[HN Gopher] I couldn't escape poison oak, so I started eating it
___________________________________________________________________
I couldn't escape poison oak, so I started eating it
Author : hcrisp
Score : 60 points
Date : 2024-05-18 14:12 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| corinroyal wrote:
| Please don't do this. It's a great way to get urushiol poisoning
| of your GI tract.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| This sounds very much like something that someone might hear on
| Joe Rogan's podcast and think it's a good idea because someone
| who knows how to put two sentences together sounded like they
| knew what they were talking about.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Same with vitamin d self-medication here on HN
| mort96 wrote:
| Is there any research out there which links moderate
| amounts of vitamin D (such as the recommended dosages on
| vitamin D supplements) to any negative effects at all?
|
| Is there any research to indicate that a lack of urushiol
| has negative effects, similar to how we know that a lack of
| vitamin D has negative effects?
|
| If not I don't really see the connection
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| There is lots of research saying that vitamin D deficiency
| causes problems, and the deficiency is more common than
| you'd expect. Other health conditions and habits can lead
| to a deficiency.
| Ekaros wrote:
| There is fixing deficiency and then there is "hyper
| dozing". Also lot of it is seasonal, northern hemisphere
| is entering summer so there should be plenty of sun light
| even with short exposure to light.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| I don't think exposure to light is enough to overcome an
| actual deficiency. When you're exposed to light you get
| kind of a huge dose, until you get a tan. Then your skin
| won't produce much more for a while.
|
| You're right about overdoing it. There is such a thing as
| vitamin D poisioning. I think it draws calcium out of
| your bones or something. On the other hand, not enough
| vitamin D is bad for your bones too.
|
| Fortunately, there are tests for vitamin D. If you think
| you have a problem with it, you ought to get a test.
| OJFord wrote:
| It's not a prescription drug, so I'm not really sure what
| 'self-medication' means; I self-medicate with caffeine,
| might eat an orange and self-medicate vit C later, etc.
|
| NHS (UK) guidance:
|
| > Government advice is that everyone should consider taking
| a daily vitamin D supplement during the autumn and winter.
|
| > People at high risk of not getting enough vitamin D, all
| children aged 1 to 4, and all babies (unless they're having
| more than 500ml of infant formula a day) should take a
| daily supplement throughout the year.
|
| (People at high risk = for example darker skin, or indoor
| jobs.)
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Vitamin D deficiency (and while we're at it, B12 deficiency
| and iron deficiency) _are_ real deficiency issues that have
| risen in numbers across Western societies for quite the
| time now - IIRC, a large contributor is our change in diets
| and living habits.
|
| Basically, we're spending far less time working out in the
| open so our body doesn't generate vitamin D on its own in
| sufficient quantities, and the trend towards highly
| processed, nutritionally inflexible diets on one side and
| vegetarianism/veganism on the other side leads to a whole
| host of malnutrition issues.
|
| Unfortunately, the "malnutrition" levels in bloodwork are
| mostly calibrated on white European males... so similar to
| BMI [1] and a few medications and diseases [2], there is a
| "vitamin D paradox" in Black people who seem to not be that
| sensitive to lower vit-D levels than White people [3].
|
| Human bodies and genetics are fascinating, even if you're
| not an expert in it.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9877251/
|
| [2] https://academic.oup.com/ehjcvp/article/8/7/738/6644872
|
| [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954269/
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| Gradual exposure to allergens like urushiol has been a
| legitimate recognized treatment plan for decades. Animals are
| able to eat poison ivy and poison oak. It's a brave strategy
| to eat the stuff, but nobody including smug netizens like
| yourself knows if it will work for someone else. Everything
| that works in medicine was probably thought to be ridiculous
| by someone at one point.
|
| Joe Rogan isn't the best source of medical advice, but he has
| been smeared by the media on behalf of big pharma. His
| approach to treating COVID came from a doctor and was not
| "horse paste"... CNN was proven to have edited video of Joe
| Rogan to make his skin look off-color. Also, never forget
| that the mainstream media said the "vaccines" would stop
| transmission of the virus when all the experts knew it
| wouldn't do so, from the start. They also lied about side
| effects.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Pointing out that at some points Joe Rogan might have been
| smeared unjustly by mainstream media does not in any way
| come close to absolving the crimes JR has committed against
| modern science by giving constant airtime to outright
| quacks. Anyone remotely interested in making sure proper
| science knowledge and education makes it out to gen pop
| should be completely against Rogan and everything he stands
| for. It only takes one to ruin your reputation. Rogan has
| aired hundreds. It's even more dangerous than one might
| think because sometimes, like in some examples you
| reference, there is some legitimate medicine mixed in.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is the most anti-science attitude I think I've seen
| in a very long time. It's also foolish and dangerous
| IMHO, because it greatly contributes to the very thing
| you want to prevent: amplification and creation of quack
| science to the gen pop.
|
| Simply depriving these people of airtime does _NOT_ quash
| their views and make them go away. It fuels conspiracy
| theories such as about how big pharma is censoring ideas
| about natural (or already highly-available) treatments in
| order to make billions on devoloping their vaccines and
| using government levers to force people to buy them.
| (They did try to do that too, though they got lucky in
| that none of the "natural" treatments seemed to really
| work. But had they worked, their reaction would have been
| the same.)
|
| It also means the discussions people see are going to
| happen on shows/forums/podcasts where the host _doesn 't_
| push back on them and offer challenges and critical
| thinking. This not only sets a terrible example for
| people by demonstrating through social proof that one
| should accept these things uncritically, but it makes it
| appear as though the case is very strong and there isn't
| a good counter-argument! This double effect makes a
| strong impression on people in the exact opposite way
| that we want.
|
| I think Joe Rogan has done more to bring sanity to these
| things than most people. Have you ever watched those
| episodes? He is very conversational but if there is ever
| a claim that doesn't seem supported, he will ask Jamie
| (his assistant or producer or whatever) look it up, and
| they are highly skeptical and choosy of sources.
|
| We should know by now that censoring information these
| days does not work. We're no longer living in the society
| where the average person only gets information from TV or
| books available at their library or local book store. If
| there's a quack theory out there, it _will_ get to people
| through the internet. The answer is not to shut down the
| internet. We need to expose these ideas and defeat them
| using logical and scientific refutation, and we need to
| _encourage_ and teach critical thinking skills. This is a
| new world we are living in, and the tried and true
| techniques or censoring and book burning do not work
| anymore. Embrace it and use it.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| This is just a variant of "both sides" argument. Both
| sides are not equal. There will be conspiracy theorists
| and quacks always, no matter what you do. It's when you
| give them a microphone and any semblance of legitimacy
| that it becomes dangerous. Case in point: Alex Jones. The
| correct thing is to dismiss these people outright. It's
| already been demonstrated that if you try to have a
| public discourse on this kind of stuff that bad actors
| will just come in and sow misinformation. Attempting to
| have such discourse merely elevates the legitimacy of the
| quack's claims, since you can have the most detailed of
| detailed takedowns but be countered with literal word
| salad nonsense and still "lose" in the eyes of gen pop.
| The quack has everything to gain, because by getting into
| a discussion with someone legitimately qualified in a
| public arena they are placed on somewhat equal levels
| with that person in the eyes of the public. A standing in
| society they absolutely do not deserve.
|
| By the way, Rogan himself has a few entries on Quackwatch
| for promoting questionable supplements that he has a
| financial interest in. So he's not, as you imply and he
| would love to have you believe "just asking questions".
| He is actively engaged in the same bullshit his quack
| guests come on and peddle.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| >By the way, Rogan himself has a few entries on
| Quackwatch for promoting questionable supplements that he
| has a financial interest in.
|
| Where are the entries for Fauci and MSM for promoting big
| pharma products that pay their bills?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> Simply depriving these people of airtime does NOT
| quash their views and make them go away._
|
| _> We should know by now that censoring information
| these days does not work_
|
| This argument (repeated) is a bit of a red herring. I
| haven't seen anyone saying we can make pseudoscience go
| away forever. We're just questioning the wisdom of
| embracing and amplifying it to reach people it wouldn't
| have before.
|
| _> It fuels conspiracy theories_
|
| This is kind of a corollary to the above point: People
| are going to theorize conspiracies no matter what. There
| are undoubtedly conspiracy theorists who think the exact
| opposite: that including pseudoscience is a conspiracy to
| make people think it isn't being censored in other ways.
|
| Thus, that a given action might strengthen or weaken the
| conspiracy theories of at least 1 pseudoscientist isn't
| enough to justify doing the action or not. Neither choice
| will make conspiracy theories go away.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| >I haven't seen anyone saying we can make pseudoscience
| go away forever.
|
| You must not have been looking. There are government and
| media officials coming out against "mis-, dis-, and mal-
| information" on a constant basis. These same people are
| the biggest liars around.
|
| >We're just questioning the wisdom of embracing and
| amplifying it to reach people it wouldn't have before.
|
| "You can have free speech as long as you only speak
| quietly in your own closet." The power to curate
| information or "amplify" it as you say is practically
| very hard to distinguish from censorship when you choose
| to show only things you agree with, or show only the
| worst straw men for the other side.
|
| >There are undoubtedly conspiracy theorists who think the
| exact opposite: that including pseudoscience is a
| conspiracy to make people think it isn't being censored
| in other ways.
|
| There are some "conspiracy theories" designed to
| discredit anyone who is skeptical of authority. The
| people who complain the most about conspiracy theories
| really just want people to stop thinking independently,
| and start accepting whatever their establishment says.
|
| >Thus, that a given action might strengthen or weaken the
| conspiracy theories of at least 1 pseudoscientist isn't
| enough to justify doing the action or not. Neither choice
| will make conspiracy theories go away.
|
| Conspiring to suppress conspiracy theories sure won't
| make them stop. Being right and showing positive results
| to the contrary is what wins the day.
| borski wrote:
| > "You can have free speech as long as you only speak
| quietly in your own closet." The power to curate
| information or "amplify" it as you say is practically
| very hard to distinguish from censorship when you choose
| to show only things you agree with, or show only the
| worst straw men for the other side.
|
| No platform owes you the right to amplify nonsense. The
| government can't make you stop, but individual platforms
| or individuals themselves? They're free to do whatever,
| just like you. Don't like it? Start a Truth Social and go
| yell at your adoring fans all you want.
|
| > Conspiring to suppress conspiracy theories sure won't
| make them stop. Being right and showing positive results
| to the contrary is what wins the day.
|
| While that's a cute thought, conspiracy theorists are
| exceptionally good at one thing: theorizing conspiracies.
| "Being right" doesn't happen, ever, because any positive
| results can simply be walked back as "part of another
| conspiracy."
|
| The way you kill conspiracy theories is not amplifying
| them as truth. That's it.
| gwervc wrote:
| > crimes JR has committed against modern science
|
| Science doesn't work like that, religion does. "Science"
| harmed itself with some people and an ideology heavily
| censoring opponents, and by shutting down any debate,
| including scientific one.
| alexose wrote:
| Science is not conducted through public debate. Full
| stop. There's a reason why it's _peer_ review, and not
| talk show host review.
|
| During COVID, most everybody was operating from an
| incomplete data set. Public officials were wrong about
| some things. You can choose to see this as a conspiracy
| set up by big pharma, or you can see it as imperfect
| people doing what they could to mitigate a public health
| crisis.
|
| And yes, critique the peer review process all you want.
| It's flawed in many ways. But this "it's us versus
| science" narrative is extremely, insidiously damaging to
| society at large. It only serves powerful people who
| benefit from whipping an audience into a frenzy to buy
| their shitty supplements or bumper stickers or whatever.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| >Science is not conducted through public debate. Full
| stop. There's a reason why it's peer review, and not talk
| show host review.
|
| You're only saying that because you happen to disagree
| with what is being said. Full stop.
| borski wrote:
| Er, no... that's literally just the truth. Science is not
| done as a public debate. That's politics.
|
| Science doesn't "vote."
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| Actually, peer review journals are public debate. The
| much-applauded "consensus" is essentially voting. If you
| follow the money you will quickly see the connection
| between science and politics, both internally and with
| the public at large.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| The scientific principle is based on proving thing by
| experimentation.
|
| it is _empirical_ that means that you should be able to
| re-produce the results of a thing or assertion by
| following the details in a paper.
|
| The public might be able to do it themselves. But the
| point is, its not about who says what, its about can it
| be reproduced.
|
| scientist "A" says that the sky is blue because of "x".
| devises an experiment to prove that. writes up the
| experiment, publishes it, asserts that the sky is blue
| because of x, and that the experiment proves this.
|
| Scientist "B" says it bollocks, reproduces the
| experiment, but also extends the experiment to show that
| the data also says that the sky is green. Paper is
| published with data and method.
|
| The process repeats until a consensus is reached where
| everyone can reproduce the data, and no one can disprove
| the hypothesis that the sky is blue because of x.
|
| None of that requires asserting bollocks on a chat show.
| Sure science outreach is great, but its not _really_ part
| of the method.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The very idea that one can commit "crimes" against
| science by discussing ideas (however false) is shameful.
| As you said, it's no different than religious accusations
| of heresy. It's truly disheartening to see a backwards
| and illiberal idea like that being promoted here.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Ivermectin doesn't work though, and we knew that then even
| if he did find a single quack doctor to promote it.
|
| And vaccines do reduce transmission, which is all I ever
| heard about it. Not sure what side effects you're talking
| about.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| Doctors didn't just make up that Ivermectin and
| hydroxychloriquine are plausible treatments for
| respiratory diseases. There was no strong evidence
| against it then and there isn't now. Authorities were
| told from the top to not prescribe it. Other countries
| did prescribe it, because they aren't as captured by Big
| Pharma.
|
| If you want citations, I believe this website has an
| extensive bibliography: https://c19ivm.org/
|
| >And vaccines do reduce transmission, which is all I ever
| heard about it.
|
| From the start and for months after release, the MSM was
| putting out that the vaccine was going to stop the
| spread. It did not. If anything, it promoted the spread
| because people who got it thought they couldn't get
| infected or spread the virus. And then, when infections
| did not go down as expected, the media changed the
| narrative to say symptoms were reduced in the vaccinated,
| all the while saying that the unvaccinated were a threat
| to the vaccinated. What the fuck? Lol...
|
| >Not sure what side effects you're talking about
|
| How about the fact it killed some people within minutes?
| That the actual data was slated to be suppressed for 75
| years for bullshit reasons? All of our covid vaccines
| were based on an experimental platform and approved in a
| fraction of the time it normally takes to approve
| anything. The dictionary even changed the definition of
| "vaccine" to accomodate the new terminology. In the years
| since the vaccine came out, many young people have
| suspiciously dropped dead or at least lost consciousness
| on live TV. Now the narrative is "Side effects are rare"
| but I also doubt that. There have been results showing
| that the vaccinated also get new variants of covid more
| easily than the unvaccinated. I don't have time to walk
| you through all of these findings but trust me, you
| should do some research and listen to the outcasts. Even
| if the media tried to make "Doing your own research"
| sound like the stupid thing to do. We used to call that
| "reading" lol
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Ivermectin does nothing. Linking to a site that uses
| fraudulent research in order to prove an incorrect point
| does not help your position. There were places in the
| world that widely distributed Ivermectin as an
| experimental treatment (such as Brazil) whose health
| agencies have now, after the fact, said that Ivermectin
| does not help. You are peddling fraud.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Authorities were told from the top to not prescribe it
|
| They were also told not to prescribe Metamizole, because
| it kills people. there is no controversy there (well
| apart from spain who still have it on license.)
|
| > How about the fact it killed some people within
| minutes?
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/
| 697... No drug is 100% safe. How _many_ people were
| killed per 100k doses?
|
| >That the actual data was slated to be suppressed for 75
| years for bullshit reasons
|
| https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/ you mean published
| quarterly
|
| > The dictionary even changed the definition of "vaccine"
|
| Which dictionary? Also, bear in mind that the dictionary
| isn't static. Its updated to reflect how english is
| spoken now, by the public.
|
| > In the years since the vaccine came out, many young
| people have suspiciously dropped dead or at least lost
| consciousness on live TV
|
| Do you have data for that? what does it corrolate to?
| also depending on the country, some places its the
| younger that have less uptake.
|
| Do you know how hard it is to run a project with 10
| people?
|
| Do you know how exponentially harder it is to run it for
| 1000 people? How on earth, looking at how shit the US
| government is at functioning, can they organise something
| like that?
|
| Moreover, if its the "MSM", who are holding the secrets,
| do you know how fucking chatty those pricks are? (I used
| to work for a finance newspaper) All you have to do is
| take them to the pub and you can find out who's doing
| what illegal shit. or whos flogging synthetic opioids to
| the rust belt
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's not the first time I've heard about it.
|
| I can't condone it but I can't rule out that some variant of
| this might work.
|
| The reaction to urushiol is an allergic reaction
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol
|
| and a vaccine is under development
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDC-APB
|
| Some people just don't react to it while others do.
|
| I had hay fever as a kid which developed into asthma in my 30s,
| I had immune therapy from a specialist who gave me increasingly
| concentrated shots of allergens weekly for years. After a while
| my asthma went into remission and I quit taking medicine for
| it. I still have hay fever symptoms some times but they aren't
| too bad and I rarely medicate for them because I get side
| effects even from some of the "non-drowsy" antihistamines.
|
| Even though it is done under medical supervision, it is a
| controversial treatment. It's banned in the U.K. They'd have me
| sit around the office for 30 minutes in case I had a bad
| reaction which they could usually treat with an injection of
| epinephrine but could be lethal if somebody was really unlucky.
|
| Note there is at least one report of treatment of poison ivy
| sensitivity this way
|
| https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(09)01972-1/ful...
|
| The thing is I got a treatment from my doc which was somewhat
| evidence based, compare that to all the bizzaro ideas
| circulating such as Edgar Cayce's idea that you could treat hay
| fever with an alcohol tincture of ragweed. (Got that from a
| herbalist once, it does seem harmless)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce
| rwmj wrote:
| Is it the same plant that was used for shokushinbutsu, the
| "self-mummification" practiced by Japanese monks?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu
|
| Edit: OK, not quite. The Japanese lacquer tree was used which
| produces the same "active" substance which is what slowly
| kills you.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_vernicifluum
| mlyle wrote:
| > which is what slowly kills you
|
| Again, not quite: starvation by not eating normal food is
| what kills you.
|
| Urushiol is non-toxic at even massive doses; but
| vanishingly small doses will provoke painful/itchy allergic
| reactions in many people.
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| I've heard of this desensitization stuff before too. For all
| the mixed reviews of it, maybe success simply depends on
| individual factors that nobody has identified yet.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Jus fyi but the "non drowsy" antihistamines are fundamentally
| different or anything, they're just the same type of drowsy
| antihistamine but with the dose lowered so it barely works
| unless you take more than one, thereby making it drowsy again
| gsquaredxc wrote:
| This isn't true. H1 antagonists, which is the group of
| drugs commonly referred to as antihistamines, contains two
| subgroups of pharmaceuticals. There are the first
| generation antihistamines, which are generally more popular
| and earn the reputation of making you drowsy, and the
| second generation antihistamines. The second generation
| antihistamines are significantly more selective for the H1
| receptors you want to block versus the ones in your brain.
| Doxylamine is a first generation drug marketed under the
| brand name Unisom for insomnia, whereas a common second
| generation antihistamine loratadine commonly includes the
| phrase "non-drowsy" on the box. It still increases
| sedation, but at a substantially lower rate than the first
| generation drugs.
| tysam_and wrote:
| This is incorrect enough as to be dangerous (IMPE, I am not
| a doctor). They are non-drowsy because they do not cross
| the blood brain barrier effectively as I understand. Second
| and third generation antihistamines are fantastic.
| nick__m wrote:
| While I agree with your comment, for some peoples non-
| drowsy antihistamines are a myth.
|
| I must be overly sensitive or have a deficient BBB
| because 10 mg loratadine transform me into a lethargic
| zombie for about 48 hours while providing minimal relief.
| A double dose of vyvaanse and a few coffees are not
| enough to bring me out of that state.
| borski wrote:
| That is definitely not the common reaction. Something is
| unique to you, in that regard.
| alecst wrote:
| Would be nice if you addressed the article instead of the
| headline. It's actually fascinating.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Unfortunately the article is paywalled
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| Urushiol soup is actually a common East-Asian folk remedy and
| you can order it in some restaurants -- I've actually had it.
|
| It's not exactly a _toxin_, just sometimes trigger allergic
| reactions.
| freefaler wrote:
| https://archive.ph/F4PZX
| skepticalmd wrote:
| Absurd that there is zero mention of Mithridates in the article.
|
| As always, Chesterton's Fence applies to medicine.
|
| Be very wary of anything outside of healthy diet, sleep,
| exercise, and relationships.
|
| If you don't know why your body is fevering, don't lower the
| fever. If you don't know why your blood pressure is high, don't
| lower it.
|
| We in the medical field vastly overestimate our understanding of
| human physiology.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > If you don't know why your body is fevering, don't lower the
| fever. If you don't know why your blood pressure is high, don't
| lower it.
|
| And if you don't know why you have cancer, don't do anything
| about it?
|
| Like, I get the point with fever (which is a known defense
| mechanism), but high blood pressure is a big problem in the
| long run and even if it's just a symptom, not doing anything
| about it is not likely to be the best move.
| samtho wrote:
| The point is that we treat certain things like high blood
| pressure as a primary issue instead of a secondary one.
| Instead of addressing something cholesterol, which can often
| be a lifestyle issue, more emphasis is placed on just taking
| the statin.
| lazide wrote:
| because most people will refuse to address the lifestyle
| issue, not because they aren't made extremely aware of it!
| mmastrac wrote:
| This is so wrong, sorry.
|
| Humans evolved to reproduce as a species successfully, not to
| ensure the optimum survival of an individual. Not everything
| your body does is in your best interests: something that tends
| to be the best solution for long-term survival for a group
| might be entirely wrong for your specific case.
| beedeebeedee wrote:
| > This is so wrong, sorry
|
| That's an overstatement. More than one thing can be true.
| What you said is valid, useful and mostly true, and so is
| what skepticalmd said above.
| mlyle wrote:
| Suggesting people forego blood pressure treatment is a
| pretty dubious suggestion. We have a whole lot of data that
| it reduces mortality and morbidity.
| hooverd wrote:
| If the human body was a codebase you'd be cursing the idiot who
| designed it. It's just good eonugh to get the job done
| (reproduction) before the wheels code off.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Fever happened and doctor thought it was virus. Fever hit 106.
| As I didnt take Tylenol. Fever turned out to be sepsis
| salmonella. Should have taken Tylenol.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Several kids in our family's social group have successfully
| undergone desensitization therapy for severe nut allergies.
|
| It was much more rigorous than the author's approach, with weekly
| doctor visits and taking increasingly large amounts of whatever
| they were allergic to (starting with micrograms of nut powder).
|
| I think my niece had the best time as she eventually was advised
| to start eating daily measured amounts of nutella.
|
| I mention this mostly because I do think the author was a bit
| cavalier in his approach (mostly because it's hard to accurately
| judge dosage from wild plants) but also to just spread the word
| that the allergy desensitization therapies are out there and
| quite effective and life changing.
| wawayanda wrote:
| I have direct experience with this and it is indeed a miracle.
| What's interesting is that the protocol largely emerged outside
| the regulatory channels, with a handful of doctors worldwide
| developing it once the science became clear that exposure could
| help and more and more offering it to patients every year.
| These allergists have carefully figured out regimens that work
| and it can take a year of daily dosing, with dose sizes
| increasing twice monthly, until one can safely eat, say, a
| handful of peanuts.
|
| There's still today another camp: Many allergists still preach
| avoidance however and put fear into worried parents about the
| dangers of oral immunotherapy.
|
| Because it can be hard to find an office that will run your
| immunotherapy program for you, or costly if you do, many
| parents are doing it on their own, following dosing protocols
| they find in Facebook groups or on YouTube. The ones I've seen
| have been supportive and helpful, not quackery.
|
| Meanwhile the medical establishment is finding ways to monetize
| this immunotherapy by turning, for example, peanut doses into
| pharmaceuticals, e.g. Palforzia, which is a recently FDA
| approved "food allergy treatment" and is in fact simply peanut
| protein.
| modeless wrote:
| Oral immunotherapy is indeed dangerous. Eosinophilic
| esophagitis is real. Anaphylaxis is common. It's a long,
| tedious road, with daily dosing for years, and in many people
| the treatment ends in failure rendering the effort wasted.
|
| Although many do achieve remission, there is no guarantee
| that the allergy is gone for good. The immunity obtained by
| immunotherapy is not necessarily the same as natural
| immunity. It may not be complete and it may not be long
| lasting. The immune system has a long, long memory and we do
| not have any reliable tests to determine if anyone's immunity
| is permanent. For that reason allergists recommend continuing
| dosing _indefinitely_ to maintain immunity, and continuing to
| carry an epi-pen. For the rest of your life. You will get
| sick of peanut butter.
|
| All that said, we are doing sublingual immunotherapy for our
| son. But I am hoping that within his lifetime new treatments
| are developed that will free him from allergies completely.
|
| Precise control of the immune system would be the holy grail
| of medicine IMO. Dysfunctions of the immune system are at the
| root of so many diseases, not just allergies. If the immune
| system could be easily trained to ignore or attack arbitrary
| targets at will it could likely cure almost any infection or
| cancer. And I bet it could be useful in treating the diseases
| of aging as well.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > There's still today another camp: Many allergists still
| preach avoidance however and put fear into worried parents
| about the dangers of oral immunotherapy.
|
| Because immunotherapy can be _dangerous_ , even when
| conducted in a doctor's office with supervision. I know two
| people with serious adverse effects requiring getting rushed
| to the ER.
|
| We think we know a lot about the human body, and we do, but
| our immune and nervous system and its myriads of interaction
| paths are to a large part a mystery, with most of what we
| think we "know" being observed knowledge without
| understanding the foundation.
| jbjbjbjb wrote:
| I asked our doctor about immunotherapy and she urged against
| it saying it was lots of trips each week, risky, unlikely to
| work and the benefits were limited.
| rini17 wrote:
| I got desensitization from ragweed prescribed by doctor
| (Ragwitek). But the allergy causes me permanently irritated
| throat. That was right before covid, then I got scared that it
| will make infection easier and gave up.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I mention this mostly because I do think the author was a bit
| cavalier in his approach
|
| The author may not have had access to a physician with
| experience in this.
|
| I live in the part of the US where the only physician access is
| what can be afforded out of pocket (not much). Self initiated
| treatments are the order of the day.
| FLT8 wrote:
| My first introduction to urushiol was as a kid... there was a
| Japanese rhus tree [1] near my local bus stop and I happened to
| play with some of the seed pods while waiting for a bus one day.
| I ended up looking like the elephant man for a few days, and it
| took a bit of time to figure out what was going on.
|
| It turns out that Urushiol shows up in some surprising places,
| including mango skin, which I discovered later in life after
| peeling a bunch of mangoes to make a mango salad. Apparently the
| husks of cashew nuts are notoriously bad for the workers who deal
| with them too (although the nuts themselves are perfectly safe)..
|
| I don't think I'm likely to deliberately eat anything with
| urushiol in it, but I must admit, the idea of being able to train
| my immune system to deal with it is kind of appealing.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_succedaneum
| sdwr wrote:
| My sister got a strange rash on her face growing up.. our
| pediatrician traced it back to the boxes of mangos she ate
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Metamizole is the only thing that works for me when I have fever.
| But it seems that I recently developped an allergy to it, which
| is a bummer. Every single damn time I take metamizole, I develop
| very itch rashes.
|
| So by taking some substance it seem I became more sensitive to
| it's side effects, not less.
| goda90 wrote:
| The immune system is so complex. I have to wonder if allergies
| develop when something else is stressing the immune system and
| it misidentifies the culprit.
| rvba wrote:
| I never found any drug that can actually reduce fever and is
| available without prescription.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Does anyone know why desensitization works for some allergies but
| for other things, like latex, the more you are exposed to them
| the more likely you are to develop an allergy?
| modeless wrote:
| It's not just the amount of exposure, it's the type. Skin
| exposure is generally sensitizing. Mouth exposure is generally
| desensitizing, as long as it is below the threshold that causes
| a severe reaction, and the exposure is more often than roughly
| twice weekly (the more often the better).
|
| This may be a reason why babies stick everything in their
| mouths.
|
| This is the basis of oral immunotherapy, and if you ate latex
| daily it could possibly desensitize you. However, the immune
| system is insanely complicated and not fully understood. There
| are a lot of gotchas here. It may actually be possible to
| desensitize with skin exposure with careful control of the
| dose, as there are some 'skin patch" treatments that work for
| some people although generally not nearly as well as the oral
| route. Not all allergies are the same, and may not be treatable
| by exposure in some people. The immunity obtained by
| immunotherapy may not be the same as natural immunity, it may
| disappear over time, and the treatment itself can have hard to
| detect but severe chronic side effects like eosinophilic
| esophagitis. So don't DIY!
|
| Interestingly I have heard that mango skin contains the same
| irritant chemical as poison oak. I wonder if eating mango skin
| would help desensitize people to poison oak. I once ate a very
| small amount by accident and had a weird feeling in my throat
| and a bad taste in my mouth for ten minutes afterward, so it
| sounds pretty unpleasant to me.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Mithridatism is pretty well-studied at this point, and an
| allegist can likely help with any sort of desensitization
| that you do. Many common allergies have available therapies
| at this point.
|
| Latex may be an exception depending on the mechanism of
| action, but almost all organic compounds that can be
| metabolized by your body can be adapted to.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| According to family lore, my grandmother's rural northern-ca
| elementary school teacher had the class eat some poison oak.
| Despite living in prime poison oak territory and being a lifelong
| outdoors person, she never got it. I always assumed it was some
| wild folk medicine ritual, so it's interesting to see that there
| might be some basis for it.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Doctors are pretty much _required_ to follow Establishment
| medicine. They 're not going to tell you about folk remedies,
| because it could be malpractice for them.
|
| By way of contrast, I've told my doctor about sinus rinsing, and
| she was not disapproving. But she said, "a lot of my patients do
| this and they seem to like it."
|
| I think this is a better response than blanket disapproval. The
| corresponding response to urushiol desensitization would be
| "There's no guidance on this. Be very careful! Here are some
| risks." Which is the best you should expect from an establishment
| doctor.
|
| A homeopathic doctor would tell you a lot of stuff that might or
| might not be accurate or safe.
| burnte wrote:
| > Doctors are pretty much required to follow Establishment
| medicine. They're not going to tell you about folk remedies,
| because it could be malpractice for them.
|
| Not in the USA. In the USA doctors can absolutely recommend
| non-medical treatments like supplements and homeopathy and
| other crap. Each doctor has their own threshold of comfort in
| what they will and won't recommend. But as you yourself then
| followed up, your doctor said when you brought up nasal rinses,
| "a lot of my patients do this and they seem to like it." Other
| doctors will go so far as to suggest them, mine has, and he was
| right. My doctor (same doc for my wife) will bring up lots of
| things, and explains his position on them all clearly, even
| explaining risks and things. He even went so far one time as to
| suggest a Chinese medicine treatment for a rare disorder my
| wife has. He didn't say it would work, but said he's heard
| about it and it should be risk free if she wanted to try it.
|
| Doctors are allowed to recommend lots of things, it's the
| presentation and outcome that define liability. If a Dr says
| "you should shove bees up your butt to cure this ear infection"
| then yeah, they're going to get in trouble. But it's a lot less
| black and white than you seem to feel.
|
| Note: I've worked in real-medicine healthcare for 9 years now.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| OK. I said "pretty much" which leaves a lot of wiggle room.
| banish-m4 wrote:
| The fact that DOs are treated the same as MDs is absurd.
| Osteopathy is quackery.
| Zenzero wrote:
| > But it's a lot less black and white than you seem to feel.
|
| That's the problem. The concept of what is reasonable is too
| nebulous to rely on.
|
| Also people are quite simply really dumb. You can make some
| innocuous statement like "others have found nasal rinses to
| be beneficial", and some idiot will get themselves
| hospitalized with a draining abscess in their face. It turns
| out that person decided their nasal rinse was going to be
| alternating eucalyptus oil and bone broth because someone on
| Facebook said that was the most healing, and they claim that
| you as their doctor said it was OK. The case gets escalated
| to you having to explain to the board that you didn't make
| any such claim, but because there is a record of you saying
| that nasal rinses can be beneficial, it can be at the
| discretion of a "reasonable person" if that skirted too close
| to their line of culpability for the injury that the person
| sustained.
|
| The solution is to stick close to what is accepted medicine,
| and if people want to complain about establishment medicine,
| then let them. Doctors understand there is safety in the
| herd.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Do you have an actual instance of something like that
| happening? I'm not saying it never has. An MD ought to know
| his/her patients well enough to judge what kind of idiocy
| they're likely to go off and try.
|
| One thing where I do _not_ have a link is but I recall it
| happening is: quackery is impossible to kill with research.
| Someone does a double- blind study showing that peach pits
| are worthless against cancer, and the peach pit "doctors"
| just say "studied by legitimate science!" or "more research
| is needed!"
| jtc331 wrote:
| Doctors in hospital/healthcare systems are generally limited
| like the GP suggested. Independent doctors are much more able
| to do otherwise.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Considering my doctor recommended acupuncture for my allergies,
| I don't think this is true. Ah to live in a hippie area
| again...
| foobarian wrote:
| If this would help with poison ivy outbreaks I would be all over
| this.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| You don't need to eat it. A well-known phenomenon in the US
| military is that some of the sites for Basic Training of new
| recruits have prodigious quantities of poison oak/ivy/sumac as
| the local flora. As consequence of the military training, you are
| rolling around in those plants daily. Initially, a large
| percentage of people have the usual reaction but it quickly
| disappears after a few weeks and it never happens again,
| providing apparent permanent immunity.
|
| This is in contrast to the experience many kids have in the US of
| sporadic exposure and no immunity. Apparently intense sustained
| exposure is required.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| That's the exact opposite to what happens with DCC in chemical
| labs. DCC reacts with amino groups in proteins, same as
| urushiol in poison {oak,ivy,sumac} and is a notorious
| sensitizer. It happens to some graduate students that they are
| unable to work in a lab any longer.
| taurusnoises wrote:
| This is not how it works with these plants. Prolonged,
| sustained exposure results in worse symptoms over time as your
| immune response increases in intensity.
| https://www.pbsnc.org/blogs/science/poison-ivy-and-its-pals-...
| samatman wrote:
| That can't possibly be true.
|
| East Asian countries have a long tradition of lacquerware,
| which is made with urushiol-containing saps.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacquerware
|
| In fact urushi is the Japanese word for lacquer, the plant is
| in the genus Toxicodendron.
|
| Like most jobs until recently, making lacquerware was
| hereditary, and (clearly) the people making it were able to
| withstand sustained and direct exposure. It's possible that
| there is a genetic proclivity involved in ability to do the
| work, but just as clearly, there is hyposensitivity gained in
| exposure.
|
| Let me back that up with a citation.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1839723/
| jajko wrote:
| Wasnt there some sort of natural selection centuries ago so
| that only folks tolerant to such chemistry actually
| performed the job?
|
| I know next to nothing about these topics but there are
| some wildly opposite claims in this thread. Truth has the
| tendency, despite being complex, to generqlly favor one
| direction.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| That link doesn't make a claim quite that strong. I also
| don't know anyone that has eaten it.
|
| Given that I know dozens of people who demonstrably lost
| their sensitivity to poison oak via the accidental chronic
| exposure regimen I outlined above, at the very least it
| should raise a scientific question. It would be easier to
| dismiss if it was an isolated case or two. No one exposes
| themselves like that intentionally.
| echelon wrote:
| > lost their sensitivity to poison oak via the accidental
| chronic exposure regimen
|
| This is not how the immune system is known to work.
|
| Sensitivity does not downregulate. Increased exposure
| enhances detection and response. Recognition proliferates.
| Once you're allergic to something, it'll only worsen.
|
| You can become allergic to new things, but you won't lose
| allergies unless the recognizer population dies off
| entirely. And even if it did, you're likely close enough to
| training your immune system to this sensitivity again.
| (You've already done it at least once.)
|
| It's a failure mode of adaptive immunity.
| 01100011 wrote:
| I've lost allergies to chocolate and soy.
|
| If you can't lose allergies, why is exposure therapy a
| thing?
| echelon wrote:
| You're training a different kind of immune sensitivity.
| You're still inducing inflammation, and you're still
| allergic, you just see less IgE response.
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Simply because you're both right.
|
| One is correct in that repeated exposure to an allergen
| can upregulate IgE production, especially in cases of
| severe allergies like bee stings or peanuts. This is due
| to the immune system's sensitization process, where each
| exposure can lead to more intense reactions, driven by
| the Th2-mediated immune response that promotes IgE
| production and allergic inflammation.
|
| However, one is also correct that controlled exposure
| through allergen immunotherapy (SCIT or SLIT) can
| downregulate IgE and mitigate allergic responses. This
| therapy works by gradually introducing the allergen in
| controlled doses, which shifts the immune response from a
| Th2-dominated profile to a Th1-dominated or regulatory T
| cell (Treg) profile. This shift reduces IgE levels and
| increases the production of blocking antibodies like
| IgG4, leading to long-term desensitization and reduced
| allergic reactions.
|
| In particular environmental allergens (pollens, dust
| mites, animal dander, molds), insect venoms (bee, wasp)
| may respond well to immunotherapy but we've had poor
| success or disproportionate risk attempting to mitigate
| food allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, and shellfish),
| certain medications, and latex .
| armatav wrote:
| How do allergy shots work?
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Looks like you are giving "Ackshually" technically
| correct points, when it's clear what others are trying to
| say. Please engage with what they are trying to convey
| instead of coming up with technical gotchas.
| cyberax wrote:
| > You can become allergic to new things, but you won't
| lose allergies unless the recognizer population dies off
| entirely.
|
| That's not true. Desensitization therapy often works.
|
| The trick is to introduce the allergens into the
| bloodstream, bypassing the skin.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think that's necessary. I've been doing allergy
| immunotherapy for the past few years, and it's all
| subcutaneous. Definitely not into the bloodstream.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Sensitivity does not downregulate. Increased exposure
| enhances detection and response. Recognition
| proliferates. Once you 're allergic to something, it'll
| only worsen._
|
| I don't think that's correct. If it were, then allergy
| immunotherapy wouldn't work. Which... it does. Not
| perfectly, and not for everyone, but it does for many.
| simple10 wrote:
| From personal experience, exposure does not lead to lasting
| immunity. Quite the opposite. I've had several intense
| exposure rashes that were debilitating, like not being able
| to walk properly for a week due to leg swelling. And I still
| get rashes from poison oak.
|
| Maybe there's a bit of short term immunity from severe
| exposure. I've never tested that since the discomfort from an
| intense rash makes me avoid exposure like the plague for a
| few years.
| Anon4Now wrote:
| As an Army vet, this sounds ridiculous. You don't roll around
| anywhere daily, let alone on poison oak/ivy/sumac. What's your
| source on this?
| pengaru wrote:
| I doubt your claim but wanted to mention a La Honda local once
| gave me a ride stranded with a flat tire on Pescadero Creek Rd.
|
| His pickup bed was full of poison oak and landscaping tools,
| arms and hands filthy from the work.
|
| He warned me not to touch anything and not shake his hand etc.
| saying he's covered in poison oak but immune from the frequent
| exposure.
|
| It's everywhere around here and I react horribly to it, but
| this experience lends some credence to your claims...
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| About a half dozen times or more being exposed led to worse and
| worse reactions. It was awful.
|
| I've also never heard from others that your body gets used to
| it. I've always heard it gets worse every time, which was my
| experience. Obviously anecdata.
| zdragnar wrote:
| My personal experience is quite the opposite. Repeated exposure
| to poison ivy resulted in worse symptoms each time, leading to
| a scar from one particular welt that lasted years.
|
| Something similar happened to my father (we had moved to a new
| house that had a large patch that kept coming back) and the
| year before he finally managed to get rid of it, his reaction
| was so bad he actually couldn't eat cashews for a long time,
| since they can have traces of the urishol.
| post_break wrote:
| This reads like getting shot with ever increasing caliber of
| bullets helps build immunity.
|
| My wife is allergic to a plant we have in the garden, 5 years
| of rashes and it's not getting better.
| vrc wrote:
| n=1 but I used to be immune to it, then one summer started
| landscaping, and probably weed whacked and pulled more of it
| than ever. Started with small hives, then small rashes. Then
| each successive exposure got worse and worse and I had to take
| a long course of steroids to stop a multi week outbreak. Still
| have scars 20 years later. For me, more exposure made it far
| worse.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Just wash off the chemical soon as possible. It will turn red.
| And then it will go away. If it bubbles up, then wrap something
| around it to absorb the liquid that explodes from the rash.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I have read that the urushiol is also present in the skin of the
| mango fruit.
|
| I don't know if those who consume a lot of mangoes or have grown
| up with mango trees around them are immune to poison oak's
| urushiol(arguably much more concentrated) as its present in
| stems, saps, leaves, skin more than the flesh..but they likely
| have more tolerance.
|
| Also..in India, we don't burn mango leaves or branches as it
| increases respiratory risks..which ..now that I think about
| it..is likely due to the urushiol
| lostfiddler wrote:
| huh, every time I eat a kiwi my lips get itchy. I just googled
| and it doesn't look like it contains urushiol, but it does
| contain an allergen called "actinidin".
|
| This thread made me realize I'm allergic to kiwi's...
| modeless wrote:
| You may have oral allergy syndrome (OAS), which is similar to
| food allergy but not as severe. It doesn't typically lead to
| anaphylaxis. It is caused by pollen allergy, where the food
| has a protein similar to one that's in the pollen you're
| allergic to. This is called "cross-reactivity".
|
| Personally I have OAS with raw carrots, which is likely
| cross-reactive from my birch pollen allergy. Raw carrots make
| my throat mildly itchy, but I don't have a food allergy to
| carrots and I don't get anaphylaxis. Cooked carrots are
| totally fine, the cooking destroys the protein. This is a
| common feature of OAS.
|
| Actually, while I did have OAS with carrots in the past, I
| have recently been undergoing immunotherapy for pollen
| allergies (plus cat dander and mold) and in addition to my
| hay fever symptoms disappearing, I no longer get the itchy
| throat with raw carrots.
|
| This page has a list of common pollen allergies and the foods
| that they may be cross-reactive with:
| https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/oral-allergy-
| syndro...
| LegitShady wrote:
| I also think the very fine hairs may just be very irritating,
| not necessarily allergic, although you should get tested if
| you think its true.
| nirse wrote:
| My mom grew up in South Africa, '40s and '50s, she always made
| us wash our lips after eating mango to avoid a rash. Only later
| did I discover I didn't need to, I always assumed the rash-
| causing compound has been bred out of modern mangos.
| adzm wrote:
| Once I had the brilliant idea to eat a mango in slices like a
| melon. Turns out that's a great way to get a face rash.
| talkingtab wrote:
| I have worked with Urushi, aka Japanese lacquer. You get a rash,
| some people never get over it. Others do get over it, and I did.
| Years ago I was in the black thumb club. I could stick my thumb
| in Urushi, and not get a rash. Since Urushi was a big thing in
| Japan (and other places), people who worked harvesting or
| packaging or using it either got over or did not. I have a friend
| who did not. He said he could walk down the street and detect if
| there was raw Urushi anywhere near by.
|
| I still got a "tingle" even when I did not get a rash.
|
| The way to tolerate the adaptation is hot water - spray water as
| hot as you can stand (without damage) on the affected area and
| you will get substantial relief for about 12 hours. The relief of
| hot water on an affected area cannot be understated. A friend
| used the word "orgasmic" and it fits. I can almost imagine
| someone purposefully getting the rash just to take a shower.
|
| Finally in this bizarre world of Urushi - when it is cured (warm
| & humid), NOT dried, the chemical properties change so the
| coating does not cause problems. If you see photos of Chinese or
| Japanese rice bows ls that are red or black they are probably
| wooden bowl coated with Urushi and cured. Urushi as used to make
| eating utensils.
|
| There is more. There are an incredible number of decorative
| techniques. Supposedly each village had its own. One of the best
| is Rankaku. Tiny chips of quail egg shells are placed to form a
| pattern.
| plasticchris wrote:
| As a child I used to romp through poison ivy and poison oak. It
| has never bothered me.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| The more repeated exposures you get, your body cannot fight it
| off anymore. Then you suddenly "become allergic" to poison ivy.
|
| There are two types of people; those that are allergic to
| poison ivy, and those that will become allergic eventually.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I never got a rash until my late 30s (even after known
| exposure). Now I get the rash readily. I wish I'd avoided it
| more when I was younger.
| plasticchris wrote:
| I am almost forty now, never try to avoid it, still no
| problems. I even had a side gig going in high school removing
| it. But it is still only any anecdote.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| The first few bites when fire ants came to Texas hurt. The next
| few hurt less. Then they came to live in the walls of my parents'
| house. I would get multiple bites every day and wake up with a
| dozen more after every night. It wasn't that long before they
| didn't hurt or leave a bump at all anymore. First hand education
| in how the body develops resistance to toxins.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-19 23:01 UTC)