Allergies are a myth

[DarwinX]

The concept that a food can make you sick, is a fraudulent allegation. Its the dangerous pesticides and herbicides that are used to grow food that is what makes the so called "allergic reaction". Food by itself, is incapable of making you sick. Its only when chemicals are added that any poisoning can occur. The medical system is a cover for the pharmaceutical industry and creates so called diseases which disguise the real culprits. Never trust what a doctor says about any disease, they are all taught to lie and cover-up for their benefactors and sponsors, who are the pharmacy companies.

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/wh ... ergies.htm

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/BREAD.htm

[Rederic]

The concept that a food can make you sick, is a fraudulent allegation. Its the dangerous pesticides and herbicides that are used to grow food that is what makes the so called "allergic reaction". Food by itself, is incapable of making you sick. Its only when chemicals are added that any poisoning can occur. The medical system is a cover for the pharmaceutical industry and creates so called diseases which disguise the real culprits. Never trust what a doctor says about any disease, they are all taught to lie and cover-up for their benefactors and sponsors, who are the pharmacy companies.

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/wh ... ergies.htm

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/BREAD.htm

If one hundred people eat exactly the same food but only one becomes ill from it, this is an allergic reaction. If it's the chemicals that are the cause, why don't they all become ill?

[DarwinX]

If one hundred people eat exactly the same food but only one becomes ill from it, this is an allergic reaction. If it's the chemicals that are the cause, why don't they all become ill?

Firstly, you would need to conduct a chemical analysis of the food that was eaten which caused the problem. Currently, this is not done, because doctors assume that it is a food allergy and not chemical poisoning that has occurred.

Some people have more tolerance to toxic chemicals than others. It depends on the genetic fragility of your overall body system. Also, those people who have an adequate supply of iodine in their system will be protected from a small amount of toxic halogen poisoning. People who get allergic reactions or asthmatic conditions, usually have a big vitamin deficiency problem or some kind of genetic abnormality which predisposes them a sensitivity to any small amount of toxin.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm allergic to spiders.

I love peanut butter, but almost killed this girl one time who had a terrible peanut allergy just because I ate a peanut butter sandwich in the same room as her. She had to go to the hospital--would have died otherwise.

No, the allegation that allergies are a myth is clearly false.

The foods that are most common for allergies, like nuts and shellfish, are not correlated to the ones that get the most pesticide and/or GMO such as corn. I was actually just at a teach-in and rally in the city last weekend about GMO foods and pesticide and the dangers. Very different issue than simple allergies.

[DarwinX]

I'm allergic to spiders.

I love peanut butter, but almost killed this girl one time who had a terrible peanut allergy just because I ate a peanut butter sandwich in the same room as her. She had to go to the hospital--would have died otherwise.

No, the allegation that allergies are a myth is clearly false.

The foods that are most common for allergies, like nuts and shellfish, are not correlated to the ones that get the most pesticide and/or GMO such as corn. I was actually just at a teach-in and rally in the city last weekend about GMO foods and pesticide and the dangers. Very different issue than simple allergies.

Why are peanuts allergic?

Is it because they are grown under ground and in rotation with cotton crops?

Is it because they are sprayed with fungicide, pesticide and herbicides every 9-10 days?

is it because peanuts are subject to aflatoxin and fungus infection?

Is it because they add corn oil and soy bean oil which both are GM crops grown with excessive pesticides?

In short, peanuts are the most pesticide intensive crop which is grown by farmers. The fact that it causes an immune system reaction is too much of a coincidence. Thus, the evidence clearly shows that pesticides must be the causative agent.

The fact that peanut allergy goes hand in hand with stunted growth, thyroid disease and asthma, reveals that those persons who are subject to peanut allergy are vitamin deficient in iodine, selenium and other important groups which adds to their vulnerability.

http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bi ... t-peanuts/

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Organic peanuts also cause allergic reactions. Therefore, your conclusion is false.

[DarwinX]

Organic peanuts also cause allergic reactions. Therefore, your conclusion is false.

Please supply statistical evidence. Were the peanuts contaminated with fungus?

Pharmacy companies will produce false accounts to protect their interests.

Nature produces its own pesticides to guard against fungus.

What was the iodine level of the person who got sick?

What was the genetic make up of the person?

Were the peanuts chemically analysed to make sure that there wasn't any contaminating agents? No, I'll bet.

Your argument is all speculation, assumption and bluff. I am not bluffed. Sorry.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Please supply statistical evidence. Were the peanuts contaminated with fungus?

Why do you bring up fungus? Lots of people like to eat fungus, mushrooms for instance.

Nature produces its own pesticides to guard against fungus.

Perhaps. Some people can eat natural, organic peanuts; others are allergic. It's really that simple.

What was the iodine level of the person who got sick?

I see no evidence that even just most peanut allergies could b treated by alterations in iodine levels.

What was the genetic make up of the person?

What's the relevance of this question?

Were the peanuts chemically analysed to make sure that there wasn't any contaminating agents? No, I'll bet.

Yes, there are regulations in place for marking items as organic. And it's not like a person who is allergic to peanuts eats organic peanuts every now and then and then one time gets sick. Any time they have organic peanuts they get a severe reaction. This affects over 1% of population.

Sorry.

"Sorry lol lol lol" is an extremely poor argument; well it's so ridiculously poor it's not really an argument at all; it's a pseudo-argument and has no place on a philosophy forum.

[Rederic]

I once knew a young lad who was allergic to eggs, the same eggs that the rest of his family ate without problems. He had the same reaction to anything that contained eggs, e.g. shop bought cakes. You're clearly barking up the wrong tree with this. Best abandon this one & concentrate on one of your many other conspiracy theories.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Indeed.

The pseudo-argument here against allergies is so fundamentally nonsensical even without getting to the point of realizing DarwinX has provided no reliable evidence for this one particular conspiracy theory: Even if it was the pesticides, et al, that was causing a specific 1% of the population to need to be hospitalized when eating peanuts--for instance--then that would mean that 1% is severely allergic to those pesticides. They have a severe allergic reaction when they eat the item--whatever it is--and the rest don't. It's really that simple.

And don't think claiming that while only the 1% has an immediate severe reaction one can deny the existence of an allergy based on the claim that everyone allegedly suffers more minor, slow, long-term issues from the item. That point is addressed by allergies of spider bites and bee stings; there is no assertion that the absence of a severe allergic reaction means those things are good for one.

But to deny that people have different reactions to different things--if not simply from way of being born with different genes and natural hormone levels--to the degree that we can know one person will be sent to the hospital if they ingest and/or come in contact to (i.e. "is allergic to") an item like peanuts or bee stings and another person will not, well that's just inhumane, terrible and extremely dangerous. Imagine sending one's beloved child to a school where the teacher would say "Oh I know John's parents report he is allergic to peanuts, but allergies don't exist so let's whip out the peanuts while John is here rather than at least asking John to step out first, and Mary's parents report she is allergic to bees but hey let's take the same precautions we do with any other kid around bees whose parents claim they are not allergic to bees because allergies don't exist." It's ridiculous and dangerous, and so absurdly and willfully ignorant that one acting as such might not only need to lose their job but be incarcerated.

[DarwinX]

Why do you bring up fungus? Lots of people like to eat fungus, mushrooms for instance.

If you had read anything about peanut production you would have known that peanuts are subject to fungus attack. This is where one of the poisonous aspects of peanuts is produced. It is called aflatoxin. This is a naturally occurring toxin that discourages insects from eating the peanut. People who have low levels of iodine in their system may be sensitive to aflatoxin.

Perhaps. Some people can eat natural, organic peanuts; others are allergic. It's really that simple.

Its never that simple. The immune system needs certain elements otherwise it doesn't operate. Its really that simple!

I see no evidence that even just most peanut allergies could b treated by alterations in iodine levels.

So you don't know how the immune system functions? Why bother commenting then?

What was the genetic make up of the person?

What's the relevance of this question?

Did the person have any other medical conditions such as thyroid dysfunction, dwarfism or asthma?

Yes, there are regulations in place for marking items as organic. And it's not like a person who is allergic to peanuts eats organic peanuts every now and then and then one time gets sick. Any time they have organic peanuts they get a severe reaction. This affects over 1% of population.

Just because something is marked as organic doesn't necessarily mean that this particular batch was organic. The peanuts could have been grown in a foreign country where agricultural regulations are not strictly enforced.

The chances of a particular crop, which is the most heavily dosed with pesticides (taking into consideration world wide agriculture), also being the most allergic crop; is astronomically impossible to calculate even using the most advanced computer. Your argument is thus, both mathematically and logically non-viable. The laws of probability are definitely not on your side!

Still waiting for you to supply evidence to support your claims.

1. What testing and chemical analysis has been done on these alleged 'natural peanuts'?

2. What was the country of origin of these naturally grown but carcinogenic peanuts?

3. What is the ratio of allergy in regards to the consumption of natural peanuts as opposed to pesticide grown peanuts?

-- Updated May 17th, 2014, 3:49 am to add the following --

I once knew a young lad who was allergic to eggs, the same eggs that the rest of his family ate without problems. He had the same reaction to anything that contained eggs, e.g. shop bought cakes. You're clearly barking up the wrong tree with this. Best abandon this one & concentrate on one of your many other conspiracy theories.

Please state what his symptoms were. What sort of a diet did he have? Did he eat fruit and vegetables? etc Need more information.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

[quote="Scott"Why do you bring up fungus? Lots of people like to eat fungus, mushrooms for instance.[/quote]

If you had read anything about peanut production you would have known that peanuts are subject to fungus attack. This is where one of the poisonous aspects of peanuts is produced. It is called aflatoxin. This is a naturally occurring toxin that discourages insects from eating the peanut. People who have low levels of iodine in their system may be sensitive to aflatoxin.

What's the relevance of these claims? Are you saying that some people are severely allergic to aflatoxin and most people are not?

You ignored the point that lots of people eat fungus, like mushrooms.

Perhaps. Some people can eat natural, organic peanuts; others are allergic. It's really that simple.

Its never that simple. The immune system needs certain elements otherwise it doesn't operate.

Non-sequitur.

Some people are allergic to bee stings, others are allergic to peanuts, others are allergic to shell fish, others are allergic to certain kinds of spider bites. Iodine levels thus cannot explain one having allergies.

I see no evidence that even just most peanut allergies could be treated by alterations in iodine levels.

So you don't know how the immune system functions?

Don't make an ad hominem against me because you haven't provided evidence to backup your claims.

What was the genetic make up of the person?

What's the relevance of this question?

Did the person have any other medical conditions such as thyroid dysfunction, dwarfism or asthma?

Why do you ask; Are dwarfs usually allergic to peanuts?

Yes, there are regulations in place for marking items as organic. And it's not like a person who is allergic to peanuts eats organic peanuts every now and then and then one time gets sick. Any time they have organic peanuts they get a severe reaction. This affects over 1% of population.

Just because something is marked as organic doesn't necessarily mean that this particular batch was organic.

This point has already been rebutted in a previous post. People who are allergic to an item--like peanuts for instance--aren't allergic to it in a single happenstance (e.g. from one messed up batch) but are allergic to it all the time. The girl suffering from a peanut allergy didn't have a reaction to a special batch of peanuts, she has a reaction to all batches of organic peanuts.

The chances of a particular crop, which is the most heavily dosed with pesticides (taking into consideration world wide agriculture), also being the most allergic crop; is astronomically impossible to calculate even using the most advanced computer. Your argument is thus, both mathematically and logically non-viable.

Strawman argument. Nobody on here as argued as far as I can see that pesticide usage doesn't increase the prevalence of allergic reactions, nor that perhaps some people are allergic to pesticides. (I even linked to a a rally I just went to last weekend against GMO crops and pesticides, so even though your strawman would be fallacious either way it's particularly ridiculous since its irrelevant accusations are themselves incorrect.)

This makes your 'argument' appear very weak and unconvincing so much so that I have trouble calling it an argument. If "lol lol lol" is even halfway close to the best 'argument' you have to support this conspiracy theory, then I have to reject it for lack of evidence/argument.

Still waiting for you to supply evidence to support your claims.

What claims? Please, verbatim.

1. What testing and chemical analysis has been done on these alleged 'natural peanuts'?

http://www.ccof.org/faqs

2. What was the country of origin of these naturally grown but carcinogenic peanuts?

What carcinogenic peanuts?

3. What is the ratio of allergy in regards to the consumption of natural peanuts as opposed to pesticide grown peanuts?

That is a crucial question to your argument, without an answer to which your argument seems to fail completely. Really for your argument to even come close to working, the ratio needs to 0 such that truly organic food never causes an allergic reaction in a person. Even then your argument still fails as explained in my previous post because it's structured with contradiction, but at least than you would have shown that of the 'food allergies' that people have they are actually allergies to pesticides or or non-organic compounds/alterations to food. Your 'argument' however has yet to provide evidence that such is the case.

***

It is of note that allergies have been around throughout all of recorded history. For instance:

One of the earliest reports of an allergic disorder is that of King Menses of Egypt. He was reportedly killed a wasp sting around 3500 BC. Another report from ancient history is that of Britannicus, son of the Roman Emperor Claudius. Britannicus seemed to have an allergic reaction to horses. Reportedly his eyes would swell to the extent that he could not see where he was going. Therefore the honor of riding by horseback at the head of the young patricians (a title given to high court officials or societal elites) fell to Claudius’s adopted son Nero, who allegedly threw Christians to the lions and eventually killed Britannicus. Perhaps if Britannicus did not have this horse allergy, the bloodthirsty Nero never would have eventually gained the advantage over Britannicus, nor been able to enforce his cruelty.

[full article]

[DarwinX]

What's the relevance of these claims? Are you saying that some people are severely allergic to aflatoxin and most people are not?

What I am saying is that its not the peanut that is the problem. Its either the fungus aflatoxin, or the pesticides, fungicides and herbicides that is the problem. It is not an allergy, it is just plain poisoning of the body system. There is no such thing as an 'allergy'. This is a myth created by the medical fraternity to protect farmers and manufacturers from litigation. It is the same as germ theory, which is another myth, which was created to protect pharmacy, agriculture and governments from blame and litigation by the public. Note - If peanuts are not stored correctly (refrigerated) the aflatoxin level can grow and increase dramatically. Peanuts are very absorbent and will soak up large amounts of pesticide during their growing time.

You ignored the point that lots of people eat fungus, like mushrooms.

The fungus that attacks peanuts is of a particular variety which is toxic. Most mushrooms are edible, but many are also very toxic and poisonous. If you eat any poisonous mushroom you should expect to either get very sick or die as a consequence.

https://fungimap.org.au/index.php/learn ... nous-fungi

Some people are allergic to bee stings, others are allergic to peanuts, others are allergic to shell fish, others are allergic to certain kinds of spider bites. Iodine levels thus cannot explain one having allergies.

Spiders, bees, shell fish all produce toxic poison to discourage other animals from eating them and they can use this poison as a weapon to attack other creatures.

Don't make an ad hominem against me because you haven't provided evidence to backup your claims.

Iodine is an integral part of the immune system. The immune system can't function without it. If you don't know this, then your argument is very weak and implausible. It is not an ad hominem.

What was the genetic make up of the person?

What's the relevance of this question?

If someone has a genetic weakness which is expressed in other ways such as stunted growth, goitre or asthma, then this would explain why they are sensitive to peanuts. Their body doesn't produce enough T4 and T2 (iodine hormones) to deal with any minor toxic intrusions.

This point has already been rebutted in a previous post. People who are allergic to an item--like peanuts for instance--aren't allergic to it in a single happenstance (e.g. from one messed up batch) but are allergic to it all the time. The girl suffering from a peanut allergy didn't have a reaction to a special batch of peanuts, she has a reaction to all batches of organic peanuts.

Do you have any laboratory tests which prove this point? Or are you just making it up as you go?

Strawman argument. Nobody on here as argued as far as I can see that pesticide usage doesn't increase the prevalence of allergic reactions, nor that perhaps some people are allergic to pesticides. (I even linked to a a rally I just went to last weekend against GMO crops and pesticides, so even though your strawman would be fallacious either way it's particularly ridiculous since its irrelevant accusations are themselves incorrect.)

Nobody is 'allergic' to pesticides. You are poisoned by them, they are toxic. They contain rogue halogens which replace iodine in the body, thus, rendering the immune system disabled. You really need to do more research into how the immune system functions before making any further comments.

This makes your 'argument' appear very weak and unconvincing so much so that I have trouble calling it an argument. If "lol lol lol" is even halfway close to the best 'argument' you have to support this conspiracy theory, then I have to reject it for lack of evidence/argument.

This is your website which you created. If you added these smiley icons to your program, then why are you mocking their usage? A little humour never hurt anybody, did it?

[

1. What testing and chemical analysis has been done on these alleged 'natural peanuts'?

http://www.ccof.org/faqs

I am referring to testing and analysis of the batch that was toxic,(i.e. somebody had an unfavourable reaction to peanuts) Why is it that the medical institutions/ police dept. don't analyse the food of people who get food poisoning? They just call it a germ or an allergy and walk away satisfied that they have done a good job. Yeah, they have done a good job at protecting farmers, food manufacturers and governments. Good on you, medical practitioners and police dept. (these smilies are Scott certified and are thus, viable comments)

One of the earliest reports of an allergic disorder is that of King Menses of Egypt. He was reportedly killed a wasp sting around 3500 BC. Another report from ancient history is that of Britannicus, son of the Roman Emperor Claudius. Britannicus seemed to have an allergic reaction to horses. Reportedly his eyes would swell to the extent that he could not see where he was going. Therefore the honor of riding by horseback at the head of the young patricians (a title given to high court officials or societal elites) fell to Claudius’s adopted son Nero, who allegedly threw Christians to the lions and eventually killed Britannicus. Perhaps if Britannicus did not have this horse allergy, the bloodthirsty Nero never would have eventually gained the advantage over Britannicus, nor been able to enforce his cruelty.

[full article

I suppose you believe in the Bible as well.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is not an allergy, it is just plain poisoning of the body system. There is no such thing as an 'allergy'.

Ipse dixit.

Your argument fails not only due to lack of evidence, but also because it simply doesn't make sense:

About one out of hundred people can be classified as allergic to peanuts. To them, peanuts are poison. To the rest of us, we won't need to go the hospital if we eat peanuts. The allergy concept is very importantly meaningful, and is demonstrated. See the previous illustration with a teacher who would need to be fired if not incarcerated for failure to recognize allergies are real.

You contradict yourself by trying to explain (without sufficient evidence!) why 1 in 100 people need to be hospitalized when eating peanuts/fungus/whatever and 99 of the 100 do not.

[DarwinX]

About one out of hundred people can be classified as allergic to peanuts. To them, peanuts are poison. To the rest of us, we won't need to go the hospital if we eat peanuts. The allergy concept is very importantly meaningful, and is demonstrated. See the previous illustration with a teacher who would need to be fired if not incarcerated for failure to recognize allergies are real.

You contradict yourself by trying to explain (without sufficient evidence!) why 1 in 100 people need to be hospitalized when eating peanuts/fungus/whatever and 99 of the 100 do not.

Your analysis, if you could call it that, is just a reiteration of the tired old establishment consensus viewpoint. You have failed to address dozens of important issues and finer points of detail and hope that by restating the consensus opinion that you will win the day. You have ignored the vitamin deficiency and immune system function aspects of disease and allergy causality. You have not researched how the immune system functions and have no idea about the finer points of allergy and disease origin.

I have supplied all the relevant evidence. If you choose to ignore it, then, that is not a case of my knowledge deficit but is your problem. If a teacher gets fired because they failed to recognize an allergy, then, that is an education system problem. Teachers have to stick with the government consensus, otherwise they will be sacked. Governments are Mafia communist organisations, so they can't be trusted to deliver accurate information about health issues. I used to work for the government so I know how they operate.