I Never Heard about Peanut Allergies when I was a Kid

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
17,725
14,711
2,288
Texas
I've been wondering lately why it seems that children are presumed to have peanut allergy and precautions are taken against any possibility of them being exposed to this seemingly deadly roasted and salted snack as well as to foods prepared with peanut oil, one of the best cooking oils available.

Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.


What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.
. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.


When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.

We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.


As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.

Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.
 
Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

I was once almost killed by a peanut.

Seems that they get hard as a stone after laying out drying for months and if you step on it on a hard linoleum floor, they can act like as ball bearing sending a person flying.

You have been warned. :smoke:

🥜
 
Seymour Flops that is horrible, grab the pitchforks.......we are going after Mr Peanut!

seriously though I can't say I know of anybody who died, it's probably less than 1% but they
still label anything which might contain peanuts or nuts in general to cover their ass from a lawsuit

The lawyers made sure to cover all grounds as they always do
 
Seymour Flops that is horrible, grab the pitchforks.......we are going after Mr Peanut!

seriously though I can't say I know of anybody who died, it's probably less than 1% but they
still label anything which might contain peanuts or nuts in general to cover their ass from a lawsuit

The lawyers made sure to cover all grounds as they always do
I hadn't thought of that, but yes. I'm sure the lawyers have a significant part in the nonsense.

I just wonder what the next bogeyman is going to be. Probably gluten.

No wonder this generation's men are not protective of women as men used to be. They were raised to believe they could not defend themselves from a biscuit.
 
All these allergies is the result of the food chain and the relevant government department that oversees it. Was never a problem when folk used to eat home cooked balanced meals.
 
I've been wondering lately why it seems that children are presumed to have peanut allergy and precautions are taken against any possibility of them being exposed to this seemingly deadly roasted and salted snack as well as to foods prepared with peanut oil, one of the best cooking oils available.

Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.


What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.

. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.


When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.

We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.


As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.

Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their competence in determining the effects of castration on children.

I have a lot of allergies, including peanuts, but I eat them anyway and never came close to dying from them. I liked the redskin peanuts poured into Dr. Pepper bottles back when they still had bottles.
 
An unintended spot of humour .

But why do you imagine they wanted to castrate both young boys and girls ? Where exactly were they proposing to slash our lovely girly bodies ?

Or, is this just another quaint Texarse tradition?

lol he was about as Texan' as you are, and probably saner.
 
An unintended spot of humour .

But why do you imagine they wanted to castrate both young boys and girls ? Where exactly were they proposing to slash our lovely girly bodies ?

Or, is this just another quaint Texarse tradition?
I see you're doing the Jan Brady "exact words" that lefties love so much.

Yes, technically what Democrats want to do to little girls is not "castration" but Female Genital Mutilation.
 
I've been wondering lately why it seems that children are presumed to have peanut allergy and precautions are taken against any possibility of them being exposed to this seemingly deadly roasted and salted snack as well as to foods prepared with peanut oil, one of the best cooking oils available.

Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.


What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.

. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.


When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.

We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.


As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.

Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.
You've been wondering lately? This has been a thing for decades.
 
I've been wondering lately why it seems that children are presumed to have peanut allergy and precautions are taken against any possibility of them being exposed to this seemingly deadly roasted and salted snack as well as to foods prepared with peanut oil, one of the best cooking oils available.

Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.


What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.

. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.


When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.

We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.


As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.

Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.
You wrote all this, just to come up with some absurd link towards gender and sex-change issues?

In the 60'ies/70 many doctors told people who suffer from strong Acne to abstain from salted-peanuts - and there was truth to it.

My now 8 year's old daughter got more or less everything to try from age 1 onward - including great Bavarian beer, Rum and Port-wine, even Cheddar cheese -Yuck.

However from age 3 onward it became obvious that she showed skin irritations after eating peanuts. So we stopped giving them to her, and she stopped as well - simply being aware that e.g. peanuts are something that her body obviously rejects.
 
You've been wondering lately? This has been a thing for decades.
Okay.

Well I’ve been wondering about it lately, perhaps prompted by the firm and condescending assurances about child transgenderization from the same medical establishment that got it so wrong about peanut allergies.

You wrote all this, just to come up with some absurd link towards gender and sex-change issues?
I intended to write a post about the peanut hysteria and how it is yet another demand for special treatment by a small group insisting we all defer to their particular issues.

The fact that the same medical establishment that got peanuts wrong insists that they cannot be wrong about child mutilation occurred to me as I was writing it.

Now as I write this it occurs to me how wrong they also were about vaccines, but how they got social media to censor those of us who doubted them.

Recognizing patterns.
In the 60'ies/70 many doctors told people who suffer from strong Acne to abstain from salted-peanuts - and there was truth to it.

My now 8 year's old daughter got more or less everything to try from age 1 onward - including great Bavarian beer, Rum and Port-wine, even Cheddar cheese -Yuck.

However from age 3 onward it became obvious that she showed skin irritations after eating peanuts. So we stopped giving them to her, and she stopped as well - simply being aware that e.g. peanuts are something that her body obviously rejects.
I would never question your choices as a parent.
 
I would never question your choices as a parent.
This Peanut issue has nothing to do with "choices" - since as in my daughters case - peanuts cause a skin allergy.
Therefore the LOGICAL reaction by a "Responsible parent" towards an allergic reaction of his kid, is to avoid, his kid consuming peanuts.
If necessary even to "forbid" it.

And if an unfortunate person, gruesomely happens to be a victim of a genetic disorder - e.g. a woman in a men's body, then he/she needs to be given the "choice" to undergo surgery.
 
This Peanut issue has nothing to do with "choices" - since as in my daughters case - peanuts cause a skin allergy.
Therefore the LOGICAL reaction by a "Responsible parent" towards an allergic reaction of his kid, is to avoid, his kid consuming peanuts.
If necessary even to "forbid" it.
Of course you should forbid peanuts to your daughter if you believe they will harm her. Why would you put quote marks on the word forbid? Forbiding harmful things is a key part of a parent’s duties.
And if an unfortunate person, gruesomely happens to be a victim of a genetic disorder - e.g. a woman in a men's body, then he/she needs to be given the "choice" to undergo surgery.
If they are an adult, it is none of my business.

I would question why you would say that a woman is “in a man’s body.” If a woman owns the body, it is by definition a woman’s body, no matter what it looks like, correct?

If genitals don’t define gender, how can cutting them off affirm gender?
 
Of course you should forbid peanuts to your daughter if you believe they will harm her. Why would you put quote marks on the word forbid? Forbiding harmful things is a key part of a parent’s duties.
I don't "believe", I know for SURE

I don't simply forbid something - if I have reasons to believe that my daughter is old enough to understand an issue - as such I will tell her to avoid consuming peanuts.
If she would be e.g. 3 years old, I would have no other choice, but to "forbid", till she understands the issue by herself.
If they are an adult, it is none of my business.
As long as they are under age - they need the consent of the parents, more or less for everything, right?

Therefore if the parents should consent to a surgery of a 14 year old - it's the parents choice in coordination with the child's consent/choice.
And a board consisting of a medical and psychological proficient team - will, have the last say. (at least that is how this matter is handled in e.g. Germany, or e.g. Australia).
I would question why you would say that a woman is “in a man’s body.” If a woman owns the body, it is by definition a woman’s body, no matter what it looks like, correct?
No - it isn't decided via "looks" but via genetic/chromosome accounting and if existent together with sex-organ deformations - I think you are confusing a Queer/Transvestite with an intersexual aka (a person with a DSD syndrome).
If genitals don’t define gender, how can cutting them off affirm gender?
Because in case of a DSD patient - you don't just simply cut of his balls or whatever - but perform a total surgery!! thus organ-wise transforming a woman in a man's body - to a woman, therefore displaying only female sex-organs.
 
Last edited:
Okay.

Well I’ve been wondering about it lately, perhaps prompted by the firm and condescending assurances about child transgenderization from the same medical establishment that got it so wrong about peanut allergies.


I intended to write a post about the peanut hysteria and how it is yet another demand for special treatment by a small group insisting we all defer to their particular issues.

The fact that the same medical establishment that got peanuts wrong insists that they cannot be wrong about child mutilation occurred to me as I was writing it.

Now as I write this it occurs to me how wrong they also were about vaccines, but how they got social media to censor those of us who doubted them.

Recognizing patterns.

I would never question your choices as a parent.
So you were searching for transgenders, did you chat with them and ask them if they put peanut butter on their genitals and could you all of a sudden become allergic if you indulged? What is wrong with? Only someone severely off would thing of transgenders and allergies to peanut butter at the same time.
 
Do beware of our board grown medical experts, but I do encourage all to read up about Dr. McKary.

ttps://profiles.hopkinsmedicine.org/provider/martin-a-makary/2701414
 

Forum List

Back
Top