A decade after a landmark study proved that feeding peanut products to young babies could prevent development of life-threatening allergies, new research finds the change has made a big difference in the real world.
Peanut allergies began to decline in the U.S. after guidance first issued in 2015 upended medical practice by recommending introducing the allergen to infants starting as early as 4 months. The rate of peanut allergies in children ages 0 to 3 fell by more than 27% after guidance for high-risk kids was first issued in 2015, and by more than 40% after the recommendations were expanded in 2017.
Surprising everyone who doesn’t know how the immune system works…
If the concern is that your infant may already have an allergy to peanuts at 4 months, and given that infants have significantly higher mortality than older children or adults who experience a severe allergic reaction, it actually makes way more sense to tread lightly and do rigorous research on the topic than it does to sit behind a keyboard and dismissively say “Duh, I knew that before you, stupid Mr./Ms. Scientist.”
Did you?
The problem is the scientists already knew the answer, too. It’s pretty well known by the evidence-based medicine community as a massive fuckup by the medical establishment that sets guidelines. A director of the Evidence-Based Medicine and Public Health Research Group at Johns Hopkins dedicated a chapter on it in his book.
That chapter explains that pediatric immunologists already knew guidelines for young children to avoid peanuts weren’t supported by science (they violated immune tolerance, a basic principle of immunology) and advised physicians they trained to ignore it.
full explanation
The book establishes that medical science can be susceptible to dogmatism & groupthink indolent to examine & update knowledge once it settles into established practice even when it lacks rigorous, scientific evidence. When they discover they are wrong, the establishment tends to be slow in recognizing it & correcting itself: rather than boldly & openly admit they were flatout wrong, they often prefer a face- (& liability-?) saving approach that quietly updates guidelines, slowly backpedals, and lets new practices overtake old with time. The mixed track record of major health recommendations in modern medicine follows a pattern established in the book:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2000 recommendation
is a case where they did not follow evidence-based medicine. It’s a case of copycat guidelines: they copied a 1998 UK health department recommendation. That recommendation was based on
and referred to a single study lacking support for that statement.
Predictably
Immunologists had objected.
Then they tried to dissuade with a study.
The medical community maintained the guidelines & wouldn’t fund studies to corroborate.
Several years later
It was “an embarrassingly simple study” the AAP failed to demand.
The whole ordeal is the predictable outcome of medical guideline associations correcting a well-documented disaster they recklessly created & hope to quietly sweep under the rug. How those associations haven’t been sued into oblivion for incompetent negligence is a real mystery.
The comment above yours is right: it entirely is as stupid as it seems.
Why would there be a concern?
They don’t even do allergen test till like 2 years…
Besides, the substance you’re allergic to doesn’t kill, your body’s erroronous response to it is what kills you
Exposure when young with a weak immune system, is very very unlikely to cause an extreme immune system response, which isnt a bug, it’s a feature. Literally how the immune system learns what to freak about, without causing a deadly reaction. An infant is supposed to heavily rely on antibodies from their mothers milk for actual responses.
No idea where you pulled that from, but it’s likely per allergic reaction, and as I’ve just explained, I fanta really shouldn’t be having any immune system reaction.
The exceptions are almost entirely related to exposure to herbacide/pesticide while the mother is pregnant. Which comes along with a host of other issues drastically increasing child mortality…
But like I said initially, some people are going to be surprised, because theyre just ignorant of these things
For fucks same, what did you think doctors a decade ago thought would happen when they started recommending this?
Did you think they just wanted to kill all the infants off?
Or do you think science works by proving a hypothesis and the vast majority of the time no one is surprised when science proves it right, except people who don’t know about it?
What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? They issued this guidance 10 years ago after rigorous study. Which was my entire point. Why do you argue with literally everything
In 2015, a decade ago, doctors started recommending this method…
Do you think they’re shocked now?
Or do you think they only recommended it once they were confident it wouldn’t just kill off a bunch of infants before they grew into children with peanut allergies?
Because to me, it seems like we knew what would happen
And the only people surprised it worked, were ignorant up until now about what doctors have been recommending for a decade?
Can you point to these “shocked” people? Are these “surprised” people in the room with you now?
The 2015 study was only even possible because the guidelines had changed in 2008. The guidelines were changed in 2008 only after significant research was conducted. You think these guidelines should have been changed on a whim without doing any research about them? Ok, RFK Jr.
The study this post is about? Literally no one except you is “shocked” that scientists would want to measure the effect this guidance has had on mortality and morbidity. Please stop forcefully pretending like you understand science.
I only see mention of NIAID guidelines published in 2010 that rightly indicated insufficient evidence for earlier guidelines in the US & UK. The only research conducted there was to observe a lack of supporting research.
The earlier guidelines weren’t evidence-based: they should never have been issued & should have been retracted as lacking evidence. Explanation.
So…
You agree with me that the only people surprised, were ignorant of stuff that had been widely discussed for over a decade…
What exactly is your issue here?
You’re mad I said something you agreed with?
Your initial statement was pompous and dismissive of the thousands of physicians who have contributed to this medical guidance. It’s also dismissive of the reality that there are still infants who develop severe peanut allergies and for whom this method does not work, which is why high risk individuals should still only do this under medical supervision.
Why would you think they’re ignorant of this if they worked on it?
Like, I’m starting to think all of this is because you don’t know what “ignorant” means and think it’s an insult and not literally the natural state…
No one knows everything, and everyone’s ignorant of some stuff.
That’s just life bro.
But I’m glad I figured it out
You were just ignorant of what ignorance means…
Which is honestly pretty funny
It’s a complex machine. Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet. Exposure therapy helps avoid some allergies later in life. But other people just draw the generic short straw.