4 ms·
This is literally an article with proof that the previous guidance we was wrong and actively harmful to the children that were subjected to it.
by atomicUpdate 4y ago
This is literally an article with proof that the previous guidance we was wrong and actively harmful to the children that were subjected to it.
- soperj 4y agoThis is literally an article that is pointing to a research paper that doesn't definitely conclude anything.
- shkkmo 4y agoI'm not sure which article or paper you are reading? The paper the article references says: > A 77% reduction in peanut allergy was estimated when peanut was introduced to the diet of all infants, at 4 months with eczema, and at 6 months without eczema. The estimated reduction in peanut allergy diminished with every month of delayed introduction. If introduction was delayed to 12 months, peanut allergy was only reduced by 33%. Edit: While I'm not sure what your standards are for "conclusive", the author's of the paper have drawn pretty strong conclusions and any doubts I see are around precisely how much the effectiveness of peanut introduction drops off with infant age, not about wether such a drop occurs.
- soperj 4y agoBased on a population of jewish children in england vs. a population of jewish children in Israel, literally a repeat population from the first study 8 years ago. The paper in question also states: "Moreover, it should be noted that since the change in Australian guidelines in 2016, consumption of peanut during the first year of life increased from 28.4% before the guidelines (2007-11) to 88.6% after the implementation of the guidelines (2016-18). Despite this change, a recent publication has shown no decline in the observed prevalence of peanut allergy in Australia in 2020, which remained stable at 3.1%." It's been tried in a large population with literally zero effect.