4 ms·
In this case, the conclusion doesn't even quite support the hypothesis. The level of increase in prevalence from a generation ago is greater than the level of c
by blagie 2y ago
In this case, the conclusion doesn't even quite support the hypothesis. The level of increase in prevalence from a generation ago is greater than the level of claimed reduction from early exposure today.
It's very possible that early exposure is beneficial. It makes sense to me. However, that does not explain why peanut allergies are so much higher now than a century ago. The under-diagnosis hypothesis does not make sense either, since the reactions are so severe.
Something is leading to exploding allergies. I can list other hypotheses, at least as strong, including:
- Travel and genetics (we co-evolve to local environments; the US is mostly immigrant)
- Parasites / hygiene hypothesis
- Environmental changes / new industrial-age pollutants
And, of course, there are things we don't know about and combination effects.
Footnote: Peanuts are native to South America. When the Spanish came, or they were introduced to Europe, we didn't see mass anaphylaxis either, at least as far as I know.
- SHOwnsYou 2y agoMore people are exposed to peanuts today than they were 100 years ago. What do you think about the possibility that this is similar to rates of other diseases "rising", where really it may be an artifact of access to new populations?
- blagie 2y agoPeanuts were plentiful 100 years ago, and certainly 50 years ago when allergy rates were much lower. There are also striking geographic differences in allergy rates as well between the US and less developed countries (even within genetically identical populations). Anecdotally, I also know a bunch of people who developed allergies (not peanut / treenut, but seasonal) a few years after they moved to the US. It looks like there's something environmental going on. I just don't know what yet.