Peanut allergies have plummeted in children

I'm not a doctor but it feels like there are a lot of holes here.

> Anaphylactic shock is extremely rare

~5% of people in the US have experienced anaphylaxis, but I don't know your definition of rare.

> it's only fatal in an even rarer number of cases

Could this be due to epipens being commonly carried by people likely to experience anaphylaxis?

> anaphylactic shocks is a biological reaction of your body to save itself, not kill itself

Because it is an immune response? Is the implication here that anaphylactic shock is actually a good thing?

And focusing on the conspiracy part itself

> 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.

Implying the increase in EpiPen prescriptions caused people to be more cautious about food allergies feels exactly backwards.

> Could this be due to epipens being commonly carried by people likely to experience anaphylaxis?

The tricky thing with the data set available to us is that anaphylactic deaths are so rare that it's hard to establish meaningful findings: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4382330/

We do know though that hospitalization rates are about the same for people who take epinephrine vs those that don't. The speed at which they get to the ER seems to have a bigger impact on the recovery from the reaction than the Epipens do: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10811...

> Implying the increase in EpiPen prescriptions caused people to be more cautious about food allergies feels exactly backwards.

How so? Bringing awareness to risk in general makes people more cautious. Advertising crime rates in your town to sell you a security system will overall make people feel less secure.

> ~5% of people in the US have experienced anaphylaxis, but I don't know your definition of rare.

What's your source here, and how many of those people actually experienced a non-allergic one-off angioedema that was misdiagnosed as anaphylaxis "just in case"? Or worse, wasn't even diagnosed, their parent saw them experience angioedema after eating something for the first time and assumed an allergy without any diagnosis ever?

> We do know though that hospitalization rates are about the same for people who take epinephrine vs those that don't

An EpiPen is not a cure, and you are told that if you use an EpiPen you should also go to the hospital. An EpiPen essentially keeps you alive long enough to receive care.

> The speed at which they get to the ER seems to have a bigger impact on the recovery from the reaction than the EpiPens do

If you have anaphylaxis without an EpiPen, the first thing the ambulance/ER will do is almost certainly inject epinephrine.

I really encourage you to ask a doctor. It is not enough to read papers and draw conclusions without understanding the broader context. I am not a doctor, but have talked to a doctor about carrying an EpiPen.

> The tricky thing with the data set available to us is that anaphylactic deaths are so rare that it's hard to establish meaningful findings

Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against?

"Anaphylaxis in America: the prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the United States"

> The most common triggers reported were medications (34%), foods (31%), and insect stings (20%)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24144575/

not a doctor but a "one off face swelling" after eating something for the first time seems like it would be much more rare than an actual allergic reaction.

> Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against?

I'm not at all arguing that Epipens don't save lives or that doctors shouldn't prescribe them or that you shouldn't carry one.

Let me reframe my argument: Crime is a real risk no matter where you live in this country. But we should not be surprised that people that sell you security are incentivized to scare you about the risk of crime or its randomness.

I would not say people shouldn't take whatever precautions they need against crime, but don't think it's controversial to say the risk is overstated.

It's easy enough to say that never stepping outside of your house because crime exists is a silly conclusion to make. But people for some reason thought it was completely normal to deprive children of exposure to large swaths of the food pyramid despite no underlying history or diagnosis because a risk was overstated to them.

Still, I am admitting that my targeting of Epipens in particular something of a crackpot argument. But also we live in a world still reeling from the effects of the Sackler family and the marketing they used on the medical industry - would it be that far fetched if we learned in 20-30 years that the life saving ability of emergency epinephrine was overstated for profit?

That's what I thought too, until I had a one off face swelling and throat closing event after eating a new food and went to an allergist, only to learn I was not allergic and have had successful re-eatings of that food.

What I learned from the allergist is, histamine angioedema is essentially the same thing as anaphylaxis, and is treated the same, but is different in cause in that repeat exposure to the food item will not cause a repeat episode.

I'm not a doctor either, but according to my allergist (who is), most people who think they are allergic to some random thing that most people have never heard of people being allergic to, are not in fact allergic to that thing.

Reading the full text of the article you linked it looks like their criteria cover both angioedema and anaphylaxis and add the two together.

Here's some additional info:

https://knyamed.com/blogs/difference-between/angioedema-vs-a...

https://emcrit.org/ibcc/angioedema/#diagnosis_of_angioedema

Yes? It's silly to think Big Epipen is out to get you. I don't even know what you think your point is.

We do the best with the information we have. If in 30 years, the standard of care changes due to new consensus, that's a good thing. It doesn't mean everyone is an eeeeeevil moneygrubbing whatever, it just means we have more information.