Peanut allergy theory backed up by new research
bbc.com
bbc.com
"This indicates that peanut consumption may not be possible in some children who meet the LEAP eligibility criteria. In addition, the LEAP study design excluded 9.1% of the infants who were screened (76 of 834) because large wheals (greater than 4 mm in diameter) developed after the skin-prick test21 that were probably associated with peanut allergy; the safety and effectiveness of early peanut consumption in that population remain unknown."
My parents used to dip my dummy in whiskey when I was teething. Not sure where the medical community stands on this one.
All this new advise of "don't do this, don't do that"... At least paying attention to the media, etc. has resulted in a rise in issues like peanut allergies which were not an issue 30+ years ago.
For example, in Spain kids typically grow up buying drinks in shops, drinking them outside (the so-called "botellón") and partying until 5 or 6 AM from when they are like 15 or 16 (sometimes even at 13). It's considered to be a problem but most of the time nothing really serious happens, as they grow up knowing how to control themselves after they have drank too much and been taken home by their friends once or twice. When there are news about people jumping off balconies or doing similarly stupid things due to being dangerously drunk, they are almost inevitably British youngsters on holiday who aren't used to drinking in their country due to heavy taxation and restrictions, so their drinking goes completely out of hand when they suddenly get the chance to do what they never could before.
Not saying that kids getting drunk at 13 is OK, but the other extreme is definitely bad too. Encouraging kids to have their first contact with alcohol in a family environment rather than in a wild partying trip to Ibiza is definitely a good idea in my book.
It was a sickening, mildy traumatic experience and as a result neither of them ever smoked again.
I'm unsure whether introducing other vices this way would have similar outcomes, but there's a lot to be said for simply removing the allure of secrecy and taboo.
Honey is not an allergic issue, it's about the bodies ability to fend off botulism when the baby is less than a year. Their bodies are just not capable of dealing with that. Similar to kidney and liver development being require before giving kids ibprofrin or tylonol.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
Thank you for the honey exception. That's an imporant one I learned about with my first kid.
oh come on, there's nothing here supporting that overly-broad, emotive statement.
Great way to give your kid botulism.
honey on toast some mornings so baby had a bit of that
We might have just found a correlation here.
These are two very, very different things.
On the one hand, over-caution with common allergens (like PB) is annoying and heavy-handed and probably contributes to the problem because failing to expose children to these common allergens just serves to increase their sensitivity. I think you had a good instinct there and it mirrors my own behavior with regard to my children and what they eat, etc.
So far so good.
But babies (0-18 months) cannot be given honey. It has nothing to do with allergies. Honey contains C. botulinum which, depending on the age and strength of the child, can lead to infant botulism[1].
http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2014fall/i-can-eat-it.html
Essentially they introduce increasingly larger doses of the allergen until your body develops a tolerance to it (essentially what the OP claims, but as you're no longer a baby, it takes a lot longer).
The only caveat is that you are required to continue to eat the allergen for the rest of your life, to maintain your tolerance.
Stanford is currently enrolling in its peanut OIT study for adults. If you have a peanut allergy and have always dreamed of eating a PB&J without worry, now's your chance!
"Best of all, they're covered by our medical plan!"
Hopefully it works -- does not seem to have had a huge effect so far.
The local pollen cures are bunkum, imo, just teaching your body to deal with pollen in general does the trick. A large dose off any pollen, as found in bee pollen, seems to work wonders when taken regularly in spring. Ymmv, but I've struggled for a long time until recently.
It seems like there's more work to be done there, and lots of potentially exaggerated stories of big pharma trying to shut research down, but the hypothesis has always sounded sensible to me, and what little formal research I've heard of has been extremely positive.
In addition, based on this study, I wonder if it is worthwhile studying whether there is a "point of no return" in terms of protecting anyone from severe allergies. For instance, if you haven't been exposed to a severe potential-allergen prior to the age of 5, does it become exponentially more difficult to develop any kind of immunity that lasts long term?
I'm still slightly allergic to cats. Doc got that correct. But I've had cats in my house, sleeping on my bed, for decades without hospitalization.
Well duh!
If you have a serious allergy, you avoid peanuts like the plague. But if it's minor... say a slight rash being the only symptom... then perhaps it's worth giving the child peanuts, starting with a very tiny amount, and then increasing gradually. Keep an epi-pen around at all times just in case, and if there's a serious attack... drop the attempt altogether and surrender to the fact that your childs quality of life will be less-than-optimal forever more.
Just stop right there.
I was allergic to cow milk, and anything remotely containing it. Eczema. Notice the 'was'. Baby suits with hands binded unable to scratch because eczema is an urge to scratch and itch. Arms wrapped in bandages from at the exact hospital cited in the article. Wrapped and re-wrapped every day.
Until I was 8. And then, it just stopped. So today I enjoy milk and cheese, especially cheese.
Being diagnosed is fine, it is a precaution. Actually suffering those symptoms is different. Please don't be do flippant.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/23/peanut-...
"CONCLUSION: In this cohort of infants with likely milk or egg allergy, maternal ingestion of peanut during pregnancy was strongly associated with a high level of peanut sensitization."[1]
> In this cohort of infants with likely milk or egg allergy
Even accurate conclusions for such a cohort might be very different -- including even inverted in direction of effect -- from what is true of the broader population.