Food poisoning

Nukumai

gordikin wrote: »

However contaminated oysters is much more interesting...as would be a link...please!

Not the original place I read this...but it's mentioned about half way down the page :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125986403558374953.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

gordikin

Nukumai wrote: »

Are you for real? How on earth is the OP being a troll or a whiner?

So far as I can see, he had a genuine concern and was totally open to the opinions of those who replied sensibly. His subsequent postings bear this out.

If you are so concerned about trolls or time wasters, why bother wasting your own time by participating?

Nope, they have moved their origiinal supposition to one that more closely suits their problem/symptoms and have tried to ignore where the real problem could have arisen.

GrumpyWithMoney

gordikin wrote: »

I don't see anywhere in the above that you were diagnosed with food poisoning....it looks like an allergic reaction.

Judging by your replies and willingness to keep suggesting it was an allergic reaction, I would not be surprised to learn that you have worked in the catering/restaurant business.

gordikin

GrumpyWithMoney wrote: »

Judging by your replies and willingness to keep suggesting it was an allergic reaction, I would not be surprised to learn that you have worked in the catering/restaurant business.

...alternatively I'm a qualified Microbiologist, with more than 35 years experience and have worked both in the NHS and the food industry perhaps? A yes to the aforementioned would be correct!

Nukumai

gordikin wrote: »

Nope, they have moved their origiinal supposition to one that more closely suits their problem/symptoms and have tried to ignore where the real problem could have arisen.

Not so, at least judging by the OP's posting as follows (#29) :

"Thanks for your understanding. I have considered other's postings which has caused me to reconsider what the exact illnes may have been. I have not asserted it was the duck egg, only that it was a likely candidate after talking to friends. Also, I am not sure what the exact illness was, only that food poisoning seemed likely (despite assertions from others that it takes 8 hours to take effect). As you seem now to be suggesting that it was my home-made salad that I ate earlier, you may be right."

Nukumai

gordikin wrote: »

...alternatively I'm a qualified Microbiologist, with more than 35 years experience and have worked both in the NHS and the food industry perhaps? A yes to the aforementioned would be correct!

gordikin - you're a microbiologist? Then you might get a kick out of this story. I don't know whether to admire the guys practical approach to his issue, or to wonder at his stupidity! The former, I think...

Eight years ago seafood chef Mitch Tonks had a run-in with an oyster. What exactly was to blame he has never established. "I had a dozen oysters and shortly after started to go into anaphylactic shock," he says. "I rushed to the hospital and the doctor told me I'd developed an allergy to oysters, and maybe to all shellfish. Obviously that could have been a disaster for me professionally. Plus I love oysters."

Keen to ensure this diagnosis was 100% correct, Tonks picked up half a dozen oysters a day or so later, drove with his wife to the hospital, pulled up in the car park and shot back all six. "I knew that if I went into anaphylactic shock again, the hospital was just across the threshold," he says. He sat and waited, but after an hour or so symptom-free, the couple drove home, and he has continued to enjoy oysters on an almost daily basis.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2009/11/27/331103/food-poisoning-dont-blame-it-on-the-oysters.html

I came upon this when searching for the Fat Duck source.

gordikin

Nukumai wrote: »

Not so, at least judging by the OP's posting as follows (#29) :

"Thanks for your understanding. I have considered other's postings which has caused me to reconsider what the exact illnes may have been. I have not asserted it was the duck egg, only that it was a likely candidate after talking to friends. Also, I am not sure what the exact illness was, only that food poisoning seemed likely (despite assertions from others that it takes 8 hours to take effect). As you seem now to be suggesting that it was my home-made salad that I ate earlier, you may be right."

'Thanks for your understanding'....4 words, sarcasm perhaps? OP is still trying to lay the blame at the restaurants door...salmonella...no? if not that then what about Staphylococcus aureus (italics are correct...or an underline maybe)...yes that fits, lets go with that as a 'diagnosis' The most obvious cause of food poisoning (if that's what it is) will have been ingested hours before the OP entered the restaurant.

gordikin

Nukumai wrote: »

gordikin - you're a microbiologist? Then you might get a kick out of this story. I don't know whether to admire the guys practical approach to his issue, or to wonder at his stupidity! The former, I think...

Eight years ago seafood chef Mitch Tonks had a run-in with an oyster. What exactly was to blame he has never established. "I had a dozen oysters and shortly after started to go into anaphylactic shock," he says. "I rushed to the hospital and the doctor told me I'd developed an allergy to oysters, and maybe to all shellfish. Obviously that could have been a disaster for me professionally. Plus I love oysters."

Keen to ensure this diagnosis was 100% correct, Tonks picked up half a dozen oysters a day or so later, drove with his wife to the hospital, pulled up in the car park and shot back all six. "I knew that if I went into anaphylactic shock again, the hospital was just across the threshold," he says. He sat and waited, but after an hour or so symptom-free, the couple drove home, and he has continued to enjoy oysters on an almost daily basis.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2009/11/27/331103/food-poisoning-dont-blame-it-on-the-oysters.html

I came upon this when searching for the Fat Duck source.

Yes I'm a Microbiologist...but not a stupid chef! Allergic reactions are weird and varied....he'd have been so dead in many NHS hospitals I know!

Nukumai

gordikin wrote: »

'Thanks for your understanding'....4 words, sarcasm perhaps? OP is still trying to lay the blame at the restaurants door...salmonella...no? if not that then what about Staphylococcus aureus (italics are correct...or an underline maybe)...yes that fits, lets go with that as a 'diagnosis' The most obvious cause of food poisoning (if that's what it is) will have been ingested hours before the OP entered the restaurant.

gordikin - I certainly didn't interpret the OP's postings as, ostensibly, persisting until he got the answer he wanted. Or that he was insistent that the restaurant food was to blame. Without the expert knowledge of somebody such as yourself, surely it is understandable that - to a layman - food poisoning would spring immediately to mind?

GrumpyWithMoney

gordikin wrote: »

'Thanks for your understanding'....4 words, sarcasm perhaps? OP is still trying to lay the blame at the restaurants door...salmonella...no? if not that then what about Staphylococcus aureus (italics are correct...or an underline maybe)...yes that fits, lets go with that as a 'diagnosis' The most obvious cause of food poisoning (if that's what it is) will have been ingested hours before the OP entered the restaurant.

So as a qualified microbioligist are you saying that it is impossible to show the symptons of food poisoning within two hours of contracting it?