Alpha-gal

This is a very interesting article. A piece I did not understand until I did some additional research was this part:

"Oncologists in the southeastern United States noticed something strange. In Tennessee and North Carolina, 22% of cetuximab patients suffered immediate hypersensitivity reactions on their first infusion. In the northeastern US, the figure was under 1%.⁷ The regional pattern was striking. Patients were reacting violently to a drug they had never been exposed to before, which meant something had sensitized them in advance."

Then I looked up the tick map from https://tickapp.tamu.edu/home/tick-identification/lone-star-tick/lst_distribution_map/ and saw the illustration. Makes sense now.

And then I saw the pic below from this study https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(23)01201-1/abstract

    My opinion is that just like all newly discovered viruses, diseases, syndromes etc., that alpha gal has a developing body of knowledge.  We have much to learn.  In the future, we will find that many things that we now believe are true are actually wrong or partial truths.  That goes for every topic known and unknown to people.  Sometimes there will be cover-ups and sinister reasons, but mostly, when it comes to Scientists and Physicians, it's that we don't know what we don't know.  And I am careful of all that I read, suspect everyone, read all sides/opinions, and look for hard science. Humans fear the unknown and death, so I believe that having something/someone to blame gives us a measure of comfort.
    For example, there is a widely held opinion that big pharma is hiding the "cure for cancer" so money can be made from chemo (and I suppose Cart-T therapy and immunotherapy as well).  If this is true, how do they select who lives?  I know many people who received chem, radiation, etc., and have had no recurrence for 20 years or more, so how does one get on the"cure" list?  Childhood leukemia has gone from a death sentence to a 90% cure rate.  Cancer is not just one disease.  There will never be an all-in-one cure for cancer (except that, haha on me, I could be wrong! As I said, don't know what we don't know!) If there is a hidden cure for cancer, why didn't the following pharma executives use it?:
    Senthil Sundaram: The former CEO of Terns Pharmaceuticals passed away in November 2023 following a battle with an aggressive form of cancer.
    Zhao Ning: The co-founder and director of WuXi AppTec, a major pharmaceutical research and development company, died at the age of 56 in May 2023 after battling cancer for 20 years.
     Jon Berndt: The Senior Vice President of Sales at Exelixis, a company focused on oncology treatments, passed away in September 2021 after a lengthy battle with cancer.
     Jonathan Sackler: A co-owner and former executive board member of Purdue Pharma, died at age 65 on June 30, 2020, following a long battle with cancer.
     Michael Becker: The former CEO of Cytogen and AxCell Biosciences passed away in July 2019 from oropharyngeal cancer. Before his death, he became a prominent public advocate for cancer awareness.  
        Not a friend of AI, but it provided this information about "unbekoming ":
"Information on unbekoming.com is generally considered skewed information rather than objective scientific consensus.
While the site presents deep-dive analyses that touch on legitimate topics—such as conflicts of interest in medicine, the pitfalls of the medical-industrial complex, and flaws in corporate clinical trials—its conclusions heavily rely on selective evidence, anti-establishment framing, and common vaccine-skeptic/alternative-medicine narratives.
Evidence of Skewed Information
Confirmation Bias & Cherry-Picking: The articles frequently aggregate data to support a predetermined conclusion (e.g., that widespread medical procedures or childhood vaccines are systematically harmful or untested). It selectively pulls real systemic criticisms to delegitimize broadly accepted public health metrics.                    
Misinterpretation of Clinical Data: For example, posts argue that vaccines are never tested against true saline placebos. In reality, while active comparators (like an older vaccine formula or an adjuvant-only solution) are used in some trials to ethically maintain blinding or match side effects, many foundational safety trials do utilize inert placebos, a fact often obscured by the newsletter's rhetoric.
Absence of Peer Review: Substack is a self-publishing platform with no editorial oversight, scientific peer review, or  accountability
      So I appreciate the questioning and bringing to light some ideas to be looked in to, this is how we grow and learn! I encourage everyone to be careful, read from scholarly articles, take personal experience into account, keep ones's eyes wide open, and watch out for well-written articles that skew information.  I wish everyone peace and happiness.  If your opinion differs from mine, isn't it beautiful? Just think about what we can learn about each other's experiences!