Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

Interesting notion.

How would one go about testing it, I wonder.

they do say

The study involved 1,275 infants under 18 months of age at hospitals in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. The program exposed children to small, daily doses of peanut to build tolerance.

Professor Perrett advised parents not to conduct an oral food challenge at home, warning that 12 per cent of infants with a peanut allergy had a potentially-life threatening anaphylactic response. He said oral food challenges still need to be carried out under appropriate conditions. “You can’t really do that in a GP surgery or a child maternal health clinic,” he said. “You need all the material and the broader understanding to be able to assist the child who is having a reaction, whether it be mild or right through to anaphylaxis.”

Oh, I’m not suggesting that either you or I test your notion. I was musing about how your (interesting) notion might be tested by the right people.

we met someone X who was allergic to asthma puffers once, we were told that the healthcare workers Y had some healthy skepticism as

• X had not used those puffers for a long time, having been aware to avoid them, but hence even X thought the allergy was just a precautionary designation from long ago
• X had used other similar puffers since, there being suitable alternatives for the most part
• formulations of medicines have changed much over years, though we can’t say if that particular medicine has formulated very differently
• that medicine is actually used for treating allergies

anyway so they Y went ahead and gave them some puffs and X promptly got anaphylaxis and boom

Y were able to treat it straight away as they had X monitored in intensive care and adrenaline ready to go just in case

so we guess that’s how the right people Y test these things