In this case, the conclusion doesn't even quite support the hypothesis. The level of increase in prevalence from a generation ago is greater than the level of claimed reduction from early exposure today.
It's very possible that early exposure is beneficial. It makes sense to me. However, that does not explain why peanut allergies are so much higher now than a century ago. The under-diagnosis hypothesis does not make sense either, since the reactions are so severe.
Something is leading to exploding allergies. I can list other hypotheses, at least as strong, including:
- Travel and genetics (we co-evolve to local environments; the US is mostly immigrant)
- Parasites / hygiene hypothesis
- Environmental changes / new industrial-age pollutants
And, of course, there are things we don't know about and combination effects.
Footnote: Peanuts are native to South America. When the Spanish came, or they were introduced to Europe, we didn't see mass anaphylaxis either, at least as far as I know.
It's very possible that early exposure is beneficial. It makes sense to me. However, that does not explain why peanut allergies are so much higher now than a century ago. The under-diagnosis hypothesis does not make sense either, since the reactions are so severe.
Something is leading to exploding allergies. I can list other hypotheses, at least as strong, including:
- Travel and genetics (we co-evolve to local environments; the US is mostly immigrant)
- Parasites / hygiene hypothesis
- Environmental changes / new industrial-age pollutants
And, of course, there are things we don't know about and combination effects.
Footnote: Peanuts are native to South America. When the Spanish came, or they were introduced to Europe, we didn't see mass anaphylaxis either, at least as far as I know.