<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

Gayle Kennedy wrote:
<Would those of you who find any merit in this please send me a>
<response, so I can decide whether or not, or when or how to
proceed.>

I find extreme merit in your post.  Once we've verified that the Pres. in
fact has such an allergy or classical CD we need to properly orchestrate
our approach.  This could be a boon the likes of which we won't see
again, but it be a boondoggle if we jump the gun.

Does anybody know for sure what we have here?  All I saw was a
reference to an unnamed French American newspaper.  Not even a
reprint or citation of it.  If you'll remember, when Barbara Bush came out
with that relatively-orphan disease of the liver that made her eyes bug
out, it got a lot of good press and research, recognition, etc. followed.
That's what we want here.  What we don't want is to make the Pres.
look physically/mentally incapable of fulfilling his job.  We want some
recognition of the condition as legitimate and capable of being handled
with dietary restrictions, including him.  Imagine what our lives and diets
would be like if chefs all over the world were scrambling to prepare
gluten-free meals for state dinners.  I bet we wouldn't be getting the FDA
food labeling grief we get now.  And we wouldn't have to spell
C-e-l-i-a-c for our doctors anymore.  Plus if he got on the cure and really
felt better and told that to the world, we'd be on the way to non-orphan
disease status.  Many would get tested and there is strength in numbers.
 Let Kraft foods push around then, or the airlines.

But first, can we go back and verify that this is all not a fairy tale?
Anybody got any dope on the first posting about the newspaper article?

Jere Cordell