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
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)
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.
Yes, this is known to be true. Studies of oral immunotherapy often show failure rates in the 20-30% range, and nobody knows a way to accurately predict who will succeed and who will fail without actually going through the whole treatment. IgE levels can correlate with success but they are far from a perfect predictor. The other big factor is age. If you can start immunotherapy super early, like in the 0-2 year old range, it is significantly more likely to work.
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
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.
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.
I had brain zaps with Zyrtec (Cetirizine) that took me a while to recognize for what they were because I thought they were related to other meds I was taking. I find Allegra (Fexofenadine) agrees with me a lot better. Personally I hate Claritin (Loratadine) as it definitely makes me depressed.
Experience with those others makes me wary of using Allegra except when my allergy symptoms are really bad.
BTW: Benadryl (Diphenhydramine), which has the same ingredient in the same dose marketed as a sleep aid, is really good for Poison Ivy because of its ability to penetrate into tissues really well. 30 years ago you would get a prescription for a round of steroid pills that will have you feeling pretty messed up for a week if you got Poison Ivy but today you are likely to be told to go to the pharmacy and treat yourself with OTC pills. Poison Ivy is bad enough that most people will take the drowsiness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not exactly a _toxin_, just sometimes trigger allergic reactions.