“If there was any” ... couldn’t resist could you?
All, the point is that the proper (and most effective) argument against the restrictive rules is NOT to question the legitimacy of the condition. Rather question the need to inconvenience many other people for the sake of the few. That makes some logical sense. But when you question the legitimacy of the condition not only does it make you look dumb, it also makes it look like you are irrationally taking out your frustrations by attacking those of us who have seen it with our own eyes.
I’m not suggesting that you were hallucinating, but merely suggesting that what you saw may not have been an allergic reaction at all. Peanut butter and nuts are among the most common mechanical choking hazards. Is it then just a coincidence that they are often diagnosed as being allergies?