Increase in peanut allergies??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

No its really just basic humanness. People have a limited capacity for information. Almost all of people's behavior is shaped to a great degree on their life experiences. Negative experiences stick more and longer than positive ones. The average person does not have the time or capacity to consider each situation individually with every interaction. We all use our past experiences to make choices about how we interact with others. Thus, people will remember the one person who isn't truthful about their allergy more than the several that are truthful. The same way you can name the person abusing the handicapped spot more than the 10 who are truly handicapped. This exact phenomenon has led to people who have invisible disabilities being harassed by 'well meaning' people in parking lots. You also see this with service dogs. You should be angry at the people abusing the system.

This basic humaness is not acceptable when racism, abuse, xenophobia and all other sorts of circumstances are concerned. We shame people for downplaying others experiences based on their personal bias.

Why is it acceptable when allergies are concerned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally I see more allergies in children conceived with fertility treatments.

Bingo.

I have one child conceived via IVF and another from a surprise pregnancy several years after we had stopped treatment. Guess which one has multiple anaphylactic food allergies? It isn't the IVF baby!

Both were breastfed, and we also did early introduction of major allergens with both.

Yeah but you're missing the point. YOU are the one who had fertility treatment, not the kids.

What is she missing? That her fertility treatments had no impact in anything?

That they might have. Are you not an English speaker? It's quite plainly written.

I'm the PP who had IVF. If IVF might be a cause of food allergies as other PPs indicated, then why is my IVF child the one who DOESN'T have food allergies, but my naturally conceived child does? That's what the other PP was questioning. Did you read this entire line of the thread?
Of course, I'm a sample size of 1.

DP who disagrees with the pps blaming Ivf.

I think one of them is suggesting that ivf ( drugs etc) altered your system and it affected the second baby.

As someone with undiagnosed infertility and 2 kids with lots of allergies ( no ivf), I think whatever is causing the infertility caused the allergies/ immune issues they have.

IVF PP back again. I read it (perhaps incorrectly) as IVF babies are more likely to develop allergies. I’ve seen that “theory” more than a few times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

No its really just basic humanness. People have a limited capacity for information. Almost all of people's behavior is shaped to a great degree on their life experiences. Negative experiences stick more and longer than positive ones. The average person does not have the time or capacity to consider each situation individually with every interaction. We all use our past experiences to make choices about how we interact with others. Thus, people will remember the one person who isn't truthful about their allergy more than the several that are truthful. The same way you can name the person abusing the handicapped spot more than the 10 who are truly handicapped. This exact phenomenon has led to people who have invisible disabilities being harassed by 'well meaning' people in parking lots. You also see this with service dogs. You should be angry at the people abusing the system.

This basic humaness is not acceptable when racism, abuse, xenophobia and all other sorts of circumstances are concerned. We shame people for downplaying others experiences based on their personal bias.

Why is it acceptable when allergies are concerned?

Sigh. Because people are gonna be people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Kid #1: ate a lot of nuts, peanuts and tahini during pregnancy and breastfeeding (until 15 months) and kid developped allergies to nut, peanuts and sesame.
Kid#2: did not eat nuts, peanuts and sesame during pregnancy and breastfeeding (9 months) and kid developped allergies to nuts, peanuts, sesame and a host of other things I was consuming (egg, soy, dairy, seafood, seeds etc.).
I am SO tired of the blame on parents. We've heard everything and it’s opposite. Instead of focusing on what the moms are or are not doing or eating why don't they study the effects of pharmaceuticals and pollutants on allergies? Because that's where the problem lies, not on what mom is eating and whether larlo got peanuts at 5 months vs. 1 year.

Are you saying YOU ate nuts in pregnancy or your kid ate nuts before one year old?
If the first, you are crazy.

I did. How does it make me crazy?

Bcs you are connecting two things that are not the same. Crazy.

It's not. You don't know what you are talking about.

Lol.

“Lol?” Are you 90?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Kid #1: ate a lot of nuts, peanuts and tahini during pregnancy and breastfeeding (until 15 months) and kid developped allergies to nut, peanuts and sesame.
Kid#2: did not eat nuts, peanuts and sesame during pregnancy and breastfeeding (9 months) and kid developped allergies to nuts, peanuts, sesame and a host of other things I was consuming (egg, soy, dairy, seafood, seeds etc.).
I am SO tired of the blame on parents. We've heard everything and it’s opposite. Instead of focusing on what the moms are or are not doing or eating why don't they study the effects of pharmaceuticals and pollutants on allergies? Because that's where the problem lies, not on what mom is eating and whether larlo got peanuts at 5 months vs. 1 year.

Are you saying YOU ate nuts in pregnancy or your kid ate nuts before one year old?
If the first, you are crazy.

I did. How does it make me crazy?

Bcs you are connecting two things that are not the same. Crazy.

It's not. You don't know what you are talking about.

Lol.

“Lol?” Are you 90?

Are you 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is evidence that food allergies are widely overstated and a lot of people who claim an allergy really have a sensitivity or intolerance. Remember when everyone had celiac? This leads to the general public not taking true allergies as seriously.

The general public can go to hell. Allergies/ sensitivities = those foods make me sick.

DP. There's a difference between "this food gave me a stomach ache" and "this food will kill me".
For example: dairy. Lactose intolerance =/= true dairy allergy. One gives you an upset stomach for a few hours, and the other will kill you.
And, yes, people saying the have a food allergy, when they really don't has contributed to others not taking true allergies seriously.

Where are all those people claiming they have a food allergy when they don't? I have never met anyone like that. If someone tells me they or their kid have a food allergy, it wouldn't occur to question it. The fact is that food allergies are going through the roof in young kids. I don't get why people would think we are lying about something so serious. And it's quite offensive to suggest that we deserve not to be taken seriously because of some unfounded suspicion that some of us are lying.

Well many people are lying. Didn’t say you were but the truth is that lots of people say there’s an allergy when there isn’t. This may be intentional lying or misinformation but it doesn’t change the truth. See also: the boy who cried wolf.

“According to the report, one study found that 12 to 13 percent of adults and children diagnosed themselves as having a food allergy. Medical testing, though, showed that only 3 percent actually did.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/612476

I've known people who have lied, and it's really annoying.

But the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story where the person who cried wolf receives the consequences. You're talking about a situation where you're ignoring other townspeople who are in actual danger, because the boy cried wolf. That's twisted and messed up.

So, yes, it's annoying that you might put away your peanuts for someone who overreacted to a symptom and whose kid isn't actually allergic, but the opposite? That you endanger a child who did nothing wrong? Isn't an option.

I’m just explaining why not everyone takes it seriously. That’s all.

Except that's not why everyone doesn't take it seriously. People don't take it seriously because they are selfish immoral people. If someone has decent morals, they understand that even if there's a possibility that a child's parent is wrong (mistaken, lying, child has outgrown the allergy and hasn't yet been retested), the chance that the parent isn't wrong is too high for anyone who is a decent human being to take a chance.

So, the reason people don't take it seriously is because they aren't decent human beings. Your explanation is wrong.

No its really just basic humanness. People have a limited capacity for information. Almost all of people's behavior is shaped to a great degree on their life experiences. Negative experiences stick more and longer than positive ones. The average person does not have the time or capacity to consider each situation individually with every interaction. We all use our past experiences to make choices about how we interact with others. Thus, people will remember the one person who isn't truthful about their allergy more than the several that are truthful. The same way you can name the person abusing the handicapped spot more than the 10 who are truly handicapped. This exact phenomenon has led to people who have invisible disabilities being harassed by 'well meaning' people in parking lots. You also see this with service dogs. You should be angry at the people abusing the system.

This basic humaness is not acceptable when racism, abuse, xenophobia and all other sorts of circumstances are concerned. We shame people for downplaying others experiences based on their personal bias.

Why is it acceptable when allergies are concerned?

But this is like posting “Please don’t be racist” or “Please use your blinker when driving so I don’t die” I mean - why not shout into the wind? It’ll have the same effect.