How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
gluten was unless you were a baker?

> wrote in message
...
| How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
| a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
| intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
| gluten was unless you were a baker?

They died before they could tell you. Do you really care?

pavane

On Nov 17, 11:25*pm, " > wrote:
> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?

"yet alone"

let alone

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?

As far as gluten intolerance goes, I've heard that wheat is bred with
more gluten in it now (I don't know why), so people who could tolerate
the wheat of back then can't tolerate it now. Think of it like
marijuana of the '60's vs. the marijuana of today. It's more
powerful.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy

"about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions.
That¹s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning
strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with
traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year,
and about 1,300 die in gun accidents"

> no one was lactose
> intolerant,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

"Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, because of
a lack of the required enzyme lactase in the digestive system. It is
estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase
activity during adulthood.[1] The frequency of decreased lactase
activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for
Sicily, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries."

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?

Because they didn't have the Internet. The world was much smaller.

Some mothers want their children to be "special' in some way or
another. I was allergic to shellfish and had to drink goat milk.
it those were real allergies at the time.

-sw

> wrote in message
...
> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?

So let me get this straight. You are saying that when you were born in
1965, I never heard of food allergies? Actually I did. I was born in 1959.
I was allergic to milk. This came as no surprise to my mom because she
herself was allergic to milk (as well as other things) and some of her
brothers and sisters were as well.

My brother was born in 1962. When he was a toddler, he developed an allergy
to some cereal. It was either Quisp or Quake. I am not sure which. One
was corn and one was wheat. I do remember that. I was young enough not to
remember the particulars except that it was his favorite cereal and it upset
him not to get it. Eventually he was able to eat it again.

I also know that my parents do not understand food allergies. My mom knows
that she is allergic to eggs. So she does not eat eggs that are scrambled,
hard boiled or fried. But she does eat cake, waffles and other foods
containing eggs. She seems to think if she can not see them, they are not
there. She will eat the allergen and then wonder why she has gotten sick.
And lest you think she does not have life threatening allergies, I think she
does, to some things. We used to dine at a particular Mexican restaurant
and she said her throat close up when she drank their margaritas. But that
didn't stop her from drinking them. I haven't a clue what the problem would
have been with the margarita.

I also know that food allergies can change over time. I am no longer
allergic to dairy. Neither is my daughter. But we each developed new food
allergies.

Some people say that allergies are more prevalent now because we are too
clean. We use antibacterial things everywhere. I don't exactly know how
this relates to food but there is a theory along those lines.

Another thought is that we have better medical care than we used to. When
my parents were born, it was common to give birth at home. Few people could
afford to go to the hospital. Now most babies are born in the hospital
perhaps because there are more hospitals, more doctors and more people have
insurance. Was insurance even around when my parents were little? I don't
know.

I know that allergists were around when I was a kid. My parents went to
them on a regular basis for allergy shots.

I had an allergy test done at about age 16. It was done on the back and in
those days they put nasty scratches on the back then dabbed on the allergens
to see if there was a reaction. I was not tested for any foods. Only
inhalants. When I asked my mom about this she said in those days they did
not commonly test for food allergies. I do not think they even had Epi-Pens
in those days.

I do know that prior to having the allergy test done, I was stung by
something. I think it was a bee but I can't be sure. I was stung on the
heel, inside of my shoe and the insect was not in my shoe by the time I
limped home. I did have red swelling that extended up my leg onto my back.
The Dr. then told me I was allergic to bees. He gave me a cortisone shot,
told me to take some Benadryl and to carry Benadryl with me at all times.
If I ever was stung again, I was to take two of them and then go straight to
the hospital. He said I was lucky that the sting was as far from the heart
as possible.

After the allergy testing I took a series of shots that were eventually
supposed to make my allergies better. What the shots did do was lighten my
wallet and make my allergies worse. So I quit getting them.

A few years ago I went to another allergist for testing. What I learned was
that my food allergies are not IgE mediated. This is the potentially life
threading kind of allergy. I already knew that I had IgG allergies which
people sometimes refer to as sensitivities. In other words when you eat
whatever the offending food is, you get sick. But you don't have a
histamine response like you would with an IgE allergy. I also learned that
I am not allergic to bees. So either I outgrew that allergy or the insect
that stung me was not a bee. I went in for the testing because I *was*
stung by a bee and had only a slight reaction. It hurt and there was a
little swollen bump, but nothing like what had happened prior.

My daughter is allergic to peanuts (among other things). She has two
friends who are allergic to peanuts. I know a girl from her dance studio
who has a peanut allergy. And I know one adult who has a peanut allergy.

Were they actually less people who had peanut allergies back when I was a
kid? I don't know. Perhaps those people just died and we don't know why.
I don't know that we had testing for that in those days. Nor do I know that
we didn't have testing. I just don't know.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
>> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
>> gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
> Because they didn't have the Internet. The world was much smaller.
>
> Some mothers want their children to be "special' in some way or
> another. I was allergic to shellfish and had to drink goat milk.
> it those were real allergies at the time.

It is true that through the Internet and even TV, we know a lot more than we
used to. For instance, I now know that there are hoarders. Had I not seen
that show, I never would have known. I know that people buy abandoned
storage units and sometimes make a lot of money on them. I know what sorts
of things people pawn. I know about all sorts of sexual fetishes.

How would I have lived if I didn't know these things? I don't know.

My daughter's school has done away with books. Everything is done online
now. This can be a blessing and also a pain. I am relieved that she
doesn't have to carry a super heavy backpack. Just a heavy one. But it can
take a lot of time hunting through to pages looking for where to click to
access what she needs to access.

> wrote in message
...
> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?


I know what you're saying. My mother packed PB sandwiches for me to take to
lunch. No kid ever fell out eating peanut butter when I was a kid. OB
food: I love PB toast for breakfast. (They've even started giving out bags
of peanuts on airplanes again.) We all drank 1/2 pint cartons of milk at
lunchtime. And no one had a problem with bread.

We also didn't have bottles of hand sanitizers. We weren't afraid to touch
the handles in the bathroom sink. I see now they sell motion-detector soap
dispensers for the home so you don't have to push down the plunger on the
the liquid soap pump. Good lord, what's next? Are we all going to walk
around wearing rubber gloves? Sorry folks, but there's only so much you can
do to sanitize the world. Life is dirty; get used to it

Jill

" wrote:
>
>How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
>intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
>gluten was unless you were a baker?

Most of what folks nowadays claim to be food allergies is simply the
"yuck/eeeuuuw" factor (many who claim an allergy to eggs mean only
runny eggs so by association avoid all eggs). Many simply claim a
plethera of food allergies as a diabolical means to garner attention;
they have a mental deficiency, not a food allergy. And food
intolerance is NOT an allergy... lactose intolerance is no more a food
allergy than farting from ingesting beans.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=43471

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> Were they actually less people who had peanut allergies back when I was a
> kid? I don't know. Perhaps those people just died and we don't know why.
> I don't know that we had testing for that in those days. Nor do I know that
> we didn't have testing. I just don't know.

More people; more and, presumably, more accurate testing; and more
widespread and faster dissemination of the information. I wonder if
the percentage of the population affected by allergies has changed
substantially.

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm
U.S. Population, July 1, 1965* 194,302,963

U.S. News & World Report article (the TinyURL is
http://tinyurl.com/27q72qw) says the U.S. Census bureau
estimates the start of 2010 at 308,400,408

JAT.
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
New York trip posted 11-13-2010; http://web.me.com/barbschaller

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
> > How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> > a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> > intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> > gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
> Because they didn't have the Internet. The world was much smaller.
>
> Some mothers want their children to be "special' in some way or
> another. I was allergic to shellfish and had to drink goat milk.
> it those were real allergies at the time.
>
> -sw

LOL!! That's pretty much what I just wrote, too.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
New York trip posted 11-13-2010; http://web.me.com/barbschaller

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> > a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> > intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> > gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
> So let me get this straight. You are saying that when you were born in
> 1965, I never heard of food allergies? Actually I did. I was born in 1959.
> I was allergic to milk. This came as no surprise to my mom because she
> herself was allergic to milk (as well as other things) and some of her
> brothers and sisters were as well.
>
> My brother was born in 1962. When he was a toddler, he developed an allergy
> to some cereal. It was either Quisp or Quake. I am not sure which. One
> was corn and one was wheat. I do remember that. I was young enough not to
> remember the particulars except that it was his favorite cereal and it upset
> him not to get it. Eventually he was able to eat it again.
>
> I also know that my parents do not understand food allergies. My mom knows
> that she is allergic to eggs. So she does not eat eggs that are scrambled,
> hard boiled or fried. But she does eat cake, waffles and other foods
> containing eggs. She seems to think if she can not see them, they are not
> there. She will eat the allergen and then wonder why she has gotten sick.
> And lest you think she does not have life threatening allergies, I think she
> does, to some things. We used to dine at a particular Mexican restaurant
> and she said her throat close up when she drank their margaritas. But that
> didn't stop her from drinking them. I haven't a clue what the problem would
> have been with the margarita.
>
> I also know that food allergies can change over time. I am no longer
> allergic to dairy. Neither is my daughter. But we each developed new food
> allergies.
>
> Some people say that allergies are more prevalent now because we are too
> clean. We use antibacterial things everywhere. I don't exactly know how
> this relates to food but there is a theory along those lines.
>
> Another thought is that we have better medical care than we used to. When
> my parents were born, it was common to give birth at home. Few people could
> afford to go to the hospital. Now most babies are born in the hospital
> perhaps because there are more hospitals, more doctors and more people have
> insurance. Was insurance even around when my parents were little? I don't
> know.
>
> I know that allergists were around when I was a kid. My parents went to
> them on a regular basis for allergy shots.
>
> I had an allergy test done at about age 16. It was done on the back and in
> those days they put nasty scratches on the back then dabbed on the allergens
> to see if there was a reaction. I was not tested for any foods. Only
> inhalants. When I asked my mom about this she said in those days they did
> not commonly test for food allergies. I do not think they even had Epi-Pens
> in those days.
>
> I do know that prior to having the allergy test done, I was stung by
> something. I think it was a bee but I can't be sure. I was stung on the
> heel, inside of my shoe and the insect was not in my shoe by the time I
> limped home. I did have red swelling that extended up my leg onto my back.
> The Dr. then told me I was allergic to bees. He gave me a cortisone shot,
> told me to take some Benadryl and to carry Benadryl with me at all times.
> If I ever was stung again, I was to take two of them and then go straight to
> the hospital. He said I was lucky that the sting was as far from the heart
> as possible.
>
> After the allergy testing I took a series of shots that were eventually
> supposed to make my allergies better. What the shots did do was lighten my
> wallet and make my allergies worse. So I quit getting them.
>
> A few years ago I went to another allergist for testing. What I learned was
> that my food allergies are not IgE mediated. This is the potentially life
> threading kind of allergy. I already knew that I had IgG allergies which
> people sometimes refer to as sensitivities. In other words when you eat
> whatever the offending food is, you get sick. But you don't have a
> histamine response like you would with an IgE allergy. I also learned that
> I am not allergic to bees. So either I outgrew that allergy or the insect
> that stung me was not a bee. I went in for the testing because I *was*
> stung by a bee and had only a slight reaction. It hurt and there was a
> little swollen bump, but nothing like what had happened prior.

I don't know about allergy testing and immunotherapy in the old days, I
only started going to an allergist in the last 5 years or so. I do know
that if you find a good allergist these days the treatments work
wonderfully.

I used to be (for decades) *very* allergic to cats. Of course I can't
stand dogs and love cats, so I just dealt with the allergy and
fortunately when I had a cat around all the time the allergy would taper
off a bit to more tolerable levels, but I'd still always be congested,
sneeze a lot, and if I got "cat" too close to my eyes they'd get all
swollen and itchy. After testing and a couple months of twice weekly
allergy shots my cat allergy is entirely gone. I can stuff my face in
"cat" can not have the slightest reaction, and any cat, not just mine.

My insurance covers the allergy testing and treatment 100% with just a
$25 office visit co-pay, and since I do self administered shots, that's
been only quarterly. Starting in January the are eliminating that co-pay
as well. The allergists say that immunotherapy works for 90%+ of people,
so it's well worth giving it a try.

Julie Bove wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts

There was a word for people with peanut allergies - Dead. Folks died
suddenly every so often. In this decade it has gotten rare enough that
cuases that once killed no longer do.

>> no one was lactose
>> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten

Plenty of people had digestion problems but they tracked what caused it
and stopped eating foods that made them sick. Somewhere along the line
folks lost the concept that foods can cause problems. Now the most
common prescriptions are for indigestion medications.

>> yet alone know what
>> gluten was unless you were a baker?

Some people have never been foodies.

> So let me get this straight. You are saying that when you were born in
> 1965, I never heard of food allergies? Actually I did. I was born in 1959.
> I was allergic to milk. This came as no surprise to my mom because she
> herself was allergic to milk (as well as other things) and some of her
> brothers and sisters were as well.

It's also true that certain traits have always run in families and no
one learned why. I used to have a smokers cough but I never used
tobacco. Several people in my family have had the same cough for their
entire lives. When I went wheat free as a side effect of starting
Atkins it went away. It took me months before trying wheat again and
sure enough the cough returned. So did the snoring, the indigestion and
other assorted traits that had been present my entire life. Knowing I
could make them go away by staying wheat free changed my idea of what
normal is.

Before I was not wheat intolerant I was just normal. After I am now
wheat intolerant and my normal is far better.

> I also know that my parents do not understand food allergies. My mom knows
> that she is allergic to eggs. So she does not eat eggs that are scrambled,
> hard boiled or fried. But she does eat cake, waffles and other foods
> containing eggs. She seems to think if she can not see them, they are not
> there. She will eat the allergen and then wonder why she has gotten sick.

If you track what you eat and how you react you learn your intolerances.
Few ever do that. Many state they don't have intolerances but they
have never tracked and thus make the statement based on lack of actual
data. If you have regular indigestion there's a cause. Taking meds can
never work as well as tracking what foods you ate and then dropping the
suspects.

> I also know that food allergies can change over time. I am no longer
> allergic to dairy. Neither is my daughter. But we each developed new food
> allergies.

My intolerance symptoms change intensity based on length of avoidance.

> Some people say that allergies are more prevalent now because we are too
> clean. We use antibacterial things everywhere. I don't exactly know how
> this relates to food but there is a theory along those lines.

I think it's because 1) we pay attention to the intolerances and 2) we
ignore that foods can cause problems so we eat a lot of potential
problem foods.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:10:16 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article
> >,
> " > wrote:
>
>> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy
>
> "about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions.
> That¹s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning
> strikes combined.

This is the most credible explanation(s):

"However, there is an increasing body of medical opinion that,
while there definitely are food sensitivities, the dramatic uptick
in frequency of nut allergies and more particularly the measures
taken in response to the threat show elements of mass psychogenic
illness, hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the
level of danger:" (Modern day Salem Witch trials

Which compliments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

I once got a peanut stuck up my nose as a youngster (5 years old).
It was stuck in there pretty good requiring forceps. If that
didn't make me immune, nothing would.

-sw

On Nov 18, 10:45*am, BlueBrooke > wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 01:01:45 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
> >> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> >> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> >> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> >> gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
> Good question. *They didn't all have ADD back then, either. *

That's because kids who acted up suffered consequences. They
learned to discipline themselves and sit quietly when required to.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:45 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:

> It is true that through the Internet and even TV, we know a lot more than we
> used to. For instance, I now know that there are hoarders. Had I not seen
> that show, I never would have known. I know that people buy abandoned
> storage units and sometimes make a lot of money on them. I know what sorts
> of things people pawn. I know about all sorts of sexual fetishes.

I don't get much of that from Reel Sex. Assuming its a TV show,
what am I missing? (and even if it's not a TV show...). I think
I'm pretty much fetish free. But there's still a *lot* of ground
to cover.

> My daughter's school has done away with books. Everything is done online
> now. This can be a blessing and also a pain. I am relieved that she
> doesn't have to carry a super heavy backpack. Just a heavy one. But it can
> take a lot of time hunting through to pages looking for where to click to
> access what she needs to access.

Interesting. I never carried a backpack until I was older. I
never even carried a pen/pencil. I never even had a locker. I
came and left school empty handed all 3.5 years of high school
(well, not quite...but none of it school related) and still managed
to graduate a half-hear early.

But I would still miss books. I could remember every page of every
book I've read if you ask me to point something out. I can't
memorize bits and bytes as well.

-sw

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:45:37 -0600, BlueBrooke wrote:

> Our neighbors are like that. Their "asthmatic" daughter only seems to
> have these attacks when she's throwing a temper tantrum. Lots of
> coughing and spitting -- definitely not like the ones they have on TV.
> Being no expert on asthma, I suppose that's just how her's works. What
> I can't understand, though, is how she can be screaming and hollering
> so loudly for so long if she can't breathe?

How weird. We all know it's not asthma. The real questions are
how did it come to be known as an 'asthma' attack? Who else
besides themselves are buying that crap besides the kid and the
parents? It sounds like a convenient defense mechanism for oth the
parents and sadly, the child.

-sw

wrote:
> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?




They just didn't have a name for it yet. I knew people who couldn't
drink milk or eat certain foods--it made them sick.

gloria p

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:45:37 -0600, BlueBrooke wrote:

> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.

Oh, and as for ADD, had it been "known" back then I would have
received a double dose. Of at least two medications.

But not because there was anything wrong with me. Which is most
often the case these days as well.

-sw

Steve Pope wrote:
> David Harmon > wrote:
>
>> " > wrote,
>
>>> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>>> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
>>> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
>>> gluten was unless you were a baker?
>> No big mystery, you were just ignorant.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> Lactose intolerance is extremely common. Gluten intolerances are
> only somewhat common. Peanut allergies are extremely rare.
> You can almost bet any given alleged case of a peanut allergy is
> not medically accurate.
>
>
> Steve


Is that why a 10 year old died a few years ago when he was taking part
in a peanut allergy study at National Jewish Respiratory Hospital and
was accidentally given the wrong serum? And why so many mothers carry
around epi-pens to jab their kids with when they are exposed to peanuts?

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

gloria p

gloria.p wrote:
> wrote:
>> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
>> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
>> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
>> gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
>
>


I consider our family very lucky NOT to have any major allergies, but I
am quite allergic to kiwifruit. The allergic reaction started when I
was in my mid 50s. How do I know? Eating just a small amount makes my
lips swell up like a bee sting, and I very soon break out in very large,
itchy hives. I no longer eat kiwifruit.

gloria p

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> gluten was unless you were a baker?

People were allergic to gluten. They were the ones who were "sickly",
the kids who "failed to thrive", the people who died early from weird
cancers.

Fortunately we know better now.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article >,
BlueBrooke > wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 01:01:45 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >
> >> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> >> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> >> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> >> gluten was unless you were a baker?
>
> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.

Yes, they did. It just went untreated.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

gloria.p > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Lactose intolerance is extremely common. Gluten intolerances are
>> only somewhat common. Peanut allergies are extremely rare.
>> You can almost bet any given alleged case of a peanut allergy is
>> not medically accurate.

>Is that why a 10 year old died a few years ago when he was taking part
>in a peanut allergy study at National Jewish Respiratory Hospital and
>was accidentally given the wrong serum? And why so many mothers carry
>around epi-pens to jab their kids with when they are exposed to peanuts?
>
>Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it's rare, especially compared
to the 20% or so of the population that might be lactose intolerant,
or the 1% to 3% with a gluten intolerance.

It is potentially more fatal than either of these, but that doesn't
mean it's common. There are usually fewer than two dozen peanut
allergy fatalities in the U.S. each year. It's tragic when it happens
but it does not add up to a public health crisis.

(I'm also reluctant to count healthcare-system-induced fatalities
in quite the same way as naturally-occuring fatalities, but that's
another issue.)

Steve

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> BlueBrooke wrote:
>> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.
>
> When I went through elementary school in the 1960s and junior/senior
> high school in the 1970s about 1 in a 1000 had ADD. That guy lived next
> door to me. At night he'd pace the driveway reciting Shakespeare. The
> most severe case I've ever seen and as bad as I've ever heard of. He
> was a year younger than me and he was the only kid in about 1500 who was
> on medication for it. Whatever he was on wasn't enough in his case.
>
> Now there's talk of about 1 in 20 having ADD. If that many have it it's
> over diagnosed in my opinion. Then again I have enough symptoms that if
> 1 in 100 have ADD then I have it. Whatever, I don't think I'd ever want
> to be diagnosed with it. I found a job where borderline ADD symptoms
> are an advantage and I do fine.
>
> The pattern seems to be stuff that was rare is now considered common.


Don't you remember those kids who were assigned seats in the back of the
room because they were "bad", "rude", and "unteachable"? They were the
ones who talked all the time, who couldn't concentrate, who fiddled with
things, and just couldn't keep up with what was going on because they
had too many other things going on inside their heads? Those kids were
probably undiagnosed ADHD.

When you consider that today's kids are from a generation of parents
that was heavily into various drugs and alcohol in college and beyond,
and themselves a generation where babies are being kept alive who would
have died at birth or before in years gone by, it's no surprise that
they have neurological deficits and self control issues.

NOTE: I did not say and do not believe these kids SHOULD NOT have been
kept alive, but merely that they may be paying the price for their risky
survival.

gloria p

"gloria.p" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> BlueBrooke wrote:
>>> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.
>>
>> When I went through elementary school in the 1960s and junior/senior
>> high school in the 1970s about 1 in a 1000 had ADD. That guy lived next
>> door to me. At night he'd pace the driveway reciting Shakespeare. The
>> most severe case I've ever seen and as bad as I've ever heard of. He
>> was a year younger than me and he was the only kid in about 1500 who was
>> on medication for it. Whatever he was on wasn't enough in his case.
>>
>> Now there's talk of about 1 in 20 having ADD. If that many have it it's
>> over diagnosed in my opinion. Then again I have enough symptoms that if
>> 1 in 100 have ADD then I have it. Whatever, I don't think I'd ever want
>> to be diagnosed with it. I found a job where borderline ADD symptoms
>> are an advantage and I do fine.
>>
>> The pattern seems to be stuff that was rare is now considered common.
>
>
> Don't you remember those kids who were assigned seats in the back of the
> room because they were "bad", "rude", and "unteachable"? They were the
> ones who talked all the time, who couldn't concentrate, who fiddled with
> things, and just couldn't keep up with what was going on because they had
> too many other things going on inside their heads? Those kids were
> probably undiagnosed ADHD.
>
> When you consider that today's kids are from a generation of parents that
> was heavily into various drugs and alcohol in college and beyond, and
> themselves a generation where babies are being kept alive who would have
> died at birth or before in years gone by, it's no surprise that they have
> neurological deficits and self control issues.
>
> NOTE: I did not say and do not believe these kids SHOULD NOT have been
> kept alive, but merely that they may be paying the price for their risky
> survival.


Very good points, Gloria!
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Julie Bove wrote:

>
> I also know that my parents do not understand food allergies. My mom knows
> that she is allergic to eggs. So she does not eat eggs that are scrambled,
> hard boiled or fried. But she does eat cake, waffles and other foods
> containing eggs. She seems to think if she can not see them, they are not
> there. She will eat the allergen and then wonder why she has gotten sick.
> And lest you think she does not have life threatening allergies, I think she
> does, to some things. We used to dine at a particular Mexican restaurant
> and she said her throat close up when she drank their margaritas. But that
> didn't stop her from drinking them. I haven't a clue what the problem would
> have been with the margarita.
>


My husband's late aunt was PhD in science (entomology) and decided in
her declining years that she could not go out in public because she was
afraid of getting the flu. She said she couldn't get a flu shot because
she was allergic to albumen (egg, on which the virus is cultured.) Yet
she ate eggs for breakfast every day for the last 30 years of her life,
at least as evidenced by her food diary and the stacks of egg cartons in
her garage.

You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced.

gloria p

On Nov 18, 2:52*am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight. *You are saying that when you were born in
> 1965, I never heard of food allergies? *Actually I did. *I was born in 1959.
> I was allergic to milk. *This came as no surprise to my mom because she
> herself was allergic to milk (as well as other things) and some of her
> brothers and sisters were as well.


I'm not denying that people had food allergies back then. It just
wasn't as prevalent as it is today. Out of the hundreds of kids I
went through school with there was not one case of someone being
allergic to peanuts, soy, gluten, etc. If someone had died because of
it you would have known it.

I believe part of the problem today, and others have speculated this
too, is people are too clean. They've also abused antibiotics and
they're always coming out with some new vaccine to fight the next
epidemic that's certainly going to wipe out a good chunk of the
population. Your body's immune system needs something to fight. When
there aren't any germs for it to fight it finds something else to
fight, like peanut proteins for example.

I do believe for many people it has become a badge of honor to say
that their kid suffers from some sort of ailment, whether it be a food
allergy, ADHD, autism, or something else.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:19:48 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 2:52*am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>
>> So let me get this straight. *You are saying that when you were born in
>> 1965, I never heard of food allergies? *Actually I did. *I was born in 1959.
>> I was allergic to milk. *This came as no surprise to my mom because she
>> herself was allergic to milk (as well as other things) and some of her
>> brothers and sisters were as well.
>
>
>I'm not denying that people had food allergies back then. It just
>wasn't as prevalent as it is today. Out of the hundreds of kids I
>went through school with there was not one case of someone being
>allergic to peanuts, soy, gluten, etc. If someone had died because of
>it you would have known it.

Peanuts and soy were not used in nearly as many products as they are
now, so people were just not exposed to these things with the
frequency they are these days. Allergies arise with increased exposure
to an allergen.

And I knew about celiacs at least from the mid to late1960s, about the
time I was grown up enough to even be aware of such things. You
probably did not know an allergy from an asshole when you were a kid
in school.
>
>I believe part of the problem today, and others have speculated this
>too, is people are too clean. They've also abused antibiotics and
>they're always coming out with some new vaccine to fight the next
>epidemic that's certainly going to wipe out a good chunk of the
>population. Your body's immune system needs something to fight. When
>there aren't any germs for it to fight it finds something else to
>fight, like peanut proteins for example.

I am not even going to take that paragraph apart. It is such a
mishmash of medical and scientific distortion that the few true grains
left are useless.
>
>I do believe for many people it has become a badge of honor to say
>that their kid suffers from some sort of ailment, whether it be a food
>allergy, ADHD, autism, or something else.

And I say you're full of shit. Seeing an anguished parent rush a kid
to the ER with an allergic reaction or suffer through raising a
troubled kid with ADHD, or watch one dealing with an autistic spectrum
child is not seeing anyone having a grand old time. Shame on you.
Really.

Boron

In article >,
BlueBrooke > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:15:22 +1300, Miche > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > BlueBrooke > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 01:01:45 -0600, Sqwertz >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard of
> >> >> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> >> >> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> >> >> gluten was unless you were a baker?
> >>
> >> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.
> >
> >Yes, they did. It just went untreated.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If that was the case, the classrooms
> -- which had 30 or more students in them, not the 1:15 teacher:student
> ratio that seems to be required now -- would have been war zones. They
> weren't. I think it was more a matter of requiring your children to
> behave, and teaching them that they were *not* the boss, than finding
> what drugs to medicate them with.
>
> Kids aren't required to behave anymore. Parents spend more time
> trying to convince everyone it isn't the kid's fault (and it isn't --
> lack of parenting is the adult's fault) than they do teaching their
> kids basic manners and responsibility.

Blah blah yackety schmackety. Nothing I haven't heard a hundred times,
and yet it changes nothing.

ADHD is a neurological deficit of the executive function. It's got
nothing to do with the amount of discipline a kid receives at home or at
school.

What you have with "well-behaved" ADHD people is people who've learned
coping mechanisms one way or another. The ADHD hasn't gone away, and
kids don't "grow out of it". They learn to manage it.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:27:02 -0700, gloria.p wrote:

> When you consider that today's kids are from a generation of parents
> that was heavily into various drugs and alcohol in college and beyond...

Oh, come now. Not everyone was a acid taking flower child. I was
born in the Summer of Love but neither of my parents had taken acid
or smoked pot, and rarely drank until after I was born.

-sw

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:32:59 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> And food intolerance is NOT an allergy...

Duh. Maybe that's why they call it an "intolerance" rather than an
allergy.

Kinda slow today, aren't you Katz?

-sw

In article >,
BlueBrooke > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:51:05 +1300, Miche > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > BlueBrooke > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:15:22 +1300, Miche > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > BlueBrooke > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 01:01:45 -0600, Sqwertz >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> How come when I was growing up, I was born in 1965, you never heard
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> a single kid who was allergic to peanuts, no one was lactose
> >> >> >> intolerant, and no one was allergic to gluten, yet alone know what
> >> >> >> gluten was unless you were a baker?
> >> >>
> >> >> Good question. They didn't all have ADD back then, either.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, they did. It just went untreated.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If that was the case, the classrooms
> >> -- which had 30 or more students in them, not the 1:15 teacher:student
> >> ratio that seems to be required now -- would have been war zones. They
> >> weren't. I think it was more a matter of requiring your children to
> >> behave, and teaching them that they were *not* the boss, than finding
> >> what drugs to medicate them with.
> >>
> >> Kids aren't required to behave anymore. Parents spend more time
> >> trying to convince everyone it isn't the kid's fault (and it isn't --
> >> lack of parenting is the adult's fault) than they do teaching their
> >> kids basic manners and responsibility.
> >
> >Blah blah yackety schmackety. Nothing I haven't heard a hundred times,
> >and yet it changes nothing.
> >
> >ADHD is a neurological deficit of the executive function. It's got
> >nothing to do with the amount of discipline a kid receives at home or at
> >school.
> >
> >What you have with "well-behaved" ADHD people is people who've learned
> >coping mechanisms one way or another. The ADHD hasn't gone away, and
> >kids don't "grow out of it". They learn to manage it.
>
> I'm not saying they're "well-behaved ADHD people." I'm not saying
> it's gone away or they've grown out of it.
>
> I'm saying they didn't have ADHD in the first place. I'm saying they
> didn't need to be medicated and put to sleep to make someone else's
> job easier. If you don't want to deal with kids, don't have kids, or
> don't take a job where you have to work with kids.
>
> I'm saying that ADHD is over-diagnosed because it's easier to live
> with a kid who is drugged up and doesn't rock the boat than it is to
> teach them responsibility and discipline. Or is it just a coincidence
> that parents stopped teaching their kids what "NO!" means and ADHD
> diagnosis skyrocketed?
>
> I've heard your "blah blah yackety schmackety" a hundred times and it,
> too, changes nothing. The ones I feel sorry for are the kids who are
> unnecessarily medicated and don't like the way it makes them feel. I
> honestly don't know how anyone can do that to a kid who doesn't need
> it. And I just don't believe that, all of a sudden, all these kids
> actually need that.

BTW, those kids who get ADHD drugs and don't have ADHD? It makes them
wired, not "drugged up and sleepy".

ADHD meds are stimulants, and one of the symptoms of ADHD is a
_paradoxical_ reaction to stimulants, meaning it calms them down and
helps them choose where to put their focus rather than having no
attention span and not being able to sit still.

What about those kids who do get "NO" and do get consequences and don't
get the medication _or any other treatment_ and STILL have ADHD?

We exist, and there are more of us than you think.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:00:56 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>Best cure for ADD in kids (imho) is regular recesses and LOTS of
>physical activity! Let them run off the excess energy that is perfectly
>normal for kids.
>
>Maybe we'd have fewer obese kids too...

An ADD kid sure doesn't have a problem sitting in front of a game
system for six hours at a time...concentrating!

On Nov 18, 4:27*pm, "gloria.p" > wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > BlueBrooke wrote:
> >> Good question. *They didn't all have ADD back then, either. *
>
> > When I went through elementary school in the 1960s and junior/senior
> > high school in the 1970s about 1 in a 1000 had ADD. *That guy lived next
> > door to me. *At night he'd pace the driveway reciting Shakespeare. *The
> > most severe case I've ever seen and as bad as I've ever heard of. *He
> > was a year younger than me and he was the only kid in about 1500 who was
> > on medication for it. *Whatever he was on wasn't enough in his case.
>
> > Now there's talk of about 1 in 20 having ADD. *If that many have it it's
> > over diagnosed in my opinion. *Then again I have enough symptoms that if
> > 1 in 100 have ADD then I have it. *Whatever, I don't think I'd ever want
> > to be diagnosed with it. *I found a job where borderline ADD symptoms
> > are an advantage and I do fine.
>
> > The pattern seems to be stuff that was rare is now considered common.
>
> Don't you remember those kids who were assigned seats in the back of the
> room because they were "bad", "rude", and "unteachable"? *They were the
> ones who talked all the time, who couldn't concentrate, who fiddled with
> things, and just couldn't keep up with what was going on because they
> had too many other things going on inside their heads? *Those kids were
> probably undiagnosed ADHD.
>
> When you consider that today's kids are from a generation of parents
> that was heavily into various drugs and alcohol in college and beyond,
> and themselves a generation where babies are being kept alive who would
> have died at birth or before in years gone by, it's no surprise that
> they have neurological deficits and self control issues.

Do you really think that drugs and alcohol were invented in the 60s?
It's entirely possible that widespread use of marijuana and other
drugs dates to that time, but alcohol (and its abuse) have been
with us for millennia.

There's a song called "The Cocaine Rag" from the early 20th Century,
and let's not forget "Minnie the Moocher", Lydia Pinkham's,
laudanum, and the original formula for Coca Cola.

One thing that has been different for about the last 50 years is
that we've been unwilling to let kids who struggle with school
simply drop out at an early age.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:35:15 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:00:56 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> >Best cure for ADD in kids (imho) is regular recesses and LOTS of
> >physical activity! Let them run off the excess energy that is perfectly
> >normal for kids.
> >
> >Maybe we'd have fewer obese kids too...
>
> An ADD kid sure doesn't have a problem sitting in front of a game
> system for six hours at a time...concentrating!
>
The game is happening fast and that's just the way they like it. One
of my son's friends put his ADD to good use and is now a Marine pilot
(I think he was a colonel the last time I saw him) flying Harrier
jets. He's training to fly whatever the newest fighter is at some
airforce base in the US at the moment.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:15:56 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> One thing that has been different for about the last 50 years is
> that we've been unwilling to let kids who struggle with school
> simply drop out at an early age.

Before that, some people had a third grade education, others an eighth
grade education, a high school degree was higher education to many...
and they were proud of it. College was for the privileged back then,
now it's the norm. You need a liberal arts degree just to get a job
flipping burgers in a fast food joint these days.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

Miche wrote:
> BlueBrooke > wrote:
>
>> I'm saying they didn't have ADHD in the first place. I'm saying they
>> didn't need to be medicated and put to sleep to make someone else's
>> job easier. If you don't want to deal with kids, don't have kids, or
>> don't take a job where you have to work with kids.
>>
>> I'm saying that ADHD is over-diagnosed because it's easier to live
>> with a kid who is drugged up and doesn't rock the boat than it is to
>> teach them responsibility and discipline. Or is it just a coincidence
>> that parents stopped teaching their kids what "NO!" means and ADHD
>> diagnosis skyrocketed?
>
> BTW, those kids who get ADHD drugs and don't have ADHD? It makes them
> wired, not "drugged up and sleepy".

On the one hand ADD/ADHD is now over diagnosed in my opinion.

> ADHD meds are stimulants, and one of the symptoms of ADHD is a
> _paradoxical_ reaction to stimulants, meaning it calms them down and
> helps them choose where to put their focus rather than having no
> attention span and not being able to sit still.

On the other hand if a kid is given stimulants and they calm the kid
down then the kid has ADD/ADHD and it is not misdiagnosed. I've never
been diagnosed and will avoid getting diagnosed but I use caffeine as a
calming agent. It does not wire me the way it does with non-ADD folks
and thus I do have ADD (ADD with hyperfocus in my case).

> What about those kids who do get "NO" and do get consequences and don't
> get the medication _or any other treatment_ and STILL have ADHD?
>
> We exist, and there are more of us than you think.

The gripping hand is that there are plenty of ADD folks who can manage
with coping strategies and no medication. Medicate everyone whose
reaction to stimulants is calming and you've medicated far too many
kids. Resist medicating as many as possible and you haven't medicated
enough kids. There's a balance in between somewhere.

I grew up in a time when 1 in 1500 was medicated. Way not enough and
the meds were insufficient for that one case. I've seen the droves of
kids getting medicated. Neither is a good approach. For myself I found
a career where borderline ADD symptoms are an advantage and I've done
well. It was stressful experimenting with my own career until I found
this work. Folk with less self direction might never do such
experimenting and end up miserable.

On food intolerances - There is speculation that a grain intolerance can
cause ADD. Something that parallels irritable bowel, leaky gut and
such. I don't know what to make of such speculations. I'm wheat
intolerant and mildly ADD but by the time I learned of it my ADD
symptoms did not reduce. Maybe they would if I went completely grain
free ...

gloria.p wrote:
>
> Don't you remember those kids who were assigned seats in the back of the
> room because they were "bad", "rude", and "unteachable"? They were the
> ones who talked all the time, who couldn't concentrate, who fiddled with
> things, and just couldn't keep up with what was going on because they
> had too many other things going on inside their heads? Those kids were
> probably undiagnosed ADHD.

There's also dylexia. Dylexia and ADD tend to run together in families.
My Dad has dyslexia though they didn't know what it was in his
generation. One nephew has dylexia. Another nephew and I are ADD.

I remember they figured out what dyslexia was while I was in elementary
school. A student teacher was sent in to interview every student in the
class about reading topics. As I went down the list with my teacher
there was a yes to every single answer until we got to the last
question. The last question was reading level. At the time I was 2-3
grades ahead of schedule so the conclusion was i'm not dyslexic.
Looking back that's probably yet more pointing to mild ADD symptoms.
There's a ton of overlap between ADD and dyslexia.

The dyslexic and ADD kids tend to be the ill behaved ones unless certain
strategies are used on them. I got one of the effective strategies used
on me, though it was conducted at home not at school.

One way to keep ADD kids well behaved is to keep them interested in new
things. At home I got fire hosed with new material as fast as I could
soak it up and I stayed very interested. Doing well in my classes was a
side effect of that strategy by my Mom. It worked great until I went
away for college and had to be self directed about the materials I was
fire hosing myself with. That's when I flamed out of full time college
and switched to night school. In college I learned vast amounts of
stuff but not enough of it in my own courses. Going to night school and
having a full time job kept me busy enough that doing one course at a
time kept me interested. Not a quick strategy but it did work.