Re: "Speckles" on BFK [was "speckling" v "staining

Judy Seigel wrote:
>

>
> Which brings up the fact that Katharine's experience with glut is
> apparently cited here as one of two seriously bad experiences from
> listers. Yet, as I recall, after describing a truly harrowing effect,
> Katharine posted a day or two later to say that proved to be due to
> something else. Then it wasn't the glut?

Sigh. I suppose it's like the way the correction in the paper never gets
as much attention as the initial mis-statement, but it does seem rather
remarkable to me that as many times as I've retracted that retraction,
it never seems to get retracted for good.

It wasn't a day or two later, but more like a month or two later as I
recall, that I had what *I* thought was a similar episode, and
unfortunately I wrote to the list right away and said that since I'd
had a similar episode without the glutaraldehyde, I had to assume that
it wasn't the glutaraldehyde that caused the first one. But when I saw
my doctor, he said that the two episodes were very different, not the
same at all, and that he was absolutely convinced that the first one was
a toxic reaction to glutaraldehyde. Like I said the other day, I'll
never use the stuff again no matter how great it turns out to be, and
yes, at least as far as my doctor is concerned, and I have to assume he
knows what he's talking about, it was the glutaraldehyde.
Katharine
Received on Sun Sep 4 16:11:02 2005