←back to thread

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

(www.cbsnews.com)
349 points zdw | 6 comments | 21 Oct 25 03:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
slavik81 ◴[21 Oct 25 05:48 UTC] No.45652865[source]▶
One of the difficult parts of this advice for me was that my daughter wasn't eating food at the time when we were supposed to introduce it. In those cases, you're supposed to add peanut butter to the milk, which we did a few times. We let it slip for a few weeks, because it was one more thing in a pile of many things. We got her back eating peanut butter once she started eating food, but it was too late. She had developed a peanut allergy.

After going through the desensitization program at an allergist, we're on a maintenance routine of two peanuts a day. It's like pulling teeth to get her to eat them. She hates peanut M&Ms, hates salted peanuts, hates honey rusted peanuts, hates plain peanuts, hates chocolate covered peanuts, hates peanut butter cookies, and will only eat six Bamba sticks if we spend 30 minutes making a game out of it.

I highly recommend being very rigorous about giving them the peanut exposure every single day. It would have saved us a lot of time.

replies(6): >>45652961 #>>45653487 #>>45653754 #>>45654063 #>>45660435 #>>45661723 #
gambiting ◴[21 Oct 25 07:53 UTC] No.45653487[source]▶
>>I highly recommend being very rigorous about giving them the peanut exposure every single day

I honestly can't tell if this entire post is some kind of parody or what. That cannot be real - I don't know anyone or have ever heard of anyone basically force feeding their child peanuts to maybe avoid peanut allergy later in life. It sounds insane, just like the presumption that because you missed some imaginary time window in their development your daughter has developed peanut allergy. That cannot possibly be real.

replies(5): >>45653609 #>>45653916 #>>45660673 #>>45661626 #>>45665040 #
thinkcontext ◴[21 Oct 25 20:59 UTC] No.45661626[source]▶
I think you are reading the parent comment wrong. They are highly recommending it because their child DID get a peanut allergy not because they MAY develop one later.
replies(2): >>45661965 #>>45664563 #
1. gambiting ◴[21 Oct 25 21:29 UTC] No.45661965[source]▶
No I did read it that way. I understand perfectly that their child developed a peanut allergy, and I'm very sympathetic - but the assumption that if only they fed her peanut brittle within some specific time period would have avoided it is just pure fantasy, or wishful thinking at best. They are of course free to assume so and I am well familiar with the feeling of "if only I did things differently" that every parent gets.
replies(4): >>45662833 #>>45662959 #>>45665435 #>>45669280 #
2. reissbaker ◴[21 Oct 25 23:00 UTC] No.45662833[source]▶
It's not a silver bullet, but there are many studies (including the ones referenced in the article) that show that introducing peanuts in a consistent early childhood window reduces the likelihood of later developing a peanut allergy. I don't think this is "pure fantasy."
3. RyanOD ◴[21 Oct 25 23:12 UTC] No.45662959[source]▶
Different, but sort of related...

Our daughter recently developed EILO. It sounds silly and totally illogical, but more than once, I've found myself wondering if there is anything we could have done to have helped her avoid it.

So yes, that feeling just comes with being a parent, I guess.

4. AuryGlenz ◴[22 Oct 25 06:14 UTC] No.45665435[source]▶
You're in a thread about how feeding small children peanuts prevents peanut allergies, so to call it pure fantasy is a bit of a stretch.

Might it not have mattered? Sure. Might it have prevented their kid from getting the allergy? There's a decent chance.

5. thinkcontext ◴[22 Oct 25 13:58 UTC] No.45669280[source]▶
> that if only they fed her peanut brittle within some specific time period would have avoided it is just pure fantasy, or wishful thinking at best

Oh I see, thanks for explaining, you are rejecting the underlying science. What about the study do you not find convincing?

replies(1): >>45670891 #
6. gambiting ◴[22 Oct 25 15:45 UTC] No.45670891[source]▶
>>Oh I see, thanks for explaining, you are rejecting the underlying science

I certainly do no such thing.

>>What about the study do you not find convincing?

I do find it convincing, what I don't find convincing is OP's assertion that because they missed some time period in their daughter's life feeding her peanuts she developed a peanut allergy. It's not an "if X then Y" system - and the study does talk about it in terms of probabilities, not certainties.