REWohsnus wrote:It sounds like Dr. McDougall means that one should cut out both corn and wheat at the same time and wait two weeks (?) and if pain goes away you know it is either corn and/or the wheat that is the culprit. So then I assume, she might add back in the corn and/or wheat to see which is the issue.
My question, could one achieve the same results by simply cutting out corn first for two weeks and then if no issue add the corn back in and cut out the wheat? Or would she be circumventing something by doing this?
I hated these types of questions on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
Possibilities:
1A. She's allergic to BOTH, and starts by eliminating BOTH.
1B. She's allergic to BOTH, but starts by eliminating ONE.
2A. She's allergic to ONE, and starts by eliminating BOTH
2B. She's allergic to ONE, but starts by eliminating the OK ONE.
2C. She's allergic to ONE, but starts by eliminating the BAD ONE.
3A. She's allergic to NEITHER, and starts by eliminating BOTH.
3B. She's allergic to NEITHER, but starts by eliminating ONE.
Scenario 1A1A. - She's actually allergic to BOTH (but she does not know that). She starts by cutting BOTH.
1. Since she gets well by cutting both, she might be allergic to both, to one, OR to the other.
2. So she must test just one alone. Since she is allergic to both, no matter which one she tests, she gets sick. At least she has learned she's allergic to that one. That's progress. Now she must test the other alone.
3. Of course, she gets sick again.
She has done three EDs.
Scenario 1B 1B. - She's actually allergic to BOTH (but she does not know that). She starts by cutting ONE.
1. She does gets sick, and she might also be allergic to the other.
2. So she must test the other alone. And of course, she does get SICK.
She has done two EDs.
Scenario 2A2A. - She's actually allergic to only ONE (but she does not know that). She starts by cutting BOTH.
1. Since she gets well, she might be allergic to both, to one, OR to the other.
2. So she tests one and gets sick. She must now also test the other.
3. Of course she gets well.
She has done three EDs.
Scenario 2B2B. She's actually allergic to only ONE (but she does not know that). She starts by cutting the OK ONE.
1. Since she eliminated the OK ONE, she gets SICK, but may be allergic to the other, and so must test the other.
2. Of course, she gets WELL.
She has done two EDs.
Scenario 2C2C. She's actually allergic to only ONE (but she does not know that). She starts by cutting the BAD ONE.
1. Since she eliminated the BAD ONE, she gets WELL, must therefore be allergic to the other, and need not test again.
She has done one ED.
Scenario 3A3A. She's allergic to NEITHER (but she does not know that), and starts by eliminating BOTH.
1. Since she stays sick, something else must be causing the problem.
She has done only one ED, and now has to choose other candidates, but has at least exonerated these two suspects.
Scenario 3B3B. She's allergic to NEITHER (but she does not know that), and starts by eliminating ONE.
1. She tests only one, and she stays sick, and now must test the other alone.
2. Testing the other alone, she stays sick, but has exonerated these two suspects.
She has done two EDs, and now must hunt for other allergens.
My Conclusion?
Except for Scenario 3, it involves on average fewer EDs if you test one candidate at a time.
