Sorry, cyclotic, but the question here is a moral one.
I don’t give a flying flip about your “study” or any percentage of false positives versus true positives.
If I invite friends to my home for dinner, and one claims to be allergic to peanuts, I’ll take their word for it, thank you very much, out of simple courtesy, respect, and trust, and because I would never wish harm on any innocent, unsuspecting person.
I’m not gonna grind up peanuts and sneak them into their food, just to see if what happens, while trying to make some bizarre point, which is what the poster Behind Liberal Lines suggested doing.
Even if the person doesn’t experience an allergic reaction, the attempt to test someone’s reaction in this manner is, at best, passive aggressive in the extreme.
And just where did I say that was a good idea to do secretly? What I said was that it is true that many nut allergies are based on false positives. Plus that, many people outgrow allergies. Per this study, the test is somewhat flawed and the real way to tell is to actually eat the peanuts in a controlled environment.
I’ve got a family member who gets off on all her kids allergies and telling us what we can make for family functions. I’ve seen her kids eat the stuff with no negative effects. I’m sick of having to cater to everyone personal choices.