Thread: If I have a nut allergy can I eat squirrel?

Sorry I missed it before. And real sorry a possible spamster got me here...

Originally Posted by malcom2073

IIRC, the whole "Don't feed kids peanuts" thing is because allergic reactions are so much deadlier at younger ages, and it's more difficult to diagnose an allergy.

My point was "what is causing those allergies".
If people have been advised to keep babies (up to 12 months) away from peanuts, it is no wonder they are allergic to peanuts. It's no different to any "isolated" baby suddenly hitting the real world - it's often fatal.
I recently even read or heard how some celebrity blasted someone for giving her some peanut containing food because SHE was pregnant!

Whilst I understand - through experience only - that people in general can't see the (non-)logic or common sense, I find it reprehensible what some medicos et al are advising. That peanut advice is a typical example, but seeing some recent TV "Dr Whoever" close an episode with his valuable "viewer tip" that remote controls are "one of the biggest germ transmitters" and that the SOLUTION was to wrap it in a plastic bag etc... Man, I just cracked up, and was then somewhat angry for a few days...

What next - back to brushing teeth BEFORE meals?
Or a diet that restricts food intake for a period of time?

Maybe professionals too are now believing the "most common" information in webland. There goes "evolution for the better" theory.

Granted OldSpark won't believe any of this since it's on that newfangled internet thing, but my point was that because peanut allergies are on the rise for WHATEVER reason (http://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/...ds-on-the-rise), then you're more likely to be giving peanuts to a child with an allergy than before. Add that on to the fact that an adult is much more likely to be aware that they have a peanut allergy, and be carrying an epipen than a child is, so they can react much quicker to a potentially fatal allergic reaction. I think it's fairly safe to say that adults eating peanuts is safer than children eating peanuts. I wonder what percentage of children have undiagnosed peanut allergies vs adults. While pure speculation, it's interesting food for thought.
Also, where are you finding information that keeping someone AWAY from a substance causes an allergy to it? I'd be curious to see where you got this information since I've never heard that before.

Btw, germ covered remotes? That's kinda off topic here, let's stick to the discussion at hand to avoid any confusion

I'm with oldspark here.


A baby, i general, will acquire a taste/tolerance for whatever the mother eats, in moderation, whilst in the womb. And will take these experiences out into the real world within them.

Bear in mind when in the womb it will probably get a small, watered down dose of whatever the mother has eaten or drunk.


Also as a young child your food is usually (well it should be) a smaller version of what your parents eat.


So it the child is exposed in small doses to different foods etc, when it gets older larger doses of it should not do it any harm. (There will of course be exceptions)


Basically think of vaccines, most vaccines are watered down versions of the real disease in order to give the body' immune system to identify it, get used to it and build a defense.


What keeping the mother away from certain foods blocks the unborn childs chances of developing a tolerance for those foods.



Same thing with germs, becasue now most peoples houses are so sterile, youngsters don't get a chance to build up defenses against 'germs' to any encounter with them will cause more of a reaction that it used to.


The human (in fact any mammals, in fact living organisms) immune system has the ability to evolve, but it needs the chance to experience new things gradually to build up a defense.


It's basically one big chess game.

I think you (malcom2073) still miss my point.
In no way am I disagreeing with allergy increases. But in the case of peanuts, I have merely explained WHY the increase. (Sorry, I forgot to write above "exempting other toxic or substance interactions", but I'm sure that is not that case almost every new generation peanut allergy.)

We are in total agreement as to the current status. Children have a significantly higher percentage of peanut allergies than adults. (Strange, don't we get used or adapt to newly introduced or existing chemicals etc?)

And as to the extra susceptibility of children to toxins, that's well known. (But how do they grow their immunity?)

Alas Enforcer has replied better than I. (Yes, fetus supplies are filtered. But parasites (like the human fetus) often have some toxin rejection mechanism as well.)


All this may make more sense if instead of asking "...where are you finding information that keeping someone AWAY from a substance causes an allergy to it? I'd be curious to see where you got this information since I've never heard that before., the question was "where have you found that keeping someone AWAY from a substance improves immunity to it?".
As to the where you got such information, I thought I gave the hint...


But if you want a reference, several months ago the mass media here was alive with the REVERSAL of previous advice to isolate babies up to 12 months of age" from peanuts etc. IE - the authorities that gave the original advice found that they were wrong. (Der! Many knew that already. If so many deaths hadn't occurred as a result, I'm sure more would have laughed.)
Dare I mention the latest rejections of children taking ADHD medication? (Show me when and where those medications were tested on children prior to their mass prescription, or since.) So predictable....


How do people become immune to snake venom? Avoidance? Or a gradual exposure to it?
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about fatal dosage or introduction, but allergies are to "toxins" as well. Granted, venoms are more extreme, but essentially no different to any other toxin whether it be pollen, dust, milk, alcohol, other drugs...
Furthermore, I'm not talking about prolonged overexposure to toxins - eg, hay fever, skin disorders, foods, etc. This is about the initial exposure to what would normally have been acceptable for the norm.

It can get convoluted, and have specific exceptions, but stick to the basics. How do we build tolerance and immunity? How do most inoculations work? Hence my question - what substances do we build a tolerance to thru a total abstinence? I'd be curious for your answers to that.

I could then go on ad nauseam - starting with what should now be common knowledge (eg, it's generally not milk, but homogenisation; Howard Hughs' death {it was to be a certain M Jackson but the medicos killed that outcome); thru the non-research of the common General Anaesthetic (wow - they are finally finding it causes or triggers memory loss (Alzheimer’s & dementia?) as well as other permanent or long-term injuries; to other foreknown but yet publicly unknown issues - some like asbestos (LOL), but others regarding modern developments.
However for me they are long dead topics and I've since forgotten accurate details, and I find it increasingly difficult to recover such info. But occasionally I'll mention what I think should be known by the masses - usually as a heads-up for those still learning and curious, but sometimes as a sarcastic dig at the ignorant or authorities that have vested interests or should know better.

Anyone care for a weight-loss diet?

I wasn't sure if a reply was appropriate...
But I saw a magazine cover with something about the tragic death of a prominent person's fetus/baby (or maybe a prominent person's sister's baby?).
That mother was the one I probably meant with my earlier "no peanuts for me - I'm pregnant!" anecdote. (I could only think of the sister at the time, and I knew she wasn't pregnant. (Cervix is too far...).)

Though unexpected and tragic, I'm not surprised.
If ignorant advice like "babies to avoid peanuts" is given by authorities and people even extend such advice - eg, to the fetus, how many other problems and tragedies have and will occur?
At least here my original comment preceded the tragedy (unlike my verbals which seem forgotten or time misplaced).


And I doubt that I'll repeat any reply like this here again. I'll stick to relays and batteries.

And to pre-empt any suggestion of "I should...", I have - and sometimes still do (despite knowing better!) - but the answers are well known, and the solution lies not with an individual alone.
(IMO too many still haven't yet the knowledge and experience - they still think answers are avoidance of allergens, cures for cancer, weight-loss diets, etc.)


I wonder if I'll end up on probation?
Hey Ken Esq, we'll have the same delay problems!

Originally Posted by OldSpark

I wasn't sure if a reply was appropriate...
But I saw a magazine cover with something about the tragic death of a prominent person's fetus/baby (or maybe a prominent person's sister's baby?).
That mother was the one I probably meant with my earlier "no peanuts for me - I'm pregnant!" anecdote. (I could only think of the sister at the time, and I knew she wasn't pregnant. (Cervix is too far...).)

Though unexpected and tragic, I'm not surprised.
If ignorant advice like "babies to avoid peanuts" is given by authorities and people even extend such advice - eg, to the fetus, how many other problems and tragedies have and will occur?
At least here my original comment preceded the tragedy (unlike my verbals which seem forgotten or time misplaced).


And I doubt that I'll repeat any reply like this here again. I'll stick to relays and batteries.

And to pre-empt any suggestion of "I should...", I have - and sometimes still do (despite knowing better!) - but the answers are well known, and the solution lies not with an individual alone.
(IMO too many still haven't yet the knowledge and experience - they still think answers are avoidance of allergens, cures for cancer, weight-loss diets, etc.)


I wonder if I'll end up on probation?
Hey Ken Esq, we'll have the same delay problems!

Ease off on the meds, they are affecting your coherence.

Phew! Not at all what I expected... But to be so diplomatic after an invitation!
But maybe others will yet again will understand my usual coherence?



BTW - thanks for your endorsement earlier. One might assume that you (and I) are older else not as prone to mass-media and proliferation of the increasing web info (and hence the bullsh News reports after armchair investigations).
Making others understand the difficultly proving the negative often gets nowhere (ie, to prove or support what I say is correct, make them think about similar proof or support for their assertions - then see the light, or at least sow doubts). But when a respected authority steps in...
I think you nipped further exchanges in the bud. It probably caused people to pause, accept, & realise the obvious else research rather than onscreen banters of (mere?) opinion.


Back to the OP - just eat the squirrel. Nut-allergy impacts are very unlikely unless its stomach is crunchy.
However the topic itself can attract nuts. (Namely me!)


Next topic: Bottled cow-saliva to restore hair.

actually i think every dude (well not all but the most of them) on this planet has allergy to nuts.....

No doubt that's from overexposure...

I find diplomacy works.
And patience.