There’s a lot of misinformation from dipshit allergists that don’t understand that ‘less risk’ for ‘the average peanut-allergic person’ does not mean ‘no risk’ for ‘all peanut allergic people.’

That article is incredibly bad, and it’s citing research that is either bad or misinterpreted.

Simonte, as I said, was a dogshit study with a minuscule sample size of only 29 people, it is in no way a ‘landmark’ study, it’s directly fucking killed people. To put into perspective how goddamn bad the study was, they claimed ‘highly allergic’ subjects were tested, and those subjects additionally had peanut butter smeared on their arms. Most did not react, meaning they very much were not very allergic in the first place and would have never reacted to the airborne allergens in the first place. Several did react (minimally) to skin contact with the allergen.

Simonte’s conclusion DESPITE SEEING REACTIONS was that ‘casual contact cannot cause allergic reactions’ which is ABSOLUTE FUCKING NONSENSE. Contact-based reactions are VERY well established. His entire study is completely worthless. He tested an incredibly small sample of minimally allergic, and even non-allergic, people to specific aras of allegen that don’t go airborne well. I will give some credit- we didn’t know at the time that those specific aras didn’t go airborne well. To his discredit, we DID know there are more aras.

Perry’s test was useful research re: cleaning, but the airborne section wasn’t particularly useful because it only focused on testing for ara 1, 2, and 3, which are the heaviest aras. They fall from the air quickly, this is known. You can be allergic to aras 1-9 (and some cross reactivity stuff I won’t go into). A lot of allergist researchers ONLY focus on ara 1 and 2, and occasionally 3, because ‘most’ people with allergies are allergic to those. You want to know how many peanut allergic adults can be identified solely through those? Only a third. (Kansen et al, 2020) And yet you still see stupid shit like Hemming’s dumbass research that saying that ara 2 is the only thing you need to check.

Case in point, they immediately quote Jin et al, 2016, which ONLY LOOKS AT ARA 2. Meaning it’s useful for fuck all in regards to actual allergic reactions from 70% of the population that’s allergic.

tl;dr: You typically end up exposed to less of an allergen in a airborne situation. This is true. You end up exposed to less types of allergen in an airborne situation, this is also true. This does NOT mean that you cannot have a reaction to airborne allergens, or that peanut allergens cannot get airborne. It just means that it is RARER. And indeed, there are documented cases of people reacting to airborne allergens (even ones that they are not aware of, since you can indeed make yourself have the symptoms of an allergic reaction to nothing if you think you SHOULD be having a reaction).

EDIT: I should note- if you actually look at the underlying studies that the article is quoting, most of them are reasonably legit and say up front what they are/are not testing, e.g. Perry’s. I’m not saying the research is bad (except for Simonte’s PoS), it’s the article that’s taking VERY SPECIFIC research and generalizing it across all allergens, which just simply not how allergies work.

EDIT2: I just realized the article literally cites Sicherer et al, and claims it says the opposite of what it does. What the fuck?

Your source did not show/prove that “Airborne peanut allergy is not a thing”. It just shows that peanut being airborne is unlikely. Not sure how good is Semonte’s study, I will read the paper and report back.