←back to thread

60k kids have avoided peanut allergies due to 2015 advice, study finds

(www.cbsnews.com)
349 points zdw | 8 comments | 21 Oct 25 03:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
forgotoldacc ◴[21 Oct 25 05:20 UTC] No.45652698[source]▶
There was a period of a few decades (I guess still ongoing, really) where parents sheltered their kids from everything. Playing in the dirt, peanuts, other allergens. It seems like all it's done is make people more vulnerable as adults. People assume babies are super fragile and delicate, and in many ways they are, but they also bounce back quickly.

Maybe part of it is a consequence of the risks of honey, which can actually spawn camp infants with botulism. But it seems that fear spread to everything.

replies(15): >>45652771 #>>45652783 #>>45652794 #>>45652797 #>>45652805 #>>45652895 #>>45652915 #>>45652932 #>>45652940 #>>45653026 #>>45653220 #>>45653240 #>>45653724 #>>45654155 #>>45664493 #
1. WillPostForFood ◴[21 Oct 25 06:00 UTC] No.45652915[source]▶
It seems like all it's done is make people more vulnerable as adults.

In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended not allowing your kids peanuts until they were 3 years old. It was just parents following doctor's (bad) advice.

replies(2): >>45653012 #>>45653122 #
2. f1shy ◴[21 Oct 25 06:23 UTC] No.45653012[source]▶
Not to confuse: peanuts cannot directly be eaten because of risk of choke, as infants cannot chew them. The advice is to add as ingredient, as e.g. peanut butter.
replies(1): >>45653894 #
3. jl6 ◴[21 Oct 25 06:45 UTC] No.45653122[source]▶
A timely reminder that although doctors aspire to follow science, and many doctors are scientists, and most doctors advocate evidence-based medicine, the practice of medicine is not a wholly scientific field, and particularly the big associations like the AAP are vulnerable to groupthink just like any big org.
replies(2): >>45653488 #>>45653572 #
4. dragonwriter ◴[21 Oct 25 07:53 UTC] No.45653488[source]▶
Also, science is persistently incomplete, and actually making decisions (or advice) requires making assumptions (often, neutral ones, but that can turn out to be quite wrong) about what is in the unfilled gaps. The advice to avoid peanuts was because it was clear that severe peanut allergies existed, it was clear that they affected a small fraction of children, and it was clear than when they affected very young children, those children weren't able to let people know what was going on as well as older children and adults to enable timely intervention.

There wasn't much information one way or the other on what avoidance did as far impacting development of allergies, and with the evidence available, delaying exposure seemed prudent.

5. philipallstar ◴[21 Oct 25 08:06 UTC] No.45653572[source]▶
> and many doctors are scientists

Is this true? What percentage of doctors are scientists?

replies(1): >>45671310 #
6. monkey_monkey ◴[21 Oct 25 09:09 UTC] No.45653894[source]▶
Unfortunately everyone will ignore this comment and continue to respond as if peanuts were advised against because of allergy risk.
replies(1): >>45657709 #
7. WillPostForFood ◴[21 Oct 25 16:23 UTC] No.45657709{3}[source]▶
They were advised against because of the allergy risk, not because of choking hazard. Are you a parent? No shit you don't give hard nuts to a baby with no teeth.
8. roguecoder ◴[22 Oct 25 16:10 UTC] No.45671310{3}[source]▶
How do you define "scientist"? Medical education includes training in research methods.