"Andrew H. Carter" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 -0700, "pennyaline"
> > scribbled
> some thoughts:
>
>
> >I'll piggyback onto dear "Barbtail":
> >
> >> Someone else (I forget who) wrote:
> >> >That's ridiculous (not the someone part). It's common to react to an
> >> >allergen on first exposure. Your advice could kill someone if they
> >believed
> >> >what you say.
> >> >
> >> >Scott.
> >
> >It's always good to know that my training stands in good stead.
> >
> >Scott, NO ONE has had an allergic reaction to something they have NEVER been
> >exposed to before. It's a matter of how the immune system functions, and all
> >of your lay misconceptions won't undo that
> >
> >Chemistry is such, though, that one can have a first exposure to a substance
> >anywhere that it occurs in nature or science/manufacturing. But even in that
> >case, the first, the very first exposure will not cause an allergic
> >reaction. It can't!
> >
>
> What about a mother who has an allergy to lets say peanuts,
> could it not be conceivable that it is passed on to her
> child. Think in terms of AIDS, passed on from mother to
> unborn child or a heroin addicted mother passes her
> addiction on to her unborn child.
>
> Could not the child then get an allergic reaction on first
> exposure, especially now that almost everything causes an
> allergic reaction to someone?

Although allergies have genetic components, it's not a guarantee that
someone allergic to something will pass it on directly to offspring.
Allergies can run in families though.

AIDS is due to a virus, which of course can be passed on in various
ways. And the addicted mother is passing on the *heroin* (or other drug)
to the foetus, not her addictive behaviour.