Our peanut allergies were deadly — now we eat them every day thanks to a ‘well-worn’ routine

New York Post - Apr 24th, 2025

Two British men, once severely allergic to peanuts, can now safely consume them thanks to a nine-month clinical trial conducted by King's College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The study used oral immunotherapy to gradually desensitize participants to peanuts, with 14 out of 21 patients ending the trial able to eat up to five peanuts daily without adverse reactions. This significant development has transformed the lives of participants like Chris Brookes-Smith and Richard Lassiter, who can now enjoy everyday activities without the fear of severe allergic reactions.

The trial's success highlights the potential of oral immunotherapy in treating food allergies, a method primarily used for children until now. Professor Stephen Till, who led the research, noted the broader implications for treating other food allergies, although he cautioned that different foods may require specific trials due to varying allergenic properties. This breakthrough suggests a promising future for allergy sufferers, though more extensive trials are necessary to explore its application beyond peanuts. The study's success marks a hopeful step forward in allergy treatment, offering newfound freedom and safety to those affected.

Food Allergies Peanut Allergy Oral Immunotherapy King's College London Guy’s And St Thomas’ Nhs Foundation Trust Chris Brookes Smith Richard Lassiter Stephen Till Clinical Trial Desensitization

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a compelling and largely accurate account of a groundbreaking clinical trial for peanut allergies, supported by credible sources and engaging personal narratives. It successfully highlights the potential benefits of oral immunotherapy while maintaining a clear and accessible narrative. However, the story could be improved by including a broader range of perspectives, more detailed methodological transparency, and a discussion of potential risks or ethical considerations. Overall, the article is timely and relevant, addressing a significant public health issue with the potential to impact both individual lives and broader medical practices.

Accuracy

The story is highly accurate, with most claims supported by credible sources. The description of the clinical trial, including the method of oral immunotherapy and the results, aligns with information from reputable institutions like King's College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Specific details, such as the number of participants and the outcome of the trial, are consistent with official reports. The quotes from participants Chris Brookes-Smith and Richard Lassiter are verified through reliable media outlets. However, the story could benefit from more precise data on the prevalence of peanut allergies to enhance accuracy further.

Balance

The story presents a positive view of the clinical trial's outcomes, focusing on the success stories of the participants. While it highlights the potential benefits of the treatment, it does not explore potential risks or challenges in depth, which might give a slightly unbalanced perspective. Including expert opinions or data on possible adverse effects or the trial's limitations would provide a more comprehensive view. The article also lacks perspectives from those who might oppose or critique the trial's methodology or implications.

Clarity

The article is well-written, with a clear and engaging narrative that makes complex medical information accessible to a general audience. The structure is logical, with a progression from personal stories to expert insights. However, some technical terms, such as 'oral immunotherapy,' could be explained more thoroughly for readers unfamiliar with medical jargon. Overall, the tone is neutral and informative, aiding comprehension.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, including interviews with Professor Stephen Till and statements from participants. It also mentions the institutions involved in the trial, lending credibility to the claims. However, the story could improve by directly citing peer-reviewed studies or official publications from the institutions involved, which would strengthen the source quality. The absence of a variety of expert opinions slightly limits the depth of the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides a clear explanation of the clinical trial's methodology, describing the process of oral immunotherapy. However, it lacks detailed information about the study's design, such as control measures, participant selection criteria, or funding sources, which would enhance transparency. The story does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, which is important for understanding the full context of the findings.