Honestly, I've stated for over a decade that this particular study is probably only valid for lower three quartiles of the sensitivity distribution-- the stats seem suspect to me to even make such a sweeping statement at the 90th percentile (which means that the most sensitive 10% might have problems), even by the authors' admission in the original publication.
The thing is, I'm also not convinced that they had much of a handle on the statistics associated with the original PATIENT sample in that thirty individuals, either. It was extremely routine a decade ago to systematically exclude any PA patients who had ever experienced severe anaphylaxis. It was also routine to exclude those who had comorbid asthma, and those who had evinced exceedingly low reaction thresholds.
I do not know precisely what exclusion criteria were applied to those 30 individuals in this study-- nor how rigorously they were applied. It appears to be a highly mixed sort of patient sample, frankly. This has always bothered me about this particular study. MOST people with PA don't worry about inhalation (or contact) reactivity-- and just as clearly, most of them are correct in feeling that way. However, there are a subset of allergic persons who have experienced this far, far too often for it to be anything but real-- whether it's somatic or not, SOMETHING is up with it.
DD regularly experiences such reactivity-- regularly. And it doesn't matter if the scent is "masked" or not, or if it's inconvenient, if she's distracted, happy/anxious/sad, whatever. It's not dependent upon her state of mind at all. It doesn't matter who she's with. Her friends would all vouch for it, too-- because anyone that has hung out with her for long has seen what happens if someone sits next to her with trail mix and starts munching. She puffs up, her eyes and nose stream, and she begins to experience asthma. Whether she notices the threat or not, I mean.
The first time someone sees it happen, it makes them a believer.