Give babies peanut butter to cut peanut allergies, study says(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Give babies peanut butter to cut peanut allergies, study says
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-64987074
381 comments
For anyone wondering, Trader Joe's sells these in the US! They're great, and they're "real" Bamba and not a TJ's replica.
I was seeing that, I was a bit surprised that it seemed like the actual branded product.
My habit is to figure out who makes that kind of stuff, when I saw Osem, I was thinking "how haven't they been acquired by some behemoth?" And then quickly found "ah nevermind, nestle"
Peanut butter cheetos sounds like an incredible proposition, I'm going to be looking around for them this weekend!
Peanut butter cheetos sounds like an incredible proposition, I'm going to be looking around for them this weekend!
Trader Joes (and Costco) are just fine selling branded product if they can get a deal for it cheap enough. It's usually the manufacturer that doesn't want to "cheapen their brand" to hit the price points, but they're willing to "bulk up" for Costco or sell direct to Trader Joes at times.
Also a lot of things at Trader Joes are just white labeled versions of other products. As in, literally the same product, just inside packaging that says "Trader Joe's <Similar Name to Other Product>"
Many years ago I worked at a candy company.
I tell you more. MOST of "private label" stuff is actually manufactured by the same company as the "name brand", what is more companies routinely manufacture stuff for each other depending on the factory loads, e.g. our plant would manufacture Reese's despite having no relation to the brand and it's a very common practice.
I worked for a cookie company. Sometimes we would just swap the boxes for the name brand in the packaging machine while the line was running. The funny thing is, one box said it had some ingredient in it (it didn't) and the other one didn't.
Also at some point one company asked the cookie company to create a recipe to imitate some other product so they could compete. Except the cookie company was the one making that other product. So they copied themselves, it wasn't too hard...
Also at some point one company asked the cookie company to create a recipe to imitate some other product so they could compete. Except the cookie company was the one making that other product. So they copied themselves, it wasn't too hard...
>we would just swap the boxes for the name brand in the packaging machine while the line was running.
Any difference in consumer price of the identical product would be largely due to advertising.
Any difference in consumer price of the identical product would be largely due to advertising.
Wait until you hear about designer handbags.
From what I hear, the top designers there don't actually need advertising.
Oh like you’re saying top designers do not spend millions on marketing, my sweet summer child.
It’s not that brands spend money on ads so they have to raise the prices. It’s that advertising enables brands to charge more because they can
It’s not that brands spend money on ads so they have to raise the prices. It’s that advertising enables brands to charge more because they can
That sounds like an industry where a few large players have gobbled up everyone else and entrenched themselves, and they're all relatively happy with their market share (i.e. they aren't competing), and are thus happy to help "competitors" because what they want more than anything else is stability, and to keep new entrants from the market that actually might change things.
You know, collusion. Or emergent behavior that's essentially the same (but even that, while not necessarily illegal, is still bad for consumers).
You know, collusion. Or emergent behavior that's essentially the same (but even that, while not necessarily illegal, is still bad for consumers).
it's not really all that sinister. It's just you have a factory and you have workers and sometimes you need more work for them than your company can provide. Just because you can manufacture items for your competitor does not mean you are colluding.
I'll tell you more, a lot of competitors use the same suppliers, like for example Ford and GM, will use LG for a lot of components. LG then can't share any tech they developed for GM when working with Ford, but it's not like they get a lobotomy.
People who work at Apple use AWS and people at Amazon use MacBooks. It's all complicated, but not sinister.
People who work at Apple use AWS and people at Amazon use MacBooks. It's all complicated, but not sinister.
Similar things happen in the tech world - lots of various products are manufactured by a few; TVs being a really good example. There are only a few panel manufacturers out there.
We went on a factory tour at Cabot Creamery in VT several years ago, and they were packaging an off-label that day. The guide didn't specify what store it was for, but we thought we recognized it. When we went to TJ's the next week, we saw that same exact packaging on the shelves.
Yeah, at a job I worked at before there were two differences between our branded product and the store brand: The packaging/label, and the amount of thickener so that it would have a slightly different texture. Otherwise, same employees making it on the same machines with the same ingredients.
They did always have that one small change in there though, so that it wouldn't be exactly the same. Nothing you'd ever notice as a customer. Just a technicality so that each one could claim their own unique formula.
I think with another type of product it wasn't the thickness but a slight difference in the ratio of the flavorings - more raspberry and less blueberry here, more blueberry and less raspberry there.
They did always have that one small change in there though, so that it wouldn't be exactly the same. Nothing you'd ever notice as a customer. Just a technicality so that each one could claim their own unique formula.
I think with another type of product it wasn't the thickness but a slight difference in the ratio of the flavorings - more raspberry and less blueberry here, more blueberry and less raspberry there.
Those are the companies that don't want to admit selling their stuff for cheaper, so they get it store-branded.
I can't reply to the deeper comments, so I'll reply here.
The "store branded" products are also sometimes the exact same stuff, but they pay less (or the premium brands pay a premium) to have "first run" rights. That is, the premium brands are packaged first, right after a cleaning, so you're less likely to have "inclusions" like chunks of tomato goop in your ketchup.
That's not always true. I actually don't know how true it is at all. At least in facilities that I know about, everything was manufactured exactly the same, there was no such thing as "first run after cleaning", as far as I know "first run" premium has more to do with volumes and scheduling (e.g. at a candy factory you'll get priority to get your orders filled before halloween) or if any equipment goes down your orders will always be prioritized
you say it like it's a sort of corporate slut-shaming, but it's not. If you build a factory big enough to make 1/2 the cheese puffs in the world, there's an incentive to make it bigger and make all the cheese puffs in the world. Going from small batch bake/frying to assembly line flow is the 1st step, but once you're over that hurdle, you might as well go big, as long as you can handle the risk of being stuck with the risk of owning the 2nd biggest cheese puff tumbler in the world. That type of cooking is a natural monopoly.
that's the factory, but brands don't come from the factory, they come from the market, and have different reputations, strategies, customers and distribution channels. If you have a giant computer controlled cheese puffery, it's not that big a deal to change the formulation of the cheese, change the logo bags, etc. all on the fly, and it's much cheaper for you to do it than a smaller less sophisticated operation making you more customizable and still the low-cost producer.
did you know that even if you aren't a very big pizzeria or bakery you can order custom-milled flour from King Arthur for your restaurant? Their factory can handle it, and it engenders brand loyalty from fussy chefs.
that's the factory, but brands don't come from the factory, they come from the market, and have different reputations, strategies, customers and distribution channels. If you have a giant computer controlled cheese puffery, it's not that big a deal to change the formulation of the cheese, change the logo bags, etc. all on the fly, and it's much cheaper for you to do it than a smaller less sophisticated operation making you more customizable and still the low-cost producer.
did you know that even if you aren't a very big pizzeria or bakery you can order custom-milled flour from King Arthur for your restaurant? Their factory can handle it, and it engenders brand loyalty from fussy chefs.
>did you know that even if you aren't a very big pizzeria or bakery you can order custom-milled flour from King Arthur for your restaurant? Their factory can handle it, and it engenders brand loyalty from fussy chefs.
I didn't. Although I'm not that surprised given I think King Arthur Flour has maybe around 500 employees or so including a cafe, retail shop, and cooking classes and sells a pretty premium product. (Was actually surprised the number is so low. It's also employee-owned.)
I didn't. Although I'm not that surprised given I think King Arthur Flour has maybe around 500 employees or so including a cafe, retail shop, and cooking classes and sells a pretty premium product. (Was actually surprised the number is so low. It's also employee-owned.)
> That type of cooking is a natural monopoly.
Should bulk cheese puffs be state owned?
Should bulk cheese puffs be state owned?
Seize the means of cheese puff production!
I have no problem with it myself; but the companies/brands certainly do.
Lots of national brands have a "this is not produced in a factory or machine that produces any store brand".
Lots of national brands have a "this is not produced in a factory or machine that produces any store brand".
> I have no problem with it myself; but the companies/brands certainly do.
actually, the companies don't have a problem with it, the customers do. customers (it's human nature, maslow's hierarchy, etc) cling to their beliefs about themselves and their identification with products that reflect their values. Companies would rather cut costs and sell one-size-fits-all products, but they need to give customers what they want, and different customers want different things.
> Lots of national brands have a "this is not produced in a factory or machine that produces any store brand"
and many people have the need to think that they are "better" than store brands, or more likely on HN, that they "see through" all the marketing, so companies market to you "transparently"... if a brand says "this is not produced X way" and you didn't even mention X, hmmm, do you really think they haven't figured you out?
if you are the cheese puff king, the most expensive thing you can do is not sell everybody exactly what they want, and you probably have redundancy in your manufacturing facilities, so why not segregate which products are on which machines, so long as a market segments aren't too small.
actually, the companies don't have a problem with it, the customers do. customers (it's human nature, maslow's hierarchy, etc) cling to their beliefs about themselves and their identification with products that reflect their values. Companies would rather cut costs and sell one-size-fits-all products, but they need to give customers what they want, and different customers want different things.
> Lots of national brands have a "this is not produced in a factory or machine that produces any store brand"
and many people have the need to think that they are "better" than store brands, or more likely on HN, that they "see through" all the marketing, so companies market to you "transparently"... if a brand says "this is not produced X way" and you didn't even mention X, hmmm, do you really think they haven't figured you out?
if you are the cheese puff king, the most expensive thing you can do is not sell everybody exactly what they want, and you probably have redundancy in your manufacturing facilities, so why not segregate which products are on which machines, so long as a market segments aren't too small.
As a kid I think it was Colgate who had a tagline of “We don’t make toothpaste for anyone else”, which utterly confused me at the time
CNBC has a youtube video on the economics of Trader Joe's and the piece that stuck out to me is that they will have essentially a white label option, but have it slightly modified so it is "unique" to them
Ive got family who have worked in food production lines, it's often not the same product, maybe a slightly modified recipe or using different ingredients or ratios.
Yeah, sometimes they mix it up enough to claim it's not the same, sometimes it's even openly branded as being the same (think Costco tortilla chips)
https://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/kirkland-signature-to...
https://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/kirkland-signature-to...
I've seen Trader Joes selling branded canned chili (Stagg) and the cashier remarked that they were only stocking it that week for the super bowl.
I love cheetos and pb (I even put PB powder in my smoothies), but having tried these many times, they are not very tasty. I understand that some people who at them a lot as very little kids continue to like them as adults. But they have never been tempting to me, even when we had them in the house for the purpose of feeding them to our babies.
Yeah I have to say those sound excellent. Time to go hunting.
https://www.traderjoes.com/home/products/pdp/058373
"Bamba Peanut Snacks contain just four, simple ingredients: corn grits, peanut paste, palm oil, and salt."
"Bamba Peanut Snacks contain just four, simple ingredients: corn grits, peanut paste, palm oil, and salt."
The palm oil is less than ideal but this isn't exactly health food to begin with.
>palm oil is less than ideal
Why do you say this? Just curious. Palm oil is one of the better plant oils, no?
Why do you say this? Just curious. Palm oil is one of the better plant oils, no?
Palm oil generates an incredible amount of pollution in Internet comment sections whenever it is mentioned, because people don't realize that it's simply the most productive oil per unit acre by far. If not for Indonesian rainforest palm oil you'd need to cut down 2-3x as much Brazilian rainforest for soybeans or Phillippine rainforest for coconuts to meet the same demand. 71% of palm oil is consumed between the Caspian Sea and the Pacific. Approximately one-third is used for nonfood applications, particularly the Indonesian biodiesel industry, which if you wanted to do something about deforestation, you could pay them to stop doing that in particular.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/palm-oil...
It is a saturated fat, but it's being mixed with highly unsaturated peanut oil, so the whole-product average is probably insignificant.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/palm-oil...
It is a saturated fat, but it's being mixed with highly unsaturated peanut oil, so the whole-product average is probably insignificant.
I went searching regarding your claim about how productive various types of oil are per acre.
It’s actually insane, and palm oil is at least 400% better than the next best.
Edit: coconut oil production is variable depending on where you check. It might be half as good as palm oil.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-yield-by-crop
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-plant-oil-yield-...
https://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
It’s actually insane, and palm oil is at least 400% better than the next best.
Edit: coconut oil production is variable depending on where you check. It might be half as good as palm oil.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-yield-by-crop
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-plant-oil-yield-...
https://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
Massive harm of the environment by companies that farm it. Orangutans' habitat for one.
Massive amounts of inflammatory PUFAs.
No, palm oil is terrible and everywhere in ultra processed food because it's extremely cheap.
There are few healthy vegetable oils and they tend to be very expensive: olive, macadamia, coconut, etc.
EDIT: I stand corrected, it has moderate amounts of PUFA, but terrible Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio (45/1), which is thought to have metabolic consequences.
No, palm oil is terrible and everywhere in ultra processed food because it's extremely cheap.
There are few healthy vegetable oils and they tend to be very expensive: olive, macadamia, coconut, etc.
EDIT: I stand corrected, it has moderate amounts of PUFA, but terrible Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio (45/1), which is thought to have metabolic consequences.
My understanding has been that it's cheap, saturated, and solid/stable, so it's a straightforward replacement for the hydrogenated oils that were previously being used in many of the same applications before the whole trans fat issue banished them.
Canola oil is cheap and it improves health outcomes in humans despite twitter sophistry.
The main problem with palm oil isn’t health afaik, it’s the orangutan habitat destruction since most palm oil still comes from wild forests instead of farming.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
Palm oil is full of saturated fats isn't it?
Palm oil harvesting is killing endangered orangutans.
If they used tasty healthy lard the product wouldn't sell very well in Israel or anywhere else in the Near East...
Similar to the palm oil, when imported, the tallow comes in on chemical tankers (whose cargo tanks' most recent cargoes were things like benzene or methanol at the cleanest).
Yum.
Yum.
Tallow, from cattle and sheep, would be fine I think. Pigs are considered unclean for some reason. Benzene is just a sunscreen ingredient.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/benzene-in-sunscreen/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/benzene-in-sunscreen/
Cleaning is mandatory but I am wondering who is controlling...
>who is controlling...
Depends on which port and which personnel.
The better informed are all aware that after discharge, if the remaining barrels of benzene or methanol can be completely removed by suction and evaporation from the designated edible oil compartments and all associated pipelines and hoses, there is never any cleaner equipment.
Considering earlier voyages, there is no way 12 hours of shipyard cleaning is going to be as effective at removing traces of previous cargoes like acrylonitrile or spent transformer oil, compared to a full voyage when loaded with hundreds of tonnes of such a clean, strong solvent as high-purity benzene or methanol.
So you can only imagine whether everyone involved will all play their supposed part to the fullest extent you might have in mind when preparing for bulk edible oils. Every time.
Sometimes expediting the movement will have to take precedence, other times there "just might" be the attitude of "why bother?"
And when you're the one climbing down inside the vessel compartment to inspect for cleanliness, there can be quite a bit of pressure not to reject a tank that looks so clean (as long as there is no obvious wetness) compared to some of the other choices on board the same ship. Once any of the crew or yourself has been down there and come back up without immediate ill effects, it's been long thought it can't be that bad unless you actually saw something wrong visually.
Certificates of Cleanliness, if required, will always be a part of the paperwork package.
And may I remind you it's the methanol that carries the skull & crossbones, not the benzene.
Depends on which port and which personnel.
The better informed are all aware that after discharge, if the remaining barrels of benzene or methanol can be completely removed by suction and evaporation from the designated edible oil compartments and all associated pipelines and hoses, there is never any cleaner equipment.
Considering earlier voyages, there is no way 12 hours of shipyard cleaning is going to be as effective at removing traces of previous cargoes like acrylonitrile or spent transformer oil, compared to a full voyage when loaded with hundreds of tonnes of such a clean, strong solvent as high-purity benzene or methanol.
So you can only imagine whether everyone involved will all play their supposed part to the fullest extent you might have in mind when preparing for bulk edible oils. Every time.
Sometimes expediting the movement will have to take precedence, other times there "just might" be the attitude of "why bother?"
And when you're the one climbing down inside the vessel compartment to inspect for cleanliness, there can be quite a bit of pressure not to reject a tank that looks so clean (as long as there is no obvious wetness) compared to some of the other choices on board the same ship. Once any of the crew or yourself has been down there and come back up without immediate ill effects, it's been long thought it can't be that bad unless you actually saw something wrong visually.
Certificates of Cleanliness, if required, will always be a part of the paperwork package.
And may I remind you it's the methanol that carries the skull & crossbones, not the benzene.
[deleted]
I might be mistaken, but IIRC it originally (as in, 60 years ago) contained peanuts, salt, and that’s it. 100% peanuts were replaced by 50% peanuts+50% corn some time in the last 30 years.
Yep. We used that with our kid and he seems to have avoided peanut allergy. It also tastes pretty good! But, it didn't stop him from developing a walnut/pecan allergy. Probably because we don't really eat either of those in our house.
Same... My daughter had tree nut allergy(worst is cashew).
Peanut I found out are technically legumes, where as pecan, almond, cashew, walnut, pistachio, etc are tree nuts.
So while we call them all "nuts", peanuts are quite different than tree nuts.
Daughter developed severe tree nut allergy(that we don't leave home without 2x EpiPen) by age 3.
Had pleanty of foods with peanut butter, but seldom tree nut exposure (outside of mixed nuts which she was too young to consume).
She can eat peanut products just fine, but we end up telling everyone all nuts allergy including peanuts... As some people don't know the difference.
Now I am finding everything "peanut free" is not always tree nuts free, there's different labeling =/
Cashew is in alot of vegan foods and South Asian dishes (though alot of restaurants stopped using cashew based thickener now, some still do).
Peanut I found out are technically legumes, where as pecan, almond, cashew, walnut, pistachio, etc are tree nuts.
So while we call them all "nuts", peanuts are quite different than tree nuts.
Daughter developed severe tree nut allergy(that we don't leave home without 2x EpiPen) by age 3.
Had pleanty of foods with peanut butter, but seldom tree nut exposure (outside of mixed nuts which she was too young to consume).
She can eat peanut products just fine, but we end up telling everyone all nuts allergy including peanuts... As some people don't know the difference.
Now I am finding everything "peanut free" is not always tree nuts free, there's different labeling =/
Cashew is in alot of vegan foods and South Asian dishes (though alot of restaurants stopped using cashew based thickener now, some still do).
As someone who loves walnuts and pecans, I find this tragic. I had no idea that was a possible outcome. Sorry to hear that. I will advise new parents to investigate.
My child also has walnut/pecan allergy. I don't recall him eating much Bamba before (I'm from Israel originally, so it won't surprise me if he did). No peanut allergy luckily. It triggered when he was quite young after eating brownies with pecan/walnut.
they are also somehow cheaper here than in Israel and it is infuriating to me
I know! $1.30?? Some crazy subsidy magic is happening at TJs
Target sells them too:
https://www.target.com/p/osem-bamba-peanut-butter-baby-puffs...
https://www.target.com/p/osem-bamba-peanut-butter-baby-puffs...
How serendipitous! I just saw these at my Trader Joe's for the first time a week or two ago and I've been addicted to them.
They're delicious by the way, once you get over the fact that they look a lot like Cheetos.
I love those things! I usually end up always grabbing a bag when I go shopping there.
I've found them at HEB and Randall's too!
I’ve found them at Publix in SC.
If you can't find Bamba but you have European or Balkan shop nearby you can try buying Smoki [1], it's the same thing.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=smoki&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiE...
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=smoki&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiE...
Looks like it's what's called Erdnussflips in Germany
Amusingly, I tried to convince my ex (Serbian) that Smoki and Erdnussflips are the same thing. I filled a Smoki bag with German (ja! brand) Erdnussflips, and she immediately noticed, though there were a few seconds of confused looks (and laughter).
Well ja! are definitely not the best Erdnussflips you can get, i would've noticed too that they don't taste that good.
Aldi sometimes sells these here in the us. They're similar to Bamba, but not as fluffy. It's a coarser-ground corn, I think. e.g. https://aldithings.com/deutsche-kuche-peanut-puffs/
I just tried some last night, in a side-by-side comparison with real Erdnussflips. Bamba have a smoother/softer texture (less crunchy), and the peanut flavor is weaker.
I used to eat the living crap out of Smoki. Could probably take on a 100m tall peanut monster.
TJs carries Bamba.
> There is a snack called Bamba that they eat in Israel. It's kind of like a peanut butter Cheeto puff, and it is a nearly-universal snack for young kids in Israel. It melts in your mouth, so a 6-month-old can eat it almost as soon as they eat solid foods. It's about as popular in Israel as Cheerios are in the US, maybe more so. The hypothesis is that Bamba consumption there dramatically lowers the risk of developing peanut allergies.
Target sells these "Lil Mixins" sachets that contain peanut powder. They're designed to mix in to milk or oatmeal, etc. The packaging says you can use them with kids as young as 4 months. They also sell similar sachets of tree nuts and egg powder.
Target sells these "Lil Mixins" sachets that contain peanut powder. They're designed to mix in to milk or oatmeal, etc. The packaging says you can use them with kids as young as 4 months. They also sell similar sachets of tree nuts and egg powder.
It’s a full-on trend in the US to feed these to your baby to prevent peanut allergies. My daughter probably ate her own weight in Bamba.
Man, I had an Israeli boss that turned me onto Bamba. Loved that stuff.
Anecdotally, giving our baby Bamba was actually how we discovered his peanut allergy, which was later confirmed by a traditional allergen skin test administered by a doctor. (We noticed puffy redness around his lips after his first piece of Bamba.)
They researched bamba, but then recommended peanut butter.
I remember reading that boiled and roasted peanuts have different allergen profiles, and are not interchangeable.
If you want to do this with your child, use actual bamba, not peanut butter.
I remember reading that boiled and roasted peanuts have different allergen profiles, and are not interchangeable.
If you want to do this with your child, use actual bamba, not peanut butter.
Bamba is also delicious. The fat content from the peanut butter gives it a good body, like a cheese puff.
If you decide to get some for your kid, get some extra for yourself.
If you decide to get some for your kid, get some extra for yourself.
TJ's also sold some that were dipped in dark chocolate. They are the unholy hybrid of vanishing caloric density and a peanut butter cup.
TJs also sells Nutella filled bamba
I'm pretty sure most of the fat content comes from the palm oil, but I don't disagree with your conclusion.
That's fascinating! In ex-Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Croatia in my case) we were raised on Smoki which looks very similar!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoki
Yeah, in USSR we also had these corn puffs(Кукурузные Палочки). Bamba is different despite looking the same. It has very "peanutty" taste (and ingridient) unlike the corn puffs which are just sweet.
Confusingly enough, there is also “red bamba” available in Israel (officially called “sweet bamba” but everyone calls it red bamba) which has no peanuts - only corn and an outer sweet red coating with a berry-ish flavor.
An American friend told me it looks and tastes like captain crunch berries, and it is unfair that American kids have only a few in a serving, and israeli kids can just get bags of them.
An American friend told me it looks and tastes like captain crunch berries, and it is unfair that American kids have only a few in a serving, and israeli kids can just get bags of them.
These are called "Erdnussflips" (peanut flips) in Germany and Austria. Apparently they were first sold around the same time as Bamba, in 1967. Smoki came a little later. I wonder who copied whom here.
In Germany they are mostly sold along potato chips (crisps), but they aren't as popular as them. And unlike Bamba they are usually not fed to small children, as far as I'm aware. Good to know they seem to protect against allergy, as peanut butter is not really a thing here.
In Germany they are mostly sold along potato chips (crisps), but they aren't as popular as them. And unlike Bamba they are usually not fed to small children, as far as I'm aware. Good to know they seem to protect against allergy, as peanut butter is not really a thing here.
As popular as it is, I wonder if there's effectively microdosing happening from baby's 1st week, even before they eat it themselves?
Good question, I mean how many people were actually feeding Cheeto puffs to their 6 month old before it became a health trend
The peanut allergy hysteria narrative says that I can't eat peanuts on a plane or in a classroom with somebody who's allergic because the mere odor of peanuts might kill them. If there is any shred of truth to that narrative (which I seriously doubt), then perhaps trace peanut dust in a home from adults eating crunchy peanut-based snacks is enough early exposure to inhibit an allergic reaction.
My uncle doesn't topple over dead from the smell of peanuts, but he can't be in the house while peanut butter cookies are baking or he will get a bad/dangerous reaction. I suppose there's likely people with worse allergies than him.
You mean from exposure to other kids?
My guess is through breast milk - which I was wondering about with the study as well; does it make a difference for breastfed babies whether their moms eat a lot of peanuts?
Anecdotal: a pregnant woman ate a lot of the stuff (something similar to Bamba) when pregnant, and I mean a lot. The child was diagnosed with peanut allergy when 1 y.o.
Solution? Peanut microdosing, increasing dose progressively, in few months the allergy was gone.
Solution? Peanut microdosing, increasing dose progressively, in few months the allergy was gone.
Anecdote from my partner: Allergies come and go, they're not necessarily permanent even if you don't treat them.
Since no one really knows what causes peanut allergies, it isn’t surprising they come and go without much insight into why.
Mom, dad, siblings. Anyone snacking on it will have it on their faces, finger tips. It'll get on the counters and floor. And find its way on a bottle nipple, blankets, sheets, fingers, etc.
N=1 disclaimer but this also happened for me with Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups for my peanut allergy, soft boiled eggs for my raw egg yolk allergy, and shrimp based broths for my shrimp allergy.
Unfortunately it has not yet worked for tree nuts or bivalves but perhaps someday a switch will flip inside me.
Unfortunately it has not yet worked for tree nuts or bivalves but perhaps someday a switch will flip inside me.
There's a snack here in Fiji that matches what you describe, called Peanut Ruffs:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22peanut+ruffs%22
I wish I could compare the ingredients.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22peanut+ruffs%22
I wish I could compare the ingredients.
I always joke to new parents that they should adopt this strategy. Glad to see I was right!
Why does it have to be a solid? I mean you can introduce very small amounts in their milk from any age, which should work the same?
Target sells Bambas in the USA. We bought it to feed our infant for the same reasons you mentioned.
[deleted]
Maybe all the allergic infants died and didn't make it into the study.
Considering peanut allergies are ~1:50 - 1:200, that would be a lot of dead infants and I think that would show up in stats and news.
There can of course be other factors going on, as the comparison is between different countries.
Now, the infant death rate in Israel seems to actually lower by almost half of the US (Iḿ seeing 5.4 per 1000 for the US, vs 2.2 for Israel).
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ISR/israel/infant-mort...
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/...
Now, the infant death rate in Israel seems to actually lower by almost half of the US (Iḿ seeing 5.4 per 1000 for the US, vs 2.2 for Israel).
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ISR/israel/infant-mort...
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/...
I have eaten Bamba. My analysis is that they're pretty good.
was this research funded by the maker of Bamba?
Probably ok to eat a little to avoid peanut allergy, but be careful about eating too much poly-unsaturated fatty acids. They do a lot of long-term damage.
> Food allergies are the result of our immune system mistaking something harmless for a severe threat.
If you IDS has never seen X and X is unlike anything it has seen, it will probably flag it.
> There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old.
This advice was never based on science.
Cultures where infants are fed on the same broad spectrum of foods that adults eat have MUCH lower incidence of allergies. France and Israel to name two.
Datapoint of 1, I started giving my own child chewed up food I was eating at about 2.5 months. She was eyeballing some chicken I was eating, I popped it out of my mouth, offered it to her and she ravenously devoured it.
A couple weeks later, I wiped a small amount of peanut butter on her lip and checked for any allergic reaction, then proceeded to slowly ramp the amount the next day.
Same thing with shellfish. I am not suggesting anyone else do this, but it worked for us.
Train how you live as soon as possible.
If you IDS has never seen X and X is unlike anything it has seen, it will probably flag it.
> There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old.
This advice was never based on science.
Cultures where infants are fed on the same broad spectrum of foods that adults eat have MUCH lower incidence of allergies. France and Israel to name two.
Datapoint of 1, I started giving my own child chewed up food I was eating at about 2.5 months. She was eyeballing some chicken I was eating, I popped it out of my mouth, offered it to her and she ravenously devoured it.
A couple weeks later, I wiped a small amount of peanut butter on her lip and checked for any allergic reaction, then proceeded to slowly ramp the amount the next day.
Same thing with shellfish. I am not suggesting anyone else do this, but it worked for us.
Train how you live as soon as possible.
I think this advice was more about not giving the baby a known allergen because they are a baby and it could kill them and it could be difficult to even tell they are having a problem because babies are often crying for any number of reasons.
I'm not saying the advice is sound, just giving a perspective on what led to that advice. It's not about "they might develop an allergy so don't give it to them" it's "they may be allergic already and cause significant harm".
I'm not saying the advice is sound, just giving a perspective on what led to that advice. It's not about "they might develop an allergy so don't give it to them" it's "they may be allergic already and cause significant harm".
> This advice was never based on science.
No, it was based on common sense. If X causes problems, not doing X is generally a good idea.
It turns out that in this particular scenario, common sense was wrong. But allergies weren't understood by science, so all we had to go on was common sense.
No, it was based on common sense. If X causes problems, not doing X is generally a good idea.
It turns out that in this particular scenario, common sense was wrong. But allergies weren't understood by science, so all we had to go on was common sense.
Peanut allergies were exceptionally rare decades ago when nobody worried about peanut allergies in the first place. In the 20th century everybody in America sent their kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches and virtually everybody was fine. I didn't even know people could be allergic to peanuts until I was an adult. Now schools ban peanut butter sandwiches and it seems like every other family claims their child is allergic to peanuts. Common sense says that we need to give kids more peanut butter sandwiches, like we used to, and it would stop being a problem.
Also, we should stop testing for allergies unless there is a good reason to test a specific person for a specific allergy (e.g. they already had a bad reaction to something, and need to figure out what.) Those allergen tests have many false positives, people that could have gone their whole lives eating peanuts without thinking twice about it will instead spend their whole lives avoiding peanuts because a precautionary allergen test came back sliightly positive and they "don't want to take the risk". More medical testing is not always a good thing.
Also, we should stop testing for allergies unless there is a good reason to test a specific person for a specific allergy (e.g. they already had a bad reaction to something, and need to figure out what.) Those allergen tests have many false positives, people that could have gone their whole lives eating peanuts without thinking twice about it will instead spend their whole lives avoiding peanuts because a precautionary allergen test came back sliightly positive and they "don't want to take the risk". More medical testing is not always a good thing.
> Now schools ban peanut butter sandwiches
My kid's school bans anything that has those warnings about "not produced in a nut free factory". It's insane actually how limiting it is for a family with no allergies like ours.
> Common sense says that we need to give kids more peanut butter sandwiches, like we used to, and it would stop being a problem
Not sure if it was medically wise, but this was my common sense thinking too. Around 3-6 months, I figured we consume enough peanut butter in the house that if he had a severe allergy we'd have known by then (eg. accidental cross contamination). I also figured at this point he could survive the quick trip to the ER if needed. So I gave it to him and closely monitored his condition. First, just put a little on inside of forearm to see if any signs of irritation. Thinking perhaps a mild allergy may show itself this way, also thinking maybe his airway wouldn't swell up as initial symptom as it might with ingestion (would like to avoid that). It went well so shortly after let him eat a little. No problems. We did this similar approach with all of the common allergy stuff, no issues for us, although I don't know if I was fully informed of how allergies work or naively being cavalier with risk or something (I obviously didn't think so).
My kid's school bans anything that has those warnings about "not produced in a nut free factory". It's insane actually how limiting it is for a family with no allergies like ours.
> Common sense says that we need to give kids more peanut butter sandwiches, like we used to, and it would stop being a problem
Not sure if it was medically wise, but this was my common sense thinking too. Around 3-6 months, I figured we consume enough peanut butter in the house that if he had a severe allergy we'd have known by then (eg. accidental cross contamination). I also figured at this point he could survive the quick trip to the ER if needed. So I gave it to him and closely monitored his condition. First, just put a little on inside of forearm to see if any signs of irritation. Thinking perhaps a mild allergy may show itself this way, also thinking maybe his airway wouldn't swell up as initial symptom as it might with ingestion (would like to avoid that). It went well so shortly after let him eat a little. No problems. We did this similar approach with all of the common allergy stuff, no issues for us, although I don't know if I was fully informed of how allergies work or naively being cavalier with risk or something (I obviously didn't think so).
This history seemed dubious, so I looked up a random 1989 allergy journal: "Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies and probably the most common cause of death by food anaphylaxis in the United States."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Allergy_Proceedings/ecU...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Allergy_Proceedings/ecU...
Just because it was the "most common" doesn't mean much. It was still more rare in the past. Food allergies in general were more rare. It also says nothing as to how much it has grown if it is still the most common, eg. maybe it was most common being 20% of total food allergies where as now maybe that number is 50%. IDK just saying on surface this isn't much of a counter-argument.
This could easily be attributed to a lack of diagnosis. Less than 70 years ago it was common for the official cause death to be “natural causes”, which was the default catch-all when the cause couldn’t be attributed to anything else. Not for lack of trying, we just didn’t have the technology and wealth of research and knowledge until fairly recently.
Go read the obituaries in the historic New York Times archives, it’s insane. Infants and children would die and best we could do was shrug it off and say “god works in mysterious ways” or some such bullshit.
Go read the obituaries in the historic New York Times archives, it’s insane. Infants and children would die and best we could do was shrug it off and say “god works in mysterious ways” or some such bullshit.
The narrative you are presenting is also based on common sense though.
We have observations that populations of kids eating peanuts early have lower allergy rate, but it´s not like we isolated 300 babies and experimented on them for 30 years, we just can´t. Short of other stronger evidence we assume it´s true, but if tomorrow we found that there were other causes specific to the US, independent from peanuts themselves, we´d have the same reaction: we didn´t know so we did our best.
We have observations that populations of kids eating peanuts early have lower allergy rate, but it´s not like we isolated 300 babies and experimented on them for 30 years, we just can´t. Short of other stronger evidence we assume it´s true, but if tomorrow we found that there were other causes specific to the US, independent from peanuts themselves, we´d have the same reaction: we didn´t know so we did our best.
> The narrative you are presenting is also based on common sense though.
Yes that's my point. Common sense was never with the peanut bans. Common sense was with peanut eating the entire time.
Yes that's my point. Common sense was never with the peanut bans. Common sense was with peanut eating the entire time.
My daughter developed (non life-threatening) allergies to corn, eggs, and apples, all of which she had been exposed to plenty beforehand, so it's not necessarily that straightforward.
What’s “common sense” is drastically different depending on whether you assume a complex system is static or adaptive.
You can expose a six month old to honey as well but their complex and adaptive digestion system still isn't going to kill the botulism spores that might be in it.
"I don't know how this bad thing works, better rub it on my gums" is not a good strategy in general.
"I don't know how this bad thing works, better rub it on my gums" is not a good strategy in general.
(removed)
Botulism spores do not "train immune systems". Babies don't have strong enough digestive systems until they're at least six months old to kill the spores.
https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/infant-botulism.html.
https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/infant-botulism.html.
No, this was done from fear. My generation were given peanut butter early, and it was tested in a small amount to see if there was a problem first. This was common sense for a long long time, and it seemed to work fine.
A generation later parents were told to avoid it until age 3 or 4 for no real reason, and it created a ton of peanut allergies in those kids. They were scared of their kid having a peanut allergy. This was fear, counter to the common sense they themselves were raised with.
A generation later parents were told to avoid it until age 3 or 4 for no real reason, and it created a ton of peanut allergies in those kids. They were scared of their kid having a peanut allergy. This was fear, counter to the common sense they themselves were raised with.
No, it was based on what we now phrase as “an abundance of caution.”
One of these days I will draw a one panel image that demonstrates the fallacy of this thinking.
One of these days I will draw a one panel image that demonstrates the fallacy of this thinking.
I don't see how it's common sense to avoid certain foods at a young age to avoid allergies later on. Am I missing some obvious connection? If allergies are caused by the immune system not recognizing X, probably the solution is to introduce X earlier.
They had "peanut-free" lunch tables when I was in elementary school, and all I thought was people just need to stop being so sensitive. Even then, guess I was right.
They had "peanut-free" lunch tables when I was in elementary school, and all I thought was people just need to stop being so sensitive. Even then, guess I was right.
> They had "peanut-free" lunch tables when I was in elementary school, and all I thought was people just need to stop being so sensitive. Even then, guess I was right.
I'm pretty sure that by elementary school some kids have already developed severe peanut allergies. Keeping peanuts away from someone that might go into anaphylactic shock seems the right amount of sensitivity.
Per the article, the time to be "less sensitive" is much earlier when introducing peanuts can reduce their chance of developing an allergy. By elementary school (ages 6-13) it's mostly too late.
I'm pretty sure that by elementary school some kids have already developed severe peanut allergies. Keeping peanuts away from someone that might go into anaphylactic shock seems the right amount of sensitivity.
Per the article, the time to be "less sensitive" is much earlier when introducing peanuts can reduce their chance of developing an allergy. By elementary school (ages 6-13) it's mostly too late.
Yeah, that's true.
Perhaps the fact that the food could literally be poison for the person eating it? And if this person has no communication skills...
At least when you're 3 and talking you can be more clear about what's going on with your body if there's a problem.
"Why give them any food at all" is a very glib reply to them. I'll let you figure out why people might avoid certain foods and not others, and why people feed small children
At least when you're 3 and talking you can be more clear about what's going on with your body if there's a problem.
"Why give them any food at all" is a very glib reply to them. I'll let you figure out why people might avoid certain foods and not others, and why people feed small children
So then I'm either underthinking or overthinking this. Inherent food allergies feel like a rare thing to me.
> common sense was wrong
I don't think that's been proven conclusively.
I don't think that's been proven conclusively.
This is literally an article with proof that the previous guidance we was wrong and actively harmful to the children that were subjected to it.
This is literally an article that is pointing to a research paper that doesn't definitely conclude anything.
I'm not sure which article or paper you are reading?
The paper the article references says:
> A 77% reduction in peanut allergy was estimated when peanut was introduced to the diet of all infants, at 4 months with eczema, and at 6 months without eczema. The estimated reduction in peanut allergy diminished with every month of delayed introduction. If introduction was delayed to 12 months, peanut allergy was only reduced by 33%.
Edit: While I'm not sure what your standards are for "conclusive", the author's of the paper have drawn pretty strong conclusions and any doubts I see are around precisely how much the effectiveness of peanut introduction drops off with infant age, not about wether such a drop occurs.
The paper the article references says:
> A 77% reduction in peanut allergy was estimated when peanut was introduced to the diet of all infants, at 4 months with eczema, and at 6 months without eczema. The estimated reduction in peanut allergy diminished with every month of delayed introduction. If introduction was delayed to 12 months, peanut allergy was only reduced by 33%.
Edit: While I'm not sure what your standards are for "conclusive", the author's of the paper have drawn pretty strong conclusions and any doubts I see are around precisely how much the effectiveness of peanut introduction drops off with infant age, not about wether such a drop occurs.
Based on a population of jewish children in england vs. a population of jewish children in Israel, literally a repeat population from the first study 8 years ago.
The paper in question also states: "Moreover, it should be noted that since the change in Australian guidelines in 2016, consumption of peanut during the first year of life increased from 28.4% before the guidelines (2007-11) to 88.6% after the implementation of the guidelines (2016-18). Despite this change, a recent publication has shown no decline in the observed prevalence of peanut allergy in Australia in 2020, which remained stable at 3.1%."
It's been tried in a large population with literally zero effect.
The paper in question also states: "Moreover, it should be noted that since the change in Australian guidelines in 2016, consumption of peanut during the first year of life increased from 28.4% before the guidelines (2007-11) to 88.6% after the implementation of the guidelines (2016-18). Despite this change, a recent publication has shown no decline in the observed prevalence of peanut allergy in Australia in 2020, which remained stable at 3.1%."
It's been tried in a large population with literally zero effect.
And that we should use the real scientific method instead of "common sense" disguised as science.
I have three children, and they had three different pediatricians when they were babies. The three pediatricians had a different incompatible list of food the children must eat when they had between 6 and 12 month old. And if you go to the web, there is even more disinformation and snake oil.
It was funny to compare the list of food of the pediatricians of my children with the list of foods of the pediatricians of the children of my friends. Also, sometime people get too attached to this recommendations and make a big mess if the children of a friend does not follow the rules of their own children.
(I think the only food in the intersection was honey, because it's too difficult to pasteurize. It make sense, but I'm not sure how thoughtfully it was tested.)
I have three children, and they had three different pediatricians when they were babies. The three pediatricians had a different incompatible list of food the children must eat when they had between 6 and 12 month old. And if you go to the web, there is even more disinformation and snake oil.
It was funny to compare the list of food of the pediatricians of my children with the list of foods of the pediatricians of the children of my friends. Also, sometime people get too attached to this recommendations and make a big mess if the children of a friend does not follow the rules of their own children.
(I think the only food in the intersection was honey, because it's too difficult to pasteurize. It make sense, but I'm not sure how thoughtfully it was tested.)
Not sure how widespread this advice is, but my son’s pediatrician had us start introducing peanut butter before he was eating solids by adding progressively more peanut butter to his bottle. So it feels like this is becoming the recommended approach to avoiding food allergies.
It’s become more widespread guidance in the last decade. There are a few studies iirc comparing cousins living in the UK as opposed to Israel. The Israeli kids get a peanut based cracker as a common snack and have much lower incidence of peanut allergies.
I think in the US the issue is that there isn’t a ton of published material on it. My info may be out of date as my kids are well past this stage.
I think in the US the issue is that there isn’t a ton of published material on it. My info may be out of date as my kids are well past this stage.
One thing to be careful about here, and I don't have any data or skin in the game here, is survivorship bias. It would be worth noting the difference in deaths from anaphylactic shock in very early childhood by country.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you might not be counted as having a peanut allergy if you're dead.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you might not be counted as having a peanut allergy if you're dead.
Where I live (The Netherlands) we had multiple child care professionals recommend we feed the baby both egg and peanut butter as early as possible specifically to prevent allergies as well, so I don't think this is controversial in the medical community at least.
Essentially illegal in the US though, given school requirements.
No, its not. For one thing, schooling (even preschool) starts well after the target age for this.
How many kids do you think there are in schools who aren't eating solid foods yet?
Many many people put their kids into daycare at 3 months of age since that’s all they get for maternity leave.
In the US 25% of mothers are back at work within 2 weeks of childbirth (https://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9188343/maternity-leave-united...). FMLA requires jobs to let mothers take time but does not require they be paid, and most folks are living paycheck to paycheck and need the money.
It's 25% of the all mothers or 25% of the mothers that were working before the birth?
It's a Department of Labor study, so presumably done on people already in the labor force. Doesn't change how terrible the stat is, even assuming 50% of mothers aren't in the labor pool that'd still be 12% of mothers back in work in under two weeks.
I knew this before, as a fact like any other.
Now that I've recently become a parent, it's... it's shocking. The idea of handing someone that young and helpless off to strangers raises a strong "NO!" reaction, right from the gut instead of the brain.
In my neck of the woods we get 1.5 years maternity leave, and experiencing it myself I'm honestly not sure even that is enough.
Now that I've recently become a parent, it's... it's shocking. The idea of handing someone that young and helpless off to strangers raises a strong "NO!" reaction, right from the gut instead of the brain.
In my neck of the woods we get 1.5 years maternity leave, and experiencing it myself I'm honestly not sure even that is enough.
Strong agree. My son is nine months old now and if we had to put him in day care tomorrow, I wouldn’t mind. It takes a village and all that. Happy to delay that a little while longer, though.
But three months is just unthinkable.
But three months is just unthinkable.
A relevant book, coming out next week:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/675683/poverty-by-a...
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/675683/poverty-by-a...
Decidedly not. There's plenty of meals given to kids outside of school to perform this intervention, it doesn't need to be in every meal on top of what other people have said about the timing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Feeding infants and toddlers food which an adult has pre-chewed for them is an old practice. Older than humankind, actually - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premastication
>Cultures where infants are fed on the same broad spectrum of foods that adults eat have MUCH lower incidence of allergies.
Most mammalian wild animals (and humans until 100 years or so ago) drink their mothers milk up until they're able to eat regular food and then from that point on eat whatever adults of their species eat. They don't go through 5 different levels of Gerber before eating real food.
Most mammalian wild animals (and humans until 100 years or so ago) drink their mothers milk up until they're able to eat regular food and then from that point on eat whatever adults of their species eat. They don't go through 5 different levels of Gerber before eating real food.
This is a point of frustration between my wife and me and it repeats every 6 months or so.
"Honey, let's feed the girls some shrimp so they don't get allergies."
"No. Not yet. I don't want them to get mercury poisoning. It can wait."
I was under the impression that shrimp was among the lowest mercury seafood, along with herring, anchovies, and a few others.
The smaller the fish, the less mercury it has. The ones you have to watch out for are the big fish that eat lots of medium fish that in turn eat lots of smaller fish; each stage in the food chain concentrates more and more mercury. Sharks and tuna have a lot of mercury. And smaller tuna, like skipjack, have less mercury than larger tuna.
Also I think the threat of mercury in fish is greatly overstated anyway. Look at Japan; they eat tons of fish and they're not all brain damaged dummies.
Also I think the threat of mercury in fish is greatly overstated anyway. Look at Japan; they eat tons of fish and they're not all brain damaged dummies.
You'd have to be eating an unreasonable amount of seafood to get enough mercury in you to be a problem.
> At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old.
> This advice was never based on science.
I'm like 99% sure this was to avoid babies/young kids choking on peanut
> This advice was never based on science.
I'm like 99% sure this was to avoid babies/young kids choking on peanut
Maybe at first it was a sane reason like this. When we were having a kid, though, we were definitely told by reputable sources (like an obgyn) not to feed the kid peanuts in any form until 3 years old. We decided that the bureaucracy of what advice to give hadn't caught up to the science we'd read, and just tried small amounts of peanut butter when we moved to solids.
An OBGYN isn't a scientist. Move to "solids" is such a weird thing to say. Once you're off breast milk / formula you just go to whatever. The pureed food has to be one of the biggest scams in human history and leads to required orthodontia.
Even the article mentions this:
"Experts warn whole or chopped nuts and peanuts are a choking risk and should not be given to children under five."
Did I not read at some point that nursing mother eating the allergenic foods offer some benefits to the child as well?
This is one of those grandma’s tales that I’ve heard. Feeding pregnant women (and nursing mothers) a diet that is varied in nature allows the child to be healthier and allergy free.
Careful with that. You likely are also transferring the bacteria that cause cavities from your mouth to your babies mouth.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S199179021...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S199179021...
>Train how you live as soon as possible.
There are dangerous caveats to this advice! For example, don't feed infants fish or shellfish more than this allergy test. They contain one of the highest levels of mercury in the entire food web. Best to wait until the they've grown.
There are dangerous caveats to this advice! For example, don't feed infants fish or shellfish more than this allergy test. They contain one of the highest levels of mercury in the entire food web. Best to wait until the they've grown.
Most seafood is actually very low in mercury, only a few species that are high in the food chain (e.g. shark) are high in mercury due to bio-magnification.
Moreover, it has been observed that traditional fishing cultures that have a high mercury intake have zero symptoms of mercury toxicity. The leading hypothesis of this is that the high selenium content in these same fish is protective against mercury exposure[1]. Consider also the observation that cultures with high fish intake have good health outcomes, and that omega-3 supplementation fails to recover those benefits. This makes me feel that eating a lot of fish is likely much healthier than avoiding it, and avoiding it is probably leading to nutrition deficiency, including possibly selenium, which is a much bigger risk than the potential for mercury toxicity.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618...
Moreover, it has been observed that traditional fishing cultures that have a high mercury intake have zero symptoms of mercury toxicity. The leading hypothesis of this is that the high selenium content in these same fish is protective against mercury exposure[1]. Consider also the observation that cultures with high fish intake have good health outcomes, and that omega-3 supplementation fails to recover those benefits. This makes me feel that eating a lot of fish is likely much healthier than avoiding it, and avoiding it is probably leading to nutrition deficiency, including possibly selenium, which is a much bigger risk than the potential for mercury toxicity.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618...
Unless you feed them huge quantities of seafood, I fail to see how this is an issue.
From an allergy standpoint small exposure would be enough to reduce risk of developing an allergy.
From an allergy standpoint small exposure would be enough to reduce risk of developing an allergy.
The new FDA risk-benefit analysis is currently ongoing and will be published later this year. Right now, it's no more than 2oz/week for certain fish.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafo...
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-role-of-seafo...
Even small amounts of mmercury during early development can have significant effects.
On the other hand, my mum did the same to me with muesli and I developed a nut allergy.
yeah 70% not 100% some people will still develop allergies
Could also be related to hay fever if you have that. [1]
I had allergies for basically all my life but the food stuff only started at around 10 or 11 years. Now I can't really eat any uncooked fruit, vegetables or nuts. Interestingly enough, most citrus fruit are just fine, something with not being exposed to those pollen maybe...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_allergy_syndrome
I had allergies for basically all my life but the food stuff only started at around 10 or 11 years. Now I can't really eat any uncooked fruit, vegetables or nuts. Interestingly enough, most citrus fruit are just fine, something with not being exposed to those pollen maybe...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_allergy_syndrome
On the other hand, I wonder if infants without a mature immune system might do better not being exposed to a lifetime of pathogens in found adult saliva.
I think the normal way babies ramp their immune system is breastfeeding - their body struggles with soemthing, it is transferred to mom's nipple when breastfeeding, the mother forms an immune response, it is incorporated into the breast milk, the baby retrieves it next breast feeding.
I mean too early. Not sure when too early is.
I think the normal way babies ramp their immune system is breastfeeding - their body struggles with soemthing, it is transferred to mom's nipple when breastfeeding, the mother forms an immune response, it is incorporated into the breast milk, the baby retrieves it next breast feeding.
I mean too early. Not sure when too early is.
I am always worried about sharing my caries or gum disease bacteria, so I avoid sharing spoons and food. And then I've seen mothers pick up a pacifier from the ground and put it in their mouth to "clean" it before giving it back to the baby.
Do you [personally] have specifically bad bacteria in your gums?
I do have some gum recession, and a lot of fillings.
My wife has better dental health, even though she gives her teeth less attention than me in terms of hygiene.
But I've also found articles online about spreading cavities. Here is an example.
> Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay, is the single most common chronic childhood disease. In fact, it is an infectious disease. Mothers with cavities can transmit caries-producing oral bacteria to their babies when they clean pacifiers by sticking them in their own mouths or by sharing spoons.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112402.h...
> Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay, is the single most common chronic childhood disease. In fact, it is an infectious disease. Mothers with cavities can transmit caries-producing oral bacteria to their babies when they clean pacifiers by sticking them in their own mouths or by sharing spoons.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112402.h...
> If you IDS has never seen X and X is unlike anything it has seen, it will probably flag it.
It's a whole lost more complicated than this, see for example antigens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen and epitopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitope
It's a whole lost more complicated than this, see for example antigens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen and epitopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitope
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Exactly
How in tarnation did anyone think keeping babies away from the allergens would help with allergies is beyond me
Which countries has the least amount of peanut allergies? Countries where people give it without much concern
Thanks to these misguided though there are people severely allergic to peanuts
How in tarnation did anyone think keeping babies away from the allergens would help with allergies is beyond me
Which countries has the least amount of peanut allergies? Countries where people give it without much concern
Thanks to these misguided though there are people severely allergic to peanuts
> How in tarnation did anyone think keeping babies away from the allergens would help with allergies is beyond me
No one, AFAIK, thought it would reduce the rates of people developing allergies.
What people thought was that it would reduce the rates of people having dangerous allergic reactions as infants (which it does) and that the longer term effects would not be so negative as to outweigh that benefit (which seems, in the case of certain allergens – particularly peanuts – to very much not be the case.)
No one, AFAIK, thought it would reduce the rates of people developing allergies.
What people thought was that it would reduce the rates of people having dangerous allergic reactions as infants (which it does) and that the longer term effects would not be so negative as to outweigh that benefit (which seems, in the case of certain allergens – particularly peanuts – to very much not be the case.)
Not saying that you're wrong, but your line of reasoning is incorrect. It could also have been because all the people with peanut allergies have died and the people surviving all have some sort of genetic advantage against peanut allergy.
Again, the above reasoning is wrong but not completely baseless.
Again, the above reasoning is wrong but not completely baseless.
I see what you mean, I'm not so sure if there's a genetic connection to allergies (specific to allergies, not intolerances, which are a different thing) and/or how strong it is relating to different elements
> I started giving my own child chewed up food I was eating at about 2.5 months
You gave a TWO AND A HALF MONTH OLD CHILD chicken??? this is so incredibly careless that I HAVE to call out this crazy misinformation on HN. DO not ever replicate this please, everyone else.
You gave a TWO AND A HALF MONTH OLD CHILD chicken??? this is so incredibly careless that I HAVE to call out this crazy misinformation on HN. DO not ever replicate this please, everyone else.
What's the risk exactly? Googling around mentions the choking risk and the correlation behind obesity and early life introduction of solid foods. But if a small amount of chicken is pre-chewed by the parent and given as a rare one-off under observation those risks seem to be mitigated. Based on your strong reaction though I'm guessing there's risks? Inability to digest the chicken perhaps? Just curious
it is extremely bad for the child's digestive system etc. not everything is a "life or death thing"
however, there are other factors to keep in mind.
you mention giving your chewed up food: I read a few years ago that babies who sleep in the same bed as the parents have a much higher mortality rate; assuming it's true, I guess that with mouth to mouth germ exchange it would be even worse.
Also, a lot of food today is full of chemical residues etc that are tolerated by adults, not quite so by babies.
you mention giving your chewed up food: I read a few years ago that babies who sleep in the same bed as the parents have a much higher mortality rate; assuming it's true, I guess that with mouth to mouth germ exchange it would be even worse.
Also, a lot of food today is full of chemical residues etc that are tolerated by adults, not quite so by babies.
SIDS is very poorly understood, but highest probability seems to be that it’s not germ related but related to breathing (more like complex sleep apnea for infants, where sometimes a baby has a messed up breath response. This tracks with SIDS seeming to have a strong genetic component). For what studies we do have, yes sleeping with the parent seems to have a marginal increase in SIDS, although less of one than things like having a loose blanket in a crib.
Ultimately risk falls off around four months though, so yeah maybe 2.5 months is a bit early to try weird things.
Ultimately risk falls off around four months though, so yeah maybe 2.5 months is a bit early to try weird things.
Afaik, babies have weak neck muscles and can't lift their heads. I remember also reading that really small babies can't breathe through their mouth. So it seems easy to imagine a situation where the babies airway is blocked and it can't help itself.
Both things you say are correct. And as far as I've seen on most recent studies it is indeed related to some sort of deficiency in the signaling from the brain to "wake up" when oxygen is low, with suggestion that there's a genetic component to it (sorry no link to the study I saw).
Basically the SIDS risk as understood currently is like you said: obstruction getting in the way, baby not waking...bad outcomes. Co-sleeping with the parents increase risk by bringing pillows, blankets, themselves into the bed to add obstacles or opportunities for the infant to suffocate.
It's a highly nuanced topic. In my parent's day it was common for babies to be put to sleep on their stomach whereas now the advise is to back sleep even though there's increased risk for flat head, but lower risk for SIDS. Once the kid is able to turn themselves it becomes much more simple as they'll move around throughout the night so back/stomach becomes a non-issue once they reach that age.
Basically the SIDS risk as understood currently is like you said: obstruction getting in the way, baby not waking...bad outcomes. Co-sleeping with the parents increase risk by bringing pillows, blankets, themselves into the bed to add obstacles or opportunities for the infant to suffocate.
It's a highly nuanced topic. In my parent's day it was common for babies to be put to sleep on their stomach whereas now the advise is to back sleep even though there's increased risk for flat head, but lower risk for SIDS. Once the kid is able to turn themselves it becomes much more simple as they'll move around throughout the night so back/stomach becomes a non-issue once they reach that age.
A parent rolls over in their sleep and suffocates their infant. A tragic accident. Writing up the cause of death as unintentional homicide, or even an accident, won't do anybody any favors; it would only cause emotional anguish to the parents. So instead the cause of death is "SIDS."
I'm not saying this is what happens in every instance, but it's probably the way it happens at least some of the time.
I'm not saying this is what happens in every instance, but it's probably the way it happens at least some of the time.
Why would exposure to more germs be bad? Seems like it would be positive.
If you’re talking about sudden infant death, I don’t think it’s related to germs, although it’s a poorly understood phenomenon.
If you’re talking about sudden infant death, I don’t think it’s related to germs, although it’s a poorly understood phenomenon.
[deleted]
Isn't the mortality because of SIDS? It has not much to do with germ transmission.
> Isn’t the mortality because of SIDS?
SIDS isn’t a cause, SIDS is a name for when no cause is known.
SIDS isn’t a cause, SIDS is a name for when no cause is known.
Is also a concession to the parents whose kid probably just died of suffocation. Much like the historical trend of not reporting overdose deaths.
SIDS and also suffocation, which is now separated out from SIDS.
However, in recent years there has been a backlash to the backlash, and under certain conditions (no drugs/alcohol, exclusive breastfeeding, no blankets) some doctors will recommend co-sleeping. It’s controversial.
However, in recent years there has been a backlash to the backlash, and under certain conditions (no drugs/alcohol, exclusive breastfeeding, no blankets) some doctors will recommend co-sleeping. It’s controversial.
I still can’t get over that the official guidelines for years were the opposite of this, and it seems to have led to a tremendous increase in severe peanut allergy. I get that public health organizations have to make recommendations in the face of uncertainty. But to get it so wrong, with severe consequences — was there a postmortem or investigation of how that happened? How are people to trust public health guidelines when that stuff happens without explanation?
My understanding of this is that the original problem was children choking on whole peanuts. Hence the advice not to eat peanuts. This somehow got lost in translation and became "don't eat any peanut-based food".
Disclosure: son has severe peanut allergy.
Disclosure: son has severe peanut allergy.
Guessing same with honey? I hear people freak out a lot about infants having anything with honey in it. I feel it might be more along the choking lines with raw honey too.
The problem with honey is that it can cause botulism. Infants under 1 are most susceptible.
Honey is usually sold pasteurized though so botulism wouldn't be an issue. Just don't go for the fancy natural/raw stuff.
It absolutely is an issue for children. The botulism toxin can be destroyed with heat, but the spores are significantly more resistant to it. And as the WHO explains, it's the spores that are the root of the problem for children:
"Infant botulism occurs mostly in infants under 6 months of age. Different from foodborne botulism caused by ingestion of pre-formed toxins in food, it occurs when infants ingest C. botulinum spores, which germinate into bacteria that colonize in the gut and release toxins. In most adults and children older than about 6 months, this would not happen because natural defences in intestines that develop over time prevent germination and growth of the bacterium."
"Infant botulism occurs mostly in infants under 6 months of age. Different from foodborne botulism caused by ingestion of pre-formed toxins in food, it occurs when infants ingest C. botulinum spores, which germinate into bacteria that colonize in the gut and release toxins. In most adults and children older than about 6 months, this would not happen because natural defences in intestines that develop over time prevent germination and growth of the bacterium."
I have a 6mo daughter, and coincidentally I was just reading about this earlier today in the childhood nutrition book "Food to Grow On". According to that book, botulism spores can survive the temperature that honey is pasteurized at (the same book does recommend feeding peanut products to young babies, so it is up-to-date with that area of research at least).
Unless you're positive that botulism wouldn't be an issue in pasteurized honey, I would suggest qualifying your comment with a note that you're just speculating rather than stating it as a fact.
Unless you're positive that botulism wouldn't be an issue in pasteurized honey, I would suggest qualifying your comment with a note that you're just speculating rather than stating it as a fact.
I don't think honey is usually pasteurized. It's usually heated in the process of producing a clear product with no grittiness, but that's not necessarily pasteurization.
And botulism spores are incredibly durable.
And botulism spores are incredibly durable.
How long did you actively avoid peanut products for your son though?
Tradition easily beats science when it comes to diet because food science hasn't progressed far enough yet. I'll eat as similarly as possible to the way my great-grandparents ate, disregarding any contradicting health recommendations, which have always been wrong so far. The most scientific explanation I can give is that humans have evolved around their diets, which I recognize as a hand-wave.
This works for nuts too. If people were fine with nuts for so long, I'm not going to believe that it's suddenly a problem. They made a first-world problem, and it's going to take more studies like this (this is just one) to conclude that scientifically.
This works for nuts too. If people were fine with nuts for so long, I'm not going to believe that it's suddenly a problem. They made a first-world problem, and it's going to take more studies like this (this is just one) to conclude that scientifically.
If you zoom out, people used to use leaches for disease. Humans generally go through waves of health care trends. Generally speaking the progress gets better over time.
Leeches are still used in some medical situations, usually various types of tissue grafting.
Or in any situation where there's necrotic tissue! They're incredibly selective about only eating dead tissue.
Those would be maggots. Leeches are the blood drinkers.
What does one have to do with the other? We live in a time of significantly more advanced medicine and understanding of the human body. Just because we used to do something questionable in the past doesn't give a free pass for people to make boneheaded decisions in the present day.
It still makes sense to ask why we got this so wrong. Not just "this technique doesn't work the way we thought it did". We're talking COMPLETELY backwards.
It still makes sense to ask why we got this so wrong. Not just "this technique doesn't work the way we thought it did". We're talking COMPLETELY backwards.
It's absolutely not backwards. More children developed allergies (almost definitely because of the lack of exposure), but it wasn't known that would happen. What we did know is not exposing children to a trigger of anaphylaxis would prevent them from dying from anaphylaxis, so, similar to many dangers, the most logical course of action is to remove the risk altogether.
Yes, it's well known doing that with anything can have unknown secondary effects, but there's also a million everyday things we logically don't let infants do or be exposed to that we aren't establishing the statistical significance of either.
Incidentally, with all of our advanced medicine and understanding of the human body, we still don't understand why some people develop severe allergic reactions to some foods and others don't, so let's not pat ourselves too hard on the back for developing better food exposure protocols from trial and error over decades.
Yes, it's well known doing that with anything can have unknown secondary effects, but there's also a million everyday things we logically don't let infants do or be exposed to that we aren't establishing the statistical significance of either.
Incidentally, with all of our advanced medicine and understanding of the human body, we still don't understand why some people develop severe allergic reactions to some foods and others don't, so let's not pat ourselves too hard on the back for developing better food exposure protocols from trial and error over decades.
> It's absolutely not backwards.
But it is. The best population-level guidance (now) is early exposure. We told people to do the opposite. The result was a lot more kids with anaphylaxis-level allergy. (I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question, but given that we reversed the guidance, I assume from a public health perspective people now believe the original guidance was exactly the wrong thing to do.) The best you can say is this was the best we knew at the time, but it's exactly wrong.
> What we did know is not exposing children to a trigger of anaphylaxis would prevent them from dying from anaphylaxis, so, similar to many dangers, the most logical course of action is to remove the risk altogether.
I think you mean that it's intuitive, but I don't think it's logical, for exactly the reason that it turns out not to be a good idea. It's based on a wrong model of how the world works. Yes, that wasn't known. But I feel like we have to account for the fact that we might not know everything. (Admittedly, this drives me particularly nuts because I think this fallacy pervades so much public health advice, especially for kids.)
Like I said above, I get that people need to make recommendations in the face of uncertainty. But I feel like when we find that we've recommended the exact opposite of what was good (i.e., exactly flipped the previous guidance) with such severe consequences, it seems appropriate to step back and look at our methodology to ask if something went wrong or if there's something we can do to improve it?
But it is. The best population-level guidance (now) is early exposure. We told people to do the opposite. The result was a lot more kids with anaphylaxis-level allergy. (I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question, but given that we reversed the guidance, I assume from a public health perspective people now believe the original guidance was exactly the wrong thing to do.) The best you can say is this was the best we knew at the time, but it's exactly wrong.
> What we did know is not exposing children to a trigger of anaphylaxis would prevent them from dying from anaphylaxis, so, similar to many dangers, the most logical course of action is to remove the risk altogether.
I think you mean that it's intuitive, but I don't think it's logical, for exactly the reason that it turns out not to be a good idea. It's based on a wrong model of how the world works. Yes, that wasn't known. But I feel like we have to account for the fact that we might not know everything. (Admittedly, this drives me particularly nuts because I think this fallacy pervades so much public health advice, especially for kids.)
Like I said above, I get that people need to make recommendations in the face of uncertainty. But I feel like when we find that we've recommended the exact opposite of what was good (i.e., exactly flipped the previous guidance) with such severe consequences, it seems appropriate to step back and look at our methodology to ask if something went wrong or if there's something we can do to improve it?
> I think you mean that it's intuitive, but I don't think it's logical, for exactly the reason that it turns out not to be a good idea.
If operating with the best model you have is intuitive and not logical, then everything in science it intuitive and not logical, so we might have to redefine your use of "logical" to be more useful.
Peanut exposure caused anaphylaxis in some kids. Many kids in the world are never exposed to peanuts with no ill effects (in fact, a large portion of the globe went all of recorded history up until the Columbian exchange without exposure to peanuts). If we still want peanuts in anyone's diets, waiting until the child is older for controlled exposure is a logical response. Yes we didn't know how that would affect developing allergies, but as I mentioned in my comment, we still don't understand how allergies develop, so the only difference is we conducted a massive peanut exposure experiment with other countries operating as incidental controls.
> I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question
In fact, this (plus quality of life + cost of prevention/treatment) is the only measure on which the old guidance could be "exactly wrong", which hopefully gives some insight on why talking about it being "backwards" is itself wrong. It's not Thalidomide. Exposure at 6 months isn't the opposite of exposure at age 3. And whatever harm metric you can define is going to be a result of a mixture of effects, including allergic kids that weren't exposed and kids that (probably) developed an allergy because of the lack of exposure. It's almost certainly on the cost side that it's come out negative, because treatment has improved and exposure prevention has become so widespread.
> It's based on a wrong model of how the world works. Yes, that wasn't known. But I feel like we have to account for the fact that we might not know everything. (Admittedly, this drives me particularly nuts because I think this fallacy pervades so much public health advice, especially for kids.)
I mean, all models are wrong, some are useful. We'll never know everything and you have to work with the evidence you have. Delaying exposure to something that could kill 1% of kids is categorically different than some new study saying "we detected a small magnitude but statistically significant result on speech acquisition due to magnesium supplementation".
If you instead mean we need to better communicate uncertainty in developmental and health recommendations, I completely agree. You can see it in this thread, for instance, assuming that early exposure prevents all peanut allergies. Even if you assume exposure is the only causal variable here (almost certainly wrong), we can observe a baseline level of peanut allergy incidence, so, no, early exposure is not a panacea, but that doesn't seem to have been communicated well.
If operating with the best model you have is intuitive and not logical, then everything in science it intuitive and not logical, so we might have to redefine your use of "logical" to be more useful.
Peanut exposure caused anaphylaxis in some kids. Many kids in the world are never exposed to peanuts with no ill effects (in fact, a large portion of the globe went all of recorded history up until the Columbian exchange without exposure to peanuts). If we still want peanuts in anyone's diets, waiting until the child is older for controlled exposure is a logical response. Yes we didn't know how that would affect developing allergies, but as I mentioned in my comment, we still don't understand how allergies develop, so the only difference is we conducted a massive peanut exposure experiment with other countries operating as incidental controls.
> I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question
In fact, this (plus quality of life + cost of prevention/treatment) is the only measure on which the old guidance could be "exactly wrong", which hopefully gives some insight on why talking about it being "backwards" is itself wrong. It's not Thalidomide. Exposure at 6 months isn't the opposite of exposure at age 3. And whatever harm metric you can define is going to be a result of a mixture of effects, including allergic kids that weren't exposed and kids that (probably) developed an allergy because of the lack of exposure. It's almost certainly on the cost side that it's come out negative, because treatment has improved and exposure prevention has become so widespread.
> It's based on a wrong model of how the world works. Yes, that wasn't known. But I feel like we have to account for the fact that we might not know everything. (Admittedly, this drives me particularly nuts because I think this fallacy pervades so much public health advice, especially for kids.)
I mean, all models are wrong, some are useful. We'll never know everything and you have to work with the evidence you have. Delaying exposure to something that could kill 1% of kids is categorically different than some new study saying "we detected a small magnitude but statistically significant result on speech acquisition due to magnesium supplementation".
If you instead mean we need to better communicate uncertainty in developmental and health recommendations, I completely agree. You can see it in this thread, for instance, assuming that early exposure prevents all peanut allergies. Even if you assume exposure is the only causal variable here (almost certainly wrong), we can observe a baseline level of peanut allergy incidence, so, no, early exposure is not a panacea, but that doesn't seem to have been communicated well.
If operating with the best model you have is intuitive and not logical, then everything in science it intuitive and not logical, so we might have to redefine your use of "logical" to be more useful.
When you're defending a position now known to be wrong, this sort of statement is more rude than it is enlightening (or convincing).
When you're defending a position now known to be wrong, this sort of statement is more rude than it is enlightening (or convincing).
> If operating with the best model you have is intuitive and not logical, then everything in science it intuitive and not logical, so we might have to redefine your use of "logical" to be more useful.
Fair enough. The reason I don't like "logical" here is that it implicitly leaves out the possibility that the conclusion is wrong despite the data being correct.
>> I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question
> In fact, this (plus quality of life + cost of prevention/treatment) is the only measure on which the old guidance could be "exactly wrong", which hopefully gives some insight on why talking about it being "backwards" is itself wrong. It's not Thalidomide.
You're right -- it's not, like, the worst possible thing they could have said, and it wasn't like immediately fatal to kids that followed it. The sense in which I think the old recommendation was "exactly wrong" or "exactly backwards" is just that the organizations that made the old recommendation decided that doing what the old recommendation said to do (avoid peanuts altogether for the first several years) was worse than doing something that's basically the opposite (expose peanuts early).
> If you instead mean we need to better communicate uncertainty in developmental and health recommendations, I completely agree.
Yes, I think that's a good idea. (I know it has problems, too: most patients need clear, simple guidelines. But I think you can have clear, simple guidelines as well as more nuanced versions.)
I'm definitely not an expert here and I don't claim to know the answer. What I'm looking for is any introspection from the organizations involved. Something like a (blameless) postmortem. Something acknowledging "hey, it seems like this was a pretty big mis-step -- is there something we could have done better here?" Even if the conclusion was "no, we think our methodology in making recommendations is sound for [these reasons], there's just uncertainty, we got unlucky, and the risk of harm is lower than the risk of not saying anything", that would give them more credibility. Without something like that, as a parent, why would I continue trusting their recommendations? (Candidly, it doesn't help that this is just one of many examples of this from public health. See things like: eat margarine instead of butter (oops! we didn't know about trans fats.))
Fair enough. The reason I don't like "logical" here is that it implicitly leaves out the possibility that the conclusion is wrong despite the data being correct.
>> I don't know if this increased the total number of people who died. That'd be an interesting question
> In fact, this (plus quality of life + cost of prevention/treatment) is the only measure on which the old guidance could be "exactly wrong", which hopefully gives some insight on why talking about it being "backwards" is itself wrong. It's not Thalidomide.
You're right -- it's not, like, the worst possible thing they could have said, and it wasn't like immediately fatal to kids that followed it. The sense in which I think the old recommendation was "exactly wrong" or "exactly backwards" is just that the organizations that made the old recommendation decided that doing what the old recommendation said to do (avoid peanuts altogether for the first several years) was worse than doing something that's basically the opposite (expose peanuts early).
> If you instead mean we need to better communicate uncertainty in developmental and health recommendations, I completely agree.
Yes, I think that's a good idea. (I know it has problems, too: most patients need clear, simple guidelines. But I think you can have clear, simple guidelines as well as more nuanced versions.)
I'm definitely not an expert here and I don't claim to know the answer. What I'm looking for is any introspection from the organizations involved. Something like a (blameless) postmortem. Something acknowledging "hey, it seems like this was a pretty big mis-step -- is there something we could have done better here?" Even if the conclusion was "no, we think our methodology in making recommendations is sound for [these reasons], there's just uncertainty, we got unlucky, and the risk of harm is lower than the risk of not saying anything", that would give them more credibility. Without something like that, as a parent, why would I continue trusting their recommendations? (Candidly, it doesn't help that this is just one of many examples of this from public health. See things like: eat margarine instead of butter (oops! we didn't know about trans fats.))
Leeches are awesome for haemochromatosis.
My kid is allergic to peanuts (we did a peanut butter test at about 5 months and had to rush him to the ER as his face started swelling up). Food allergies are a really interesting subject because it doesn't seem entirely reliant on genetics. For example East Asians have an extremely low rate of peanut allergies, but East Asians who grow up in western countries tend to have an equal or higher rate of peanut allergies compared to the general populace. Strangely enough, children that move to Australia after the early infancy period seem to retain the same low rate of peanut allergies as children who spend their entire time in China. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26728850/
There's a great clinic in the bay area called Latitude that conducts oral immunotherapy which is a fancy word, afaik, to do slow introduction to foods that you're allergic to. My child is on a 6 month program that he started at 1 year old to slowly increase his peanut consumption, via peanut flour, to a couple peanuts a day.
There's a great clinic in the bay area called Latitude that conducts oral immunotherapy which is a fancy word, afaik, to do slow introduction to foods that you're allergic to. My child is on a 6 month program that he started at 1 year old to slowly increase his peanut consumption, via peanut flour, to a couple peanuts a day.
Very interesting. While the theory that most peanut allergy is caused by no exposure in infancy is well supported by the evidence, seems like it’s definitely not the entire story, given your experience — after all, you could hardly have a lot of exposure in children to peanuts earlier than 5 months! I don’t think we were feeding our kids solid foods at 5 months yet at all, so definitely they had no peanut exposure yet, but nevertheless they don’t suffer from allergies. The evidence you are pointing to about disparate rates of allergy for children growing up in different places is also very interesting. Sounds like there just is something in the air, or dirt, or daily practices, or whatever else it is, that causes those allergic immune reactions at elevated rates in western nations.
Exposure need not come from only peanuts. Other compounds or organisms can have similar structures. My hypothesis for why allergy is more prevalent in the US mostly comes down to how clean everyone keeps their homes. Clean as in using clorox or other anti bacterial over all surface clean. Stuff like that are rarely done in Asian countries. But hey, I'm not a scientist so I am possibly wrong or missing something
Same experience. My wife ate extra peanut butter while pregnant and nursing (offtopic but maybe relevant), and we tried giving my daughter the tiniest dab of peanut butter very early, and the reaction was nuts. We watched with rising panic as the inflammation started at her mouth, traced down throat and chest to stomach, and spread, in what seemed like real time.
She is 3 now has to have an epipen ready to go. 2nd girl: no issues at all - same house, basic maternal diet, vaccine schedule, etc
She is 3 now has to have an epipen ready to go. 2nd girl: no issues at all - same house, basic maternal diet, vaccine schedule, etc
Same here, nearly killed our son at 5 months with a few crumbs of peanut butter cookie. Other kid no problem. Really seems like there’s more to it than simply early exposure.
Adding our horrific experience here too. Gave our baby a little bit of peanut powder at 7 months. About 2 hours later, vomiting like crazy, turned about as grey as a rain cloud, rushed to the ER blowing through stoplights.
We have never been so scared in our whole lives. Facing the very real loss of a child due to your own hand is a thing you never want to go through. I unreservedly have some good trauma from that experience. Took about a week to get back to normal, the dehydration was so bad and they could not get a vein for IV fluids.
We carry an epi-pen everywhere now.
Fun Fact: Allergy tests (IgG and skin prick) have a ~10% false negative rate and a ~50% false positive rate (!!!).
We have never been so scared in our whole lives. Facing the very real loss of a child due to your own hand is a thing you never want to go through. I unreservedly have some good trauma from that experience. Took about a week to get back to normal, the dehydration was so bad and they could not get a vein for IV fluids.
We carry an epi-pen everywhere now.
Fun Fact: Allergy tests (IgG and skin prick) have a ~10% false negative rate and a ~50% false positive rate (!!!).
Adding to this list here as well... momma had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches nearly daily while pregnant and breastfeeding, and yet my son's first exposure to peanut butter as soon as he was able to safely have solid food showed he was allergic.
As with all things it not a panacea. The studies only see that peanut allergies decrease with early exposure. However, there always some kids that will have or not have allergies in both groups.
Same here. Early introduction -> emergency room.
> the theory that most peanut allergy is caused by no exposure in infancy is well supported by the evidence
The evidence supports this as one source of allergies. The cited study says 77% of such allergies may be sourced to lack of exposure, that still means almost 1/4 people with peanut allergies have them "naturally"
The evidence supports this as one source of allergies. The cited study says 77% of such allergies may be sourced to lack of exposure, that still means almost 1/4 people with peanut allergies have them "naturally"
Yes, that’s what the word “most” means in the sentence you quoted.
>you could hardly have a lot of exposure in children to peanuts earlier than 5 months!
Don't have a baby, but couldn't you put a few drops of unrefined peanut oil in the bottle? Or a quarter teaspoon of peanut butter?
Don't have a baby, but couldn't you put a few drops of unrefined peanut oil in the bottle? Or a quarter teaspoon of peanut butter?
has anyone looked into the source of the peanut products? sounds like the US is dis-proportionately affected by these allergies.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to be hereditary, both me (European Caucasian) and my wife (Chinese Asian) have 0 problems with nuts and can crunch them as much we want (same with everyone in direct line), but both of our kids have very strong nut allergy (not just peanuts, also pistachios, walnuts and especially cashew nuts) with immediate swelling, whole body red, very dangerous, even just piece of peanut. Also interestingly son spent 1st year of life in China, while daughter was born in Europe and it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Before I had kids I heard in Europe about peanut allergies only from US movies and TV shows and never met person who would be allergic to them, so was shocked to find my kids having such "made up" US allergy.
Before I had kids I heard in Europe about peanut allergies only from US movies and TV shows and never met person who would be allergic to them, so was shocked to find my kids having such "made up" US allergy.
> For example East Asians have an extremely low rate of peanut allergies, but East Asians who grow up in western countries tend to have an equal or higher rate of peanut allergies compared to the general populace.
Interesting... my wife is East Asian and has no history of Peanut allergies in her family. Same for my family (Caucasian, US) yet our daughter is allergic.
My wife also ate a lot of peanut butter while pregnant...
Interesting... my wife is East Asian and has no history of Peanut allergies in her family. Same for my family (Caucasian, US) yet our daughter is allergic.
My wife also ate a lot of peanut butter while pregnant...
Same here, no peanut allergies on both sides of our family but one of our daughters has a peanut allergy. We are the same mix.
We also tried to give our child (when a baby) peanut butter early and was rushed to the ER. Terrifying.
I'm wondering why the article doesn't point out that risk either. If your child is 3-5 months old and is severely allergic (but you don't know it yet) it seems like they could have a severe reaction to even a small amount of peanuts.
I have a two year old with a moderate peanut allergy. I'm convinced that early introduction at 6 months and oral immunotherapy have saved him from a more severe allergy.
Interestingly, multiple allergists we've spoken to have alluded to a recent theory (not sure if supported by the literature) that a child is more likely to develop an allergy if the allergen is first introduced through the skin than through the gut, especially if the skin exposure involves inflammation like eczema. Their advice was to make sure new allergens get in the mouth and not all over the skin early on.
Interestingly, multiple allergists we've spoken to have alluded to a recent theory (not sure if supported by the literature) that a child is more likely to develop an allergy if the allergen is first introduced through the skin than through the gut, especially if the skin exposure involves inflammation like eczema. Their advice was to make sure new allergens get in the mouth and not all over the skin early on.
How and why would peanuts get all over the skin? Are there peanut-based creams or something?
Oh man! Let me tell you something…I have 3 kids 3 and under and spaghetti nights are crazy. My 3 year old is better but my 1.5 year old is a hot mess. He has to be shitless during most meals or else the shirt isn’t going to last. Everything is smeared on his face and arms when he eats, even with a watchful parent it only takes half a second.
We’ve noticed spaghetti sauce will start to give him a rash on his belly only.
My 5 month old had beets last night for the first time and a full bath was not optional.
We’ve noticed spaghetti sauce will start to give him a rash on his belly only.
My 5 month old had beets last night for the first time and a full bath was not optional.
I can confirm this. I have two kids under 4 along with several nieces and nephews. Kids are unbelievably messy when they first learn to eat. Food ends up in places you never thought imaginable. Mealtimes always involve a "blast radius" of food products spilled / smeared / dropped / thrown / regurgitated.
Because peanuts are oily as all get out and every young kid that eats peanut butter is literally covered in it and will rub it on everything they touch, including kids that don't eat peanuts yet.
This might work but I would also like scientists to start looking for root causes, such as peanut and all legume crops alternating with cotton crops and what concentration of cotton pesticides in the soil get absorbed by the peanuts and what those chemicals get converted into and what impact they have throughout the embryonic development stages.
After confirming we had no history of nut allergies in either family, our pediatrician gave us a free sample of a peanut butter/apple sauce baby food when my daughter was ~3 or 4 months old. I must have spent hundreds of dollars on the stuff over time because it was her favorite. Unfortunately the brand seems to no longer exist. https://my-peanut.com
My wife now makes the baby food from scratch since with triplets it would become quite expensive quite quickly to buy premade. Those My Peanut pouches were awfully convenient though.
When did the apparent uptick in peanut allergies begin? There was no one in my entire school (~1,000 students) with a severe peanut allergy but now peanuts are banned entirely from campus. Did peanuts change or did children change>
My wife now makes the baby food from scratch since with triplets it would become quite expensive quite quickly to buy premade. Those My Peanut pouches were awfully convenient though.
When did the apparent uptick in peanut allergies begin? There was no one in my entire school (~1,000 students) with a severe peanut allergy but now peanuts are banned entirely from campus. Did peanuts change or did children change>
From 2005 until now, rates of peanut allergies have increased 2-fold or more in the US. Similar for tree nuts. Anecdotally, it feels like more. There's a huge generational shift even among recent parents, where it feels like a problem just didn't have very long ago, but we do now.
It's true that we had bad advice to not introduce peanuts which provably made the problem worse (and has now been reversed), but this is only part of the problem. Papers on the subject make clear that are other countries that are not doing intentional early-introduction (which we are now in the US) and don't have the problem.
It's also abundantly clear from the research that the population-scale problem is 100% environmental... as you would expect since the SAME POPULATION saw rates go through the roof in a decade. It's something we did, environmentally, and we don't know what.
It also feels frustrating that the medical profession seems overwhelmingly incurious about discovering whatever it is we're doing that is literally harming children.
It's true that we had bad advice to not introduce peanuts which provably made the problem worse (and has now been reversed), but this is only part of the problem. Papers on the subject make clear that are other countries that are not doing intentional early-introduction (which we are now in the US) and don't have the problem.
It's also abundantly clear from the research that the population-scale problem is 100% environmental... as you would expect since the SAME POPULATION saw rates go through the roof in a decade. It's something we did, environmentally, and we don't know what.
It also feels frustrating that the medical profession seems overwhelmingly incurious about discovering whatever it is we're doing that is literally harming children.
Same with gluten allergy. I've come across the opinion that the problem isn't really the gluten, but the pesticides.
Something similar may be to blame here.
Something similar may be to blame here.
If you do this, be prepared with benadryl and be ready to handle the situation if your kid does have an allergy.
Speaking from experience, here. Wife is an ER doc and it was still a scary situation. (He's fine, but still has the allergy 7 years later)
Speaking from experience, here. Wife is an ER doc and it was still a scary situation. (He's fine, but still has the allergy 7 years later)
Benadryl can reduce itching and hives but it will not treat the life-threatening parts of an anaphylactic reaction (suffocation from tongue/throat swelling and/or dangerously low blood pressure). Epinephrine is the only thing that can save you from anaphylaxis, and it should be given early to stop the reaction before it spirals out of control. Don't give Benadryl and think that you're safe, call 911 immediately on any sign of swelling or breathing difficulty or lethargy from low blood pressure.
All that said, you absolutely should give peanut butter (and other allergens) early and often. If you don't, you're signing your kid up for much worse odds of anaphylaxis later. The good news is fatal anaphylaxis is extremely rare even in people with confirmed food allergies, and even lower in infants than older kids and adults. Even when anaphylaxis occurs epinephrine is extremely effective, so anaphylaxis deaths are almost always due to failure to treat with epinephrine. So just make sure that you have access to prompt medical treatment if you need it (i.e. not camping in the mountains far from any hospital), and give those allergens ASAP.
All that said, you absolutely should give peanut butter (and other allergens) early and often. If you don't, you're signing your kid up for much worse odds of anaphylaxis later. The good news is fatal anaphylaxis is extremely rare even in people with confirmed food allergies, and even lower in infants than older kids and adults. Even when anaphylaxis occurs epinephrine is extremely effective, so anaphylaxis deaths are almost always due to failure to treat with epinephrine. So just make sure that you have access to prompt medical treatment if you need it (i.e. not camping in the mountains far from any hospital), and give those allergens ASAP.
Yeah we gave our 6 month old peanut butter and ended up in hospital. This happened during the Covid lockdowns so it was quite scary. The recommendation here is to give them the food and see if they are allergic. I'm not sure I would follow that guideline again.
Yeah, I think there is some other factor that is driving the increase in incidence of peanut allergies. Wife eating peanut butter while nursing doesn't seem to have prevented our oldest child from having a severe peanut allergy. edit--> didn't expect to be downvoted for this comment, lol
Same here, started with peanut butter and egg for a 4 month old. Now has allergies for both. I guess it works across populations. Or the research is wrong
I have 3 kids 3 and under, no twins. We did a similar thing around 5-6 months. They hate eggs with a passion but no allergies. About to start the peanut butter trials with my 5 month old.
We did the same with shrimp and oysters. My son loves seafood gumbo and made a whole restaurant turn around when he first tried it. He loves it.
Have you stopped trying allergic foods?
We did the same with shrimp and oysters. My son loves seafood gumbo and made a whole restaurant turn around when he first tried it. He loves it.
Have you stopped trying allergic foods?
Nowadays your doctor can just take a small blood sample and run a battery of allergy tests on that.
IgG and skin prick test have a ~10% false negative rate and a ~50% false positive rate.
You have to work really hard with a really good allergist to get reliable results.
You have to work really hard with a really good allergist to get reliable results.
I don't think that's common. Our pediatrician, who is part of a US major hospital, never mentioned this and basically said "introduce new foods on days without much going on in case you need to go to the ER."
blood tests aren't very reliable like that. i have been with my partner to the immunologist many times over the years and observed skin prick tests and seen blood test results and watched her get epipen'd after a bad prick test.
she will go into anaphylaxis if you wear a jacket you brought to somebody's house who has a cat.
her blood work says the IgE count is fairly low.
they can indicate more testing should be done, but they aren't perfect. neither are skin prick tests. i can dig up some of her reddit comments about it if you're interested.
she will go into anaphylaxis if you wear a jacket you brought to somebody's house who has a cat.
her blood work says the IgE count is fairly low.
they can indicate more testing should be done, but they aren't perfect. neither are skin prick tests. i can dig up some of her reddit comments about it if you're interested.
I had a bunch of allergy blood tests after having an allergic reaction to kiwi fruit. My results came back "severely allergic" to almond and sesame, both of which I have eaten all my life with zero issues. No antibodies to any of the pollen I am actually allergic to or to kiwi. I didn't show any allergies to anything when they gave me a skin prick test either, despite having had hay fever my entire life, which was ultimately the cause of the kiwi allergy via oral allergy syndrome. The doctor basically shrugged and told me "allergy testing is more of an art than a science."
Similar experience, our first kid ate peanut butter happily for two years or so, then developed more and more of an allergy. It was gradual, basically the reverse experience of developing a tolerance as many others experience.
Yeah, I have a peanut allergy which isn't super severe and used to have an egg allergy. My mom is a nurse fortunately and knew how to react when I had reactions as an infant. I think my peanut allergy has gotten less severe over time, but is definitely still there, and I'm 100% fine with eggs despite them giving me welts on my skin as a baby
I've heard a recommendation to do this in an ER parking lot for this reason.
The idea is you basically just touch their lips with a dab at first, so if there is any sort of reaction it isn’t life threatening. Then you increase a bit, etc.
Depending on how the hospital operates and whether there is a reason to be concerned some pediatric units will allow you to do the introduction on-unit. I'm sure things can change day to day, but that's the case for the hospital my wife works at, and is what we were advised to do when we're going to attempt some food re-introductions in a few months for our child.
Do you give them a heads up first or just say yolo and hope everyone survives?
We managed to reduce the child's allergy by using nano/microdosing and increasing the dose over several weeks/months until it practically disappeared.
Avoiding allergens and hoping the child grows into adulthood (with allergies) didn't seem like a very good strategy to us.
Being afraid of accidental exposure and epipens and stuff, no fun.
Avoiding allergens and hoping the child grows into adulthood (with allergies) didn't seem like a very good strategy to us.
Being afraid of accidental exposure and epipens and stuff, no fun.
Been a suspicion of many for quite a while that the rise of "don't give babies nuts or nut-based products, they might die!" advice and going from one nut allergy per school to one per class wasn't coincidental, but was caused by precisely that reduction in early exposure. Folk-wisdom nets a win, this time, I suppose.
In addition to other societal trends about helicopter parenting, I could see parents extrapolating danger from honey to other substances out of fear, out of lack of information.
(In case anyone's curious. Honey contains spores of Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium responsible for botulism/botulinum toxin aka the world's deadliest molecule. People over the age of 1 can ingest honey safely. Infants need time to build up their immune systems.)
(In case anyone's curious. Honey contains spores of Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium responsible for botulism/botulinum toxin aka the world's deadliest molecule. People over the age of 1 can ingest honey safely. Infants need time to build up their immune systems.)
Nitpick: it's the gut flora, not the immune system. Adults can ingest botulinum safely because in our guts it gets out-competed by the existing microbes that have been living there for years. Infants haven't developed that gut ecosystem yet, so the bad bacteria can find a home and start making toxins.
Ah, right, thanks.
I suppose that means I'd be helping my own gut flora if I had more probiotic foods, but I'm generally not fond of sour tastes.
I suppose that means I'd be helping my own gut flora if I had more probiotic foods, but I'm generally not fond of sour tastes.
When my kids were babies, we drove and parked outside the ER.
We then game them taste portions of all kinds of food that normally is associated with allergies.
We then waited a while, then drove back home.
We did that twice with a couple of months in between.
Some called us crazy :)
We then waited a while, then drove back home.
We did that twice with a couple of months in between.
Some called us crazy :)
>Instead, eating peanut while the immune system is still developing - and learning to recognise friend from foe - can reduce allergic reactions, experts say.
>Other studies have suggested introducing other foods linked to allergies - such as egg, milk and wheat - early also reduced allergy.
I admit I haven't looked at studies, but this made such intuitive sense to us that we've been first giving both our sons very small samples, then feeding them absolutely every kind of food (that's safe, e.g. not raw honey, and non-junky, e.g. no soda pop) we eat, as early as possible. If for no other reason, then to find out if they do have an allergy. Anecdata ≠ data, but both of them have zero allergies as far as we know, 6 and 2 years old now. Obviously, the nutritional needs of children and adults are different, so they consume different amounts of each kind of food than we do.
>Other studies have suggested introducing other foods linked to allergies - such as egg, milk and wheat - early also reduced allergy.
I admit I haven't looked at studies, but this made such intuitive sense to us that we've been first giving both our sons very small samples, then feeding them absolutely every kind of food (that's safe, e.g. not raw honey, and non-junky, e.g. no soda pop) we eat, as early as possible. If for no other reason, then to find out if they do have an allergy. Anecdata ≠ data, but both of them have zero allergies as far as we know, 6 and 2 years old now. Obviously, the nutritional needs of children and adults are different, so they consume different amounts of each kind of food than we do.
We did the same. My wife was nervous but I’m like, it’s common sense.
We did hold off on honey until they were one due to the botulism risk tho.
We did hold off on honey until they were one due to the botulism risk tho.
In certain cultures of India, it is tradition to give a baby a drop of honey as soon as they are born.
As a person from south Asia, one of my big culture shocks moving to west was the allergies. Its almost unheard of in South Asia (at least a decade ago). One another big factor is likely that the heavy daily use of fermented food in South Asia, which was almost complete ly absent (atleast in US)
And feeding young children actually spicy food instead of treating ketchup as the most flavorful ingredient in children's food.
The research on peanut butter puffs in Israel convinced us small amounts were far better for our young kids than avoiding completely.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02782-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02782-8
Where does peanut allergy come from anyway? The first time I heard about it was on American TV sitcoms. Two decades later we have EPIPENs in our schools too, but in my childhood food allergies were never discussed at all. Not a single mention at all.
Yeah same here (Europe), never heard about anyone having (pea)nut allergy, but now my own kids have it (for the record wife also doesn't have it), and not just peanuts, other nuts as well (cashew, pistachio, walnuts). But from what I've seen in Prague kindergarten lists of allergic kids, it's still quite rare, like 1-2 kids max out of 20-24 kids class. Seems gluten allergy is more common than (pea)nuts.
In my late 30s I developed a legume allergy (including peanuts). Not knowing much about child peanut allergies (we gave all of our kids peanut butter from an early age), I’ve had to adjust my own life to avoiding peanuts, soy, and so many delicious beans.
My symptoms are just gastro related, so it’s probably not the same as childhood peanut allergies, though.
My symptoms are just gastro related, so it’s probably not the same as childhood peanut allergies, though.
Peanuts contain a unique kind of lectin, which, unlike almost all other plant lectins, does not break down with preparation (heat, mechanical, etc.). Lectins irritate the gut lining and therefore cause gastro issues for a lot of people, peanuts probably moreso than other foods.
> My symptoms are just gastro related, so it’s probably not the same as childhood peanut allergies, though.
Maybe it's food intolerance, which is distinct from food allergy? Those I'm sure can develop later in life.
Maybe it's food intolerance, which is distinct from food allergy? Those I'm sure can develop later in life.
Do you get a flu shot every year?
I used to, but haven’t been regular about it for several years. Is there a link between it and adult onset allergies?
It has been proposed for at least egg allergy, since the flu shot contains egg protein and there is a plausible MoA. Some of the shots also use adjuvant 65, which contains peanut oil and it's possible the same MoA applies. Your own personal risk-reward calculation applies of course
[deleted]
I'm not saying it isn't more prevalent now, but there were definitely kids in my elementary school (~500 kids) in the 1980s who couldn't have peanut butter. I always felt so bad for them too, because I more or less survived on the stuff.
I remember in elementary school in the 80's, we were merely talking about peanuts for some class unit, and the girl known to have an allergy to peanuts threw up in front of everyone. Poor girl.
There is a mostly ignored body of research linking at least some food allergies to food proteins in vaccines. Here is one such study https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571073
There's probably a good reason why it's ingored...
The science is definitely mixed[1]. The proposed mechanism of action is logically sound, though, and probably worth exploring more than it is
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845772/
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845772/
It's possible the mechanism is plausible, but then how do we explain the fact that in most developed countries vaccination rates have gone up, yet allergy rates have gone up only in a few? Surely there must be some other factor causing it.
How do we explain the fact that countries with the highest growth of ice cream sales, have the highest growth of sunburn cases as well?
Hard to take a huge macro view of only two factors as you are doing and draw any meaningful conclusion. Hence the need for deeper study
Hard to take a huge macro view of only two factors as you are doing and draw any meaningful conclusion. Hence the need for deeper study
Probably not all countries use peanut oil as an adjuvant.
sam36(2)
I always wondered how kids end up with pollen allergies. I mean who doesn't take their kid outside in the spring?
Or is the offending pollen only endemic to certan areas, so you could grow up in a normal way somewhere and still get it?
I'm not strongly allergic to anything, but certain mosquitoes and also horseflies will make the bite swell up a ridiculous amount sometimes. But it never happened with the mosquitoes and horseflies where I grew up and still doesn't when I visit.
But I'm also allergic to certain soaps starting in my 20s, yet I'm pretty sure my parents gave me plenty of baths as a baby. It did occur after a course of antibiotics, maybe that helped trigger it somehow.
Or is the offending pollen only endemic to certan areas, so you could grow up in a normal way somewhere and still get it?
I'm not strongly allergic to anything, but certain mosquitoes and also horseflies will make the bite swell up a ridiculous amount sometimes. But it never happened with the mosquitoes and horseflies where I grew up and still doesn't when I visit.
But I'm also allergic to certain soaps starting in my 20s, yet I'm pretty sure my parents gave me plenty of baths as a baby. It did occur after a course of antibiotics, maybe that helped trigger it somehow.
> Or is the offending pollen only endemic to certan areas, so you could grow up in a normal way somewhere and still get it?
This happened to me. I never had seasonal allergies growing up in New York, but in Massachusetts I am brutally allergic to whatever pollen is in the air in the spring and fall.
I also never was allergic to my pet cats until I went away to college and wasn't constantly exposed to cat hair. I first started getting itchy eyes when they slept on my bed after I came back home to visit.
> It did occur after a course of antibiotics, maybe that helped trigger it somehow.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad the research is finally starting to catch up to this kind of thing too. People with issues like this have been pooh-poohed out of doctors' offices for decades.
This happened to me. I never had seasonal allergies growing up in New York, but in Massachusetts I am brutally allergic to whatever pollen is in the air in the spring and fall.
I also never was allergic to my pet cats until I went away to college and wasn't constantly exposed to cat hair. I first started getting itchy eyes when they slept on my bed after I came back home to visit.
> It did occur after a course of antibiotics, maybe that helped trigger it somehow.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad the research is finally starting to catch up to this kind of thing too. People with issues like this have been pooh-poohed out of doctors' offices for decades.
Actually thinking back... I think my first experience having the reaction to mosquitoes was vacationing in Denmark at 15, and at 14 I had burst appendecitis with moderately progressed peritonitis that required extensive laparotomy with a hefty antibiotic course to prevent progression to fullblown sepsis. The infection even flared up weeks later(or it was a new infection) and I had to do another course on a different antibiotic this time. It was around 15 that my mental health really started to deteriorate too.
The one mentioned earlier was at age 20 due to severe pneumonia. And my mental health took yet another nosedive after that as well.
The appendix interacts with the gut microbiome and the immune system, which interact with eachother, and both have been linked to mental illness in various ways.
I always felt like all these things were somehow connected but I could never quite nail it down. I asked my GP once but she gave me a look that could only mean "who do you think I am, Greg House?" And very little concrete came of it.
The allergies might be the "signal" that helps give weight to this theory beyond my fool's hope that it can all be cured with a fecal transplant or something.
The one mentioned earlier was at age 20 due to severe pneumonia. And my mental health took yet another nosedive after that as well.
The appendix interacts with the gut microbiome and the immune system, which interact with eachother, and both have been linked to mental illness in various ways.
I always felt like all these things were somehow connected but I could never quite nail it down. I asked my GP once but she gave me a look that could only mean "who do you think I am, Greg House?" And very little concrete came of it.
The allergies might be the "signal" that helps give weight to this theory beyond my fool's hope that it can all be cured with a fecal transplant or something.
Anaphylactic allergies, particularly food-based ones, seem to have a rather different etiology than other allergies.
Is an anaphylactic allergy just an allergy severe enough to cause anaphylactic shock, or does it denote a different mechanism altogether?
Infections can trigger autoimmune diseases so I wouldn't be surprised about triggering allergies as well. So not the antibiotic imo but the virus
Does this effectively confirm the hygiene hypothesis ?
clarification: This is ofc much easier to do when your family lives in said 3rd world country.
The hygiene hypothesis suggests that a newborn baby's immune system must be educated so it will function properly during infancy and the rest of life.
clarification: This is ofc much easier to do when your family lives in said 3rd world country.
That's not quite the same thing, this is specifically about the allergen itself needing to be introduced vs. avoided. The "hygiene hypothesis" as you said is more a general idea that the immune system should be exposed to a wide variety of foreign or pathogenic material in early age.
The avoidance of allergens was a deliberate thing under prior advice, and/or them being less common in the diet to begin with, it's not really a matter of hygiene or cleanliness.
The avoidance of allergens was a deliberate thing under prior advice, and/or them being less common in the diet to begin with, it's not really a matter of hygiene or cleanliness.
[deleted]
You can say least let your children play in the dirt and expose them to a variety of animals without traveling to another country.
Read somewhere that just getting a dog might be enough
Hygiene hypothesis is something different.
> I'm weighing the need for my (possible future) children to spend time in a 3rd world country with germs & allergens for a little bit
Or go outside with the kid. Visit a farm, park, whatever.
Or go outside with the kid. Visit a farm, park, whatever.
The annoying thing is When one of the parents is very allergic to peanuts, so you have to give it to the child elsewhere, and no friends or relatives want that responsibility. You get very little support from elsewhere.
(My wife is allergic to sesame. We have tried to get people to have hummus parties with our children but to this day they have not eaten any sesame as far as we are aware.)
(My wife is allergic to sesame. We have tried to get people to have hummus parties with our children but to this day they have not eaten any sesame as far as we are aware.)
Genuinely curious, not trying to criticize, am parent of littles myself.
You mentioned your wife is allergic but you're not, and talked about the difficulty you've had finding friends/family to expose them to it. I don't see mention of you being the one to expose them to it in a setting a safe distance away from your wife, and I guess I'm just curious! Hummus as a snack when you're at a park, or something?
Like I said, genuinely not trying to criticize, just another parent who's curious. I've been lucky to not have any allergy issues with my kiddos, so I guess I'm ignorant and just wondering what it's like and how complicated it could be.
You mentioned your wife is allergic but you're not, and talked about the difficulty you've had finding friends/family to expose them to it. I don't see mention of you being the one to expose them to it in a setting a safe distance away from your wife, and I guess I'm just curious! Hummus as a snack when you're at a park, or something?
Like I said, genuinely not trying to criticize, just another parent who's curious. I've been lucky to not have any allergy issues with my kiddos, so I guess I'm ignorant and just wondering what it's like and how complicated it could be.
Admittedly this may be a smaller problem with the children, but our rule when it comes to myself is that I also avoid sesame unless I'm not going to see my wife for a day or two. Our concern is that some of it would stick to teeth despite careful brushing, and then get transferred by intimacy. (She is extremely allergic.)
And truth is our children and myself have not been away from my wife for more than a few hours at a time since they were born!
Again, maybe this rule is not as important with the children who are not as vigorous kissers, but especially during the latest healthcare overloads we have been extra careful with avoidance. And as another commenter pointed out, the children don't understand that they are eating stuff that kills mom, so they may be unreliable in other ways.
And truth is our children and myself have not been away from my wife for more than a few hours at a time since they were born!
Again, maybe this rule is not as important with the children who are not as vigorous kissers, but especially during the latest healthcare overloads we have been extra careful with avoidance. And as another commenter pointed out, the children don't understand that they are eating stuff that kills mom, so they may be unreliable in other ways.
Aha, I gotcha. I guess that's my ignorance at play, not knowing to what degree an allergen can stick around, for how long, and how complicated that can all be!
Thanks for the insight. :)
Thanks for the insight. :)
I'm in the same boat, and it's true, even doctors don't get it. Gone through several pediatricians and got a blank stare back, mouth-agape.
Children are getting older, and thankfully, are no afflicted with the same allergy as their mother. But as time wears on, it is truly emotionally draining. The nuts held in a hermetically sealed container are compared to a caged viper - as they can easily cause life-threatening anaphylaxis for exactly 1 person in the household. We have to follow a super-clean process outside-and-inside to give an introduction, but you know what, kids don't always want to do what they're told. It sucks, and it's a problem more and more people will have in the future.
Children are getting older, and thankfully, are no afflicted with the same allergy as their mother. But as time wears on, it is truly emotionally draining. The nuts held in a hermetically sealed container are compared to a caged viper - as they can easily cause life-threatening anaphylaxis for exactly 1 person in the household. We have to follow a super-clean process outside-and-inside to give an introduction, but you know what, kids don't always want to do what they're told. It sucks, and it's a problem more and more people will have in the future.
If your infant has a reaction to peanut or other foods, doctors will probably tell you to avoid that food completely and wait until they are older to see if the allergy goes away. This is exactly wrong, just like the old advice to avoid early introduction.
It is actually quite likely that you can help your infant outgrow their allergy with oral immunotherapy (simply eating the food, but in strictly controlled amounts). Recent research is showing that oral immunotherapy is dramatically more effective and safer for infants than older kids or adults. Every month that goes by reduces the chance of success, so start immediately (with the help of an allergist, not on your own) as soon as you discover a food allergy.
Also, treating allergies promptly (as well as eczema) may reduce your child's chance of progressing to hay fever and asthma later, as well.
It is actually quite likely that you can help your infant outgrow their allergy with oral immunotherapy (simply eating the food, but in strictly controlled amounts). Recent research is showing that oral immunotherapy is dramatically more effective and safer for infants than older kids or adults. Every month that goes by reduces the chance of success, so start immediately (with the help of an allergist, not on your own) as soon as you discover a food allergy.
Also, treating allergies promptly (as well as eczema) may reduce your child's chance of progressing to hay fever and asthma later, as well.
I have been finding that some medical guidance - specially with raising children - are standardized and assuming an almost total lack of judgment on people side.
If you guidelines assume a total lack of criteria from parents it's best to give strict guidance on "no this and that until XYZ".
Example: where I'm raising my kids it is standard medical guidance to avoid minced meat until 5yo because of HUS - a guidance that no one from where I grew up even today ever heard of. Now, Am I living in a place where the risk of catching HUS is higher? Maybe. But more likely is the fact that here it is easier to just tell people that ANY minced meat is a risk instead of explaining that it depends on how you prepare and cook it.
If you guidelines assume a total lack of criteria from parents it's best to give strict guidance on "no this and that until XYZ".
Example: where I'm raising my kids it is standard medical guidance to avoid minced meat until 5yo because of HUS - a guidance that no one from where I grew up even today ever heard of. Now, Am I living in a place where the risk of catching HUS is higher? Maybe. But more likely is the fact that here it is easier to just tell people that ANY minced meat is a risk instead of explaining that it depends on how you prepare and cook it.
There are interesting studies being done about the effect of cesarean (non-vaginal) birth is having on babies not picking up a lot of the bacteria from the mother.
I know soap marketing has convinced us all that bacteria is evil, but apparently some bacteria is essential for humans (and animals, insects, etc..) being able to process certain foods.
Some bacteria is bad, some is bad in high quantities, and some is essential to digestion and/or virus control. If this is true, I would expect countries with higher cesarean birth rates to also have more allergies (though that wouldn't have to be the only reason).
I know soap marketing has convinced us all that bacteria is evil, but apparently some bacteria is essential for humans (and animals, insects, etc..) being able to process certain foods.
Some bacteria is bad, some is bad in high quantities, and some is essential to digestion and/or virus control. If this is true, I would expect countries with higher cesarean birth rates to also have more allergies (though that wouldn't have to be the only reason).
When I was a baby, I ate everything. When I was a toddler, I ate everything. As a child, I ate everything. Now I'm a grown-up (at least on paper), I eat everything. I'm not allergic to anything.
When my son was a baby, he ate everything. Now he's a toddler, his second-favourite phrase is "I'll try some!" whenever there's some food. Some he likes, some he does not, but so far he's not turned out to be allergic to any of it. Pretty much, he eats everything.
When my son was a baby, he ate everything. Now he's a toddler, his second-favourite phrase is "I'll try some!" whenever there's some food. Some he likes, some he does not, but so far he's not turned out to be allergic to any of it. Pretty much, he eats everything.
Not news, but yes, early introduction of allergens is best to reduce/mitigate allergies.
The only approved treatment of peanut allergy is basically nothing else than slightly roasted peanut protein packed up in appropriate sized packages that increase the dose slowly.
Given the prevalence of peanut allergy and other allergies in the US vs. RoW I found it interesting that a product like SpoonfulONE recently announced they would stop sales in the US due to low interest and focus on RoW.
The only approved treatment of peanut allergy is basically nothing else than slightly roasted peanut protein packed up in appropriate sized packages that increase the dose slowly.
Given the prevalence of peanut allergy and other allergies in the US vs. RoW I found it interesting that a product like SpoonfulONE recently announced they would stop sales in the US due to low interest and focus on RoW.
In Punjab too we have a yearly festival on January 13th, Lohri, where everybody eats peanut, jaggery, & nut seeds. I have not heard any peanut allergies there.
Our little one is four and a half months old. The official advice is already to introduce foods that could cause allergies at six months [1]. So that's what we'll be doing.
[1] https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/breastfeeding-bottle-f...
[1] https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/breastfeeding-bottle-f...
With the incidence rate being so low, all the anecdata in this thread is largely worthless. I'm not equipped to evaluate the quality of the study.
Someone has already packaged this concept[0] with eight other allergens for kids in the form of oatmeal. We did it with ours and it seems to have worked out well. Sorry to be a shill but I figure this might help some other parents out there.
[0]https://readysetfood.com/products/organic-baby-oatmeal
[0]https://readysetfood.com/products/organic-baby-oatmeal
[deleted]
This is a weird one to me. I had these allergies confirmed medically before I was 1. Almost died from reactions to the smell of foods I later had to avoid. Skin was irritated by cotton, such that I was hard to get to sleep.
That said, I have outgrown pretty much all allergies. And super grateful that my kids are free of any. Super curious to see new learning on this.
That said, I have outgrown pretty much all allergies. And super grateful that my kids are free of any. Super curious to see new learning on this.
In addition to Bamba, Puff Works in the US makes great peanut butter puffs for babies: https://puffworks.com/pages/baby
IMO the baby ones should be in adult sized packaging, they taste better than the adult puffs!
IMO the baby ones should be in adult sized packaging, they taste better than the adult puffs!
This seems valid. I'm from a country where a majority of our desserts and cookies are made with various different nuts so kids are exposed very early. We never hear about peanut allergies. When we moved to the US we were shocked that so many people have nut allergies.
We just gave our kid little bits of whatever we were having for dinner, because that's the traditional approach. No need to make special purees.
I have a strong suspicion that not only is there allergy benefit, but also that this is why she ended up not being too picky an eater.
I have a strong suspicion that not only is there allergy benefit, but also that this is why she ended up not being too picky an eater.
From the evidence I've seen exposure to allergens need to happen the right way. Eat it and the body learns that it is safe. But if it gets somewhere it shouldn't like the bloodstream, the body gets suspicious that it's a pathogen.
...if they survive your experiment in the first place.
Very dangerous advice, both of my kids have very strong reaction to nuts, even half nut is enough, so not sure when should I introduce them, interestingly both me and my wife like nuts and have no problems with them.
Very dangerous advice, both of my kids have very strong reaction to nuts, even half nut is enough, so not sure when should I introduce them, interestingly both me and my wife like nuts and have no problems with them.
As a South African in Canada the nut restriction in schools here is incredibly annoying.
Peanut allergy prevalence is a very interesting topic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6021584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6021584/
People never believe me when I tell them I used to be lactose intolerant until I was 5 or 6. My favourite dish as a child was milk-based and I'd get all the symptoms, which gradually all went away completely.
No, actually that's been deprecated for years due to establishment consensus.
You actually need mrna from a specific federally approved corporation for that feature to continue to function as expected.
You actually need mrna from a specific federally approved corporation for that feature to continue to function as expected.
One caveat that has worked in our household: if your kid has eczema on their face anywhere near the mouth, put a good barrier on it before eating said allergens. Lanolin or vaseline work great.
It’s a cliche by this point. But it was proven in research that because peanut puffs (most common brand name is “Bamba”) snacks are so common in Israel the rate of peanut allergy is so low
Near zero peanut allergies in South East Asia because there's so much peanuts in our food. Mothers who breast-feed their babies must be passing on the resistance as well.
[deleted]
I remember my childhood days on a farm, working with dry hay. There was so much pollen that my nose was pitch-dark on the inside. Never had any allergies, thankfully.
Bonus: if you give four-month-olds tiny tastes of the crap shown in the stock picture, they might also avoid allergies to corn starch and hydrogenated vegetable oil.
3 years ago both the paediatrician and the allergologist advised me to give some peanut butter or nut spread to my child for this very reason. What’s new?
I've heard that peanut butter is mainly an American thing. What would be an alternative to peanut butter in other cultures to cut peanut allergies?
It's probably necessary to look up more specific info on one's local stuff to be sure that it's safe for babies and is actually made with peanuts, but peanut-based sauces and dressings are fairly widespread. Any place with major influence from south Asia or southeast Asia likely has some form of peanut chutney or satay sauce, for example.
I mean you can crush peanuts to powder and use however you want, just make sure to start with microscopic amounts and have strong anti-histamine at hand in case your kid is unlucky one like mine.
[deleted]
Ha I did this. Snuck in PB and "rub dirt on their face" as young as 6 months. 2 kids and no allergies.
If we closed our eyes for a year when it comes to kids, we'd probably eradicate food allergies.
Peanut allergies are an emergent property.
Causal understanding might be better than immunotherapy.
how anout we instead pull literally all stops and figure out why so many people are developing a condition when their own inmune system tries to kill them when food enters their mouth??? The incidence is increasing dramatically. That’s a far bigger problem.
Survivorship bias. All the babies allergic to peanut butter, but fed it early, died.
Makes me wonder what the effect of the mother eating peanuts during pregnancy
Somehow all the studies end up being on jewish kids in Isreal vs. jewish kids in England. Not exactly a representative sample of people across the globe. The studies themselves have all the hallmarks of shit science, but everyone on here seems to agree with it because it fits their world view.
Well the opposite view isn’t really based on science , only in faulty risk mitigation. So is it riskier to let your kid go without knowing for a long time or is it better to test in a limited controlled window where you can react and adapt if something goes wrong.
Neither is based on Science when the science is shit. P-hacking isn't science, and yet it gets published as Science all the time, particularly in nutrition studies.
But that's exactly why this is so interesting. You take a set of people with extremely similar genetics but somehow have very different reactions.
I suppose a technical (albeit not precise) analogy would be you producing 100 servers and selling half to both AWS and Azure. Then you find out that 25 of the servers at Azure are overheating and dying while AWS doesn't seem to have this problem at all. So you look into it and find that AWS is air-cooling their systems while Azure isn't. Sure you could argue post post hoc ergo propter hoc but you'd also probably call the folks at Azure and tell them to install an air-cooling system.
Extrapolating that to your point, you're saying it would be "shit" to tell the folks at Azure to install the air-cooling because you didn't test this acrossa majority of servers you've produced. The folks at Azure would point the incredible similarities (this is the same server model, the same chips, the same manufacturing run etc.) and then would promptly find another vendor.
I suppose a technical (albeit not precise) analogy would be you producing 100 servers and selling half to both AWS and Azure. Then you find out that 25 of the servers at Azure are overheating and dying while AWS doesn't seem to have this problem at all. So you look into it and find that AWS is air-cooling their systems while Azure isn't. Sure you could argue post post hoc ergo propter hoc but you'd also probably call the folks at Azure and tell them to install an air-cooling system.
Extrapolating that to your point, you're saying it would be "shit" to tell the folks at Azure to install the air-cooling because you didn't test this acrossa majority of servers you've produced. The folks at Azure would point the incredible similarities (this is the same server model, the same chips, the same manufacturing run etc.) and then would promptly find another vendor.
> But that's exactly why this is so interesting. You take a set of people with extremely similar genetics but somehow have very different reactions.
Or it's based on a hundred different other things than when they first tried peanut butter.
Or it's based on a hundred different other things than when they first tried peanut butter.
Your point of anything is possible is always and forever true.
The point here is that there seems to be a strong correlation between people eating Bamba and no peanut allergy. How can we develop a control group? Oh wait, there is a group of people that have the same genetics but doesn't consistently eat this...perhaps there's a connection.
The goal is to see if we can show a correlation/causation.
The point here is that there seems to be a strong correlation between people eating Bamba and no peanut allergy. How can we develop a control group? Oh wait, there is a group of people that have the same genetics but doesn't consistently eat this...perhaps there's a connection.
The goal is to see if we can show a correlation/causation.
As always, correlation is not causation, and when you have a large group of people who actually changes their behaviour and starts to feed their children peanut butter early and it has no effect whatsoever you can begin to rule out the theory that was based on a small sample size of a distinct population.
The entire point was looking at very similar populations, but controlling for one variable (peanut product consumption in early childhood). While I agree that the studies should be expanded outward to ensure reproducibility and verify the hypothesis, a useful starting point is to look at two similar populations with only one variable.
That original study was made 8 or 9 years ago now, and they're following it up with an additional study of jewish kids in britain and israel here. If you look at the study, they're trying to determine why early exposure to peanut butter has not decreased the incidence of allergy in Australia. Somehow a study of Jewish kids in Israel & Britain is supposed to prove this out.
What if some of the babies were allergic to peanut butter in the first place?
I'm hitting a redirect loop between bbc.com and bbc.com.uk?
But not honey! Not until infants are over a year old.
Buy some Bamba and feed it to your kids early on...
Same holds true for most infectious diseases.
are scientists lazy these days ?
cz surely this, didn't need a study for.
this has been obvious for hundreds / thousands of years.
simply: expose your kids to the whole spectrum of food as soon as they're weaned. free range kids.
cz surely this, didn't need a study for.
this has been obvious for hundreds / thousands of years.
simply: expose your kids to the whole spectrum of food as soon as they're weaned. free range kids.
Does this generalize to all allergies?
If it does perhaps expose babies to all known human allergens in some shot or something.
If it does perhaps expose babies to all known human allergens in some shot or something.
Why not develop an mrna shot for peanut butter?
The objective of the mRNA shot for covid-19 is to make the person produce a antibodies that trap the covid-19 when it appears later. I think that for an allergy you want less antibodies, but an mRNA shot gives you more antibodies.
Also, I'm not sure what part of the peanut butter is the more important for the allergy. If it is a protein, perhaps a mRNA shot can make it better/worse, because the mRNA shot make some of your cell produce a protein.
If the allergenic substance in peanut butter is not a protein, I think it would be more difficult to make a mRNA shot that is good/bad.
Also, I'm not sure what part of the peanut butter is the more important for the allergy. If it is a protein, perhaps a mRNA shot can make it better/worse, because the mRNA shot make some of your cell produce a protein.
If the allergenic substance in peanut butter is not a protein, I think it would be more difficult to make a mRNA shot that is good/bad.
It is definitely a protein and I don't see much use for mRNA here. Clearly, there's nothing about the produced protein that marks it as safe just because it was produced in the body's own cells, otherwise the vaccine wouldn't generate a response.
So all this would do is introduce a lot of protein directly into serum. If someone was allergic, that would cause a reaction, and if not, it's not clear what it would do. It may not be a good idea for it to suddenly appear in the body without having been exposed through the GI tract.
So all this would do is introduce a lot of protein directly into serum. If someone was allergic, that would cause a reaction, and if not, it's not clear what it would do. It may not be a good idea for it to suddenly appear in the body without having been exposed through the GI tract.
What about a vector virus that target the thymus?
[Disclaimer: In case it's not obvious, I'm not a medical doctor. https://xkcd.com/938/ ]
[Disclaimer: In case it's not obvious, I'm not a medical doctor. https://xkcd.com/938/ ]
I think you have this backwards. mRNA vaccines get your body to produce a strong immune response in reaction to the whatever protein the mRNA got your body to produce. Peanut allergies are caused by your body already having an incorrect and very strong immune reaction to something inert.
Basically, the original study looked at Jewish kids in Israel versus the UK and saw that peanut allergies were about 10x lower in Israel, even though Jews of European background (Ashkenazi) there are fairly similar, genetically, to Ashkenazi Jews in the UK (the majority of both groups migrated recently from Central and Eastern Europe).
There is a snack called Bamba that they eat in Israel. It's kind of like a peanut butter Cheeto puff, and it is a nearly-universal snack for young kids in Israel. It melts in your mouth, so a 6-month-old can eat it almost as soon as they eat solid foods. It's about as popular in Israel as Cheerios are in the US, maybe more so. The hypothesis is that Bamba consumption there dramatically lowers the risk of developing peanut allergies.
[1] https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:00026...
[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1414850