It's interesting you were one of them.
Unfortunately, a large number of people who thought they were allergic to iodine contrast were not actually allergic to it. The CT techs needed to raise the contrast temperature to body temperature, instead. Iodine contrast becomes a lot less thick (viscosity) when warmed up, and the micro-tears of internal tissue is greatly reduced with this thinner contrast.
You see, the allergic symptoms were found to generally be sensitive tissue damage, which doctors saw as an “allergy.” It was poorly used contrast, they've now found out.
I never said it happened 15 years ago. It clearly was used for over a dozen years though. Just because you said it isn’t doesn’t mean it wasn’t used in the past. It was just a “few” people, right, lol.
My experience happened in the last 3 years to my memory. I would have to get my records out. I’ve had so many medical misadventures since it is hard to keep up. Did I not say I didn’t know what the dye was. I was never told. It is all conjecture at this point. You honestly think the technician reviewed my records before giving me the dye. That is laughable.
“The CT techs needed to raise the contrast temperature to body temperature, instead.” I am so glad you brought that up, that has only been a recent development after my experience. I hardly consider what happened to me micro-tears. What if that had gone to my lungs or brain. Whatever happened to “do no harm”. It ain’t rocket science, lol.