Peanut Allergy Treatment Trial In UK "A Success"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peanut Allergy Treatment Trial In UK "A Success"

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 30, 2014 @08:06PM from the what-doesn't-kill-me dept.

cold fjord writes: "The BBC reports, 'Peanuts are the most common cause of fatal allergic reactions to food. There is no treatment so the only option for patients is to avoid them completely, leading to a lifetime of checking every food label before a meal. The trial ... tried to train the children's immune system to tolerate peanut. Every day they were given a peanut protein powder — starting off on a dose equivalent to a 70th of a peanut. Once a fortnight the dose was increased while the children were in hospital and then they continued taking the higher dose at home. The majority of patients learned to tolerate the peanut. ... Dr Andrew Clark, told the BBC: "It really transformed their lives dramatically, this really comes across during the trial. ... Dr Pamela Ewan added ... further studies would be needed and that people should not try this on their own as this "should only be done by medical professionals in specialist settings."' The story also notes, 'The findings, published in the Lancet, suggest 84% of allergic children could eat the equivalent of five peanuts a day after six months.'"

192 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 20:12 · Score: 5, Informative

in treating various allergies in the past 10 years. Good studies since 70's.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/147019
1. Re:Standard practice... by Shimbo · 2014-01-30 20:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not a particularly surprising result but it's one thing saying that after the fact, and another to do a good quality trial. 90-99% of science (well, to be honest, pretty much of everything worth doing) takes skill and patience rather than a moment of brilliance.
2. Re:Standard practice... by DMiax · 2014-01-30 20:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Correct. But I suspect the hurdle here was to isolate the allergenic factor and administering it correctly. It is not as simple as splitting a peanut in 70 parts: you have to find the right protein, isolate it and dose it. It can be a bitch to do. The results prove that the protein was the right one and that the doses were ok. Finally, the treatment does not work with any substance: there are things that will remain lethal whatever happens as our immune system just cannot catch them. So that is another good news.
3. Re:Standard practice... by sjames · 2014-01-30 21:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It seems that it WAS standard practice for a long time then medicine forgot all about it for a few years and decided avoidance was the only useful strategy.
  Now they seem to be back to the idea that desensitization works and avoidance just causes more allergies. Peanut allergy is a growing problem in the UK because expectant mothers were urged to avoid peanuts.
4. Re:Standard practice... by queazocotal · 2014-01-30 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well...
  No.
  You need to prove it with a protein extract, if you hope to make a peanut allergy drug.
  If you just want to treat peanut allergy, there is no really good reason that a tiny, tiny bit of peanut butter in a large meal won't work.
  Start out at a dose which does not kill, and boost the dosage 10%/day.
5. Re:Standard practice... by Chrisq · 2014-01-30 22:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is not as simple as splitting a peanut in 70 parts.
  Excuse my ignorance but why isn't it that simple? If you started feeding people with 1/70 of a peanut and worked your way up wouldn't that have the same effect as extracting the protein responsible fro the reaction and doing the same thing?
6. Re:Standard practice... by MrBigInThePants · 2014-01-30 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes but the peanut powder has been patented and costs $2000 per month to administer... ...probably...
7. Re:Standard practice... by Pino+Grigio · 2014-01-30 22:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The thing is, if you just use peanuts you can't charge £100 a shot for the drug.
8. Re:Standard practice... by marsu_k · 2014-01-30 22:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  My daughter's milk allergy (yes, milk allergy, not lactose intolerance) was treated this way. It started with an almost homeopathic dosage, one drop of milk diluted to 1/20 per day, gradually increasing the dosage over six months. Now she's able to use dairy products freely, which is great. But the treatment doesn't really get rid of the allergy, it just builds a resistance for it, requiring that she gets at least some milk protein in her diet daily. I'll echo the summary though - don't try this without a medical professional.
9. Re:Standard practice... by uglyduckling · 2014-01-30 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  I agree it's based on the same idea, but this is quite a different thing. House dust antigen is relatively harmless and leads to worsening of atopic (asthma, eczema etc.) symptoms in some people. This new trial looks at treating people who have an anaphylactic response to peanuts ("immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion" from the article). People in this category die rapidly if they eat a peanut, which is why they carry epi-pens. Even with immediate epinephrine (adrenaline) some people could end up needing intubation and ventilation when exposed. Treating these sorts of reactions with desensitisation therapy is certainly not "standard practice" and would be groundbreaking if these findings can be confirmed on a wider scale and turned into treatment regimens for non-research settings.
10. Re:Standard practice... by uglyduckling · 2014-01-30 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because these people tend to die when they eat peanuts. You need to know how to do it in a very careful, controlled manner otherwise people will die. Mostly children. That would be a bad thing.
11. Re:Standard practice... by somepunk · 2014-01-30 23:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not every 70th part is the same. Not homogenous. There's different stuff on the surface, probably a couple layers, and then there's the germ of the seed vs the bulk which is food for the germinating plant, and so on.
  
  --
  Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
12. Re:Standard practice... by Paradise+Pete · 2014-01-31 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  there is no really good reason that a tiny, tiny bit of peanut butter in a large meal won't work.
  Yes there is. Peanut butter, no matter how well you stir it, will have random clumps of the allergen and people will die. More stirring does not solve the problem. Random does not mean equal distribution. It means random distribution, some of which will be in larger clumps.
13. Re:Standard practice... by Albanach · 2014-01-31 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think you missed where this work was done. The NHS don't pay $100 a shot for many things.
  As for how much the shots cost in the US, well that's anyone's guess. But the price in the States is unlikely to be a result of this research.
14. Re:Standard practice... by jellomizer · 2014-01-31 01:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  However I could see a lot of parents trying this, to a disastrous effect, because it could be the kid who has extremely small tolerance, will get too much and hurt themselves. or increasing the dosage goes too fast for the child.
  The real benefit of giving these kids treatments, isn't so they can have a peanut butter sandwich, but have foods that have touched nuts, and go to school and sit at the same table as someone eating a Peanut butter sandwich.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
15. Re:Standard practice... by clickety6 · 2014-01-31 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  So we blend it first and then divide it into 70ths?
  
  --
  ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
16. Re:Standard practice... by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-31 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, standard immunotherapy shots for seasonal allergies have been doing this for some time. But, it hasn't been an effective method of treatment for several allergies, specifically food allergies like shellfish and nuts.
  Apparently we can take that last one off the list.
  (Note: I underwent immunotherapy for seasonal allergies, which helped some, but did nothing for my main year-round allergy to dust mites, which are practically impossible to avoid.)
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
17. Re:Standard practice... by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-31 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  What's even better, is that in the US it could cost wildly differently based on who the health provider is.
  I did immunotherapy shots for seasonal allergies in the recent past, and the only reason I could afford it was because the HMO I was a patient of administered the shots via "nurse practitioners", so there was a $5 copay per shot plus 30 minutes of reading magazines to make sure I'm still breathing. And that's it.
  I really miss that health plan - I'd still be with them if I hadn't moved across the country for a promotion.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
18. Re:Standard practice... by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-31 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  You would have to have a really tiny blender if you were only blending one peanut!
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
19. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or we can accept that the scientists already had a disscussion all but identical to the one we're having here so far and arrived at the conclusion they have arrived at because they've been talking about it longer than the 5 minutes we have here.
  Seriously, when did we start quesitoning every little method just because we "think" we know better despite the obvious fact we are not all doctors... /rant
20. Re:Standard practice... by __aaltlg1547 · 2014-01-31 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. But I suspect the hurdle here was to isolate the allergenic factor and administering it correctly. It is not as simple as splitting a peanut in 70 parts: you have to find the right protein, isolate it and dose it. It can be a bitch to do. The results prove that the protein was the right one and that the doses were ok. Finally, the treatment does not work with any substance: there are things that will remain lethal whatever happens as our immune system just cannot catch them. So that is another good news.
  No you don't. You could just use ground peanuts.
21. Re:Standard practice... by 0100010001010011 · 2014-01-31 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Blend 70,000 peanuts. Administer to 1,000 people.
22. Re:Standard practice... by Grishnakh · 2014-01-31 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  However I could see a lot of parents trying this, to a disastrous effect, because it could be the kid who has extremely small tolerance, will get too much and hurt themselves. or increasing the dosage goes too fast for the child.
  I can see this happening a lot in America. After all, any parents who want to do this will be faced with a $100,000 medical bill for this service, probably denied by insurance, so they'll resort to doing it themselves since it sounds so simple.
23. Re:Standard practice... by Grishnakh · 2014-01-31 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  In the UK, no. It'll be dirt cheap, and probably free for the patients since the government takes care of that kind of thing.
  In the USA, no. Your $2000/month figure is too low. Probably more like $10-20,000 per month. And it probably won't be covered by insurance, so we'll have a bunch of parents trying to do it themselves, to disastrous effect.
24. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  1/20 is *far* off of homeopathic dosages. Homeopathic dilutions are generally on the order of 1/100000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000. One particular flu remedy is diluted approximately 1/1000000 0000000 000000 000000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000000 000000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 000000000 00000000 000000000 00000000 000000000 0000000000 00000000 000000000 00000000 00000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000 000000000 00000000000 000000000 0000000 00000000 00000000000 0000000000 00000000 00000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 00000000000 000000000 00000000 00000.
  I mean, it's been a long time since I've done a significant amount of math, and I couldn't do a Fourier transform anymore, but I think by inspection you can see that 1/20 isn't anywhere close to a homeopathic dosage.
25. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  i would be interested in the long term effects of a controlled experiment. I found out I had food allergies much later in life, because I had accumulated damage to my digestive tract, and pinning down the cause of the allergy was not easy because I had built up a tolerance from spending years not knowing to avoid a few specific things. The tolerance was enough that it was at first difficult to determine exactly what I was allergic to, but once sorted out and stopped eating those things, the tolerance dropped and it became more obvious. The issue for me, was even with the built up tolerance, making it hard to notice any problems while eating something, is that parts of the body were still mildly responding and becoming inflamed in a way that allowed long term damage.
26. Re:Standard practice... by CastrTroy · 2014-01-31 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, 6 Peanuts a day isn't enough tolerance to enjoy a peanut butter sandwich, but it would mean that my kids (who aren't allergic to peanuts) could bring one to school, without worrying about harming some kid who is allergic. Most schools in my area have gone completely peanut free, and while there is a decent selection of snacks with peanut free labels, I feel like it would be nice if we could go back to a point where kids could bring whichever snacks they wanted.
  
  On a side note, I think it's kind of contradictory that all pre-packaged snacks have to have the peanut free labeling, while home-made snacks prepared in my own kitchen (which definitely isn't peanut free) are completely fine. I think if snacks prepared in my kitchen are ok (provided peanuts aren't an actual ingredient), that packaged snacks without peanuts as an actual ingredient should also be OK.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
27. Re:Standard practice... by marsu_k · 2014-01-31 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  I knew, this being slashdot, someone would nitpick over that :) OK, so it's not near homeopathic, what I meant was that the initial dose is so small it seems it couldn't possibly have any effect.
28. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  What scientists? What doctors? The parent posts weren't replying to scientists or doctors. They were replying to a Slashdot blow-hard who made an implausible claim.
29. Re:Standard practice... by _anomaly_ · 2014-01-31 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1,000 peanuts and 70,000 people
  ;-)
  
  --
  "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
30. Re:Standard practice... by orgelspieler · 2014-01-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  How bad was her allergy to start with? My son's is so bad that he even has a topical response if he touches dairy. He's got peanut allergy at the same level, too. That's what I don't understand about these studies. If my son walks into a room with peanut shells on the floor he starts having trouble breathing. If some kid spills a milkshake he gets hives all over the place. I just don't see how 1/70th of a peanut would be OK. Maybe 1/700th?
31. Re:Standard practice... by cold+fjord · 2014-01-31 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  ... the initial dose is so small it seems it couldn't possibly have any effect.
  Possible is a word that shouldn't be thrown around lightly in science and medicine, especially in the phrase, "couldn't possibly" when you are referring to things like this. Unimaginably small doses of things can kill people, depending on the person's sensitivity. Botulism toxin is lethal on the order of 10^-9 g/kg.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
32. Re:Standard practice... by marsu_k · 2014-01-31 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  It was bad, she got also skin reactions from mere touch and she did (still does though) carry an Epipen with her at all times, but the doctors said they've treated even worse cases. Apparently the treatment is more effective / more likely to work in younger children. The treatment is still somewhat experimental, luckily I live in a town with a university hospital that does a lot of research. I'm not a medical professional so I'm not able to advice you further sadly, but if you're interested try to contact them (or have your doctor do so).
33. Re:Standard practice... by ebh · 2014-01-31 03:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Who was it who said, "Most scientific discoveries aren't hailed with 'Eureka!', but rather with, 'Hmmm, that's weird.'"?
34. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  That is how some of the greatest discoveries are made, but not how "most" are made in the sense that large part of science is grunt work checking things that are somewhat obvious to check, but still need to be checked carefully.
35. Re:Standard practice... by fwkroon · 2014-01-31 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Isaac Asimov, I believe
36. Re:Standard practice... by HeckRuler · 2014-01-31 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Unimaginable" is a word that shouldn't be thrown around lightly.
  Come on guys, as far as literary constructs used to convey meaning, comparing the initial dose to homeopathic values isn't crazy.
  And nitpicking the correction that it SEEMED like it couldn't possibly have an effect is just being an asshole. Like most of your NSA rants.
37. Re:Standard practice... by operagost · 2014-01-31 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point is this treatments is for people whose immune system CATCHES THE SUBSTANCE TOO WELL. The peanut proteins should be ignored, but instead the body basically loses its shit, if you will. We're not trying to develop a resistance to iocaine powder, here-- that would be inconceivable.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
38. Re:Standard practice... by operagost · 2014-01-31 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry-- it is very likely that your old plan did not meet Obamacare regs and was cancelled.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
39. Re:Standard practice... by operagost · 2014-01-31 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, this advice never made sense to me. Some children are hypersensitive to a substance, so the idea is to NEVER EXPOSE THEM TO THAT SUBSTANCE? It defies both common sense and, as has been proved several times now, science.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
40. Re:Standard practice... by Chrisq · 2014-01-31 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  1,000 peanuts and 70,000 people
  ;-)
  I'm glad this sort of thing doesn't happen with real doctors. Does it?
41. Re:Standard practice... by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-31 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  generally on the order of 1/100000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000
  So basically, one molecule of the thing in a gallon of water?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
42. Re:Standard practice... by cold+fjord · 2014-01-31 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  ... is just being an asshole.
  Welcome to the club.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
43. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  but I think by inspection you can see that 1/20 isn't anywhere close to a homeopathic dosage.
  These days you will see things advertised as homeopathic when the active ingredient has concentrations of like 1-10%. It is like the woo came full circle, to the point people doing homeopathy wrong by using way too large of a dose and end up producing actual medicine (or at least dosages that actually does something, not necessarily what you want and potentially bad in the case of some pseudo-homeopathic cold remedies that can remove your sense of smell for example).
44. Re:Standard practice... by sudon't · 2014-01-31 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  What I'm wondering is why I never even heard of peanut allergy when I was in school. It doesn't show up on the N-Gram radar until the mid-1980's. Is it really a new phenomena, a kind of epidemic? Or have people only recently become more aware of it?
  
  --
  -- sudon't
  Air-ride Equipped
45. Re:Standard practice... by Rob+Y. · 2014-01-31 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's a cute, facile jab at Obamacare, but it's probably false. The kinds of plans that get cancelled under Obamacare are the kinds that Republicans think we should all have. High-deductable, catastrophic plans that lead you to believe you have insurance - and may actually help in a catastrophe, but in fact provide very little day-to-day coverage at all. HMO's are probably fine - though I suppose a particular one may need to be tweaked for specific requirements.
  Obamacare plans still stink compared to the best employer-offered plans, but let's not pretend that they don't provide coverage. That coverage is too expensive, has too many deductables and too little choice in terms of providers. But, with the exception of some good employer-provided group plans, they're probably better than what was available to individuals before.
  
  --
  Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
46. Re:Standard practice... by sudon't · 2014-01-31 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...as far as literary constructs...
  Yet, science students wonder why they're forced to take a couple of English courses. It polishes down some of those rough, nerdy edges, is why.
  
  --
  -- sudon't
  Air-ride Equipped
47. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  generally on the order of 1/100000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000
  So basically, one molecule of the thing in a gallon of water?
  No. It's much, much less than that. The quoted value there is one part in 10^60. A mole is 6.02x10^23. There's about 200 moles of water molecules in 1 gallon (3.8 liters and 55 moles per liter for water). So one molecule of water in one gallon is one part in 10^26. To get one part in 10^60, you'll need about 10^34 gallons of water. Wikipedia indicates this is the volume of Betelgeuse (a massive star that's about a million times the volume of the sun.)
48. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  At least one account of the history of the issue has researchers ignoring peanut allergies (they have been and still are rare, ~1% or less of the population), until organizations started forming in the 80s to increase awareness of the issue that was already there.
49. Re:Standard practice... by Khashishi · 2014-01-31 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Real science is repeatable, unlike the majority of health news headlines.
50. Re:Standard practice... by Rich0 · 2014-01-31 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  The other problem with plans are the ones that collect your premiums in the hope that you don't get sick. If you do and it is expensive, then they just find a pretext to disqualify you. Maybe they refund your premiums.
51. Re:Standard practice... by cellocgw · 2014-01-31 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, when did we start quesitoning every little method just because we "think" we know better despite the obvious fact we are not all doctors... /rant
  Do I really need to say "you must be new here" ?
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
52. Re:Standard practice... by JudgeFurious · 2014-01-31 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed this is true. Very similar to the way I built up my immunity to iocaine powder over the last couple of years!
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
53. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  No more shit sandwiches for you eh?
54. Re:Standard practice... by vux984 · 2014-01-31 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  While another account is that hysteria over peanut allergies led swarms of new parents to avoid exposing their babies to peanuts at an early age (to prevent an allergic reaction) preventing their immune system from adapting to peanuts thereby manufacturing the very allergic reactions they were afraid of and making it a much more wide spread problem today than it was 20 years ago.
55. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't line up with the timeline discussed in the parent post though. If it took a decade or too for hysteria to cause increasing peanut problems, and it is those created problems that jump stared researchers, that would have had to happen in the 60s or 70s. In the late 80s, the growing concerned over peanut allergies and start of more serious research into it happened within a couple years, way before mainstream appeal would have had a chance to cause large scale changes in peanut exposure. You would also expect a large increase in peanut allergies in the last 20 years, but the rate seems to be roughly flat unless you base your numbers on self-reported allergies/sensitivity.
56. Re:Standard practice... by sjames · 2014-01-31 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I have to say I'm mystified. It's as if an entire profession suffered temporary amnesia.
57. Re:Standard practice... by sexconker · 2014-01-31 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  there is no really good reason that a tiny, tiny bit of peanut butter in a large meal won't work.
  Yes there is. Peanut butter, no matter how well you stir it, will have random clumps of the allergen and people will die. More stirring does not solve the problem. Random does not mean equal distribution. It means random distribution, some of which will be in larger clumps.
  Stirring does not mean random distribution. Stirring homogenizes a batch, evening out distribution of mixtures and concentrations of solutions.
  You ever stir lemon juice and sugar into a pitcher of water? I defy you to do it until the sugar is dissolved, pour two cups, and end up with 1 cup that's too weak and 1 cup that's too strong. It's not going to fucking happen.
  All commercial peanut butter brands are also homogenized, in massive batches. You're not going to get a weak jar of Skippy one day and a strong jar the next.
58. Re:Standard practice... by orgelspieler · 2014-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, cool! Thank you for the information. I'll share it with the allergist (as soon as I'm done fighting the insurance company). I'd be too scared to try this on my own, but in a hospital setting, it would be safer.
59. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Better hope he never develops a milk porn fetish.
60. Re:Standard practice... by HornWumpus · 2014-01-31 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  We don't wonder. We just wish liberal arts types had to take a couple of science courses. Polish down some of the those rough, dumb as a rock edges, is why.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
61. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  > If some kid spills a milkshake he gets hives all over the place
  Have you successfully gotten your kid's school to ban milk? It's sad that so many schools still serve that crap despite the fact that they are harming children by doing so. Fortunately most schools have correctly banned peanuts, and some like the one where I teach, have banned students from exposing themselves to peanuts outside of school because they affect other kids when they return to school.
62. Re:Standard practice... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-31 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  How does that work? My son's first solid food was peanut butter. Nobody ever mentioned there was an age "too young" to expose them to it, and he still loves it to this day. Now that they've solved peanuts, maybe they can solve gluten.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
63. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  that would be inconceivable.
  That word does not mean what you think it means.
64. Re:Standard practice... by nmr_andrew · 2014-01-31 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I'm too lazy go Google it, but I clearly recall a study from a couple of years ago that showed that the cultures with the least incidence of peanut allergies are those that start feeding peanut containing foods the earliest, around 6 months of age IIRC.
  In contrast, the pediatricians around here very strongly suggest not even letting your kids near a peanut until they're 2 years old. Fortunately, neither of my children have peanut allergies.
65. Re:Standard practice... by nmr_andrew · 2014-01-31 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Essentially this is exactly what they're doing by administering peanut flour.
66. Re:Standard practice... by vux984 · 2014-01-31 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  How does that work?
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...
  The government has already turned the corner, due to the previous recommendation against peanuts apparently "backfiring".
  http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/p...
  Peanuts are safe in pregnancy
  Go ahead and eat peanuts or food containing peanuts (such as peanut butter) during pregnancy, unless you are allergic to them or a health professional advises you not to.
  You may have heard that peanuts should be avoided during pregnancy. This is because the government previously advised women that they may want to avoid eating peanuts if there was a history of allergy (such as asthma, eczema, hay fever, food allergy or other types of allergy) in their child's immediate family.
  This advice has now been changed because the latest research has shown that there is no clear evidence showing that eating peanuts during pregnancy affects the chances of your baby developing a peanut allergy.
  Nobody ever mentioned there was an age "too young" to expose them to it,
  No idea how old your son is, but there was a decade or so where "No peanuts" to babies, and even to pregnant / breastfeeding mothers was a real thing.
  It was going on full volume when our kids were born 10 years ago, and we get notices every year about there being kids with major severe peanut allergies in their classes.
67. Re:Standard practice... by psydeshow · 2014-01-31 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  However I could see a lot of parents trying this, to a disastrous effect, because it could be the kid who has extremely small tolerance, will get too much and hurt themselves. or increasing the dosage goes too fast for the child.
  Do you know many parents? Everyone I know with kids is overly protective of them.
  If my sister suspected her kid had a dangerous peanut allergy, there is NO WAY she would try this at home. It's not like bricking your favorite phone, the stakes are ever-so-much higher.
68. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect because all peanuts are not created equal. You can measure the amount of peanut easily, but how do you know that this peanut contains the same amount of protein per unit as the last peanut did?
69. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me that your son has other unknown food allergies that are a constant problem, exaggerating his intolerance to dairy (not sure about the peanuts). I had the same issue, and changing my diet made it disappear. You might look into the 'blood type diet'. The guy who wrote the books (I actually recommend the second, not the first) also wrote a book specifically addressing allergies. I highly recommend it. It changed my life.
  My guess is that your son has blood type O.
  Good luck
70. Re:Standard practice... by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-01-31 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting. So there are people who _die_ from exposure to a tiny amount of peanut _dust_, and you think you could just grind up a peanut to some randomly small size and say "here, kid, eat this"? That's..."interesting".
71. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Inconcievable!
72. Re:Standard practice... by david_thornley · 2014-01-31 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding? That Anonymous Coward guy has a zero-digit UID!
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
73. Re:Standard practice... by tibit · 2014-01-31 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Homogenization and emulsification are the words you're looking for. There be, like, machines that do it, man.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
74. Re:Standard practice... by tibit · 2014-01-31 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  He's just being a bit obfuscatory, that's all. Homogenization done on peanut butter is not done well enough for this purpose. Peanut butter that's homogenized enough for accurate dosing in such an allergy treatment has texture quite unlike peanut butter. Even the basic taste seems very different.
  I've tasted it myself, but it had nothing to do with allergies, it was merely a demonstration that homogenization is like purification. It isn't parameter-less.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
75. Re:Standard practice... by kwbauer · 2014-01-31 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  So you work at a place that regulates what the kids do outside of school because they might cause a problem for one of the students when they return? Sounds pretty damned f'ed up to me.
  How about a return to the days of staying out of society if being in society is so harmful to you instead of demanding that the rest of the population conform to your special situation.
76. Re:Standard practice... by Belial6 · 2014-01-31 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just hysteria leading to the real allergy. There is also, the effects of our victim society. As sick as it may sound, there are a lot of parents that actually want their children to have some kind of health problem. It is kind of like a mass Munchhausen by Proxy. There is also terrible diagnosis by doctors. We took our son for an allergy test panel to find out what plants were causing his itchy eyes and runny nose. One of the items in the panel is a test for peanut allergies. They tried to convince use that he was severely allergic to peanuts, even though he eats peanut butter all the time. Including eating spoons of it straight just that morning.
77. Re:Standard practice... by Belial6 · 2014-01-31 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the ones where the yearly maximum coverage is less than the yearly premiums.
78. Re:Standard practice... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-31 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  About 10 years ago was right. And a foetus can't have an allergic reaction to peanuts, can it? It has no immune system. The mother could have a reaction to something, but the foetus couldn't, right? At school now (he's 7), there's a "no sharing" policy, but peanuts are allowed at school. He takes peanut butter sandwiches all the time, and sometimes snack-packs of peanuts, or nut mix containing actual peanuts. I remember the peanut scare, but it was close enough to (and based on the same "science" of panicked and angry parents, not science) the Autism scare, that it was completely ignored by us, best we could ignore it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
79. Re:Standard practice... by Paradise+Pete · 2014-01-31 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Stirring does not mean random distribution. Stirring homogenizes a batch, evening out distribution of mixtures and concentrations of solutions.
  You'd think that would be right, but mixing, no matter how long, always leaves clumps. This is a known problem in, for example, paint mixing. You can stir for a year, then get out a microscope. You'll see clumps of pigment.
80. Re:Standard practice... by Paradise+Pete · 2014-01-31 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Machines are not magic. With a mixture, no matter how fine, you cannot avoid clumps. It doesn't matter if it's emulsified, there will still be clumps. You can't do better than random through any macro process that doesn't isolate and separate the allergen.
81. Re:Standard practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 17:41 · Score: 0
  
  The standard test panels are hard to screw up and quite easy to get a second opinion on if you want to check. It might be worth while, because I had a test panel come back as positive on on soy, which I used to eat regularly in many forms with no reaction before that test. I brought this up with the doctor and they said while I might be desensitized enough to it to not breakout, I should check to see if it causes some unseen impacts. In particular, in my case I found it was causing inflammation in parts of my digestive system that caused a build up of scar tissue that in the long run could cause eating problems. I could also say I get less indigestion removing soy from my diet, in a way that I didn't know was possible because how I felt previously was a status quo for so long I felt it was normal. That could be argued to be subjective though, but the scar tissue and inflammation was much more obvious and objective.
82. Re:Standard practice... by ultranova · 2014-02-01 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm too lazy go Google it, but I clearly recall a study from a couple of years ago that showed that the cultures with the least incidence of peanut allergies are those that start feeding peanut containing foods the earliest, around 6 months of age IIRC.
  
  It could simply be that everyone who has peanut allergy dies as a baby in those cultures.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
83. Re:Standard practice... by Jerry+Smith · 2014-02-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  generally on the order of 1/100000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000
  So basically, one molecule of the thing in a gallon of water?
  No. It's much, much less than that. The quoted value there is one part in 10^60. A mole is 6.02x10^23. There's about 200 moles of water molecules in 1 gallon (3.8 liters and 55 moles per liter for water). So one molecule of water in one gallon is one part in 10^26. To get one part in 10^60, you'll need about 10^34 gallons of water. Wikipedia indicates this is the volume of Betelgeuse (a massive star that's about a million times the volume of the sun.)
  And this is why I don't skip AC's.
  *stands up and applauds*
  
  --
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
84. Re:Standard practice... by Reziac · 2014-02-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't be the first time. I can rant about thyroid treatment having gone down the same road -- once standardized tests were available, they started treating to get the desired test results and forgot to treat the *patient*.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
85. Re: Standard practice... by Tenkawa · 2014-02-02 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  That is how the book Live Free or Die by John Ringo starts.
the remaining 16% by Kaenneth · 2014-01-30 20:24 · Score: 1

were given nice funerals, or what?
1. Re:the remaining 16% by nsuccorso · 2014-01-30 20:30 · Score: 2
  
  They were given a 6th peanut.
2. Re:the remaining 16% by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Probably just epinephrine, or some antihistamines.
3. Re:the remaining 16% by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  Probably couldn't tolerate having as many as five peanuts a day after six months. Maybe they could only take four before experiencing a mild allergic reaction. Or only three.
4. Re:the remaining 16% by sjames · 2014-01-30 21:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Contrary to the media hype, MOST people with peanut allergies don't have a fatal reaction. Just in case, the dosing was started in a hospital setting.
5. Re:the remaining 16% by Thanshin · 2014-01-30 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  They were the first members of the new super-secret Peanut Mutant Soldiers.
  To avoid being called the PMS unit, they were later renamed (to avoid being called the PMS unit) to Peanut Elements Non Inmunized Soldiers.
6. Re:the remaining 16% by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2014-01-30 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh the Peppermint Pattie Berets
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
7. Re:the remaining 16% by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  You guys are making me pull up the band name list file and make some new entries.
8. Re:the remaining 16% by jellomizer · 2014-01-31 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  For most of them they probably got a shot of benadryl or some steroid to stop the allergic reaction. That is why this needs to be done under a doctors supervision.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
9. Re:the remaining 16% by xupere · 2014-01-31 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I can speak from experience on this. I have a relatively mild peanut* allergy - by relatively mild I mean I don't have to carry an epi-pen and I've never had any life-threatening reactions though they can be very unpleasant.
  The first/most common reaction I get is a scratchy throat which results in coughing. I don't find it hard to breathe beyond the coughing but my throat feels very irritated and slightly constricted. The best way to describe it might be like feeling incredibly dry. This reaction is usually pretty quick and if I feel it coming on I know I'd better stop eating whatever is causing it. It's not fun but if the coughing isn't bad I don't always have to excuse myself from social situations and it gradually fades over the course of an hour or so. But sometimes the onset is more gradual, perhaps due to lower concentrations. In this case if I ingest enough I can end up curled up in a pretty miserable ball of the worst stomach pain I've ever felt.
  Bendadryl and time help. When I was a child in school I usually carried a benadryl capsule with me, but now I'm just cautious. I'm grateful that my reactions aren't life-threatening and also that I have no problem being around other people eating peanuts, but they can certainly be unpleasant enough for me to read ingredient labels closely and ask when offered things like cookies/brownies/etc.
  *known allergens - peanuts, walnuts, almonds, hazelnuts; known non-allergens - cashews, pistachios (both of which I love)
Why? by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-30 20:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not why do it, but why does the treatment work? The cited Lancet article doesn't seem to offer any answers (or hint at any efforts to find them).... development of enzyme reserves??
And what of the annecdotal relationship between peanut allergies and *not* breast feeding?
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  as said above, this is normal. The reason for the allergy is an over-response to the antigen. upon normal exposue, The mast cells release their chemicals to try and attack what it regards as foreign. But, we do not want that. So, you put a little bit in there on a weekly basis and monitor the patient for 30 minutes. If no reaction, they are good. If reaction, then epipen can stop it. At that point, back it down. What is different here, is that they started with a much lower dose. IOW, nothing really different, but, peanut reactions are normally SEVERE. They are not like cat/dog allergy, where you get a small rash. just simple exposure to a peanut will kill the majority of these ppl.
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Allergy is an immune system reaction to something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. It thinks that something (in this case peanuts) is dangerous, and launches a full scale defense.
  The trick here is simply to get the immune system used to the substance causing the reaction, so that it will think it's normal, rather than becoming defensive. This seems to work, as long as you increase the dose slowly. The method has been used with some success against other allergies for some time, but trying it on an often fatal allergy like peanut allergy is new.
  Now, why peanut allergy is so much more dangerous than all the other allergies, I have no idea. But as this trial worked, it does indicate that peanut allergy works like any other allergy.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  Probably for the same reason(s) it seems to work for desensitizing people to other allergans. Now was it a specific peanut protein or protein(s) from some of the molds that add aflatoxins to peanuts (yes that amount is non-zero and regulated to a relatively low level in the US).
4. Re:Why? by oneandoneis2 · 2014-01-30 21:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
  If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
  So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
  
  --
  So.. it has come to this
5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  One guess would be peanuts readily grow mold that produces Aflatoxins. Aflatoxins are highly poisonous.
  http://www.livestrong.com/article/553348-fungal-contamination-of-peanuts/
6. Re:Why? by kwbauer · 2014-01-31 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean highly poisonous to an extremely small portion of society as only an extremely small portion of society is deathly allergic to peanuts.
7. Re:Why? by tibit · 2014-01-31 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Those toxins are biochemically unrelated to peanuts, and their toxicity stands on its own and there's no desensitization for it. So I really don't know what aflatoxins have to do with peanut allergies.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
8. Re:Why? by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-31 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
  If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
  So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
  Thanks. So it's the same therapy that Freeman and Noon developed over a century ago, with no apparent change in the understanding of the mechanisms behind it?
  I was hoping it'd be some new understanding of how to control or suppress those white blood cell mediators that cause the problem.
  Sad, because if that's the case the treatment, for peanut allergies, is not new or novel either (been in use in Australia for over a decade). Damn you Slashdot, fooled again. (With Lancet I should know better too).
9. Re:Why? by Reziac · 2014-02-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me that since a maintenance dose is required after desensitization, and since not everyone wants to eat peanuts every day, it could be made available as a tablet.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Luckily by Meneth · 2014-01-30 21:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocaine powder. :)
1. Re:Luckily by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2014-01-30 22:14 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  My name is Inigo Montoya you killed my father prepare to die!!!!
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
2. Re:Luckily by TWX · 2014-01-31 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  My name is Inigo Montoya you killed my father prepare to die!!!!
  My name is Indigo Magenta. You killed my color. Prepare to dye!
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Expert analysis from the UK's NHS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:28 · Score: 1

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/01January/Pages/Peanut-allergy-therapy-shows-promise.aspx
Been There, Done That by Zynder · 2014-01-30 21:28 · Score: 1, Funny

I claim prior art! I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
1. Re:Been There, Done That by Zynder · 2014-01-31 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Hey! I am claiming prior art again! Someone modded me redundant and I'll have you know I specifically read every single post available (it was under 50 replies) when I posted that. MY post was the frosty piss of iocane powder jokes! I'm not the redundant one :P
Cute Little Winners by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:30 · Score: 0

Imagine that: Beautiful girl, condemned to an type of hypersensitive disorder that would affect her more psychologically than physically. Just because a tiny little peanut. I see this achievement not just a great advance on science, but for the kids too. Technology can help society to improve our way of life, but these kind of research, like penicillin advent for example, helps more the small slice of people that could have more chances of success, rather than the major healthy part of it, commonly composed by lazy social network junkies.
Ironically by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:34 · Score: 0

5 of the children in the study subsequently choked to death on peanuts.
now i know how to by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 21:53 · Score: 0

get rid of those annoying yard-monkey ankle-biters next door! thanks!
Nutty parents by giorgist · 2014-01-30 22:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know of parents that don't give peanuts to their kids since babies, just in case they have allergies. So the kid does not develop protection. They give them allergies out of paranoia
1. Re:Nutty parents by gnasher719 · 2014-01-30 22:20 · Score: 2
  
  I know of parents that don't give peanuts to their kids since babies, just in case they have allergies. So the kid does not develop protection. They give them allergies out of paranoia
  The problem is not that the kid doesn't develop protection. The kid develops a very strong protection mechanism against peanuts, so strong that it can kill. Because peanuts are unknown they are assumed to be a threat.
  
  But you're right; it is a case where trying to protect the children is the worst you can do.
2. Re:Nutty parents by gnoshi · 2014-01-30 22:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The advice being provided by the state-provided Maternal and Child Health Nurses in Australia (or at least, the ones I know of) is now to start giving children pulverized nuts (so they don't choke on them) as part of their diet from the very beginning of consuming food, apparently for this exact reason.
3. Re:Nutty parents by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 22:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Most adults don't swell up and die just because they encounter something new.
  So we shouldn't assume that it's such a great idea to intentionally introduce such allergenic foods to young children without independently reproducible proper scientific studies (too much fraud nowadays) proving that it's a better idea for most.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
  
  . The most effective dietary regimen is exclusively breastfeeding for at least 4â"6 months or, in absence of breast milk, formulas with documented reduced allergenicity for at least the first 4 months, combined with avoidance of solid food and cow's milk for the first 4 months.
  I know some parents introduce some foods before the baby is even 6 months. But as the recommendation says - exclusive breastfeeding for at least 4-6 months.
  So maybe these hyperallergic kids were getting traces of peanuts while they and their immune systems were way too young, or at the same time they were fighting off some infection (plenty of people carrying em etc). And so when later on they get a bigger dose, their immune system goes on all out war.
4. Re: Nutty parents by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have the literature to back me up, but my ped recommended waiting until 12mo to introduce peanuts. It apparently doesn't affect the allergy rate (much?), but more importantly the kid has a much better chance of making it to the ER alive at 12mo than 6mo if they have a severe allergy.
5. Re:Nutty parents by bigwillystylie · 2014-01-31 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  They are called Analphylactics.
6. Re:Nutty parents by argStyopa · 2014-01-31 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Like recent research that illustrates a strong inverse relationship between having pets generally (and dogs specifically) in the family and childhood allergies (http://www.pediatrics.wisc.edu/featured-stories/allergies.html), my understanding is that there's a growing preponderance of clinical trials and evidence that suggests that MANY of the growing number of widespread childhood allergies have to do with controllable factors in the environment (ie hyper-clean environments, antibacterial soap, etc).
  
  --
  -Styopa
7. Re:Nutty parents by MozeeToby · 2014-01-31 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  All the research today shows at the very least no increase in risk of allergies by starting common allergens earlier, and several studies show improvement with it. If you don't have a family history of food allergies, there is basically nothing you cannot feed to your child as soon as they are able to safely chew and swallow it. The only exceptions are corn syrup and honey (which can cause infant botulism) and diary milk (mostly because it doesn't have enough iron and they should be on formula or breast milk).
  Keep a bottle of infant benedryl around and pay attention to their reaction when trying out new things.
8. Re:Nutty parents by mjr167 · 2014-01-31 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because the pediatricians tell us that if we give peanuts to a child under 2 years old, he will die (ok... they really just strongly advise against it). Should we ignore the advice of the pediatricians and medical practitioners that supposedly spent a long time in school, have followed studies related to childhood development and allergies, and whom we trust to help us fix our kid when he is running a 105 degree fever, covered in a rash, and vomiting?
  We are also advised to avoid honey during the first year due to pathogens that babies do not have the proper immune response to handle and when introducing new food to babies we are advised to try them one at a time so we know that it was the tomatoes that caused the baby to break out in hives and not the yogurt.
  There is a whole list of foods that babies should avoid at different times for a variety of reasons. You don't pop out a baby and start giving them peanut butter sandwiches the next day. You have to give their immune system and digestive functions time to develop.
9. Re:Nutty parents by tibit · 2014-01-31 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not any honey. Raw honey. You can cook it to make it safe.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
10. Re:Nutty parents by gnoshi · 2014-02-02 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  The advice from those same nurses is to not start 'solid food' (i.e. not formula or breast milk) until 4-6 months, so that roughly matches what you're saying.
11. Re:Nutty parents by gnoshi · 2014-02-02 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  I should also point out that it wasn't feeding them pulverized nuts on their own, but rather incorporating nuts in food that you give to the baby as you would any other component of food rather than holding out on giving the child nuts. I didn't make that very clear, unfortunately.
Just some background science... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 22:28 · Score: 1

The practice is Specific Immunotherapy (SIT) and they do it a lot in Europe.
You make immunoglobulins, IgG, IgA, IgM, and specific to an allergic response: IgE.
Basically, when you are allergic to something, you have IgE antibodies against the allergen. For example, if you are allergic to cat, you are probably (90%) allergic to the protein FelD1 and you would have IgE-anti-FelD1 (IgE antibodies that can specifically bind to the FelD1 protein of cat).
When IgE binds to the cat protein, you get the effects of allergy (i.e. release of histamine etc).
With SIT, you are trying to stimulate the immune response, but at a lower level than what would trigger your IgE response.
A result of SIT is that you make more and more IgG4 antibody (if you were having SIT for your cat allergy, you would be making more IgG4-anti-FelD1 for example).
The way that IgG4 blocks your allergic response is complex and not totally understood (but well observed).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02628.x/pdf
Interestingly, this effect is observed 'in the wild' with beekeepers and their allergy to the Pla protein of bee venom.
"There is no treatment" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-30 23:11 · Score: 0

Bullshit. I had a peanut allergy as an infant and my mom treated it by giving me a tiny amount of peanut butter every day.
Now, I love me some peanut butter sammiches.
Desensitization is a treatment, and one that works. If anything, the peanut allergy craze has been made worse by total avoidance.
1. Re:"There is no treatment" by uglyduckling · 2014-01-30 23:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then you probably didn't have an anaphylactic "immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion" as the article says. If you had, your mother probably would have been terrified of putting you near a peanut ever again.
2. Re:"There is no treatment" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Or if you had an actual serious allergy, while desensitization helps, you might find out it is not a cure and instead leading to more subtle long term problems like Eosinophilic esophagitis. I can eat foods that I've become desensitized too without any easily noticeable short term symptoms, but after a couple years needed surgery and was told to avoid eating such foods to prevent it from happening again.
Re:Isn't that what homeopathy was all along? by DrXym · 2014-01-30 23:45 · Score: 1

Short answer, nope.
Feed your kids, people by Gothmolly · 2014-01-30 23:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Feed your kids real food, people, and let them play in the dirt. Get a pet. If you want your kid to have a healthy normal life, expose them to things in normal life. If you wrap them in Triclosan-scented everything and feel them gluten/soy/sugarfree Brawndo for years, they'll never learn to metabolize or tolerate anything else. Life carries risk, and as much as public education has taught you that causality is a human construct, it ain't - learn to deal with things or they'll deal with you, you pussies.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  Harden the fuck up.
2. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Do either of you have any parenting experience?
  Oh, and playing in the dirt was safe(r) 50 years ago; today, with all the crap put into plants, air and water, it's a surprise allergies is all we get.
3. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Second this. No parenting experience probably from the know-it-all above.
  My daughter has a tree nut allergy. She plays in the dirt and climbs trees more than any other kid in the neighborhood. I give her high fives when she comes home with scrapes and bruises. We own a cat and a dog. She has a fish tank in her bedroom. She plays team sports and has been around neighborhood kids since birth as well as in regular classrooms since starting pre-school at age 3.5. She eats "real food" from local farms, meat from local farmers/butchers, plus some of the junk food we all ate growing up as kids in the 70s and 80s.
  The so called "hygiene hypothesis" hasn't been proven and doesn't lend any useful, actionable information. I think it's hogwash. I wish food allergies were that simple ("let them play in the dirt") but they aren't. I can't wait until more is discovered about their origins and how to reduce the incidence of them.
4. Re:Feed your kids, people by F.+Lynx+Pardinus · 2014-01-31 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  Same here. I developed an allergy to a certain type of tree nut. Before I went into shock as a child, my parents fed me all sorts of food and nuts, no hesitations. It's bizarre when people assume that food allergies are caused by parental avoidance--usually they just happen.
5. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  I have a daughter who is deathly allergic to peanuts. We discovered this when she was just 14 months old when we introduced some peanut butter into some yogurt. She wasn't even eating capable of eating 'real food' as you say, and she did plenty of normal play for someone her age and size, so this isn't as simple as just exposing them to allergens and letting them 'buck up'. She was obviously born highly sensitive to it. Ridiculous how to the unaffected the solution is so easy and simple. Walk a mile before you open your mouth and prove your ignorance.
6. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck some girls, you geek. Drink some beer. Pop your zits. Move out from your parents' basement. Lose the black long trench coats and goth makeup. Stop playing Magic and EVE. Get some friends.
  Any other useless stereotypes you want to throw out?
7. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Feed your kids real food, people, and let them play in the dirt. Get a pet.
  This seems to be the prevailing wisdom these days. But it didn't work for me. I grew up with pets playing in the dirt and became an adult who was extremely allergic to everything I was tested for. In fact the stuff I was not allergic to, cows and horses, were things I had never been exposed to. So the opposite wisdom would seem to have applied better in my situation. Allergy shots didn't work for me either. The summary hints that the peanut treatment worked for 84% of patients. Well there's 16% of us out here who don't have an explanation for why we are suffering.
8. Re:Feed your kids, people by orgelspieler · 2014-01-31 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  OK. So I have two kids. Both of them were raised essentially the same way. If anything, the younger was coddled more, and spent less time in daycare. Yet the elder has severe dairy allergy, and the younger has none. My brother and I grew up in the same house exposed to the same pets, playing in the same dirt. I am allergic to cats now. He is not. My wife has peanut allergy; her sister does not. The list could go on, but you get my point.
  Are you really implying that people should feed their kids food they're allergic to? "Well son, sure you can't breathe and you're covered in hives, but at least Gothmolly doesn't think you're a pussy!"
  Do you really think it's as simple as "go play in dirt and you won't get allergies"? I've got a different unsupported hypothesis pulled out of my ass. The reason why more sanitary countries have more allergies is because in the developing world, the people with allergies don't live long enough to pass their genes down to the next generation. Had I been born in some third world country, I would have died before I turned 10 due to respiratory problems.
9. Re:Feed your kids, people by operagost · 2014-01-31 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  You thought playing in the dirt in 1964 was safe? Brother, that's when we were dumping the nastiest stuff.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
10. Re:Feed your kids, people by operagost · 2014-01-31 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Peanut allergies were almost unheard of in the mid-20th century Western world-- which was quite well developed. But it didn't have triclosan, disposable diapers, soy formula, take-out and heavily processed food at every meal, and shut-in kids.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
11. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  Peanut allergies were around throughout the 20th century, just no one paid attention to them, including doctors and researchers. Researchers didn't even bother with peanut allergies until efforts in the 80s and early 90s by people outside the research community tried to draw more attention to how serious the issues is. The rate of doctor diagnosed peanut allergy hasn't changed too much, although there seems to be a growing portion of self-diagnosed people with allergies that is causing issues because some of them don't correlate with actual allergies.
  My mother has a peanut allergy and found out when she reacted badly to peanuts in the early 50s as a kid. If her reaction was worse, she would have just died then, but instead her parents figured out not to give her peanuts. Just because no one bothered to talk about it or make a big deal doesn't mean it wasn't there (but "unheard of" would still be apt for the 99+% of people without a peanut allergy). Her reaction to it coming up in the news in more recent years was, "Oh, I just thought that was the way things were, I didn't think anyone was ever going to do anything about it."
12. Re:Feed your kids, people by MrYingster · 2014-01-31 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Unheard of != did not exist.
  
  Of course things were less well known back then, but there were also smaller communities, so there were less chances of running into people with allergies. Now we have social sites where we see the communication of thousands of people we've never met in real life. I only know 4 people will peanut allergies personally, and only live near 2 whom I see on a regular basis, yet in this thread, I've already read posts from 10 or more people with the allergy. My point is, just because we didn't hear about it as often back 50 years ago doesn't mean it wasn't a frequent occurrence. Other factors have to be accounted for.
  
  Secondly, I've always wondered if a reason for less prevalence of allergies in the past was due to kids with allergies dying from the allergy without the allergy ever being diagnosed...
13. Re:Feed your kids, people by orgelspieler · 2014-01-31 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Even if all of your assertions are 100% correct, there's no provable causal link. So one wild-ass hypothesis is just as useful as another. I know plenty of hippie-dippy parents that do the whole cloth diaper, no GMO, all organic crap. More power to 'em. But some of those little bastards have allergies, too. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I just don't see any evidence pointing towards some silver bullet cure like "go outside and eat dirt" or "avoid MSG" or whatever.
14. Re:Feed your kids, people by Carcass666 · 2014-01-31 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  This works for some things better than others. I grew up allergic to just about everything (including peanuts). Easing into things, I can handle milk and poultry just fine as an adult. I have dogs but can still get stuffy if I don't clean up after them. Eating a peanut will still have me in full-blown anaphylaxis and needing medical care in about three hour (it happens by accident every couple of years). Sitting on a Southwest flight I will still get hay fever like symptoms due to the peanuts being served.
15. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I would bet that your two children have different blood types. If you fill both a diesel car and a petrol car with diesel fuel, the results are different even though the fuel is the same and they could both simply be called 'fuel'. The petrol engine was made for one thing, but is being forced to run on another and it isn't going to do very well. Different bodies react differently to the same foods (fuel), and a very big factor of this is blood type.
  That's why low-carb diets work well for some but not others, becoming vegetarian generally makes some people feel great (blood type A) while others feel often feel miserable (blood type B and O), vigorous exercise feels good to some (usually blood type O) and not others (blood type A, who tend to do better with moderate exercise), and so on.
  Search for 'blood type diet'. I think you will be shocked when you see how accurate it is.
16. Re:Feed your kids, people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you are not remember things correctly, you managed to peg the exact opposite of people in my immediate family (wife, kids, myself) for the blood types you list. Maybe there is still some correlation with a large enough group of people, but if it is not strong enough, then it won't be that useful for people determining their diet.
17. Re:Feed your kids, people by orgelspieler · 2014-01-31 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  seriously?? People actually believe this pseudo science? While I agree that different people react differently to different foods (obviously) the notion that it's tied to blood type is absolutely no proven. BTW I'm A+ and I have no negative reactions to meat.
18. Re:Feed your kids, people by tibit · 2014-01-31 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  My guess is that nobody knew those kids were allergic to peanuts. They just died from unexplained causes.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
19. Re:Feed your kids, people by Belial6 · 2014-01-31 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  I previously worked at a steel mill. The old timers there were down right ashamed of the the stuff they were dumping in the 60's and 70's.
20. Re:Feed your kids, people by TangoMargarine · 2014-02-06 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Harden the Fuck Up, Australia
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Can you train to tolerate snake venom? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-01-31 00:22 · Score: 1

The old wives tale in India is that the snake charmers give their children minute doses of snake venom at a very age and slowly increase the dosage. The claim is that they become tolerant to snake venom and if a snake bites them, the snake would die. Though it seems within the realm of possibility, I don't think it would work. Snake venoms are neurotoxins easily neutralized by stomach acids. So eating venom would not really help boost any kind of immunity. Even if the snake charmers did follow this practice, the benefit they get must be placebo effect.
Hat tip to Dr Romulus Whitaker. He trained the traditional snake hunting tribes to switch to milking the venom and releasing the snakes back into the wild. Great work saving these great snakes, reducing vermin and saving a significant percentage of the harvest of that part of the world. Sadly he is completely allergic to anti-venom now, due to numerous treatment for snake bites in the past. So next bite he gets, he would die. Shows one could develop intolerance instead of tolerance by repeated exposure to toxins.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Can you train to tolerate snake venom? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure about snake venom, but immunotherapy with venom similar to what is described in this article is a treatment with a high success rate for wasp, honeybee, and fire ant sting allergies.
  This isn't the hokey "sting you with a dead bee" therapy though, it's isolated allergenic proteins administered in a clinical setting with careful monitoring and a ramp-up period.
2. Re:Can you train to tolerate snake venom? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-01-31 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  They introduce the allergens via skin patches, not as oral medications. So I am kind of sure eating venom will not confer immunity.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Sorry by ledow · 2014-01-31 00:36 · Score: 1

Who the hell didn't know this already? I've been bleating about it for ages.
It's almost entirely caused by the "avoid peanuts during pregnancy" self-fulfilling prophecy (if you do so, chances are the next generation will be more allergic to peanuts).
When I was a kid, the kid who was "allergic" was rare, one-in-a-whole-school kind of event. Nowadays, working in schools, I see medical lists in schools where something like 20% of their roll lists are allergic to something-or-other.
Nuts figure heavily, as does kiwi - I can sort of understand kiwi. It's a rare fruit that you probably WON'T have contact with until later in life. But nuts? Those were in almost everything when I was a kid (peanut butter for a start).
Ladies should not avoid nuts in pregnancy. There's no reason to. In the womb, the baby won't be affected adversely by them anyway (unless the mother is also allergic - hence the growing problem), but it will seed their immune systems to cope with it.
1. Re:Sorry by DrProton · 2014-01-31 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  The actual "disease" here is affluenza, or perhaps it's anxiety that overprotective mothers project onto their children. I grew up in a small town, had pets, played in the dirt every day. Nut allergies were unheard of. It's also very interesting that farmers and dirt poor people in 3d world countries don't get these allergies. This is a problem that city dwellers construct. It's called the hygiene hypothesis.
  It is very suspicious that neither the BBC article nor the Lancet abstract report a mortality statistic. Is there some problem counting bodies of people who drop dead after nut ingestion? Please don't quote me the stupid 150 deaths/year number one sees in peanut allergy articles here in America. That number was an extrapolation from a single study done of farmers in a county in Minnesota. There were no deaths from anaphylactic shock identified in the study. Somehow, the authors waved their hands and estimated 150 deaths/yr in the entire US. Meredith Broussard covered this in an article published in Harper's in Jan 2008, "Everyone's Gone Nuts." It's behind a paywall, unfortunately. I recall that the article quoted a statistician at the CDC who said there was no more than a handful of deaths in the US from anaphylactic shock in a year. Of course, the food allergist nut cases (pun intended) attacked her in droves.
  There is an article by Broussard online. It covers the money trail and details how some people profit from the nut allergy scare.
  I think the nut allergies are a bit like the terrorism scare. It is massively overblown. Falls in bathtubs and lightning strikes are far greater threats.
  
  --
  "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
2. Re:Sorry by DrProton · 2014-01-31 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the posting system stripped off my carefully inserted links. WTF, slashdot? I'd post the code to illustrate, but it just gets stripped out. Here are some URLS to go with my post:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01... Jane Brody on the hygiene hypothesis
  http://www.slate.com/articles/... Broussard article on slate.com
  
  --
  "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
3. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well damn, you should have told them - we could have saved a ot of science if you just told people you knew it all already. Next time SPEAK UP! Any other random insight you can share the world to save us all?
4. Re:Sorry by dogbowl · 2014-01-31 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  Wow. Thanks for the insight. If only you could have been around to honor us with your knowledge a few years ago.
  My wife routinely ate peanut butter during her first pregnancy but our child still has a peanut allergy. Maybe you should specify that it is the 'crunchy' variety everyone needs and not the 'smooth' that my wife prefers.
  
  --
  
  These pretzels are making me thirsty.
5. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  While the hygiene hypothesis may in part explain some of the allergy issues, part of the problem, or at least adding to the complexity, is that there are some people who seem to be counter examples to that hypothesis. It might still come down to luck, or multiple factors at play. But for example, having a parent that grew up on a farm in the 40s and 50s, she still ended up with peanut and cat allergies, despite having both around as a younger kid. I ended up with a cat allergy a a different set of food allergies even though I played a lot in dirt as a kid (construction toys were a favorite of mine) and in the woods, and was around many pet cats.
  Part of the problem with looking for peanut allergies in other countries is determining how much they are exposed to peanuts anyway. There seems to be correlations in several countries with the introduction and growing popularity of peanut butter and the reporting of peanut allergies. Some of these countries that seemed to not have peanut allergies had other issues if you know where to look, like allergies to sesames in parts of Asia.
6. Re:Sorry by MrYingster · 2014-01-31 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost entirely caused by the "avoid peanuts during pregnancy" self-fulfilling prophecy (if you do so, chances are the next generation will be more allergic to peanuts).
  That's interesting. During my wife's first pregnancy we ate peanuts all the time, and lived on peanut butter sandwiches. The kid nearly died when we first fed him straight-up peanut butter, and had to go to the ER by ambulance and give him steroids and epinephrine.
  We've now been living in a peanut-free environment for the second child, yet the second child has no peanut allergy.
  Obviously blanket statements like yours are ignorant. People develop allergies for various reasons, not just environment, or not just genetics.
7. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  I am unimpressed by your sample size (1). Do you have a clue about statistics?
8. Re:Sorry by iggymanz · 2014-01-31 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  just another reply to tell you that you're wrong. Wife is SE asian and consumed the normal mountain of peanuts and other nuts (and eggs) during pregnancy as she always does. Son has egg and nut allergies, his sister does not. Apparently no correlation with food consumed by mother, nor easily identifiable other environmental factor.
9. Re:Sorry by psydeshow · 2014-01-31 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The actual "disease" here is affluenza, or perhaps it's anxiety that overprotective mothers project onto their children. I grew up in a small town, had pets, played in the dirt every day. Nut allergies were unheard of. It's also very interesting that farmers and dirt poor people in 3d world countries don't get these allergies.
  I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm sure environment plays a part. But have you considered that one of the reasons why these things were "unheard of" until recently is that advances in communications have made it much easier for news of rarities to be widely disseminated?
  The same kind of argument applies to cases of botulism from home canning. Prior to the 20th Century, if someone died from botulism due to home canning, it happened on a farm in the middle of nowhere and didn't have much effect outside of a family and some neighbors. It just wasn't on the radar unless you personally knew people who died that way. Even a doctor might only see a case once every 10 years, so it's not a big deal, right? Plenty of other things to worry about.
  But when health records started being compiled for millions of people, it stood out as a problem. The government started programs to educate farmers and gardeners about proper canning methods. It wasn't that suddenly all the home canners got lazy, it was that information networks brought a relatively rare but deadly issue to light, and so we did something about it.
  And look, there ARE more cases of allergies in cities. There's millions more people in cities than not, after all.
10. Re:Sorry by tibit · 2014-01-31 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nut allergies were unheard of. It's also very interesting that farmers and dirt poor people in 3d world countries don't get these allergies.
  You nailed it, but not for the reasons you think. Those things were, undiagnosed, underreported, and caused people to die without anyone knowing any better. It's like saying that life was all peachy without "nasty chemicals" 500 years ago. Well, guess what, we had a lot of mining and ore processing even back then, and people were exposed to very nasty stuff and died young. Things just either were unnamed, or the names weren't very fancy. Aseptic technique didn't exist, for crying out loud. A few stitches to a large skin cut could well kill you - stuff that today isn't worth a second thought, pretty much.
  Back then, the cure for life-threatening allergies was to have a lot of kids. Those with bad allergies simply didn't make it very long. Back then, material things were precious, few and far between, and humans were essentially like the consumer throwaway items of today, whereas today humans are very precious.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
11. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  He responding to someone with a sample size of zero. I think you're the one with no clue here.
12. Re:Sorry by Belial6 · 2014-01-31 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  Usually the answer to the question of "Is it enviornment or genetics?" is YES.
13. Re:Sorry by AK+Marc · 2014-01-31 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  The other theory I heard is that infant mortality was so high, that many deaths were probably not fully understood. You just have another. 1% of the population is allergic, but if 99% of those die as an infant for reasons not fully understood (peanut allergy), then there will be tiny numbers in the adult population. That could be sufficient to explain much of the difference. That and the prevalence of nut protein in everything as a filler and such. But it doesn't need to be an actual increase in the percent of people with allergies to explain the increase in the number of people with allergies.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Louis CK covered this by Gravis+Zero · 2014-01-31 01:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Louis CK: Of Course But Maybe

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Also works ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 01:10 · Score: 0

... for going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Nuts to me by aggles · 2014-01-31 01:44 · Score: 2

My allergy to peanuts and cashews has been going strong for over 50 years and I'm still alive. Peanuts and cashews are the worst, and to me, the difference is like between a bee (peanut) and yellow-jacket (cashew) sting. Similar reaction, but stronger and nastier. Peas, lima beans and lentils also cause an allergic sensation, but won't get me sick
As a kid, today you get protected, but once out on your own, shit happens. In third grade, I knew I couldn't eat the peanut butter candy we were making in class, but wanted to help, so I stirred it. That got me sent home with my eyes swollen shut. Later in life, I've been hit by a "maple frosted" donut, learned about mole sauce and sate sauce the hard way (note to self; watch out if the E on the end of the sauce's name is pronounced as A). Those cut up garlic pieces in the dipping sauce at the Thai restaurant were actually chopped peanuts. Those rice crispy squares only had 1 tablespoon of peanut butter in the batch, but it got me. The chicken salad sandwich with cashews did too. I could probably die from a large dose, but sense it pretty quickly. What gets my goat is the warnings on packaged goods saying the product was made in a factory that uses peanuts. I ignore those labels and only sensed peanuts in M&M plains and a Hershey White Chocolate candy bar.
For me, the smallest bit ingested means I'm going to puke. It might take 10 minutes or three hours, but it is going to happen. Normally, once I know it is in my system (seconds after swallowing), I'll drink a bunch of water and try to puke it out of my system. That sort of works. I also get wheezy and my throat closes a bit, but not as bad as others report. Then, I get sleepy. Even the dust in the airplane gets my eyes itchy. Years ago, I tried the desensitization approach on my own, but didn't like the reaction and stopped pretty quick.
Of course, but maybe by tylersoze · 2014-01-31 03:03 · Score: 1

http://youtu.be/wEb5a-I0kyg
So its true... by Ryanrule · 2014-01-31 03:16 · Score: 1

Allergies mean you are a pussy.
Re:Isn't that what homeopathy was all along? by camperdave · 2014-01-31 03:33 · Score: 1

The only similarity between this treatment and Homeopathy is the tiny dosage, though by Homeopathic standards 1/70th of a peanut is an off the charts dosage.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Been doing this in the US for over a year now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 03:43 · Score: 0

I have a doctor that was part of the original studies doing this. I am in the US (Utah). The treatments now include peanut, egg, and a few others.
My son is being treated for egg allergies. The process is slow and has made his ADD worse. He is much hyper now.
His treatment will probably last a total of 1 year because he keeps having to drop down in treatment dosage due to reactions to the treatment.
One thing to note is that once he completes the treatment, he will need to take treatments daily for the rest of his life.
When done I guess we get to trade in our Epinephrine pen for daily doses of egg powder.
breastmilk not a panacea (though still good) by Chirs · 2014-01-31 04:42 · Score: 1

I've got an iron constitution and can eat anything. Both my kids are sensitive to cow's milk and soy protein (not allergic, but it gives them stomach pains and bad gas). Nuts are totally fine.
When my wife was breastfeeding our first kid we noticed that *he* got symptoms when *she* consumed cow's milk. So whatever is problematic in the dairy was being transmitted through the breastmilk.
1. Re:breastmilk not a panacea (though still good) by Reziac · 2014-02-01 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, stay away from soy protein entirely. It's a broad spectrum allergen and can cause problems beyond merely being allergic to soy.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
suggestions are changing by Chirs · 2014-01-31 04:44 · Score: 1

"Because the pediatricians tell us that if we give peanuts to a child under 2 years old, he will die (ok... they really just strongly advise against it)."
That's just it, that *used* to be the recommendation, but now there are multiple studies coming out showing that the above advice may not be the best course of action. If your medical professionals are staying on top of things they may start to change their recommendations...
1. Re:suggestions are changing by mjr167 · 2014-01-31 06:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And it is going to take a long time for those new recommendations to make their way into the general public. There are piles of parenting help books that old parents gleefully shovel onto new parents. There are articles and magazines and Grandma and the crotchety old lady down the street. Everyone has an opinion about how you should be raising your kids and how you are doing a shitty job at it and your kids are going to die or need therapy or be a bum because you didn't give them the special new omega whatever supplement that promotes brain growth.
  And the advice is constantly changing. My husband is the youngest of three. His eldest brother slept on his stomach as a baby. Their mom was told to put the middle one on her side using this bizarre wedge pillow everyone had to buy or your baby would die, and by the time he was born, we had decided that babies had to sleep on their back. They just recently came out telling us to keep kids in rear facing car seats until they are two and they are pretty much in booster seats until they turn 21 now.
  On top of that, you only ever really get one shot at being a parent. You might get a couple tries with different kids, but each kid is only ever a baby once.
  So give the parents a break. They've never done this before, are sleep deprived, are the scourge of all the non-parents in the grocery store, and all they really want to do is go home, drink a beer, watch a TV show that doesn't involve a super hero named 'Word Girl' from the planet Lexicon, fall asleep, and not get woken up by a 30 lb bouncing bundle demanding pancakes at 5AM on a Saturday.
and even so some kids are still sensitive by Chirs · 2014-01-31 04:48 · Score: 1

We did all the right stuff (breastmilk, good food, have a cat, play in dirt, etc.)
However, both my kids are sensitive (not allergic) to soy protein and cow-based dairy products, and my older kid seems to react to gluten.
We discovered the dairy issue while he was still breastfeeding...he got really bad gas/bloating when my wife consumed dairy products. Took us months to realize what was going on.
FIshy Business by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 06:24 · Score: 0

I actually find it odd that the control group had virtually no improvement. This is an area of medicine where the placebo effect on the control group has caused many therapies to fail in studies. The results as is are almost too good to be true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/386773.stm
1. Re:FIshy Business by tibit · 2014-01-31 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because allergies are really not affected by your brain.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
haha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-31 06:42 · Score: 0

I just downed a couple large peanut butter bars with extra peanuts while I was reading that article. Now some of the keys are sticky. I can't understand how any human could be allergic to the stuff!! mmmmmmmmm, I love it!
And it could all have been avoided by MXB2001 · 2014-02-02 12:03 · Score: 0

If their parents had only fed them PBJ as kids. Sigh...

--
01/01/01