IMO it's opportunistic capitalizing on the fuzzy risk group guidelines that have been mashed through the sausage maker of social media turning customary products of scholarship into medical self-promotion channels that thus far have not been held accountable - even when med professionals violate their own public institution's social media policy or ethics guidelines.
I think the LEAP study is solid for the one study it is, and it has nothing to do with these products. If anything the Antera and Aralyte handles on Twitter are possibly violating FTC guidelines by making it appear blogs, FARE, the Notorious JRB_FARE, and various docs on Twitter are endorsing them. For me personally the LEAP study served as a catalyst to transfer long term care from Sinai to Stanford for OIT because I see the writing on the wall, this is where the focus will be. Too many level headed people here have tried private practice OIT with success.
Yes.... opportunistic capitalizing.... but that is the point when you have one study that is now going to be quoted and used ..... we live in a world where opportunism and capitalism are king, celebrated and held above everything else. To me, this sort of product is just the tip of the iceberg when you've got the medical establishment altering guidelines 5 minutes after one study comes out.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the Bamba company isn't flooding the American market with it's products and telling everyone to feed their kids one serving a day because it will help keep allergies away.
But, it is precisely this type of thing that makes me so annoyed by the publishing and accepting of the LEAP study so quickly by the "establishment". There really is no accountability these days it seems. Once things are out on Facebook and twitter... well... now it is fact, the world runs with it, and you aren't able to actually have a moment to assess the actual ramifications & impact.
And, honestly, if I were one of those companies, I'm not sure if they will have a problem will they? If you are writing a paper, for example, and you want to prove a point, you can find quotes and selectively edit to make it look like you have weighty support for what you are saying. Sure, it is sort of sketchy, but is it illegal? If there is a study out there that says "X".... and the medical establishment now is saying that everyone should follow "X"..... and your product just is about following something that is based on the theory put out by the study, well then isn't your product a legitimate way to follow the guidelines that exist now by legitimate medical establishment?
I think there will be plenty of companies coming up with products just like this one for all sorts of allergens. Frankly, why not really? Why stop at peanuts? All of the parents out there wanting to prevent their kids from getting food allergies. Heck, I'd probably start a company that packaged up all sorts of tree nuts and seeds. You could even maybe have a special order company where you submitted requests for specific allergens.
I can even imagine that those places that do... what is that.... naturopathic (sp?) testing.... they could have a "and when you get your results do you want us to make some capsules for you to take to help prevent this from worsening?" type tandem business.
And, you have the medical establishment now saying that you should be feeding your kids peanuts early because it prevents peanut allergy. You know, cause apparently you can know that kids are going to get it.... and you can prevent it.... cause when you don't feed it to them it causes the allergy. Right?
All those other kids that didn't fit the study, that exist out there with the allergy for real, well.... we won't talk about those kids... and we'll just hope that somehow they don't die at some point.
Edited to add: Forgot to mention, that I am also sure there is a pretty decent disclaimer on any product.... including peanut pills. I am wondering though how many doctors offices will also start issuing disclaimers?