Generate a miasma of benign pestilence in your child's crib, mimicking the protective inoculations provided by early exposure to peanuts and other potential allergens, "farm" air, and the like. It could be packaged with Flonase for sneezing parents and an 'essential oils' scent dispenser to cover the barnyard smell.
Use AI to tailor the precise blend of aerosolized rodent feces and tree nut dust to optimize your child's immune system, and et voila: funding!
Have there been any studies on crop-swapping changes such as legumes <--> cotton? Only asking as there were some theories about excess herbicides and pesticides from cotton leeching into the ground and getting absorbed in high amounts by legumes from seasonal crop-swaps.
Yes, and this is one reason why eczema is correlated with allergies, because it allows allergens to pass through the skin more readily. And it's probably also a reason why babies put everything in their mouths; they're training their immune systems.
It's possible that if you had more cat dander in your mouth when you were a baby that you wouldn't have developed an allergy. Or, more likely, if you had more mouth exposure to other natural microbes that occur outdoors and around animals, then you would have fewer allergies overall. That is well supported by the evidence.
One of my conspiracy theories that I loosely hold is that the majority of the fears that we have been sold on allergies was a direct result of marketing efforts by the inventors of the Epipen.
Anaphylactic shock is extremely rare. And even in cases of anaphylactic shock, it's only fatal in an even rarer number of cases (which makes sense, anaphylactic shocks is a biological reaction of your body to save itself, not kill itself).
We really don't know how many lives emergency epinephrine has saved, but it may have only been necessary in less than 1 out of 50 cases. However, it benefitted the manufacturer to overemphasize the prevalence of dangerous food allergies and the risks of shock and encourage doctors to prescribe them in increasingly more "just in case" cases".
It's in this world that parents and doctors alike became insanely cautious and paranoid about introducing allergens. Conveniently, we saw the rise of simpler, more highly processed baby and childrens' foods at the same time.
I attribute to my robust immune system to the amount of dirt I ate as a child, I was a digger in the school yard, and I liked playing in mud - while being a thumb sucker well into elementary school.
Peanut allergies is one of those things I have only seen in American pop culture and media. Like anxious kids breathing in a brown paper bag.
I know people have peanut allergies all over the world. But the significance of the allergy is definitely different in the US than most other places imo.
In the U.S., the rate of childhood peanut allergies more than tripled between 1997 and 2008.
...
In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a (now-outdated) recommendation in 2000, which directed parents to avoid feeding baby peanuts until they reached the age of three, especially if a baby was at high risk for a peanut allergy.
But when these recommendations to delay feeding peanut were introduced, there was no study to support these recommendations. Rather, they were just based on physicians' guesses.
As Dr. Spergel explains, "Back then, we gave people really bad advice. We told people to avoid food allergens... But there was never any evidence for this. It was just based on a few physicians’ best guess. There's never been any study that ever proved that food avoidance worked. "
Today, we know that this approach to delay peanut introduction actually increases food allergy risk, and that delayed introduction was a major factor that led to the sharp increase in peanut allergies.
Common sense thinking wins again. The entire genesis of an allergy is your body treats a benign particle as a pathogen due to not recognizing it. The #1 way to precipitate this is to keep the body from ever encountering this particle until well beyond its initial phases of immune development.
Are there other modern conditions born from the same "zero-tolerance prevention leads to unintended consequences due to failing to provide the body a robust means to develop"?
> The entire genesis of an allergy is your body treats a benign particle as a pathogen due to not recognizing it
And why the body does not recognize it ? Because it is tainted. Putting all kind of pesticides and other substances on plants does modify the "original".
This is not even remotely common sense. E.g. why can this allergy be desensitized via ingestion but not via skin contact?
Hindsight is 20/20. In this case, it was figured out after a lot of scientific research.
Just because we can understand it now doesn't mean it's "common sense". It's very much the opposite, and you discredit the scientific research this has required.
My son has a peanut allergy. He was deemed very severe. He started treatment daily peanut doses. Starting at 5 mg. He is now eating 4 peanuts a day and counting. Zero issues with exposure now. If you have a kid with a peanut allergy find an allergist who will desensitize them.see https://www.palforzia.com/
25 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 45.8 ms ] threadGenerate a miasma of benign pestilence in your child's crib, mimicking the protective inoculations provided by early exposure to peanuts and other potential allergens, "farm" air, and the like. It could be packaged with Flonase for sneezing parents and an 'essential oils' scent dispenser to cover the barnyard smell.
Use AI to tailor the precise blend of aerosolized rodent feces and tree nut dust to optimize your child's immune system, and et voila: funding!
et = and, so just _et voilà_.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009167491...
Or maybe in your lungs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8429226/#R7
Anaphylactic shock is extremely rare. And even in cases of anaphylactic shock, it's only fatal in an even rarer number of cases (which makes sense, anaphylactic shocks is a biological reaction of your body to save itself, not kill itself).
We really don't know how many lives emergency epinephrine has saved, but it may have only been necessary in less than 1 out of 50 cases. However, it benefitted the manufacturer to overemphasize the prevalence of dangerous food allergies and the risks of shock and encourage doctors to prescribe them in increasingly more "just in case" cases".
It's in this world that parents and doctors alike became insanely cautious and paranoid about introducing allergens. Conveniently, we saw the rise of simpler, more highly processed baby and childrens' foods at the same time.
I know people have peanut allergies all over the world. But the significance of the allergy is definitely different in the US than most other places imo.
Are there other modern conditions born from the same "zero-tolerance prevention leads to unintended consequences due to failing to provide the body a robust means to develop"?
And why the body does not recognize it ? Because it is tainted. Putting all kind of pesticides and other substances on plants does modify the "original".
This is not even remotely common sense. E.g. why can this allergy be desensitized via ingestion but not via skin contact?
Hindsight is 20/20. In this case, it was figured out after a lot of scientific research.
Just because we can understand it now doesn't mean it's "common sense". It's very much the opposite, and you discredit the scientific research this has required.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11859-peanut-allergy-...
https://www.thelocal.se/20100224/25174