Peanut allergy: Everything they told you was wrong

[Xystus]

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/05/peanuts-best-answer-peanut-allergies/96192894/

New research suggests the method to stopping a lifelong peanut allergy is to, well, feed your baby peanut foods.

…

The new guidelines are being embraced by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which put out recommendations 17 years ago that some families should avoid feeding children peanuts until they turn 3.

Who would have thought that the experts of the past were wrong about yet another thing?

 

[J_Peterson]

Why the rolling eyes? Scientific discovery is a process. They are wrong and they correct themselves when they have new data. They used to think that the Earth was the center of the Universe because the evidence they had at the time led them to that conclusion. When we got more data we thought the sun was the center. Now with the data we have we concluded there is no center of the universe. Perhaps that will change someday.

I don’t get the anti-science sentiment here and among Christians in general. Christ created it all, why be afraid of discovering what He created?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I never understood this peanut allergy epidemic. 40 years ago, they fed kids all kinds of peanuts and peanut butter in school and you never heard about peanut allergies. Because of the US Government’s peanut price support program, schools got all the free peanut products they could take.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Thanks for sharing this. We have a daughter with a peanut allergy. I will share this with my wife.

 

[Allegra]

Thanks for sharing this. We have a daughter with a peanut allergy. I will share this with my wife.

Wait! They don’t recommend giving peanuts to kids who already HAVE the allergy!

 

[AClaire11]

I’m too scared to feed my baby peanuts. I just keep picturing her going into anaphylaxis. Even though she has no signs of any allergies so far and we go through a jar of peanut butter each week.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m too scared to feed my baby peanuts. I just keep picturing her going into anaphylaxis. Even though she has no signs of any allergies so far and we go through a jar of peanut butter each week.

I wonder if by nursing you pass on peanut tolerance by eating peanut butter. I avoided nuts and peanut butter because of choking hazard when they were small so I think none of my kids had actual peanut butter until after a year. None are allergic.

 

[TARRAT]

Why the rolling eyes? Scientific discovery is a process. They are wrong and they correct themselves when they have new data. They used to think that the Earth was the center of the Universe because the evidence they had at the time led them to that conclusion. When we got more data we thought the sun was the center. Now with the data we have we concluded there is no center of the universe. Perhaps that will change someday.

I don’t get the anti-science sentiment here and among Christians in general. Christ created it all, why be afraid of discovering what He created?

I guess scientific discovery is a process is a true statement. My question is how can the process be true if it contradicts itself?

 

[Casilda]

My mom (old school advice) told me that nuts makes mother’s milk richer. I ate lots of PBJ sandwiches when nursing! I had happy chubby babies with no health issues.

PS, they outgrew their chubby status by 2.

 

[GEddie]

Nuts!!!

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

I guess scientific discovery is a process is a true statement. My question is how can the process be true if it contradicts itself?

The scientific process or method does not contradict itself. The findings or outcome may change but the process of discovery that leads to the changes in findings is the same. It is just that new information is tested by the same means.

 

[pensmama87]

I never understood this peanut allergy epidemic. 40 years ago, they fed kids all kinds of peanuts and peanut butter in school and you never heard about peanut allergies. Because of the US Government’s peanut price support program, schools got all the free peanut products they could take.

My personal guess (though there’s probably a variety of causes): before other advances in medicine, children with severe allergies probably died, either from the allergy or other related issues. There were more late miscarriages, stillbirths, premature babies were less likely to survive, and young children may have died earlier due to exposure because there was no treatment (or awareness of the possible cause.) The same goes for a lot of other conditions that compromise the immune system, for example.

Also, there have always been children (and adults!) who have been “sickly” or vaguely unwell or prone to “fits” of varying severity. I think now we just know the source of a lot more of those things, including allergies, infections, or genetic diseases.

I think there’s something to the over-cleanliness and sterility argument, too. Curiously, I understand that children born by C-section are more likely to develop allergies than those who are not, because of exposure to the normal pathogens in the birth canal. Of course, that doesn’t mean we stop doing necessary C-sections. But 50 or 100 years ago, I don’t think the C-section rate was 1 in 3, either.

But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a rippling effect into other areas of public health.

Just my :twocents:.

 

[J_Peterson]

I guess scientific discovery is a process is a true statement. My question is how can the process be true if it contradicts itself?

It doesn’t contradict itself. They build off of each other. It’s a matter of coming to conclusions based on the data we have. When we get more data the theory is adjusted or tossed altogether.

 

[Luz_Maria]

I have heard that what causes the allergic reaction is a mold, and if one gets the organic peanuts that mold is not there. Maybe that is the “dust” on the peanut shells?

 

[TCEL]

I ate a lot of peanut butter when I was pregnant, breast feeding, etc., and gave the kid peanut butter before one year, just a small dab at a time. Now when he takes a bite, it looks like he’s been socked in the eye or something. The hives are terrible. I wonder if I gave him the allergy. A nurse once told me that she can only have certain brands of peanut butter, so that’s my next best hope. We’re going to wait until he’s older before we actually get him tested.

 

[Allegra]

My personal guess (though there’s probably a variety of causes): before other advances in medicine, children with severe allergies probably died, either from the allergy or other related issues. There were more late miscarriages, stillbirths, premature babies were less likely to survive, and young children may have died earlier due to exposure because there was no treatment (or awareness of the possible cause.) The same goes for a lot of other conditions that compromise the immune system, for example.

Also, there have always been children (and adults!) who have been “sickly” or vaguely unwell or prone to “fits” of varying severity. I think now we just know the source of a lot more of those things, including allergies, infections, or genetic diseases.

I think there’s something to the over-cleanliness and sterility argument, too. Curiously, I understand that children born by C-section are more likely to develop allergies than those who are not, because of exposure to the normal pathogens in the birth canal. Of course, that doesn’t mean we stop doing necessary C-sections. But 50 or 100 years ago, I don’t think the C-section rate was 1 in 3, either.

But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a rippling effect into other areas of public health.

Just my :twocents:.

Now, wait just a darn tootin minute there! The post you are replying to begins with “40 years ago”. Now, that’s not much further back than my childhood, and I don’t consider my upbringing to resemble the turn-of-the-century-emergent-medicinal-practices you are describing.

I was born in 1983 and once you got past the first few months when SIDS was a concern, children did not die of unexplained “fits” or “proneness to mysterious illness” or anything like that without concern or investigation. When a child died of something, the doctors were expected to figure out why and people did NOT just shrug their shoulders and say, “God works in mysterious ways”.

Furthermore, the medical world was fully aware of allergies and the dangers of anaphylaxis. Epipen was already a thing and was commonly prescribed to people with severe allergies. Most people knew someone who knew someone whose kid carried one. Even so, there might, at a given time, be ONE child that was at the risk of dying from peanuts in an average elementary school. IF there was more than one, they were often from the same family.

Currently, at the school where I teach, there is at least one child diagnosed as being at risk for anaphylaxis in every grade level and in some grade levels, at least one in every class. Many schools in my district have so many students that are at risk from peanut exposure that they have banned peanut products from being brought in and send literature home reminding the parents of the importance of washing peanut residue from their children before they come to school.

People are not making it up when they say that peanut and other severe allergies are more prevalent than they were even a couple decades ago.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

why the rolling eyes? Scientific discovery is a process. They are wrong and they correct themselves when they have new data. They used to think that the earth was the center of the universe because the evidence they had at the time led them to that conclusion. When we got more data we thought the sun was the center. Now with the data we have we concluded there is no center of the universe. Perhaps that will change someday.

I don’t get the anti-science sentiment here and among christians in general. Christ created it all, why be afraid of discovering what he created?

+10000000000000000000000000

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have read that kids raised on farms have fewer allergies than urban kids. On the assumption that it’s true, one is inclined to think there’s something beneficial to early exposure to allergens. Seems to be true of germs too. Kids raised on ranches have a relative immunity to E Coli later in life, and probably other cattle vector diseases as well.

And finally, I have read that it aids a child’s immune system to have a dog. Dog picks up germs, licks kid, kid maybe get a bit sick, but acquires immunity and a more active immune system.

 

[tomarin]

I have read that kids raised on farms have fewer allergies than urban kids. On the assumption that it’s true, one is inclined to think there’s something beneficial to early exposure to allergens. Seems to be true of germs too. Kids raised on ranches have a relative immunity to E Coli later in life, and probably other cattle vector diseases as well.

And finally, I have read that it aids a child’s immune system to have a dog. Dog picks up germs, licks kid, kid maybe get a bit sick, but acquires immunity and a more active immune system.

Could that be true of cats as well?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I guess scientific discovery is a process is a true statement. My question is how can the process be true if it contradicts itself?

Science does not claim to present the truth. It claims to present the best theory based on the current data. In science, one can never prove a theory (unlike maths). One can only disprove theories.

I think Einstein would be surprised that more of his theories have yet to be disproven under some circumstances.