Why are childhood allergies so "common" nowadays?

KFCA · 13th October 2004, 08:49 AM

Or does it just seem that way?

I grew up in the 1940ties/50ties, and my husband in the 1930ties/40ties, & neither of us can recall the allergy "problem" that seems to exist in kids today. The MOST either os of us can recall is hearing of someone's (ususally an adult's) occasional reaction to strawberries or tomatoes. Peanut butter & jelly sandwiches were de riguer in kids' lunchboxes. I "personally" never met an allergy-challenged "peer" until I was in my 20ties.Nowadays it seems every other kid is on a gluten-free diet & who knows about peanuts. And forget "dairy".

What, if anything, is going on? Or do a lot of parents just have an overactive imagination in seeing things in their child's behavior that a diet change is called for?

phildonnia · 13th October 2004, 09:08 AM

I don't have a link for you, but IIRC, the latest thinking is that children today are growing up in a more sterile environment.

The obsession with creating a dirt-free and bacteria-free environment for children, together with advances in air filtering, cleaning and disinfecting technology, has left them unequipped to deal with the outside world, which remains a dirty place.

Someone debunk me if I've just latched on to a recent myth. But I will still be creeped out by that advertisement where the mom follows the kid around with a can of Lysol, spraying all his toys before he touches them.

Suezoled · 13th October 2004, 09:12 AM

I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this?

Dragonrock · 13th October 2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suezoled
I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this?

No, but prozak might.

geni · 13th October 2004, 09:17 AM

It has been suggested that peanuts may have something to do with latex allergies.

The Don · 13th October 2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geni
It has been suggested that peanuts may have something to do with latex allergies.

Perhaps you misheard

Badly Shaved Monkey · 13th October 2004, 09:26 AM

I've ended up believing the same thing about our over-sterile environment and under-worked immune systems (hmm... I see a mob of confused anti-vaxers appearing over the horizon with flaming torches, all chanting "Whaddya mean under-worked?").

I also wonder about better diagnosis. If you didn't know nut allergy existed there would just be these unexplained sudden deaths. At least allergy can be objectively tested, so even if historical records are not reliable we can at least characterise today's population quite accurately. Unlike, say, autism/Asperger's which, as far as I can tell, has been subject to wildly wandering diagnostic boundaries. I believe now a genetic marker has been found for autism-spectrum disorder. Possession of a Y-chromosome. Ooh look, one of the mob of anti-vaxers has just had her head explode. Just goes to show the power of irony in the hands of a committed sceptic.

geni · 13th October 2004, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Don
Perhaps you misheard

2 minutes.

Capsid · 13th October 2004, 09:56 AM

This is the hygiene hypothesis. In short it's complicated from what I can make of it.

Having a pet and a sibling and going to day care can reduce allergies; contracting a disease as a child does not protect against allergies as shown by a Danish study

My view was that modern living in a double glazed, centrally heated habitat may promote conditions optimal for the house dust mite which is a well known allergen. Yet this study says otherwise.

On the other hand, prenatal exposure may be a factor as evaluated here

I said it was complicated.

Benguin · 13th October 2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I've ended up believing the same thing about our over-sterile environment and under-worked immune systems (hmm... I see a mob of confused anti-vaxers appearing over the horizon with flaming torches, all chanting "Whaddya mean under-worked?").

I also wonder about better diagnosis. If you didn't know nut allergy existed there would just be these unexplained sudden deaths. At least allergy can be objectively tested, so even if historical records are not reliable we can at least characterise today's population quite accurately. Unlike, say, autism/Asperger's which, as far as I can tell, has been subject to wildly wandering diagnostic boundaries. I believe now a genetic marker has been found for autism-spectrum disorder. Possession of a Y-chromosome. Ooh look, one of the mob of anti-vaxers has just had her head explode. Just goes to show the power of irony in the hands of a committed sceptic.

I think putting this down to people surviving unexplained infant mortality to emerge with a manageable condition could also put the anti-vaxers in a head spin. Or Kumar.

Does anyone know how long we've been able to identify anaphylaxia as a contributory factor in deaths? I'm assuming that the thread was referring to this and not less serious reactions to substances.

CBL4 · 13th October 2004, 01:31 PM

I come from a family that has had allergy problems and I am 42 years old, so it is not a new problem. My brother at times was allergic to eggs, milk and half a dozen other things.

I think any increase is due to better diagnosing and, unfortunately, misdiagnosing. If you go to an allergist, you can get a correct diagnosis. The scratch tests are fairly accurate.

If you go to various quacks, you can easily get a quack diagnosis as a child or an adult. I have seen to many adults who take some perverse pride in being allergic to wheat or something after visiting a chiropractor or naturopath or what ever flavor of quackery they prefer. I imagine they do the same for their children as well.

Also, many food intolerance (e.g. milk) are miscalled allergies. These things can affect babies who are just starting to eat real food. Fortunately, most of these are outgrown.

CBL

CurtC · 13th October 2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
If you go to various quacks, you can easily get a quack diagnosis as a child or an adult. I have seen to many adults who take some perverse pride in being allergic to wheat or something after visiting a chiropractor or naturopath or what ever flavor of quackery they prefer. I imagine they do the same for their children as well.

I know a woman whose toddler daughter was diagnosed (by a chirpractor) as being allergic to chicken. The diagnosis technique was this: the girl sat in the mom's lap, and the chiropractor mentioned the name of a kind of food, then pulled on the mother's arm. When he said "chicken," he percieved that the mom's arm was harder to pull on, the obvious conclusion being that the little girl is allergic to chicken.

jj · 13th October 2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suezoled
I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this?

No, for that you need Drambuie, Suez, Drambuie.

Rolfe · 13th October 2004, 02:45 PM

Curt C has a point. There are a lot more quack allergy diagnostics around these days. But even allowing for that, I think there's an increase.

I read a good article in the Biologist about education of the immune system, and how we rely on exposing our immune system to the right sorts of things so it can figure out what to do about the various challenges. It was speculated that 98% or more of the immune system's work was figuring out what not to respond to.

The suggestion was that three classes of disease - allergy, autoimmune disease (considering the molecular mimic hypothesis) and intestinal disease involving food intolerances - were due to faulty education of the immune system. The suggestion was that it might be possible to deveop vaccines to do the education, once the basis of it all was better understood.

I tore out the article to keep it safe, and I seem to have lost it. What a surprise.

Rolfe.

Vitnir · 14th October 2004, 01:47 PM

That the prevalence in allergies and asthma has increased in the past 30 or 40 years in industrialized countries is a fairly well established fact. The 12-month prevalence in wheezing increased from 19% in 1960 to 46% in 1990 in Melbourne for instance link. Whether the increase has leveled off or is still increasing is less established. Some increase can probably be subscribed to increased awareness but not all. As to the cause of the increase the hygiene hypothesis is the one that shows the most promise. According to it, the newborns who are more prone to react in the allergen-way doesnt receive enough "priming" from microorganisms to jumpstart their cell-mediated defense. Thus their immune system have a greater risk to behave in the allergen way in the future also. It's also the first few years that are important, the pet/no pet debate is complicated but in Sweden the recommendation is to get rid of them. Breastfeeding up to 6 months is related to lower risk for allergy and astma but its hard to give more practical advise than that.

Matabiri · 14th October 2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Benguin
I think putting this down to people surviving unexplained infant mortality to emerge with a manageable condition could also put the anti-vaxers in a head spin. Or Kumar.

Does anyone know how long we've been able to identify anaphylaxia as a contributory factor in deaths? I'm assuming that the thread was referring to this and not less serious reactions to substances.

Not just unexplained deaths, but also people who were generally weak or sickly. No all allergies are life-threatening. Some just make people miserable.

El Greco · 14th October 2004, 01:56 PM

I think that everything points to the sterilized environment as the major culprit. I also vaguely recall a study (in Germany ?) among families who lived in the countryside and maintained stables. The children who visited the stables more often and spent more time there, presented significantly less allergies.

CBL4 · 14th October 2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

That the prevalence in allergies and asthma has increased in the past 30 or 40 years in industrialized countries is a fairly well established fact. ... Some increase can probably be subscribed to increased awareness but not all.

Forgive me but I am skeptical about this. I had read too many similar arguments in the past to believe it on the evidence I have. Here are two examples:
1) The rate of diabetes is up ... but the definition of diabetes was lowered to ensure more diabetics.
2) The rate of autism is up ... but the rate of unlabeled mental retardation has drop by the exact same amount.
3) Nightlight for babies causes vision problems ... but parents with vision problems are more likely to have nightlights.

Since I have not done much studying on this, I am an agnostic on this issue. Perhaps it really has been proven and I am unaware of it.

Quote:

Breastfeeding up to 6 months is related to lower risk for allergy and astma but its hard to give more practical advise than that.

This is another questionable statistic w/o more evidence. Perhaps it is due to woman staying at home and cleaning more. Perhaps it is due to economic class. Do you have link for this?

CBL

popsy · 15th October 2004, 02:03 AM

Is the skin test an objective diagnosis of allergies? I know someone who had skin tests that showed she was allergic to many things which had caused no discernible reaction. For instance, horses, her test showed a reaction to horses, but I had horses at the time and I asked her if she had problems after visiting my horses. She answered no. There were many other things that she was supposedly allergic to, most of which she had never shown an apparent reaction. I believe that her doc gave her his complete test of allergens rather than one specific thing.

I have reason to believe that her allergist was dipping into 'alternative medicine' and I wondered if, or how, that might affect his findings. She also has 'multiple chemical sensitivities'. (I don't recall how that was tested) I've known her for many years and have seen no indication of that. She does have Fibromyalgia, which can mimic many other conditions, but I don't think it affects skin scratch tests. Now that's the other thing: her tests were with injections rather than scratching, if I recall correctly and I may not. Is anyone familiar with that type of allergy testing? I think he injected a small amount of the test medium just into her skin. I remember thinking the testing seemed bogus, somehow. Maybe just given past history, at other times she had saliva tests, hair analysis, is a regular user of chiro, her husband uses a 'Rife Machine' to cure his cancer...

Hellbound · 15th October 2004, 07:34 AM

The allergy tests usually do test for a range of substances, not just specific things. They'll start with more common allergens and then move on if problems still occur.

They can use a scratch test, but Intra-dermal injections are used as well (these are also used for PPD tests to detect TB). The ID injections make little "bubbles" in the skin of an allergenic fluid.

The test is somewhat subjective. Most allergens will show no reaction or a clear reaction. However, just as with the PPD, sometimes a reaction is on the line, and the doctor/nurse/medic viewing it has to decide whether it's a plus or minus. So there is some subjectivity involved.

As to the long list of allergens, the tests will show reactions even for milder allergies. In many cases, these mild allergies are completely swamped by other factors. I havea very slight allergy to dogs that developed in the last few years...I didn't even notice it for a while. I finailly realized that my nose would itch after I'd been playing with the dog outside (i.e.-rolling around and wrestling, running, etc). Just being around the dog, or petting him normally, wouldn't cause this.

Now, from your description, it sounds like the person doing the test may not have been quite on the up and up, but I don't have enough info. The test itself seems to have been done correctly, but I couldn't say. Your firend might want to get retested. Also, many times allergies can go away or develop during adolesence and young adulthood...so your allergy profile may change.

CBL4 · 15th October 2004, 09:50 AM

The surface injections are used by standard allergists and, at least for me, they were accurate. They showed sensitivity to what I knew I was allergic (ragweed and grass pollens) plus many others that I cannot vouch for. I was told by a nurse that I was "lucky" because I showed such a strong reaction that allergy shots would work. I thought it was a strange definition of lucky but the shots did work wonders for me.

As for your friend and horses, she could be somewhat sensitive to horses but not show symptoms because the horses are outside which would reduce the allergens.

CBL

epepke · 16th October 2004, 03:40 AM

I doubt this is true. I suspect that childhood allergies always existed, but

1) It was called "bronchitis" or "hay fever" or "croup" or "breaking out" or some such nonsense. As for food allergies, shut up, kid, I work hard to put food on the table.

2) Adults didn't really care all that much. Nobody thought anything about smoking around kids or taking them to visit Aunt Wossname who had a lot of old books and cats, even if it made them wheeze like a steam train.

The kids who are now taken to the ER for anaphylactic shock, well, back then, they just died. Even growing up with asthma during the 60s, I can remember many nights beins subjected to conditions that made me stay awake all night and pump air into my lungs with my cheeks to get enough oxygen. Childrens' allergies simply weren't paid attention to, and nobody got charged for child-endangerment.

Benguin · 16th October 2004, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke
The kids who are now taken to the ER for anaphylactic shock, well, back then, they just died. Even growing up with asthma during the 60s, I can remember many nights beins subjected to conditions that made me stay awake all night and pump air into my lungs with my cheeks to get enough oxygen. Childrens' allergies simply weren't paid attention to, and nobody got charged for child-endangerment.

I was asking about that before ... how long has it been that we could attribute a childhood death to anaphylactic shock like this?

We know infant mortality has fallen from, say, 100 years ago. How many infant deaths then were down to poorly explained 'fits' and 'asphyxia'?

Vitnir · 16th October 2004, 08:58 AM

It started in 1819 when a doctor had to go over all of London to even find like 20 cases of hay fever. Here is a brief free history. Btw back in the old days when children were in fact your retirement fund, I highly doubt parents cared less about their children than they do today. To accurately show increases over time you make sure you ask the same questions, that why I used the term 12-month prevalence of wheezing. That is, in the last 12 months has your child had an episode of wheezing? The number of doctor-diagnosed asthma can also be used as well as medicine use but asthma can also be tested. Once my dissertation is available online I'l post the link here, I have a review on this subject over a few pages there.

epepke · 16th October 2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vitnir
Btw back in the old days when children were in fact your retirement fund, I highly doubt parents cared less about their children than they do today.

That's speculative.

In my grandmother's generation, half her siblings died in infancy, and that was fairly common. Dead kids don't wheeze. Humans got children the same way that sea turtles do: by having enough that some survive.

Even in my mother's generation, she remembers a couple of early childhood friends who just died.

I doubt I would have survived to my first birthday in London in 1918. If the down pillows and wool blankets didn't get me, the pollution would have.

As for children being valued, do you even know why the Lost Boys, modeled after Victorian "orphans," were all male?

There may be some value to the early desensitizing hypothesis, but your facile dismissal of other factors doesn't cut it.

Vitnir · 17th October 2004, 03:29 AM

One of the best reviews on this subject of why the increase in prevalence has taken place is written by this author. It deals with most of the different hypothesis and discuss merits and demerits with all of them.

And quite frankly that the increase is real is so non-controversal among people who know what they are talking about that I hardly know where to begin.

Rolfe · 18th October 2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke
As for children being valued, do you even know why the Lost Boys, modeled after Victorian "orphans," were all male?

All right, enlighten me.

Rolfe.

Vitnir · 30th October 2004, 03:31 AM

I promised/threatened to add the link to my dissertation online and I don't back down on my word. Link I have a summary on page 13 on the increased prevalence of allergy and hypersensitivity.

Anathema · 30th October 2004, 08:00 AM

Having an 8 week old infant in the house has taken my web searches toward all things baby-related in the last few weeks. I frequently encounter articles on the supposed benefits of breast feeding over formula feeding, particularly with respect to its benefits in boosting immunity and preventing allergies.

Does anyone know of any links between the surge in formula feeding (and corresponding drop in breast feeding) in the 1950s (US) and any increased incidence of allergies in the population of babies born during that period? I know there was a period in American culture where breastfeeding was regarded as "behind the times", but it is now roaring back in popularity on the wings of these supposed benefits.

Any pediatricians in the house?

Dr. Imago · 30th October 2004, 08:14 AM

Not a pediatrician, but I can tell you that they uniformly recommend the breast over the bottle. What was interesting during my rotations in OB and Peds was the fact that many women simply did not want to breast feed, despite counseling by nursing specialists and numerous attempts at education. Recalling these discussions (admittedly anecdotally), those who didn't want to do it said they thought it was "icky" and that it would negatively affect their partner (i.e., that it had too many "sexual" connotations). Others just didn't want to go through the hassle of it (i.e., they'd breastfed with prior children and it was just too much work, soreness, etc.)

I happened to do my rotations in poorer, inner-city hospitals that had a higher-than-average proportion of indigent parents. What was interesting is that this is the exact population where breastfeeding is more cost-efficient. However, lower socioeconomic status, for some reason, and lower education level seems to correlate with unwillingness to breastfed. Interestingly, this is also the population that seems to be more prone to asthma.

Support:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12000411

However, there is some continuing debate about the whole breastfeeding and asthma connection, which is, at best, confusing and, at the very least, controversial, as Vitnir points out:

Quote:

Breastfeeding does not protect children against atopy and asthma and may even increase the risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12354471

Quote:

The long-term effect of breastfeeding was dual: in children with atopic heredity, breastfeeding protected against atopy, whereas in children without atopic heredity, it increased the risk of atopy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12757455

-TT

13th October 2004, 08:49 AM	#1
KFCA Scholar Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 108	Why are childhood allergies so "common" nowadays? Or does it just seem that way? I grew up in the 1940ties/50ties, and my husband in the 1930ties/40ties, & neither of us can recall the allergy "problem" that seems to exist in kids today. The MOST either os of us can recall is hearing of someone's (ususally an adult's) occasional reaction to strawberries or tomatoes. Peanut butter & jelly sandwiches were de riguer in kids' lunchboxes. I "personally" never met an allergy-challenged "peer" until I was in my 20ties.Nowadays it seems every other kid is on a gluten-free diet & who knows about peanuts. And forget "dairy". What, if anything, is going on? Or do a lot of parents just have an overactive imagination in seeing things in their child's behavior that a diet change is called for?
KFCA Scholar Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 108

13th October 2004, 09:12 AM	#3
Suezoled Mentally Interesting Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 4,588	I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this?
	__________________ "We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." -priest guy from Boondock Saints "And we'll no longer memorize or rhyme/Too far along in our crime/ Stepping over what now towers to the sky/ With no connection" -Shins

13th October 2004, 09:17 AM	#4
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	Quote: Originally posted by Suezoled I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this? No, but prozak might.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

13th October 2004, 09:26 AM	#7
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,264	I've ended up believing the same thing about our over-sterile environment and under-worked immune systems (hmm... I see a mob of confused anti-vaxers appearing over the horizon with flaming torches, all chanting "Whaddya mean under-worked?"). I also wonder about better diagnosis. If you didn't know nut allergy existed there would just be these unexplained sudden deaths. At least allergy can be objectively tested, so even if historical records are not reliable we can at least characterise today's population quite accurately. Unlike, say, autism/Asperger's which, as far as I can tell, has been subject to wildly wandering diagnostic boundaries. I believe now a genetic marker has been found for autism-spectrum disorder. Possession of a Y-chromosome. Ooh look, one of the mob of anti-vaxers has just had her head explode. Just goes to show the power of irony in the hands of a committed sceptic.
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

13th October 2004, 09:56 AM	#9
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,507	This is the hygiene hypothesis. In short it's complicated from what I can make of it. Having a pet and a sibling and going to day care can reduce allergies; contracting a disease as a child does not protect against allergies as shown by a Danish study My view was that modern living in a double glazed, centrally heated habitat may promote conditions optimal for the house dust mite which is a well known allergen. Yet this study says otherwise. On the other hand, prenatal exposure may be a factor as evaluated here I said it was complicated.
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,507

13th October 2004, 09:08 AM	#2
phildonnia Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sac'to CA Posts: 2,339	I don't have a link for you, but IIRC, the latest thinking is that children today are growing up in a more sterile environment. The obsession with creating a dirt-free and bacteria-free environment for children, together with advances in air filtering, cleaning and disinfecting technology, has left them unequipped to deal with the outside world, which remains a dirty place. Someone debunk me if I've just latched on to a recent myth. But I will still be creeped out by that advertisement where the mom follows the kid around with a can of Lysol, spraying all his toys before he touches them.

13th October 2004, 09:17 AM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,639	It has been suggested that peanuts may have something to do with latex allergies.

13th October 2004, 09:19 AM	#6
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,512	Quote: Originally posted by geni It has been suggested that peanuts may have something to do with latex allergies. Perhaps you misheard

13th October 2004, 09:30 AM	#8
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,639	Quote: Originally posted by The Don Perhaps you misheard 2 minutes.

13th October 2004, 11:28 AM	#10
Benguin Too Chilled For The Anti-Homeopathy Illuminati Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,902	Quote: Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey I've ended up believing the same thing about our over-sterile environment and under-worked immune systems (hmm... I see a mob of confused anti-vaxers appearing over the horizon with flaming torches, all chanting "Whaddya mean under-worked?"). I also wonder about better diagnosis. If you didn't know nut allergy existed there would just be these unexplained sudden deaths. At least allergy can be objectively tested, so even if historical records are not reliable we can at least characterise today's population quite accurately. Unlike, say, autism/Asperger's which, as far as I can tell, has been subject to wildly wandering diagnostic boundaries. I believe now a genetic marker has been found for autism-spectrum disorder. Possession of a Y-chromosome. Ooh look, one of the mob of anti-vaxers has just had her head explode. Just goes to show the power of irony in the hands of a committed sceptic. I think putting this down to people surviving unexplained infant mortality to emerge with a manageable condition could also put the anti-vaxers in a head spin. Or Kumar. Does anyone know how long we've been able to identify anaphylaxia as a contributory factor in deaths? I'm assuming that the thread was referring to this and not less serious reactions to substances.
	__________________ It has been said cats have nine lives which, if true, makes them great candidates for experimentation. 100,000 medical doctors say go read this before quoting their articles. Probably. Voltaire "Atheism - the vice of a few intelligent people"

13th October 2004, 01:31 PM	#11
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	I come from a family that has had allergy problems and I am 42 years old, so it is not a new problem. My brother at times was allergic to eggs, milk and half a dozen other things. I think any increase is due to better diagnosing and, unfortunately, misdiagnosing. If you go to an allergist, you can get a correct diagnosis. The scratch tests are fairly accurate. If you go to various quacks, you can easily get a quack diagnosis as a child or an adult. I have seen to many adults who take some perverse pride in being allergic to wheat or something after visiting a chiropractor or naturopath or what ever flavor of quackery they prefer. I imagine they do the same for their children as well. Also, many food intolerance (e.g. milk) are miscalled allergies. These things can affect babies who are just starting to eat real food. Fortunately, most of these are outgrown. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

13th October 2004, 01:50 PM	#12
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,761	Quote: Originally posted by CBL4 If you go to various quacks, you can easily get a quack diagnosis as a child or an adult. I have seen to many adults who take some perverse pride in being allergic to wheat or something after visiting a chiropractor or naturopath or what ever flavor of quackery they prefer. I imagine they do the same for their children as well. I know a woman whose toddler daughter was diagnosed (by a chirpractor) as being allergic to chicken. The diagnosis technique was this: the girl sat in the mom's lap, and the chiropractor mentioned the name of a kind of food, then pulled on the mother's arm. When he said "chicken," he percieved that the mom's arm was harder to pull on, the obvious conclusion being that the little girl is allergic to chicken.

13th October 2004, 02:33 PM	#13
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,711	Quote: Originally posted by Suezoled I'm allergic to work. I get violent, kitchy reactions and the urge to strangle some of my clients. Do you think claritin will help this? No, for that you need Drambuie, Suez, Drambuie.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

13th October 2004, 02:45 PM	#14
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,405	Curt C has a point. There are a lot more quack allergy diagnostics around these days. But even allowing for that, I think there's an increase. I read a good article in the Biologist about education of the immune system, and how we rely on exposing our immune system to the right sorts of things so it can figure out what to do about the various challenges. It was speculated that 98% or more of the immune system's work was figuring out what not to respond to. The suggestion was that three classes of disease - allergy, autoimmune disease (considering the molecular mimic hypothesis) and intestinal disease involving food intolerances - were due to faulty education of the immune system. The suggestion was that it might be possible to deveop vaccines to do the education, once the basis of it all was better understood. I tore out the article to keep it safe, and I seem to have lost it. What a surprise. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

14th October 2004, 01:47 PM	#15
Vitnir Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 669	That the prevalence in allergies and asthma has increased in the past 30 or 40 years in industrialized countries is a fairly well established fact. The 12-month prevalence in wheezing increased from 19% in 1960 to 46% in 1990 in Melbourne for instance link. Whether the increase has leveled off or is still increasing is less established. Some increase can probably be subscribed to increased awareness but not all. As to the cause of the increase the hygiene hypothesis is the one that shows the most promise. According to it, the newborns who are more prone to react in the allergen-way doesnt receive enough "priming" from microorganisms to jumpstart their cell-mediated defense. Thus their immune system have a greater risk to behave in the allergen way in the future also. It's also the first few years that are important, the pet/no pet debate is complicated but in Sweden the recommendation is to get rid of them. Breastfeeding up to 6 months is related to lower risk for allergy and astma but its hard to give more practical advise than that.

14th October 2004, 01:54 PM	#16
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	Quote: Originally posted by Benguin I think putting this down to people surviving unexplained infant mortality to emerge with a manageable condition could also put the anti-vaxers in a head spin. Or Kumar. Does anyone know how long we've been able to identify anaphylaxia as a contributory factor in deaths? I'm assuming that the thread was referring to this and not less serious reactions to substances. Not just unexplained deaths, but also people who were generally weak or sickly. No all allergies are life-threatening. Some just make people miserable.
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

14th October 2004, 01:56 PM	#17
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,424	I think that everything points to the sterilized environment as the major culprit. I also vaguely recall a study (in Germany ?) among families who lived in the countryside and maintained stables. The children who visited the stables more often and spent more time there, presented significantly less allergies.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

14th October 2004, 02:41 PM	#18
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Quote: That the prevalence in allergies and asthma has increased in the past 30 or 40 years in industrialized countries is a fairly well established fact. ... Some increase can probably be subscribed to increased awareness but not all. Forgive me but I am skeptical about this. I had read too many similar arguments in the past to believe it on the evidence I have. Here are two examples: 1) The rate of diabetes is up ... but the definition of diabetes was lowered to ensure more diabetics. 2) The rate of autism is up ... but the rate of unlabeled mental retardation has drop by the exact same amount. 3) Nightlight for babies causes vision problems ... but parents with vision problems are more likely to have nightlights. Since I have not done much studying on this, I am an agnostic on this issue. Perhaps it really has been proven and I am unaware of it. Quote: Breastfeeding up to 6 months is related to lower risk for allergy and astma but its hard to give more practical advise than that. This is another questionable statistic w/o more evidence. Perhaps it is due to woman staying at home and cleaning more. Perhaps it is due to economic class. Do you have link for this? CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

15th October 2004, 02:03 AM	#19
popsy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 204	Is the skin test an objective diagnosis of allergies? I know someone who had skin tests that showed she was allergic to many things which had caused no discernible reaction. For instance, horses, her test showed a reaction to horses, but I had horses at the time and I asked her if she had problems after visiting my horses. She answered no. There were many other things that she was supposedly allergic to, most of which she had never shown an apparent reaction. I believe that her doc gave her his complete test of allergens rather than one specific thing. I have reason to believe that her allergist was dipping into 'alternative medicine' and I wondered if, or how, that might affect his findings. She also has 'multiple chemical sensitivities'. (I don't recall how that was tested) I've known her for many years and have seen no indication of that. She does have Fibromyalgia, which can mimic many other conditions, but I don't think it affects skin scratch tests. Now that's the other thing: her tests were with injections rather than scratching, if I recall correctly and I may not. Is anyone familiar with that type of allergy testing? I think he injected a small amount of the test medium just into her skin. I remember thinking the testing seemed bogus, somehow. Maybe just given past history, at other times she had saliva tests, hair analysis, is a regular user of chiro, her husband uses a 'Rife Machine' to cure his cancer...
popsy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 204

15th October 2004, 07:34 AM	#20
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 9,018	The allergy tests usually do test for a range of substances, not just specific things. They'll start with more common allergens and then move on if problems still occur. They can use a scratch test, but Intra-dermal injections are used as well (these are also used for PPD tests to detect TB). The ID injections make little "bubbles" in the skin of an allergenic fluid. The test is somewhat subjective. Most allergens will show no reaction or a clear reaction. However, just as with the PPD, sometimes a reaction is on the line, and the doctor/nurse/medic viewing it has to decide whether it's a plus or minus. So there is some subjectivity involved. As to the long list of allergens, the tests will show reactions even for milder allergies. In many cases, these mild allergies are completely swamped by other factors. I havea very slight allergy to dogs that developed in the last few years...I didn't even notice it for a while. I finailly realized that my nose would itch after I'd been playing with the dog outside (i.e.-rolling around and wrestling, running, etc). Just being around the dog, or petting him normally, wouldn't cause this. Now, from your description, it sounds like the person doing the test may not have been quite on the up and up, but I don't have enough info. The test itself seems to have been done correctly, but I couldn't say. Your firend might want to get retested. Also, many times allergies can go away or develop during adolesence and young adulthood...so your allergy profile may change.

15th October 2004, 09:50 AM	#21
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	The surface injections are used by standard allergists and, at least for me, they were accurate. They showed sensitivity to what I knew I was allergic (ragweed and grass pollens) plus many others that I cannot vouch for. I was told by a nurse that I was "lucky" because I showed such a strong reaction that allergy shots would work. I thought it was a strange definition of lucky but the shots did work wonders for me. As for your friend and horses, she could be somewhat sensitive to horses but not show symptoms because the horses are outside which would reduce the allergens. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

16th October 2004, 03:40 AM	#22
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	I doubt this is true. I suspect that childhood allergies always existed, but 1) It was called "bronchitis" or "hay fever" or "croup" or "breaking out" or some such nonsense. As for food allergies, shut up, kid, I work hard to put food on the table. 2) Adults didn't really care all that much. Nobody thought anything about smoking around kids or taking them to visit Aunt Wossname who had a lot of old books and cats, even if it made them wheeze like a steam train. The kids who are now taken to the ER for anaphylactic shock, well, back then, they just died. Even growing up with asthma during the 60s, I can remember many nights beins subjected to conditions that made me stay awake all night and pump air into my lungs with my cheeks to get enough oxygen. Childrens' allergies simply weren't paid attention to, and nobody got charged for child-endangerment.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953

16th October 2004, 05:29 AM	#23
Benguin Too Chilled For The Anti-Homeopathy Illuminati Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,902	Quote: Originally posted by epepke The kids who are now taken to the ER for anaphylactic shock, well, back then, they just died. Even growing up with asthma during the 60s, I can remember many nights beins subjected to conditions that made me stay awake all night and pump air into my lungs with my cheeks to get enough oxygen. Childrens' allergies simply weren't paid attention to, and nobody got charged for child-endangerment. I was asking about that before ... how long has it been that we could attribute a childhood death to anaphylactic shock like this? We know infant mortality has fallen from, say, 100 years ago. How many infant deaths then were down to poorly explained 'fits' and 'asphyxia'?
	__________________ It has been said cats have nine lives which, if true, makes them great candidates for experimentation. 100,000 medical doctors say go read this before quoting their articles. Probably. Voltaire "Atheism - the vice of a few intelligent people"

16th October 2004, 08:58 AM	#24
Vitnir Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 669	It started in 1819 when a doctor had to go over all of London to even find like 20 cases of hay fever. Here is a brief free history. Btw back in the old days when children were in fact your retirement fund, I highly doubt parents cared less about their children than they do today. To accurately show increases over time you make sure you ask the same questions, that why I used the term 12-month prevalence of wheezing. That is, in the last 12 months has your child had an episode of wheezing? The number of doctor-diagnosed asthma can also be used as well as medicine use but asthma can also be tested. Once my dissertation is available online I'l post the link here, I have a review on this subject over a few pages there.

16th October 2004, 01:43 PM	#25
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	Quote: Originally posted by Vitnir Btw back in the old days when children were in fact your retirement fund, I highly doubt parents cared less about their children than they do today. That's speculative. In my grandmother's generation, half her siblings died in infancy, and that was fairly common. Dead kids don't wheeze. Humans got children the same way that sea turtles do: by having enough that some survive. Even in my mother's generation, she remembers a couple of early childhood friends who just died. I doubt I would have survived to my first birthday in London in 1918. If the down pillows and wool blankets didn't get me, the pollution would have. As for children being valued, do you even know why the Lost Boys, modeled after Victorian "orphans," were all male? There may be some value to the early desensitizing hypothesis, but your facile dismissal of other factors doesn't cut it.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953

17th October 2004, 03:29 AM	#26
Vitnir Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 669	One of the best reviews on this subject of why the increase in prevalence has taken place is written by this author. It deals with most of the different hypothesis and discuss merits and demerits with all of them. And quite frankly that the increase is real is so non-controversal among people who know what they are talking about that I hardly know where to begin.

18th October 2004, 06:40 AM	#27
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,405	Quote: Originally posted by epepke As for children being valued, do you even know why the Lost Boys, modeled after Victorian "orphans," were all male? All right, enlighten me. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

30th October 2004, 03:31 AM	#28
Vitnir Muse Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 669	I promised/threatened to add the link to my dissertation online and I don't back down on my word. Link I have a summary on page 13 on the increased prevalence of allergy and hypersensitivity.

30th October 2004, 08:00 AM	#29
Anathema Muse Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 672	Having an 8 week old infant in the house has taken my web searches toward all things baby-related in the last few weeks. I frequently encounter articles on the supposed benefits of breast feeding over formula feeding, particularly with respect to its benefits in boosting immunity and preventing allergies. Does anyone know of any links between the surge in formula feeding (and corresponding drop in breast feeding) in the 1950s (US) and any increased incidence of allergies in the population of babies born during that period? I know there was a period in American culture where breastfeeding was regarded as "behind the times", but it is now roaring back in popularity on the wings of these supposed benefits. Any pediatricians in the house?
Anathema Muse Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 672	__________________ "The language and concepts contained herein are guaranteed not to cause eternal torment in the place where the guy with the horns and pointed stick conducts his business." -- Frank Zappa "Seatbelts. They help keep you not dead." -- LostAngeles "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" -- Matthew 26:52 (King James Version)

30th October 2004, 08:14 AM	#30
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,055	Not a pediatrician, but I can tell you that they uniformly recommend the breast over the bottle. What was interesting during my rotations in OB and Peds was the fact that many women simply did not want to breast feed, despite counseling by nursing specialists and numerous attempts at education. Recalling these discussions (admittedly anecdotally), those who didn't want to do it said they thought it was "icky" and that it would negatively affect their partner (i.e., that it had too many "sexual" connotations). Others just didn't want to go through the hassle of it (i.e., they'd breastfed with prior children and it was just too much work, soreness, etc.) I happened to do my rotations in poorer, inner-city hospitals that had a higher-than-average proportion of indigent parents. What was interesting is that this is the exact population where breastfeeding is more cost-efficient. However, lower socioeconomic status, for some reason, and lower education level seems to correlate with unwillingness to breastfed. Interestingly, this is also the population that seems to be more prone to asthma. Support: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12000411 However, there is some continuing debate about the whole breastfeeding and asthma connection, which is, at best, confusing and, at the very least, controversial, as Vitnir points out: Quote: Breastfeeding does not protect children against atopy and asthma and may even increase the risk. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12354471 Quote: The long-term effect of breastfeeding was dual: in children with atopic heredity, breastfeeding protected against atopy, whereas in children without atopic heredity, it increased the risk of atopy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12757455 -TT
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,055	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.