I Never Heard about Peanut Allergies when I was a Kid

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.
I’m a special ed teacher, so I’m used to repeating a lesson in simplified words.

As with peanut allergies, child transgenders are something the medical profession insists they are right about. They turned out to be quite wrong about the peanuts, so I’m not sure there are two be believed about child transgenders.
 
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.
Of course. I was just curious about the significance of putting the word forbid in quotation marks as it were somehow not appropriate.
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).

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).

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.
My fault. I missed your abrupt change of topic. I was speaking of the transgenderization of children. Obviously people born with genetic anomalies that caused them to have malformed genitals or other physical concerns are a completely different topic.

Yes, parents of such a child will have some very tough decisions to make, and I don’t envy them having to make them.

I hope they get sound, non-agenda driven medical advice unlike the advice that parents of “transgender children” too often receive.
 
Last edited:
I’m a special ed teacher, so I’m used to repeating a lesson in simplified words.

As with peanut allergies, child transgenders are something the medical profession insists they are right about. They turned out to be quite wrong about the peanuts, so I’m not sure there are two be believed about child transgenders.

Your theories are peanut allergies is nutty.
 
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.

A gluten allergy is typically not like a peanut allergy.

I can't go into details with our son because it makes me physically ill. He really almost did die from a peanut reaction.

A gluten reaction is typically not anaphylactic. It's typically not pleasant: vomiting, diarrhea. You might WANT to die, but you won't die.

I'm out on this thread. Too hard.
 
I’m a special ed teacher, so I’m used to repeating a lesson in simplified words.

As with peanut allergies, child transgenders are something the medical profession insists they are right about. They turned out to be quite wrong about the peanuts, so I’m not sure there are two be believed about child transgenders.
If you're the poker player on NLOP with same name you better take lessons from your special ed students.
 
you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.
Needless to say, you never see anyone on the left obsessing 24/7 about children's genitals. That's exclusively a right-wing perversion, one that many righties come here to flaunt.

That kind of is the point of the thread. At least the OP tried to make it the point.
 
For those who have (or claim to have) personal experience with a friend or loved one reacting badly to peanuts, my purpose is not to make light of that.

My purpose is to point out the error that the medical profession made which likely contributed to the suffering you speak of, and to examin their arrogant insistence that they could not be wrong this time (about "transgender children) in light of past errors.
Needless to say, you never see anyone on the left obsessing 24/7 about children's genitals. That's exclusively a right-wing perversion, one that many righties come here to flaunt.

That kind of is the point of the thread. At least the OP tried to make it the point.
it is the left that supports adults mutilating children’s genitals and the right that opposes it.
 
Last edited:
Seymour Flops has proved no personal chops as to why we should pay any attention to his opinions on this matter.
 
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.

That goes against EVERYTHING adults told me they were taught back when.

Apparently, women were encouraged to eat larger varieties of foods, especially ones that could make someone allergic.

The theory goes................the more different things you ingest, the more your system can tolerate, and the more the baby will be able to live healthier due to the fact they won't become allergic to a lot of things. This was also said for eating a larger variety of foods will give the baby a better chance at being born healthy and not become "one sided" to just one food or food group.
 
That goes against EVERYTHING adults told me they were taught back when.

Apparently, women were encouraged to eat larger varieties of foods, especially ones that could make someone allergic.

The theory goes................the more different things you ingest, the more your system can tolerate, and the more the baby will be able to live healthier due to the fact they won't become allergic to a lot of things. This was also said for eating a larger variety of foods will give the baby a better chance at being born healthy and not become "one sided" to just one food or food group.
That's what makes sense, and I know of no science that refutes it. Doctor are admitting they shouldn't have told women to "protect" their children from peanuts starting at gestation.*

Worse than the peanut nonsense, in my opinion, is that we have destroyed several years worth of children's immune system by masking them and forcing them to hand sanitize twenty times per day or more.

I wore the masks when they made giving up the freedom not to wear them a condition of enjoying all other freedoms. But I avoided the hand sani like the plague. I wash my hands after the bathroom and before I eat. Other than that, I let my body's immune system strengthen by fighting whatever they pick up. That has kept me healthy going on 63 years now.

*Kind of weird that any Democrat claims to be concerned about babies during the gestation period, but doublethink is a handy tool for them.
 
Last edited:
Are ingredients that are related to allergies highlighted on food packaging in the US? Things like Milk, Mustard, Nuts have to be in bold in the UK.
 
Meanwhile, back in reality, medical science has been recommending peanuts for babies for at least the past decade.

Because ... get this ... that's what the evidence said to do.

Seymour, alas, was too concerned with children's genitals to learn about that. When he wasn't stroking himself by fantasizing that abortion is murder. His life consists of looking for excuses to get a sick pervy hate-rush.
 
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.
Its already here and its called Trumpism
 
Meanwhile, back in reality, medical science has been recommending peanuts for babies for at least the past decade.
You have some evidence that they changed from this?

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.
 
A gluten allergy is typically not like a peanut allergy.

I can't go into details with our son because it makes me physically ill. He really almost did die from a peanut reaction.

A gluten reaction is typically not anaphylactic. It's typically not pleasant: vomiting, diarrhea. You might WANT to die, but you won't die.

I'm out on this thread. Too hard.
Not yet....

However,
Many proteins in food can cause allergies but the vast number of allergy sufferers has risen drastically. From peanut to gluten (wheat) it's over the top.

And the question is likely being looked in the wrong direction. We want to blame the foods as if the selective breeding to create new strains of these crops are somehow to blame. (Really simple to do for anyone with a little know-how and green thumb)

So....I'm not convinced that food is the ultimate culprit....at first glance sure....but with a more scientific approach.....it's not a genetic allergy.
So....

What is causing these allergies? What is causing people to become allergic?
Allergic reactions ARE a function of endocrine systems. So we need to actually study nor what causes allergic reactions but what causes people to have an allergic reaction to begin with. Why are some people allergic to wheat/gluten and most people are not. Why are some people super allergic to a protein in peanuts and others are not.
There's the real question.

Enter the NIH....who has forgotten their charter (of the people, by the people, and for the people) to do research for the citizens of the USA to make their lives healthier. Not something that assists the major corporations.
 
You have some evidence that they changed from this?

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.

Good advice for that time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top