←back to thread

Peanut allergies have plummeted in children

(www.nytimes.com)
178 points JumpCrisscross | 5 comments | 20 Oct 25 18:09 UTC | HN request time: 1.019s | source
Show context
legitster ◴[20 Oct 25 19:12 UTC] No.45647922[source]▶
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.

replies(5): >>45648210 #>>45648225 #>>45648230 #>>45648663 #>>45650647 #
1. lawlessone ◴[20 Oct 25 20:09 UTC] No.45648663[source]▶
> it may have only been necessary in less than 1 out of 50 cases.

Ok but who want's to be the one that needs it and can't get it?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/family-of-teen-who-died-...

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

The idea that everything the body does is harmless natural magic that should be allowed to run it's course is killing people.

replies(1): >>45649017 #
2. legitster ◴[20 Oct 25 20:39 UTC] No.45649017[source]▶
If they were having an active anaphylactic reaction, they should have gone to the ER, not trying to buy an Epipen. Even when an Epipen is administered as directed, it is only to buy time to get to the hospital.

> The idea that everything the body does is harmless natural magic that should be allowed to run it's course is killing people.

Not sure where you got this from my point that the risk is overemphasized.

replies(1): >>45649179 #
3. lawlessone ◴[20 Oct 25 20:50 UTC] No.45649179[source]▶
>Not sure where you got this from

Your original post.

>which makes sense, anaphylactic shocks is a biological reaction of your body to save itself, not kill itself).

i think you misunderstood something here, anaphylactic shock is by definition a medical emergency.

replies(1): >>45649836 #
4. legitster ◴[20 Oct 25 21:46 UTC] No.45649836{3}[source]▶
Anaphylaxis is only fatal in ~0.3% of cases that required hospitalization.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)02738-3/ful...

"Although anaphylactic reactions are potentially life threatening, the probability of dying is very low for those cases that require ED or hospital attention, and is likely much lower when all anaphylactic reactions are considered."

I think you misunderstood me. The risk of your immune system going haywire and killing you is a real risk and worthy of medical attention. But I think we are really overstating the prevalence of how many people have an immune system ready to self-destruct them.

replies(1): >>45649974 #
5. lawlessone ◴[20 Oct 25 21:59 UTC] No.45649974{4}[source]▶
yes i think i did misunderstand a little.

Anecdotally a relative recently found out they have a gluten intolerance and while a lot of people would think it's a fad kids latch onto (implied by someone elsewhere in this topic), it actually took a while for it to be identified.

The assumption was they just had anxiety which was causing physical symptoms until they had a blood test that identified the antibody.

Seeing a lot of "illness X is fake" on here and elsewhere lately so i wrongly perceived it here.