Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
I've been wondering lately why it seems that children are presumed to have peanut allergy and precautions are taken against any possibility of them being exposed to this seemingly deadly roasted and salted snack as well as to foods prepared with peanut oil, one of the best cooking oils available.
Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.
What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.
The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.
. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.
When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.
We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.
As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.
Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.
Turns out that the prevelance of peanut allergies was caused by trying to avoid peanut allergies.
What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.
The AAP committee was following in the footsteps of the U.K.’s health department, which two years earlier had recommended total peanut abstinence. That recommendation was technically only for children at high risk of developing an allergy, but the AAP authors acknowledged that “the ability to determine which infants are high-risk is imperfect.” Using the strictest interpretation, a child could qualify as high-risk if any family member had any allergy or asthma.
. . .
In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.
The AAP’s absolutism in 2000 had made the recommendation hard to walk back. Drew and I agreed: The AAP should have originally said something like, “We’re not sure.” At least that would have been honest. Even today, the WIC program does not cover peanut butter for infants, a remnant of the AAP dogma.
When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.
We can enact healthcare reform, close health disparities and give every American gold-plated health insurance, but if we continue to recklessly issue health recommendations based on an illusion of consensus instead of proper science, we’ll continue to struggle and waste billions.
As far as I know, every single U.S. based medical association has come out in support of transgender treatments, including surgeries for children with no minimum age requirements.
Remember how wrong they were about peanuts and their effect on children when you evaluate their conpetence in determining the effects of castration on children.