesn't necessarily mean an allergy is the cause. The same symptoms might have numerous potential causes.


Why was she prescribed epi pens?

That's a question for the doctor who prescribed them.


And I already gave the mechanism.

You gave a definition of an allergy, not evidence that an allergy can be triggered by water. You need to supply evidence, not just an off-the-dome claim.

A visual diagram of a mast cell is just window dressing, not evidence.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Right now I doubt that this person named Heidi even exists.

Why's that? If you Google her name there's many sources spanning 22 years, including photos of her. She's currently trying to publish a book about her life struggles called ''It's Only Water''.

If Heidi doesn't exist, then that means Michella Dutton, Lindsay Corburay, Katie Dell, Rachel Warwick and Barbara Ward also do not exist as their cases and symptoms are exactly the same as Heidi's.

Anyone can make a claim on the internet. There are literally millions of unevidenced claims on the internet. I've seen nothing to disabuse me of the notion that it is all a big publicity stunt, Heidi and the others are actors, and they're all just doing it for the money.

So doctors/immunologists have risked their careers to make their act seem more credible by researching them?
Also, as Heidi has been in the news since she was at least 8 years old, 22 years seems like a long time to be putting up an act.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:07:32 PM
What are the names of all these doctors and immunologists, and what makes you think they're risking their careers?

Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:10:08 PM
Quote


But just because she reported symptoms consistent with allergy, that doesn't necessarily mean an allergy is the cause. The same symptoms might have numerous potential causes. 

Such as?


Quote
That's a question for the doctor who prescribed them.

I have a peanut and latex allergy and was prescribed epi pens.


Quote


You gave a definition of an allergy, not evidence that an allergy can be triggered by water. You need to supply evidence, not just an off-the-dome claim.

Given how rare these cases are, I doubt there's a lot of medical literature on an allergy to the H2O molecule. Also, these cases are all from the UK, where the top medical literature archives I could find were US-based.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:11:17 PM
What are the names of all these doctors and immunologists, and what makes you think they're risking their careers?

Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I've answered that multiple times in this thread.

''"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne. ''

Source - https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 08:16:58 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:20:28 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 08:22:24 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:27:43 PM
Quote
But just because she reported symptoms consistent with allergy, that doesn't necessarily mean an allergy is the cause. The same symptoms might have numerous potential causes. 

Such as?

We have already discussed several potential causes earlier in this thread. Feel free to go back and read them.


Why was she prescribed epi pens?

That's a question for the doctor who prescribed them.

I have a peanut and latex allergy and was prescribed epi pens.

If you want to know the specific reasoning for why her doctor prescribed the epi-pens, you'll have to ask her doctor.

What is her doctor's name?


Quote
You gave a definition of an allergy, not evidence that an allergy can be triggered by water. You need to supply evidence, not just an off-the-dome claim.

Given how rare these cases are, I doubt there's a lot of medical literature on an allergy to the H2O molecule. Also, these cases are all from the UK, where the top medical literature archives I could find were US-based.

It doesn't matter how rare the cases are.

If you're trying to convince us that she really has an allergic reaction to water, you still need to show evidence. 

What did the top medical literature have to say about it?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:28:39 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.

But if you're making an accusation, then some kind of evidence is in order.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:30:10 PM
I've tried looking up medical literature sites for her case but couldn't find anything. I'll try looking again tomorrow but like I said before these cases are always in the UK for some reason and most medical literature sites (eg. National Biomedical Institute) are US based.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:35:10 PM
I've tried looking up medical literature sites for her case but couldn't find anything. I'll try looking again tomorrow but like I said before these cases are always in the UK for some reason and most medical literature sites (eg. National Biomedical Institute) are US based.

The fact that these cases are always in the UK seems like something of a red flag.

Maybe it's a consequence of something in the UK water, or some rare environmental effect, or a genetic predisposition within the British population, or a psychosomatic illness with a cultural influence specific to the UK. Or maybe the UK tabloids are just more inclined to report on these kinds of stories, whereas the US news outlets are not.

At any rate, there simply may be no valid scientific evidence to support the belief that human beings can be allergic to the water molecule.

If that turns out to be the case, then will you still continue to believe in it?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 08:42:25 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.

But if you're making an accusation, then some kind of evidence is in order.

I agree. I will withdraw my accusation if any evidence is presented that this is a true allergy to water. Even just a little bit of evidence. Until then, I think that it's just as likely to be a publicity stunt.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:44:38 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.

But if you're making an accusation, then some kind of evidence is in order.

I agree. I will withdraw my accusation if any evidence is presented that this is a true allergy to water. Even just a little bit of evidence. Until then, I think that it's just as likely to be a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt from since you were 8 years old to 32 years old seems a bit overkill (in Heidi's case). She's also trying to publish a book about her life, a book she's been writing since she was 12.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 08:47:45 PM
I'm not willing to go so far as accuse somebody of something like that without evidence.

But the question posited in the OP is whether the water molecule can be an allergen. For that we need some scientific evidence, not just some unverified claims in the news media.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 08:48:09 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.

But if you're making an accusation, then some kind of evidence is in order.

I agree. I will withdraw my accusation if any evidence is presented that this is a true allergy to water. Even just a little bit of evidence. Until then, I think that it's just as likely to be a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt from since you were 8 years old to 32 years old seems a bit overkill (in Heidi's case). She's also trying to publish a book about her life, a book she's been writing since she was 12.

And I have only your word for that. Sorry, but I don't believe you.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 21, 2018, 08:49:32 PM
Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I did.

So do you have some evidence that it's malingering, as opposed to some rare condition or psychosomatic illness?

I do not. But neither do I have evidence that it is a genuine water allergy.

But if you're making an accusation, then some kind of evidence is in order.

I agree. I will withdraw my accusation if any evidence is presented that this is a true allergy to water. Even just a little bit of evidence. Until then, I think that it's just as likely to be a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt from since you were 8 years old to 32 years old seems a bit overkill (in Heidi's case). She's also trying to publish a book about her life, a book she's been writing since she was 12.

And I have only your word for that. Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Here you go - https://socialnewsdaily.com/75296/woman-possesses-fatal-water-allergy/

She mentions she's publishing a (quote) ''long awaited'' book about her life.

That article was published a few months ago, so it's recent. The FreeLibrary archive article was published in 1996. If you Google her name and news sites/archives you can uncover a lot more articles on her from various years spanning 1996-2018.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 09:04:12 PM
Here you go - https://socialnewsdaily.com/75296/woman-possesses-fatal-water-allergy/

She mentions she's publishing a (quote) ''long awaited'' book about her life.

That article was published a few months ago, so it's recent. The FreeLibrary archive article was published in 1996. If you Google her name and news sites/archives you can uncover a lot more articles on her from various years spanning 1996-2018.

Every one of which could be a complete fabrication. "Socialnewsdaily.com" does not sound like a reliable source to me. Directly underneath that story is a link to another story about someone who claims to be allergic to wi-fi, which we know is bunk. Your source is not authoritative. You need to do a lot better if you're going to convince me that this is real.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 09:07:58 PM
Oh yeah, I see no reason to believe it's not bullshit.

But I'm also not ready to discount the possibility that the girl is suffering from some real condition that's being exploited for sensationalism.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
Oh yeah, I see no reason to believe it's not bullshit.

But I'm also not ready to discount the possibility that the girl is suffering from some real condition that's being exploited for sensationalism.

As I suggested upthread, she may be suffering from a real condition that has simply been misdiagnosed, which is preventing her from receiving appropriate treatment.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 11:14:15 PM
I'm more inclined to believe that, than the idea that she's malingering the illness just to get attention.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
I'm more inclined to believe that, than the idea that she's malingering the illness just to get attention.

There's exactly as much evidence for that as there is for it being a genuine allergy to water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 11:47:56 PM
I'm more inclined to believe that, than the idea that she's malingering the illness just to get attention.

There's exactly as much evidence for that as there is for it being a genuine allergy to water.

And there's just as much evidence to support your allegation that it's all just a ploy for attention.

But in a lack of evidence either way, it's more charitable not to assume malignant motives.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 21, 2018, 11:52:41 PM
I'm more inclined to believe that, than the idea that she's malingering the illness just to get attention.

There's exactly as much evidence for that as there is for it being a genuine allergy to water.

And there's just as much evidence to support your allegation that it's all just a ploy for attention.

But in a lack of evidence either way, it's more charitable not to assume malignant motives.

Way to completely derail my rhetorical method, dude.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 21, 2018, 11:55:12 PM
Allegedly I'm a sealion, and we like to derail things. so...
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2018, 12:03:23 AM
Allegedly I'm a sealion, and we like to derail things. so...

Cute avatar, too.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 08:40:40 AM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 22, 2018, 12:22:34 PM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity

That's one third of the matter.  The second third is finding a way that only some kinds of water can do it (ie yes: water in a cup, no: water already in the blood) even though a water molecule is a water molecule no matter what other molecules are nearby.  The final third is about unreliable sources, likelihood of a claim based on prior probability, and general science.


Example of unreliable sources:  a newspaper article that says "The person went to a doctor, and was told X"

This does NOT mean "A doctor said X".  An attributed quote by the doctor would mean that.  This means that the person claims they were told X by a doctor, no more.

If you're feeling uncharitable about the quality of the newspaper, it does NOT even mean "according to the person, a doctor said X".  It means "a reporter said a person said a doctor said X".
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 01:59:46 PM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity

That's one third of the matter.  The second third is finding a way that only some kinds of water can do it (ie yes: water in a cup, no: water already in the blood) even though a water molecule is a water molecule no matter what other molecules are nearby.  The final third is about unreliable sources, likelihood of a claim based on prior probability, and general science.


Example of unreliable sources:  a newspaper article that says "The person went to a doctor, and was told X"

This does NOT mean "A doctor said X".  An attributed quote by the doctor would mean that.  This means that the person claims they were told X by a doctor, no more.

If you're feeling uncharitable about the quality of the newspaper, it does NOT even mean "according to the person, a doctor said X".  It means "a reporter said a person said a doctor said X".

Um, did you read the 1996 article? She had a medical IV drip and had a massive reaction to having water present in her veins, remember? Namely she developed ''giant blisters'' (quote) all over her body.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 02:08:11 PM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity)

That's one third of the matter.  The second third is finding a way that only some kinds of water can do it (ie yes: water in a cup, no: water already in the blood) even though a water molecule is a water molecule no matter what other molecules are nearby.  The final third is about unreliable sources, likelihood of a claim based on prior probability, and general science.


Example of unreliable sources:  a newspaper article that says "The person went to a doctor, and was told X"

This does NOT mean "A doctor said X".  An attributed quote by the doctor would mean that.  This means that the person claims they were told X by a doctor, no more.

If you're feeling uncharitable about the quality of the newspaper, it does NOT even mean "according to the person, a doctor said X".  It means "a reporter said a person said a doctor said X".

Um, did you read the 1996 article? She had a medical IV drip and had a massive reaction to having water present in her veins, remember? Namely she developed ''giant blisters'' (quote) all over her body.
A 1996 article with no citations from a tabloid barely worth the title of newspaper.  Sorry, not good enough.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 02:26:50 PM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity)

That's one third of the matter.  The second third is finding a way that only some kinds of water can do it (ie yes: water in a cup, no: water already in the blood) even though a water molecule is a water molecule no matter what other molecules are nearby.  The final third is about unreliable sources, likelihood of a claim based on prior probability, and general science.


Example of unreliable sources:  a newspaper article that says "The person went to a doctor, and was told X"

This does NOT mean "A doctor said X".  An attributed quote by the doctor would mean that.  This means that the person claims they were told X by a doctor, no more.

If you're feeling uncharitable about the quality of the newspaper, it does NOT even mean "according to the person, a doctor said X".  It means "a reporter said a person said a doctor said X".

Um, did you read the 1996 article? She had a medical IV drip and had a massive reaction to having water present in her veins, remember? Namely she developed ''giant blisters'' (quote) all over her body.
A 1996 article with no citations from a tabloid barely worth the title of newspaper.  Sorry, not good enough.

Then by that logic we should ignore the cases of Katie Dell, Michella Dutton, Lindsay Corburay, Rachel Warwick and Barbara Ward? Because their symptoms are identical to Heidi's - they also cannot tolerate internal water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 22, 2018, 02:35:52 PM
The motive isn't really the subject matter of this thread, it's if the water molecule is capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response. ie a true allergic reaction, like Heidi and co claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_hypersensitivity

In order to find out whether the water molecule might be capable of causing an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity response, you would have to find some clinical evidence for such.


Um, did you read the 1996 article? She had a medical IV drip and had a massive reaction to having water present in her veins, remember? Namely she developed ''giant blisters'' (quote) all over her body.
A 1996 article with no citations from a tabloid barely worth the title of newspaper.  Sorry, not good enough.

Then by that logic we should ignore the cases of Katie Dell, Michella Dutton, Lindsay Corburay, Rachel Warwick and Barbara Ward? Because their symptoms are identical to Heidi's - they also cannot tolerate internal water.

If the only evidence for all these claims are the unverified stories, printed without citation in sensationalist supermarket tabloids, then yes. We may as well ignore them until somebody comes forth with valid evidence.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 03:01:07 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 03:29:46 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 03:52:24 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 04:24:49 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?
Your link doesn't say, so how am I supposed to know?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?
Your link doesn't say, so how am I supposed to know?

Then you can't say it isn't from an IgE mediated reaction to the water molecule, which all the articles on Heidi imply.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 04:30:38 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?
Your link doesn't say, so how am I supposed to know?

Then you can't say it isn't from an IgE mediated reaction to the water molecule, which all the articles on Heidi imply.
Because I can't prove a negative?  Uh-uh sparky, you made the claim, it's up to you to prove something. 


(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hitchens-razor.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 04:31:56 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?
Your link doesn't say, so how am I supposed to know?

Then you can't say it isn't from an IgE mediated reaction to the water molecule, which all the articles on Heidi imply.
Because I can't prove a negative?  Uh-uh sparky, you made the claim, it's up to you to prove something. 


(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hitchens-razor.jpg)

Why don't you try contacting allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne? He has seen and researched Heidi first hand. He is an allergy specialist. Keyword on allergy.


Wikipedia isn't a good source of information, it doesn't even touch on cases where patients are unable to drink water and claims it only affects the skin, which is untrue in Heidi's case, along with several others. If doctors didn't think she was allergic to the H2O molecule, she wouldn't have been referred to a top allergy specialist in the first place.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 04:38:12 PM

How can I make it clearer?


It's your claim that this is an allergy.  When asked for evidence, you link to a medical journal article that doesn't claim that it's an allergy.  When this is pointed out to you, you ask for us to prove to you it isn't.  That's not how this work.  You have to prove the claim if you expect anyone else to buy it. 


I don't have to look up your mysterious doctor, it's your claim that you've made without evidence.  If he has any evidence why hasn't he published it in medical journals?  I mean, it's only been 22 years...maybe he's been busy.  I don't know, and it's not up to me to present that evidence.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 04:41:42 PM

How can I make it clearer?


It's your claim that this is an allergy.  When asked for evidence, you link to a medical journal article that doesn't claim that it's an allergy.  When this is pointed out to you, you ask for us to prove to you it isn't.  That's not how this work.  You have to prove the claim if you expect anyone else to buy it. 


I don't have to look up your mysterious doctor, it's your claim that you've made without evidence.  If he has any evidence why hasn't he published it in medical journals?  I mean, it's only been 22 years...maybe he's been busy.  I don't know, and it's not up to me to present that evidence.

Maybe he thinks H2O allergy is just a rare allergy and moved on to the next patient, who knows? Either way I doubt she'd be referred to a top allergy specialist if doctors doubted she's allergic to the H2O molecule. To date there's only about 5 or so people who have a true allergy to the H2O molecule, so it isn't like it's on a priority list to be studied because it's so rare and the fact is also challenges what we know about biology.

There's people who are allergic to insulin. There's a diabetic girl who comes close to dying everytime she gets an insulin shot - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/health/pancreas-transplant-diabetes-eprise/index.html

Should we say that article about the girl allergic to insulin is false since it was in the news and also makes reference to her seeing doctors?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 22, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
This is all blatant supposition.  Maybe he thinks its too rare to mess with...maybe it just doesn't exist...maybe it's because of her elvish ancestry...who knows.  Evidence.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 04:55:02 PM
This is all blatant supposition.  Maybe he thinks its too rare to mess with...maybe it just doesn't exist...maybe it's because of her elvish ancestry...who knows.  Evidence.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/health/pancreas-transplant-diabetes-eprise/index.html

So this article about a girl allergic to insulin is fake too? It reads exactly the same as the articles on Heidi.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 22, 2018, 05:05:38 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?

The article does not mention any swelling in his throat. It says he reported "pruritic erythematous" changes (redness of the skin) along with some swelling of his lips and his oral cavity after drinking water. In other words, when he drinks water, his cheeks, lips, and gums swell a little and discolor. It does not say he cannot tolerate internal water anywhere in that article, and his symptoms were controlled with an antihistamine.

Conversely, insulin-allergy is confirmed scientifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186805 right down to the antibody reaction. The story you linked cited the doctors and medical institutions workin gon it, not just the patient, and the patient was treated and papers were written about the case.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 05:10:04 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?

The article does not mention any swelling in his throat. It says he reported "pruritic erythematous" changes (redness of the skin) along with some swelling of his lips and his oral cavity after drinking water. In other words, when he drinks water, his cheeks, lips, and gums swell a little and discolor. It does not say he cannot tolerate internal water anywhere in that article, and his symptoms were controlled with an antihistamine.

Conversely, insulin-allergy is confirmed scientifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186805 right down to the antibody reaction. The story you linked cited the doctors and medical institutions workin gon it, not just the patient, and the patient was treated and papers were written about the case.

So you're assuming Heidi and her family have been running a scam since she was 8 years old and Barbara Ward, Katie Dell, Lindsay Corburay etc. are her alternate identities / agents to try and convince people her scam is real?

Seems conspiracy ish.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 22, 2018, 05:16:02 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?

The article does not mention any swelling in his throat. It says he reported "pruritic erythematous" changes (redness of the skin) along with some swelling of his lips and his oral cavity after drinking water. In other words, when he drinks water, his cheeks, lips, and gums swell a little and discolor. It does not say he cannot tolerate internal water anywhere in that article, and his symptoms were controlled with an antihistamine.

Conversely, insulin-allergy is confirmed scientifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186805 right down to the antibody reaction. The story you linked cited the doctors and medical institutions workin gon it, not just the patient, and the patient was treated and papers were written about the case.

So you're assuming Heidi and her family have been running a scam since she was 8 years old and Barbara Ward, Katie Dell, Lindsay Corburay etc. are her alternate identities / agents to try and convince people her scam is real?

Seems conspiracy ish.

Nope. Try again.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 05:29:40 PM
I found a case file from NCBI.gov

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/)

In this case file it says he cannot tolerate internal water because his mouth and throat swells up. It's easy to see how a more severe case could be full blown anaphylaxis considering some people allergic to eggs get swelling in their mouth or throat if their allergy to egg albumin is mild but not severe.

So is this source also not credible?
Did you read it?  At no point does it say it's an allergy. Hell, the title of the paper is "Aquagenic Urticaria Diagnosed by the Water Provocation Test and the Results of Histopathologic Examination".

Then what's causing the swelling of his mouth and throat when he drinks water?

The article does not mention any swelling in his throat. It says he reported "pruritic erythematous" changes (redness of the skin) along with some swelling of his lips and his oral cavity after drinking water. In other words, when he drinks water, his cheeks, lips, and gums swell a little and discolor. It does not say he cannot tolerate internal water anywhere in that article, and his symptoms were controlled with an antihistamine.

Conversely, insulin-allergy is confirmed scientifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186805 right down to the antibody reaction. The story you linked cited the doctors and medical institutions workin gon it, not just the patient, and the patient was treated and papers were written about the case.

So you're assuming Heidi and her family have been running a scam since she was 8 years old and Barbara Ward, Katie Dell, Lindsay Corburay etc. are her alternate identities / agents to try and convince people her scam is real?

Seems conspiracy ish.

Nope. Try again.

Then what?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 05:32:29 PM
I feel like Heidi and co's cases bear a lot of implications for science.

For example since we were in school we were taught that blood is mostly water and the human body is mostly water. But Heidi and co's cases go against this because if the blood and body were so watery as claimed then Heidi would not have been able to survive until she was 32. A mouthful of water is enough to send her into anaphylaxis (which is life threatening and defined as a severe allergic reaction). So some 40+ liters of water being in her body at all times would kill her instantly since she'd essentially be a walking sack of dirty water.

Perhaps these cases are avoided by scientists is because they signal a re writing of biology.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 22, 2018, 05:44:43 PM
Yay! We got there!
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Yay! We got there!

Where?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 22, 2018, 06:03:06 PM
Yay! We got there!

Where?

The crazy part.

In addition to being taught about all that water in our bodies in school, I have worked on the engineering side of an MRI machine.  Not the biology side, the engineering side.  With my own hands and brain and eyes.

So as an engineer I don't really care what any of the stuff does, just what it's made of.  And, it turns out, if you put people or animals in there, they are basically bags of dirty water.  From a physics perspective.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 22, 2018, 06:19:07 PM
Yay! We got there!

Where?

The crazy part.

In addition to being taught about all that water in our bodies in school, I have worked on the engineering side of an MRI machine.  Not the biology side, the engineering side.  With my own hands and brain and eyes.

So as an engineer I don't really care what any of the stuff does, just what it's made of.  And, it turns out, if you put people or animals in there, they are basically bags of dirty water.  From a physics perspective.

Heidi and co's bodies must not be a bag of water then, since she'd have died the moment she developed her H2O allergy.

Just deductive reasoning.

Also, I'm pretty sure a MRI works by polarizing hydrogen atoms, this hydrogen could be in amino acids, proteins etc.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 22, 2018, 06:26:48 PM
Nope, MRI works by manipulating the magnetic field of hydrogen atoms, differently depending on how the hydrogen is bonded in atoms.  At the simplest level, it maps out the regions of water and fat in the body.  The particular techniques I was working on were driving hard into the precise differences between fat and water.

Again, the order of likelihood of outcomes here:

Mistake/error..........Deliberate deception.......................(so many more .....)........All of science is wrong
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2018, 07:27:03 PM
Wikipedia isn't a good source of information...

It's a way better source of information than socialnewsdaily.com.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 22, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 23, 2018, 11:17:13 AM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 23, 2018, 11:17:58 AM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

Mistake/error..........Deliberate deception.......................(so many more .....)........All of science is wrong
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: seamas on October 23, 2018, 12:17:29 PM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

Easy. There is no allergy to water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 10:41:29 AM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

Easy. There is no allergy to water.

Ah, so water allergy is some weird forced meme!
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 24, 2018, 11:28:16 AM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

Easy. There is no allergy to water.

Ah, so water allergy is some weird forced meme!
Just like Jesus.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
So this girl, who claims she's so allergic to H2O she cannot drink water (and only drinks milk) is just a stupid teenage girl looking for attention?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6185043/Teenager-19-allergic-TEARS-breaks-hives-touches-water.html
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 24, 2018, 03:01:23 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 03:03:24 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 24, 2018, 03:22:21 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.
Wow.




I'm flabbergasted at this post.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 03:31:56 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.
Wow.




I'm flabbergasted at this post.

Why?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 24, 2018, 03:33:14 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.
Wow.




I'm flabbergasted at this post.

I'm shocked—SHOCKED—to find H2O in that water-based biology!?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 24, 2018, 03:55:39 PM
Trolls are mostly water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 24, 2018, 05:16:49 PM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

That's easy.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING ALLERGY, and your unsupported assumption is wrong.

The fact that human bodies are comprised of up to 60% water is not in dispute. That is established science.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: stands2reason on October 24, 2018, 05:21:06 PM
I guess you could say the goalpost just got moved so far, they fell into the ocean.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 24, 2018, 06:42:55 PM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.
Wow.




I'm flabbergasted at this post.

Why?

Um... because it's utter bullshit?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 10:17:43 PM
This new miracle non-water biology would have really screwed Frank Herbet's inspiration for Dune.

Well how else do you explain why she's not in anaphylaxis 24/7.

That's easy.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING ALLERGY, and your unsupported assumption is wrong.

The fact that human bodies are comprised of up to 60% water is not in dispute. That is established science.

Someone on Reddit explained that the water in our bodies isn't pure water. The water molecules are mixed in with other stuff and combined with other things so they're adequately 'masked' by the immune system, which is why she doesn't react. This explanation seems most plausible. Like how Vitamin B12 contains cyanide, but we don't die of cyanide poisoning whenever we take a Vitamin B12 supplement - because the cyanide is combined or mixed with another substance. The chemical name for Vitamin B12 is cyanocobalamin. Take a wild guess where the ''cyano-'' part comes from.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 24, 2018, 11:12:49 PM
The fact that water molecules are mixed with other substances doesn't make them not water molecules. Water molecules in biological cells aren't forming new compounds with those other substances. They are still water. If the claim is that the water molecules are causing an allergic reaction then there's just no getting around the fact that they would be necessarily causing an allergic reaction with the subject's own cells.

For that matter, ordinary air contains on average 1% water vapour. She should be having an allergic reaction to breathing. No, if the claims of her symptoms are true (and that has by no means been demonstrated), then there's something else behind it.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 24, 2018, 11:15:57 PM
The fact that water molecules are mixed with other substances doesn't make them not water molecules. Water molecules in biological cells aren't forming new compounds with those other substances. They are still water. If the claim is that the water molecules are causing an allergic reaction then there's just no getting around the fact that they would be necessarily causing an allergic reaction with the subject's own cells.

For that matter, ordinary air contains on average 1% water vapour. She should be having an allergic reaction to breathing. No, if the claims of her symptoms are true (and that has by no means been demonstrated), then there's something else behind it.

Here's his comment on a thread about a girl who is allergic to water -

''Some might have their throat closed up immediately, or others, like you, may only get blisters and pain. Clearly, you don't react as severely as the other person, and so you can tolerate the water content in milk and your own body. Also, by people saying there is water in milk, they aren't lying just because it doesn't hurt you. Milk is a dense mixture of other particles which can, and clearly are, masking the water enough so that your body is not reacting. Blood and other water containing fluids also are not making you react extremely because they also have stuff mixed in. Yeah, straight water in your body would for sure kill you, but it's not pure nor anything close. Your saliva has water too, and so does every cell of yours, but it isn't just water and isn't recognized as foreign by your body.

Fluids act differently than solids, and allergic reactions are a case by case thing since people can be affected by different things in so many different ways. You are a special case.''
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 25, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
<quotes more complete and utter bullshit>
Either Shrooborb is a troll, or is profoundly and wilfully ignorant, and/or is so devoid of understanding reality it's just sad.

It's pointless attempting to convince them of the complete and utter idiocy of their nonsensical beliefs. It's a total waste of time. They will never change and they will simply dig in deeper, no matter the cognitive dissonance it requires.

It's pointless attempting to acknowledge and understand their position and lead them along a path of discovery. Some internet personas are simply not worth wasting time on.

It's pointless attempting to understand why an anonymous internet "person" thinks this way.


The only time I think it's worth some effort to engage in such discussion is when the discussion involves others for whom such effort is worthwhile (I don't see anyone here that needs help understanding why this is nonsensical).

Or if perhaps you are dealing with someone in-person.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: bimble on October 25, 2018, 04:31:48 AM
I forget, when we were making up new biology so that the human body didn't have all that water in it, were we also making up cow biology so that milk doesn't have all that water in it?  I suppose those would come together.

According to Lindsey Coubray, her body is not mostly water and milk doesn't contain water.

From the Viva! website:
Quote
All milk produced by animals contains carbohydrate, protein, fat, minerals and vitamins but the major component is water. Water dilutes the milk allowing its secretion from the body; without water it would be impossible to express milk. Additionally, the water in milk is essential to the newborn for hydration. Cow’s milk contains a similar amount of water to human milk – around 87 per cent.

I've bolded a couple of bits that might be relevant...  ::)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 25, 2018, 12:45:51 PM
You didn't reply if it was plausible or not that the water in the body, being unpure water, could be ''masked'' enough that the body doesn't react to it, and the same applies to milk.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 25, 2018, 12:53:35 PM
What is "mask"?  Are the water molecules darting around hiding behind sugar or lactose or something?  lol

It's just so dumb I can't believe it's still coming.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 25, 2018, 01:00:54 PM
You didn't reply if it was plausible or not that the water in the body, being unpure water, could be ''masked'' enough that the body doesn't react to it, and the same applies to milk.
If being "masked" were an option then people who are allergic to Yellow Dye #5 (tartrazine) would never have to worry about anything.  It's not like they were drinking pure dye right?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 25, 2018, 01:09:35 PM
You didn't reply if it was plausible or not that the water in the body, being unpure water, could be ''masked'' enough that the body doesn't react to it, and the same applies to milk.
If being "masked" were an option then people who are allergic to Yellow Dye #5 (tartrazine) would never have to worry about anything.  It's not like they were drinking pure dye right?

But the dye is a solid, liquids behave differently to solids.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Calinthalus on October 25, 2018, 01:19:18 PM
You didn't reply if it was plausible or not that the water in the body, being unpure water, could be ''masked'' enough that the body doesn't react to it, and the same applies to milk.
If being "masked" were an option then people who are allergic to Yellow Dye #5 (tartrazine) would never have to worry about anything.  It's not like they were drinking pure dye right?

But the dye is a solid, liquids behave differently to solids.
What? 


Liquid vs. solid doesn't really exist at the molecular level.  If you are reacting to the presence of a protein (allergic reaction), it doesn't really matter if you ingested this in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state.


Are you saying that all of your list of water allergy "patients" can eat ice or stick their faces into humidifiers just fine...they just can't drink liquid water?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: The Latinist on October 25, 2018, 06:38:22 PM
Y’all did see that this person doesn’t believe blood contains water, right? Why is anyone still engaging this person as if he has any grasp on reality.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on October 25, 2018, 06:54:12 PM
Because occasionally some people can learn some things.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2018, 06:57:42 PM
Because occasionally some people can learn some things.

Keywords being "occasionally" and "some."
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Billzbub on October 26, 2018, 01:28:32 PM
I think an important concept that is relevant to this discussion is that the way the world works is WAY more complicated than the simple concepts being floated around here.  The original poster is thinking in very simple terms, and is treating everything he reads on reddit as being true and being simple.

The truth of what really is going on with that girl is probably way more complex than we will be able to get into here because we don't have access to all the data, and we don't have the expertise to decipher it anyway.  As skeptics, we have the opinion that the people who are involved with this (reddit, the tabloid media, etc) are probably missing something because everything we know about the body goes against what they are saying.  The original poster's default position is to accept the simplified explanation from reddit and the tabloids until someone can explain to him why it is not true.

Shrooborb, when something you read flies in the face of all known medical knowledge, the most likely explanation is that it is misunderstood by the people involved.  As skeptics, it will require a great deal of evidence to convince us that known medical knowledge is wrong and that the girl is actually allergic to water, and we are unlikely to get such evidence because we don't have access to the data or have the expertise to interpret it.  When studies about this condition are published in peer reviewed, respected medical journals, we will start looking at what the experts say.  Until then, I'm not even going to wonder what is going on with her case.  I'm just going to chalk it up to misunderstandings on the parts of everyone involved.  This kind of anomaly hunting is common among conspiracy-minded people, and looking into each particular anomaly is tiresome.

So, the answer to your original question is:  Water is almost certainly not an allergen, and your "what about XYZ?" questions will not persuade me to even entertain the idea until you are asking "what about the peer reviewed article in this respectable medical journal that says it is true" because of how common anomaly-hunting and the simple misunderstanding of complex ideas is.

Disclaimer:  I have not read this whole thread, so I am making some assumptions here.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 26, 2018, 01:32:09 PM
Disclaimer:  I have not read this whole thread, so I am making some assumptions here.

You done good.  Hahahaha
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 26, 2018, 04:00:28 PM
I think an important concept that is relevant to this discussion is that the way the world works is WAY more complicated than the simple concepts being floated around here.  The original poster is thinking in very simple terms, and is treating everything he reads on reddit as being true and being simple.

The truth of what really is going on with that girl is probably way more complex than we will be able to get into here because we don't have access to all the data, and we don't have the expertise to decipher it anyway.  As skeptics, we have the opinion that the people who are involved with this (reddit, the tabloid media, etc) are probably missing something because everything we know about the body goes against what they are saying.  The original poster's default position is to accept the simplified explanation from reddit and the tabloids until someone can explain to him why it is not true.

Shrooborb, when something you read flies in the face of all known medical knowledge, the most likely explanation is that it is misunderstood by the people involved.  As skeptics, it will require a great deal of evidence to convince us that known medical knowledge is wrong and that the girl is actually allergic to water, and we are unlikely to get such evidence because we don't have access to the data or have the expertise to interpret it.  When studies about this condition are published in peer reviewed, respected medical journals, we will start looking at what the experts say.  Until then, I'm not even going to wonder what is going on with her case.  I'm just going to chalk it up to misunderstandings on the parts of everyone involved.  This kind of anomaly hunting is common among conspiracy-minded people, and looking into each particular anomaly is tiresome.

So, the answer to your original question is:  Water is almost certainly not an allergen, and your "what about XYZ?" questions will not persuade me to even entertain the idea until you are asking "what about the peer reviewed article in this respectable medical journal that says it is true" because of how common anomaly-hunting and the simple misunderstanding of complex ideas is.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sXbhVVxN/applause-monty-python.gif)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 26, 2018, 04:04:02 PM
The original poster's default position is to accept the simplified explanation from reddit and the tabloids until someone can explain to him why it is not true.
I don't accept these short nonsensical explanations are simple. The complete lack of plausibility tells us that.

The OP is not of any mind to investigate with reasonable legitimate rigour, nor accept the reality of science or discuss the lack of evidence available with any intellectual honesty, no matter the effort put into to demonstrate reality to them. They are either incapable, unwilling or a troll. Or some combination thereof.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 26, 2018, 04:25:33 PM
The OP is not of any mind to investigate with reasonable legitimate rigour, nor accept the reality of science or discuss the lack of evidence available with any intellectual honesty, no matter the effort put into to demonstrate reality to them. They are either incapable, unwilling or a troll. Or some combination thereof.

Maybe so.

But I've also witnessed some people with irrational beliefs turn around, take an interest in skepticism, and change their mode of thinking about science issues. It usually takes a lot of time, but it does occasionally happen.

Meanwhile, the process of having the discussion is also educational. Even as stupid as this thread has been, I've learned a few technical details about allergies just by following the links.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 27, 2018, 03:27:47 PM
I think an important concept that is relevant to this discussion is that the way the world works is WAY more complicated than the simple concepts being floated around here.  The original poster is thinking in very simple terms, and is treating everything he reads on reddit as being true and being simple.

The truth of what really is going on with that girl is probably way more complex than we will be able to get into here because we don't have access to all the data, and we don't have the expertise to decipher it anyway.  As skeptics, we have the opinion that the people who are involved with this (reddit, the tabloid media, etc) are probably missing something because everything we know about the body goes against what they are saying.  The original poster's default position is to accept the simplified explanation from reddit and the tabloids until someone can explain to him why it is not true.

Shrooborb, when something you read flies in the face of all known medical knowledge, the most likely explanation is that it is misunderstood by the people involved.  As skeptics, it will require a great deal of evidence to convince us that known medical knowledge is wrong and that the girl is actually allergic to water, and we are unlikely to get such evidence because we don't have access to the data or have the expertise to interpret it.  When studies about this condition are published in peer reviewed, respected medical journals, we will start looking at what the experts say.  Until then, I'm not even going to wonder what is going on with her case.  I'm just going to chalk it up to misunderstandings on the parts of everyone involved.  This kind of anomaly hunting is common among conspiracy-minded people, and looking into each particular anomaly is tiresome.

So, the answer to your original question is:  Water is almost certainly not an allergen, and your "what about XYZ?" questions will not persuade me to even entertain the idea until you are asking "what about the peer reviewed article in this respectable medical journal that says it is true" because of how common anomaly-hunting and the simple misunderstanding of complex ideas is.

Disclaimer:  I have not read this whole thread, so I am making some assumptions here.


But there's already medical journals on Aquagenic Urticaria. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5438944/

The paper mentions swelling of the lips and mouth when ingesting water which means this case reported here goes a bit further than just affecting the skin. Whose to say a more severe case can't happen where ingestion of any water leads to anaphylaxis?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 27, 2018, 04:35:21 PM
The OP is not of any mind to investigate with reasonable legitimate rigour, nor accept the reality of science or discuss the lack of evidence available with any intellectual honesty, no matter the effort put into to demonstrate reality to them. They are either incapable, unwilling or a troll. Or some combination thereof.

Maybe so.

But I've also witnessed some people with irrational beliefs turn around, take an interest in skepticism, and change their mode of thinking about science issues. It usually takes a lot of time, but it does occasionally happen.

Can you point to an example of forum interactions where this has occurred? Maybe, perhaps, in real life when in person and you are able to eyeball them it might happen, but even then rarely.

Meanwhile, the process of having the discussion is also educational. Even as stupid as this thread has been, I've learned a few technical details about allergies just by following the links.
Which is the point I made earlier about the only occasion where continuing such discussion is perhaps worthwhile - others may learn something useful. That said most of the time the incredulous behaviour of the troll in question and eventual exasperation by others turns people away and most couldn't be bothered to read the posts.

I find it's more productive to write about a topic in long form as an educational piece for later reference when such debates come up.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 27, 2018, 04:40:46 PM
IMO continued interaction with the troll in question is simply playing into their hands.

Their questions and statements are not genuine, rather they are designed to play people.

Eventually they'll go away and pop up again later with another sock puppet account.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 27, 2018, 04:56:22 PM
IMO continued interaction with the troll in question is simply playing into their hands.

Their questions and statements are not genuine, rather they are designed to play people.

I don't automatically assume ill will or shenanigans on the part of anybody, unless it's readily obvious that they're taking the piss. As soon as they break the "Poe" by taking it just far enough to give away the game (like denying 3rd grade science by suggesting that maybe blood doesn't contain water), I'm pretty much through. 


But I've also witnessed some people with irrational beliefs turn around, take an interest in skepticism, and change their mode of thinking about science issues. It usually takes a lot of time, but it does occasionally happen.

Can you point to an example of forum interactions where this has occurred?

Not over the course of a single forum interaction, no. It's always been very gradual and took many months or years of intermittent discussions about various subjects. I can even look to my own personal growth and learning over the course of 10+ years of participating in skeptics forums. When I first began posting in skeptic forums I believed that academic journals were the heralds of science, and if a study was published that meant the consensus had already been decided.


Maybe, perhaps, in real life when in person and you are able to eyeball them it might happen, but even then rarely.

Yeah, it's certainly not the majority. But I'm a firm believer that every little bit helps and cynicism is the death of reason.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 27, 2018, 08:44:36 PM
IMO continued interaction with the troll in question is simply playing into their hands.

Their questions and statements are not genuine, rather they are designed to play people.

Eventually they'll go away and pop up again later with another sock puppet account.

Calling someone a troll without any evidence of malicious intent is a malicious attempt of trying to shut down a discussion.

If you don't want to post in this thread then ignore my thread if you don't want to contribute to the discussion. Simple.

PS I'm 14 years old so cut me some slack if I'm having trouble understanding things, OK?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on October 29, 2018, 01:31:48 AM

''Yeah, it's certainly not the majority. But I'm a firm believer that every little bit helps and cynicism is the death of reason.''

Couldn't agree more. Especially since I've just started high school and I'm trying to learn things. Cynicism will only get me frustrated.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: seamas on October 29, 2018, 10:54:50 AM
I am curious why you refuse to employ even a modicum of skepticism on this.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: amysrevenge on October 29, 2018, 12:52:50 PM
Here's the thing to understand, if what you're looking to do is learn.

The water allergy claim boils down to this simple statement: "If what this person says is true and accurate, then everything we know about science is wrong."

Within that statement, the IF is the whole key.  It is mind-bogglingly more likely that what the person says is either not true or not accurate, than that everything we know about science is wrong.

And, I'm not even really talking about the alleged sufferer here as "this person".  I'm talking about the person writing the story.  It is VERY likely that the person writing the story made a major error in describing the situation, or is just straight-up inventing things to get more clicks/eyeballs.

That's the detail that you keep missing, and it's common in stories like this.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Billzbub on October 29, 2018, 02:40:25 PM
The paper mentions swelling of the lips and mouth when ingesting water which means this case reported here goes a bit further than just affecting the skin. Whose to say a more severe case can't happen where ingestion of any water leads to anaphylaxis?

This is a great question we can discuss.  We are not saying that a more severe case can't happen.  We are saying that the evidence provided is not sufficient to believe that this DID happen.  Extraordinary claims (someone can be allergic to water and still be alive) require extraordinary evidence.  This claim is well within the ability of science to examine (unlike the afterlife and what not), so if it was a real thing, I would expect a bunch of scientists to be studying it and publishing their results so that other scientists can check their work.  Eventually, it would be proven one way or the other.  I'm content to chalk it up to "unlikely" until it goes through a scientifically valid vetting process.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: SkeptiQueer on October 29, 2018, 04:06:42 PM
The paper mentions swelling of the lips and mouth when ingesting water which means this case reported here goes a bit further than just affecting the skin. Whose to say a more severe case can't happen where ingestion of any water leads to anaphylaxis?

This is a great question we can discuss.  We are not saying that a more severe case can't happen.  We are saying that the evidence provided is not sufficient to believe that this DID happen.  Extraordinary claims (someone can be allergic to water and still be alive) require extraordinary evidence.  This claim is well within the ability of science to examine (unlike the afterlife and what not), so if it was a real thing, I would expect a bunch of scientists to be studying it and publishing their results so that other scientists can check their work.  Eventually, it would be proven one way or the other.  I'm content to chalk it up to "unlikely" until it goes through a scientifically valid vetting process.

The paper doesn't even suggest more than a skin reaction. Swelling of the lips and oral cavity is still just a skin surface reaction consistent with urticaria. Urticaria doesn't "progress" to anaphylaxis because those are two unrelated conditions. It's like asking why it's not possible that lactose intolerance (inability to digest lactose) to cause ulcers and anaphylactic shock. The systems are unrelated, so it's not like it can develop further.

Likewise her claim that milk or orange juice are okay is backwards. If you're allergic to shrimp or peanuts, it only takes a trace in an entire meal to trigger a reaction. Saying that milk dilutes the water enough would be like saying you're allergic to peanuts but you can eat peanut butter because the added sugar dilutes the proteins enough. If you made that claim to your doctor, they would explain that you're not allergic to peanuts because that's not how any of that works.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 29, 2018, 08:10:19 PM
IMO continued interaction with the troll in question is simply playing into their hands.

Their questions and statements are not genuine, rather they are designed to play people.

Eventually they'll go away and pop up again later with another sock puppet account.

Calling someone a troll without any evidence of malicious intent is a malicious attempt of trying to shut down a discussion.

If you don't want to post in this thread then ignore my thread if you don't want to contribute to the discussion. Simple.

PS I'm 14 years old so cut me some slack if I'm having trouble understanding things, OK?
Are juniors permitted on here?

I'll cut some slack if you:
i. don't continue to post the same nonsense over and over,
ii. show a willingness to apply a modicum of skepticism
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on October 30, 2018, 12:14:12 PM
I haven't gone back and read the entire thread but from what I've seen I think everyone is being far to harsh to the OP, and are often going beyond what is known medically and scientifically in your responses.

This is how I would answer the question.

No. There is no evidence that the water molecule itself is an allergen.

There is a rare condition (Aquagenic urticaria) that is often referred to in popular and medical media as a "water allergy."

This is the condition the case in the OP has been diagnosed with. It may be an allergy, but it's not an allergy to the water molecule.

With Aquagenic urticaria exposure to water causes hives. (That is what Aquagenic urticaria translates to).

Hives (urticaria) are often an allergic reaction, and in several respects in water behaves as an allergen in Aquagenic urticaria.

The treatments for Aquagenic urticaria include many of the same treatments for allergies (especially antihistamines and adrenaline)

We don't know why water causes this reaction and we don't know if it is an allergic reaction or not or if it is what specifically it is a reaction to.

We do know that water is the universal solvent and there are cases where exposure to water causes substances on the skin to be released and exposed to wider areas of the skin causing reactions.

We also know that water is rarely pure and often contains chlorine, fluoride and other chemicals that could cause reactions (although in the diagnoses for Aquagenic urticaria they test sensitivity with distilled water to eliminate those).

Many of the sources cited to support the claim that the water molecule is an allergen are not of the quality that skeptics usually rely on.

I'd suggest going to pubmed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ or Google scholar and look for peer-review articles in medical or scientific journals, rather than unfiltered web searches.



Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Billzbub on October 30, 2018, 12:27:45 PM
Good post, CarbShark.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: The Latinist on October 30, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
If you had read the thread, then you’d know that the OP has claimed, among other things, that blood does not contain water.  I don’t think anyone has been too harsh in response to such a ridiculous claim.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on October 30, 2018, 09:40:56 PM
If you had read the thread, then you’d know that the OP has claimed, among other things, that blood does not contain water.  I don’t think anyone has been too harsh in response to such a ridiculous claim.

The OP was mistaken, therefore it's fair game to be harsh?

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on October 30, 2018, 09:48:00 PM
If you had read the thread, then you’d know that the OP has claimed, among other things, that blood does not contain water.  I don’t think anyone has been too harsh in response to such a ridiculous claim.
Make a ridiculous statement or claim once - that I can be charitable about.

But persist with them over and over after they have clearly been shown to be nonsense and my desire to be charitable diminishes significantly.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Billzbub on October 31, 2018, 10:20:24 AM
If you had read the thread, then you’d know that the OP has claimed, among other things, that blood does not contain water.  I don’t think anyone has been too harsh in response to such a ridiculous claim.

The OP was mistaken, therefore it's fair game to be harsh?

When I was 14, I wondered if everything liquid was just water with some other ingredients mixed in.  No, at that time I was not the mental giant that you see before you.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on October 31, 2018, 12:04:37 PM
If you had read the thread, then you’d know that the OP has claimed, among other things, that blood does not contain water.  I don’t think anyone has been too harsh in response to such a ridiculous claim.

The OP was mistaken, therefore it's fair game to be harsh?

When I was 14, I wondered if everything liquid was just water with some other ingredients mixed in.  No, at that time I was not the mental giant that you see before you.

I had other things on my mind at 14.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 31, 2018, 05:02:22 PM
Hey, at least nobody stopped so low as to call him a "sea lion." That's something to be proud of. 
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: wastrel on October 31, 2018, 05:07:42 PM
Spillover is annoying.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on October 31, 2018, 05:17:12 PM
Sorry.

(It was intended as a joke.)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 01, 2018, 01:47:31 AM


We don't know why water causes this reaction

Then how can you rule out H2O acting as an allergen? Also, you only mentioned hives on the skin. How do you explain the fact all the cases I linked to the sufferer says that they cannot drink water or they can die? For example the Heidi girl can only drink milk and she once had an IV and had a massive whole body reaction to it - giant blisters appeared on her skin after water was present in her bloodstream. The grand majority of 'Aquagenic Urticaria' cases being presented lately, the sufferer will claim adverse effects from internal water.  Keyword on internal - ie not just the skin.

Chemicals such as fluoride can be ruled out as I am pretty sure that medical grade IV drips do not have fluoride or irritants in them. It's just sodium chloride or H2O.
So either she is allergic to sodium chloride, or she's allergic to H2O.

Immunologists have seen her. I doubt if doctors did not think her symptoms were an allergy, they'd of referred her to an allergy specialist.

The name of the condition is irrelevant. What's relevant are the symptoms. You could call a peanut allergy ''Food Urticaria'' but it means zilch because you can have people who feel sick from eating peanuts to people who go into full blown anaphylactic shock after eating peanuts. Same goes for these ''Aquagenic Urticaria'' cases which can have wildly different symptoms between each case. One person with Aquagenic Urticaria will only get annoying hives on their skin from water being on it, while the other person will go into full blown anaphylactic shock and their organs shut down if they get water inside of their body - life threatening, internal symptoms that have nothing to do with hives on the skin.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 02:34:10 AM


We don't know why water causes this reaction

Then how can you rule out H2O acting as an allergen?

I didn’t. I said there was no evidence that the h20 molecule is an allergen.

Quote

Also, you only mentioned hives on the skin. How do you explain the fact all the cases I linked to the sufferer says that they cannot drink water or they can die?

With the little bit of unreliable evidence I can’t explain it and wont offer a guess.
Quote
So either she is allergic to sodium chloride, or she's allergic to H2O.

Or water releases an allergen in her skin or cells.


Quote
Immunologists have seen her. I doubt if doctors did not think her symptoms were an allergy, they'd of referred her to an allergy specialist.

It certainly sounds like an allergy or an immune response. That’s not evidence the h20 molecule is an allergen. Altough water seems related.

Part of the problem is that water is everywhere in the body an the environment. From saliva to plasma to breath. H20 molecules are ubiquitous.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 01, 2018, 04:52:13 AM


We don't know why water causes this reaction

Then how can you rule out H2O acting as an allergen?

I didn’t. I said there was no evidence that the h20 molecule is an allergen.

Quote

Also, you only mentioned hives on the skin. How do you explain the fact all the cases I linked to the sufferer says that they cannot drink water or they can die?

With the little bit of unreliable evidence I can’t explain it and wont offer a guess.
Quote
So either she is allergic to sodium chloride, or she's allergic to H2O.

Or water releases an allergen in her skin or cells.


Quote
Immunologists have seen her. I doubt if doctors did not think her symptoms were an allergy, they'd of referred her to an allergy specialist.

It certainly sounds like an allergy or an immune response. That’s not evidence the h20 molecule is an allergen. Altough water seems related.

Part of the problem is that water is everywhere in the body an the environment. From saliva to plasma to breath. H20 molecules are ubiquitous.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But she has water in her bloodstream, but an IV which contains basically distilled water and sodium chloride caused a massive reaction. Someone said that the water already present in the body is mixed with enough stuff that the immune system does not recognize it as water, so they do not have a constant reaction to their own bodily fluids or blood inside of them. How plausible is this? I see most people who defend these claimants are saying this. They also say the reason why they can drink milk but not water is because milk isn't pure water.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Billzbub on November 01, 2018, 10:38:50 AM


We don't know why water causes this reaction

Then how can you rule out H2O acting as an allergen?

I didn’t. I said there was no evidence that the h20 molecule is an allergen.

Quote

Also, you only mentioned hives on the skin. How do you explain the fact all the cases I linked to the sufferer says that they cannot drink water or they can die?

With the little bit of unreliable evidence I can’t explain it and wont offer a guess.
Quote
So either she is allergic to sodium chloride, or she's allergic to H2O.

Or water releases an allergen in her skin or cells.


Quote
Immunologists have seen her. I doubt if doctors did not think her symptoms were an allergy, they'd of referred her to an allergy specialist.

It certainly sounds like an allergy or an immune response. That’s not evidence the h20 molecule is an allergen. Altough water seems related.

Part of the problem is that water is everywhere in the body an the environment. From saliva to plasma to breath. H20 molecules are ubiquitous.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But she has water in her bloodstream, but an IV which contains basically distilled water and sodium chloride caused a massive reaction. Someone said that the water already present in the body is mixed with enough stuff that the immune system does not recognize it as water, so they do not have a constant reaction to their own bodily fluids or blood inside of them. How plausible is this? I see most people who defend these claimants are saying this. They also say the reason why they can drink milk but not water is because milk isn't pure water.

Here's an idea.  In this post, you have several questions.  I suggest you create a document in a word processor and type them in.  Then, go back through this thread an copy sentences that might address each question into the document underneath the question they address.  You will find that each of these questions has a LOT of answers from this thread.  Read them a few times until you understand what we are saying, and then come back and post new questions instead of these same questions over and over.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 10:39:05 AM
If it were the water molecule then the immune system would react to that and water molecules are everywhere in significant amounts throughout the body. In fat cells; muscle cells; sweat glands; the digestive system; the immune system; the brain; the lymphatic system; all major organs. Part of the allergic/immune  response involves water concentrations at the site of infection/ exposure.

However, water, a liquid made mostly from water molecules, has specific properties that blood, sweat and tears, etc.  do not.

While an allergy to water itself is not likely, it is more plausible that water triggers release and exposure to another substance which causes the reaction. If that’s a function of water acting as a solvent it could be that it releases this substance internally and externally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 01, 2018, 12:24:58 PM
If it were the water molecule then the immune system would react to that and water molecules are everywhere in significant amounts throughout the body. In fat cells; muscle cells; sweat glands; the digestive system; the immune system; the brain; the lymphatic system; all major organs. Part of the allergic/immune  response involves water concentrations at the site of infection/ exposure.

However, water, a liquid made mostly from water molecules, has specific properties that blood, sweat and tears, etc.  do not.

While an allergy to water itself is not likely, it is more plausible that water triggers release and exposure to another substance which causes the reaction. If that’s a function of water acting as a solvent it could be that it releases this substance internally and externally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then she'd be constantly reacting to her own saliva being inside her mouth and throat, but she's not.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 12:35:35 PM
If it were the water molecule then the immune system would react to that and water molecules are everywhere in significant amounts throughout the body. In fat cells; muscle cells; sweat glands; the digestive system; the immune system; the brain; the lymphatic system; all major organs. Part of the allergic/immune  response involves water concentrations at the site of infection/ exposure.

However, water, a liquid made mostly from water molecules, has specific properties that blood, sweat and tears, etc.  do not.

While an allergy to water itself is not likely, it is more plausible that water triggers release and exposure to another substance which causes the reaction. If that’s a function of water acting as a solvent it could be that it releases this substance internally and externally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then she'd be constantly reacting to her own saliva being inside her mouth and throat, but she's not.

Therefore it is not the H20 molecule, which is present in abundance in saliva (and blood, sweat and tears)
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: seamas on November 01, 2018, 01:14:03 PM
Still shocked that the OP refuses to think critically of a sketchy claim.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on November 01, 2018, 07:47:44 PM
If it were the water molecule then the immune system would react to that and water molecules are everywhere in significant amounts throughout the body. In fat cells; muscle cells; sweat glands; the digestive system; the immune system; the brain; the lymphatic system; all major organs. Part of the allergic/immune  response involves water concentrations at the site of infection/ exposure.

However, water, a liquid made mostly from water molecules, has specific properties that blood, sweat and tears, etc.  do not.

While an allergy to water itself is not likely, it is more plausible that water triggers release and exposure to another substance which causes the reaction. If that’s a function of water acting as a solvent it could be that it releases this substance internally and externally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then she'd be constantly reacting to her own saliva being inside her mouth and throat, but she's not.

Therefore it is not the H20 molecule, which is present in abundance in saliva (and blood, sweat and tears)

Exactly. The fact that she is not reacting to her own saliva is strong evidence that it is not the H2O molecule itself that is causing the problem.

Again, assuming that the reported symptoms are real, which still has not been conclusively demonstrated.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on November 01, 2018, 08:06:13 PM
And the OP once again demonstrates troll-like behaviour... same old nonsense repeated over and over.
Can we let the thread die a natural death by not responding to any more of the claptrap?
Or perhaps spray it with a high pressure water hose?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 09:32:32 PM
If it really bothers you  it's possible to ignore a thread.

Profile>Modify Profile>Ignore Topic Options
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 01, 2018, 09:52:44 PM
And the OP once again demonstrates troll-like behaviour... same old nonsense repeated over and over.
Can we let the thread die a natural death by not responding to any more of the claptrap?
Or perhaps spray it with a high pressure water hose?  :laugh:

Trying to derail a thread would be considered trollish, no? Just ignore my thread instead of replying with spam.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 09:56:46 PM
I’ll post as I please, thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Alex Simmons on November 02, 2018, 06:48:38 PM
And the OP once again demonstrates troll-like behaviour... same old nonsense repeated over and over.
Can we let the thread die a natural death by not responding to any more of the claptrap?
Or perhaps spray it with a high pressure water hose?  :laugh:

Trying to derail a thread would be considered trollish, no? Just ignore my thread instead of replying with spam.

That makes the assumption the thread was ever on the rails to begin with.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on November 04, 2018, 06:09:27 PM
Shrooborb, I invite you to honestly ask yourself why you're so invested in the idea that the alleged symptoms must be caused by an allergic reaction to the H20 molecule.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: PANTS! on November 04, 2018, 07:02:56 PM
What are the names of all these doctors and immunologists, and what makes you think they're risking their careers?

Who accused Heidi of "putting up an act"?

I've answered that multiple times in this thread.

''"I saw specialist after specialist who didn't know what was causing it." Then when Heidi started school, the doctor there was convinced - like Wendy and Dave - that Heidi's problem was water.

"That is how we eventually got the diagnosis when she was five," said Wendy.

Heidi recently had an emergency operation to remove her appendix. Surgeons at Shrewsbury Hospital had no experience of her condition. They contacted Birmingham City Hospital, where Heidi is a patient of allergy specialist Dr Dinakantha Kumaratne. ''

Source - https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUST+ONE+CUP+OF+WATER+COULD+KILL+LITTLE+HEIDI%3B+Girl%27s+deadly+allergy...-a061152595

So I went to search for this doctor, and guess what I found.

There is no such physician that ever worked at Birmingham city Hospital.  Nor is there any physician with that name in the UK physician registry.  So this name is completely made up.

But that's not the best part.  A user named ConfessThrowaway3444 posted this on Reddit where they claimed it was a complete fiction and asked others to rate it.

Don't waste any more time with this liar. They are getting some sort of retish like matubatory thrill from thinking he is fooling at least someone.  Truth is they are a liar.  And not a good one.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: PANTS! on November 04, 2018, 07:04:32 PM
Shrooborb, I invite you to honestly ask yourself why you're so invested in the idea that the alleged symptoms must be caused by an allergic reaction to the H20 molecule.

They aren't.  Instead they are invested in lying and getting people to believe their horseshit.  We have a failed cult leader here.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: haudace on November 05, 2018, 07:07:54 AM
I am kind of impressed there are 264 replies in this thread talking about this. Is it really this hard to debunk this non story?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on November 05, 2018, 09:39:42 AM
I am kind of impressed there are 264 replies in this thread talking about this.

I know. I haven‘t seen a troll this good since Usenet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 05, 2018, 11:15:05 PM
Shrooborb, I invite you to honestly ask yourself why you're so invested in the idea that the alleged symptoms must be caused by an allergic reaction to the H20 molecule.

Because what else could it be? It's like the claimants and the articles intentionally go out of their way to rule out additives in water being the cause, or that it's just a skin condition. All the articles consistently read to say that these people are producing anti water antibodies, similar to how a person allergic to peanuts produces anti peanut protein antibodies.

Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: Shrooborb on November 05, 2018, 11:16:11 PM
I am kind of impressed there are 264 replies in this thread talking about this.

I know. I haven‘t seen a troll this good since Usenet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because I'm not bullying anyone. A troll is someone who bullies other people. Also I'm 14 so cut me some slack please if I don't understand some things.
If you don't want to contribute to the thread then don't post here.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: arthwollipot on November 05, 2018, 11:25:36 PM
Also I'm 14 so cut me some slack please if I don't understand some things.

We'll cut you some slack if you demonstrate some ability to learn new things, rather than falling back on the same unreliable statements over and over.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: jt512 on November 06, 2018, 04:20:33 AM
I am kind of impressed there are 264 replies in this thread talking about this.

I know. I haven‘t seen a troll this good since Usenet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because I'm not bullying anyone. A troll is someone who bullies other people. Also I'm 14 so cut me some slack please if I don't understand some things.
If you don't want to contribute to the thread then don't post here.

I don’t believe you’re 14.  Great act though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on November 06, 2018, 05:32:03 PM
Shrooborb, I invite you to honestly ask yourself why you're so invested in the idea that the alleged symptoms must be caused by an allergic reaction to the H20 molecule.

Because what else could it be?

Look back through the thread. Lots of suggestions have been made, but you simply brushed them off without serious consideration.   

Instead of defending a supermarket tabloid article on a skeptics forum, it might be more productive to look into some of the actual medical literature.

If there's not enough information to reach a reliable conclusion, that still doesn't justify believing the most sensational explanation being offered in the newspapers. It could be that all the cases have different causes. Without access to the original clinical data, how can you possibly know? 

Even if you don't find an answer, admitting you don't know is a far more honest and reasonable answer than just believing in something because you can't think of a better explanation.


It's like the claimants and the articles intentionally go out of their way to rule out additives in water being the cause, or that it's just a skin condition.

"It's like"? What does "it's like" even mean in this context? Is this just your own supposition?

What have the claimants and articles actually done to rule out those potential causes?


All the articles consistently read to say that these people are producing anti water antibodies, similar to how a person allergic to peanuts produces anti peanut protein antibodies.

Which articles said that? What sources do they cite for that information? Have you looked into those primary sources?

If there are no citations, or the primary sources are nowhere to be found, that should tell you the report is not reliable enough to provide a credible conclusion.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: haudace on November 20, 2018, 07:48:35 AM
This went on for 19 pages without a single shred of evidence?
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: John Albert on November 22, 2018, 11:03:06 AM
Yeah, sometimes people don't understand the importance of evidence, or they have an exceedingly low bar for what ought to constitute credible evidence. 
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: CarbShark on November 22, 2018, 12:58:13 PM
This went on for 19 pages without a single shred of evidence?

There were shreds of evidence. Not good evidence, but there were bits and pieces that just didn't add up to anything substantial.
Title: Re: Is the water molecule really an allergen?
Post by: PANTS! on November 24, 2018, 02:50:56 PM
I am kind of impressed there are 264 replies in this thread talking about this. Is it really this hard to debunk this non story?

Seeing as how you didn't even attempt to debunk the exceedingly persistent OP.  At least for you it is apparently extremely hard.  Or at least it's easier for you to run your mouth from the sidelines without any meaningful contribution to the thread.