The takeaway here, in my view, is that this is another example of mainstream medical gospel eventually proving to be harmful. There's no reason to believe that won't keep happening. I don't say...
The takeaway here, in my view, is that this is another example of mainstream medical gospel eventually proving to be harmful. There's no reason to believe that won't keep happening.
I don't say this to imply that people shouldn't trust doctors, or that mainstream medicine is more harmful than it is beneficial. The opposite is true.
Instead I say it as a way to combat the frustrating phenomenon where both scientists and laypeople, especially on the internet, attack anyone who questions gospel. Indeed that's exactly what used to happen before 2015, and for quite a while after, where peanuts and children where concerned. If a parent posted about feeding their baby peanuts, the internet responded by calling them a terrible person. I was not, for the record, a part of those conversations, I just cringed from a distance.
The reality was that well meaning pediatricians and associated organizations created a generation of life threatening peanut allergies by telling parents they should avoid giving their babies and young kids peanuts at all costs. Eventually research changed the course but the damage was already done.
The problem has only gotten worse as conspiracy theories and political polarization have created this perceived binary between "science" and anti-science. In a hypothetical present day world where the 2015 study hadn't been published yet, people questioning the peanut guidance would be grouped together with right wing anti science conspiricists and shunned by pro-science progressives.
I find the binary nature of these types of conversations really frustrating and, ironically, fundamentally anti-science. I think it's bad for society, peanut allergies being one example. Another example, this time within the scientific community, would be the decades long myopic obsession with amyloid plaque in alzheimers research and the resulting ostracization of researchers who tried to research or promote alternative approaches. And then the fairly recent explosion in progress when that stranglehold was finally released.
The truth is that history shows us we're almost definitely dead wrong about a lot of things we're sure we're right about and we should always do our best to allow for that possibility.
I'm pretty dense, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. That we can be wrong about things? We have to act on the information we have and yes it might be wrong. But people going...
Exemplary
I'm pretty dense, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. That we can be wrong about things?
We have to act on the information we have and yes it might be wrong. But people going against that information without good reason is problematic. Someone giving kids peanuts when our existing understanding says it's harmful is bad.
IMO the only point worth making is that experts and researchers should be open to being wrong and questioning the current consensus. But implying you and I are qualified to question it isn't valuable.
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this. This is a difficult position to take because one ends up just a step away from the antivax camp, but I do think there's space somewhere for regular people...
Exemplary
But implying you and I are qualified to question it isn't valuable.
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this. This is a difficult position to take because one ends up just a step away from the antivax camp, but I do think there's space somewhere for regular people to ask themselves "does this make sense?"
There's an ongoing replication crisis in several fields - particularly psychology and medicine. And while science at its best is impartial and truth seeking... the system also sometimes gets corrupted, such as when the sugar lobby paid for research suggesting that fat (not sugar) was to blame for bad effects on health.
In that environment, I really don't think it's an unreasonable position to suggest that people can apply critical thinking to "science's" position. (In quotes because you can find a study representing nearly any point of view).
Again, though, this is dangerous because it's a short hop from there to outright climate-change denialism and being an antivaxer. I think the way to avoid this is to be skeptical of small stuff while trusting the consensus on big stuff. So, overall scientific movements, for lack of a better term, are probably worth taking at face value. Climate change. Germ theory. Western medicine writ large. But I still think it's reasonable to question small stuff -- especially anything that seems like an absolutist position. (Keep your kid away from peanuts or they'll become allergic and die... Never mind the fact that half of west Africa feeds their kids on pounded peanut paste. Sugar is good for you and fat, any kind of fat, is the devil. Fat, any kind of fat, is good for you and sugar is the devil. And on, and on).
The problem with "science" in this context is that people don't understand what science is and how it applies to reality. No single experiment should ever convince you to change your thoughts or...
The problem with "science" in this context is that people don't understand what science is and how it applies to reality.
No single experiment should ever convince you to change your thoughts or behaviours. The most it should affect you should be to pique your interest in the topic. Experiments that haven't been confirmed with additional experiments are worthless. There are countless reasons why the results might be counter to how reality works; there might have been problems with the methodology, samples may have been affected by external forces, or it could have been influenced by political/economic means. If you see a news article about a new study, at least 9 times out of 10 you should immediately disregard it because the thing you are reading is closer to a PR statement than it is the current state of science.
So you are right; you should trust the consensus. It's better to understand why and how the consensus was made, and why people might disagree with that consensus. That gives you a better understanding of the topic. Context is everything, after all.
I agree. To add on to some of the issues with medical science, while controlled trials and studies are great, the statistics most frequently used to evaluate them can be really problematic,...
I agree. To add on to some of the issues with medical science, while controlled trials and studies are great, the statistics most frequently used to evaluate them can be really problematic, especially because when using a large enough sample size, you can sort of hack your way to "significant" results. It's kind of wild how much of medical trials come down to "is it slightly better than no treatment, statistically? Great!"
I think the best points to remember are that many studies don't have a ton of replication, and there also exist conflicting studies that may call those results into question (especially depending on what the studied treatment population is, which may not extrapolate particularly well to the global population). When media gets hold of these results, many of the nuances and caveats may be overlooked, and with social media and the increasingly concise nature of information snippets, this can lead to movements that militantly support an interpretation of science that may not be justified, but it can be hard to tell when you have a peanut case or when you have a vaccine case, and so probably some degree of reading and asking multiple experts is a good idea. Having some idea of the biological relationships behind medical advice (e.g., the introduction of allergens early can reduce their effects later) can maybe help a bit with sussing out realities, but sometimes science is just wrong. We muddle through the best we can, but the nature of investigations (posing a question and comparing different potential explanations) can unfortunately lead to a lot of bias.
Case in point, I gave peanuts to my kids early and often because of advice from researchers and medical professionals (who were correcting earlier researchers and medical professionals).
Case in point, I gave peanuts to my kids early and often because of advice from researchers and medical professionals (who were correcting earlier researchers and medical professionals).
Unsolicited feedback... that reads as pretty passive aggressive. Objectively, based on current research, a parent giving their kids peanuts during the time when it was recommended they shouldn't...
I'm pretty dense, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Unsolicited feedback... that reads as pretty passive aggressive.
Someone giving kids peanuts when our existing understanding says it's harmful is bad.
Objectively, based on current research, a parent giving their kids peanuts during the time when it was recommended they shouldn't would not have been bad unless the child was part of a very small group that was going to end up with a peanut allergy no matter what.
I think I understand what you're getting at, that in a broad sense we want people to follow expert guidelines, but that doesn't change reality. That particular guideline was bad and if a parent had information that led them to believe they should ignore it, science now tells us that would be the right call for them to have made.
This is part of the point I was trying to make, strong, unempathetic reactions to people who have the audacity to question things are, in my view, bad for society.
implying you and I are qualified to question it isn't valuable.
It seems to me that you're in a position to make judgements about your own qualifications, but not so much about other people's.
Prior to 2015 there was plenty of research in biology that could lead an informed, thoughtful person to conclude that exposure was beneficial. That it would take some time for further research to alter the guidelines doesn't make a parent who made a considered choice, informed by the data available to them, wrong.
But in the current cultural climate, that is what a lot of people seem to believe. My point, or part of it, is that maybe that's not a good thing.
To pick the most violatile example: we don't want parents to stop vaccinating their kids. That's bad for everyone. But it doesn't logically follow from there that all questioning of conventional wisdom is wrong.
In case anyone made this connection, it is still the case that you should not give honey to infants less than a year old. This is not pop science, babies’ digestive systems cannot yet handle the...
In case anyone made this connection, it is still the case that you should not give honey to infants less than a year old. This is not pop science, babies’ digestive systems cannot yet handle the small amount of botulism that can be found in honey, it causes some really scary symptoms.
I'm still sad as an adult with a peanut allergy. It was discovered on a plane when I was an infant. My mother gave me a peanut M&M, and I apparently swelled up like a red balloon, almost caused an...
I'm still sad as an adult with a peanut allergy. It was discovered on a plane when I was an infant. My mother gave me a peanut M&M, and I apparently swelled up like a red balloon, almost caused an emergency landing.
I'm glad the new guidance is leading to fewer allergies, but there's a part of me that's disappointed knowing that people will have fewer reasons to be accommodating to peanut allergies (like ice cream shops that don't use peanuts).
I wholeheartedly agree with this research, and it's something I've been saying for a long time as a layperson with a background in biology. I'm still sad that for some people, it's still...
I wholeheartedly agree with this research, and it's something I've been saying for a long time as a layperson with a background in biology.
I'm still sad that for some people, it's still unavoidable as allergies can come on suddenly at any age, regardless of exposure. I've known a few people, who, despite early and often exposure to allergens like peanuts, still ended up allergic to them as adults. Mr. Tired is one such person, and it sucks because Reese's were one of his favorite candies.
I feel his pain. I picked up two or three food allergies in my 20s, all of which I really enjoyed. Now they cause itchy tongue, excess saliva, and strong chest cramps. Thankfully no airway...
I feel his pain. I picked up two or three food allergies in my 20s, all of which I really enjoyed. Now they cause itchy tongue, excess saliva, and strong chest cramps. Thankfully no airway constriction (yet). It's frustrating not just because I loved those foods, but because I have to pay close attention so to avoid accidentally getting some. They're uncommon allergens so they're never flagged, at least one gained popularity over the last decade, there's several different names for the same things as ingredients, and they're sometimes included in nonspecific mixtures/medleys.
I don't understand something here. I was under the impression that you shouldn't feed babies nuts not because of the risk of allergies, but because of the risk of choking. Is that not a concern...
I don't understand something here. I was under the impression that you shouldn't feed babies nuts not because of the risk of allergies, but because of the risk of choking. Is that not a concern here? I'm not a parent nor planning to be, so I might just be very ignorant.
Totally separate things -- but yeah, you do need to not feed babies (like, baby babies) nuts because of the choking risk. Peanut butter, though, is fine. (As are commercial products including...
Totally separate things -- but yeah, you do need to not feed babies (like, baby babies) nuts because of the choking risk. Peanut butter, though, is fine. (As are commercial products including peanut, often designed specifically to introduce the child to allergens.)
That reminds me the news talked about very low peanut allergies in Israel and that one of the most popular snacks there called Bamba is a a puffed corn snack with peanut powder in the flavoring....
That reminds me the news talked about very low peanut allergies in Israel and that one of the most popular snacks there called Bamba is a a puffed corn snack with peanut powder in the flavoring. Puffed snacks are a common first food for babies since they dissolve on their own after a short while, so infants and toddlers were getting oral exposure early and often.
The takeaway here, in my view, is that this is another example of mainstream medical gospel eventually proving to be harmful. There's no reason to believe that won't keep happening.
I don't say this to imply that people shouldn't trust doctors, or that mainstream medicine is more harmful than it is beneficial. The opposite is true.
Instead I say it as a way to combat the frustrating phenomenon where both scientists and laypeople, especially on the internet, attack anyone who questions gospel. Indeed that's exactly what used to happen before 2015, and for quite a while after, where peanuts and children where concerned. If a parent posted about feeding their baby peanuts, the internet responded by calling them a terrible person. I was not, for the record, a part of those conversations, I just cringed from a distance.
The reality was that well meaning pediatricians and associated organizations created a generation of life threatening peanut allergies by telling parents they should avoid giving their babies and young kids peanuts at all costs. Eventually research changed the course but the damage was already done.
The problem has only gotten worse as conspiracy theories and political polarization have created this perceived binary between "science" and anti-science. In a hypothetical present day world where the 2015 study hadn't been published yet, people questioning the peanut guidance would be grouped together with right wing anti science conspiricists and shunned by pro-science progressives.
I find the binary nature of these types of conversations really frustrating and, ironically, fundamentally anti-science. I think it's bad for society, peanut allergies being one example. Another example, this time within the scientific community, would be the decades long myopic obsession with amyloid plaque in alzheimers research and the resulting ostracization of researchers who tried to research or promote alternative approaches. And then the fairly recent explosion in progress when that stranglehold was finally released.
The truth is that history shows us we're almost definitely dead wrong about a lot of things we're sure we're right about and we should always do our best to allow for that possibility.
I'm pretty dense, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. That we can be wrong about things?
We have to act on the information we have and yes it might be wrong. But people going against that information without good reason is problematic. Someone giving kids peanuts when our existing understanding says it's harmful is bad.
IMO the only point worth making is that experts and researchers should be open to being wrong and questioning the current consensus. But implying you and I are qualified to question it isn't valuable.
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this. This is a difficult position to take because one ends up just a step away from the antivax camp, but I do think there's space somewhere for regular people to ask themselves "does this make sense?"
There's an ongoing replication crisis in several fields - particularly psychology and medicine. And while science at its best is impartial and truth seeking... the system also sometimes gets corrupted, such as when the sugar lobby paid for research suggesting that fat (not sugar) was to blame for bad effects on health.
In that environment, I really don't think it's an unreasonable position to suggest that people can apply critical thinking to "science's" position. (In quotes because you can find a study representing nearly any point of view).
Again, though, this is dangerous because it's a short hop from there to outright climate-change denialism and being an antivaxer. I think the way to avoid this is to be skeptical of small stuff while trusting the consensus on big stuff. So, overall scientific movements, for lack of a better term, are probably worth taking at face value. Climate change. Germ theory. Western medicine writ large. But I still think it's reasonable to question small stuff -- especially anything that seems like an absolutist position. (Keep your kid away from peanuts or they'll become allergic and die... Never mind the fact that half of west Africa feeds their kids on pounded peanut paste. Sugar is good for you and fat, any kind of fat, is the devil. Fat, any kind of fat, is good for you and sugar is the devil. And on, and on).
The problem with "science" in this context is that people don't understand what science is and how it applies to reality.
No single experiment should ever convince you to change your thoughts or behaviours. The most it should affect you should be to pique your interest in the topic. Experiments that haven't been confirmed with additional experiments are worthless. There are countless reasons why the results might be counter to how reality works; there might have been problems with the methodology, samples may have been affected by external forces, or it could have been influenced by political/economic means. If you see a news article about a new study, at least 9 times out of 10 you should immediately disregard it because the thing you are reading is closer to a PR statement than it is the current state of science.
So you are right; you should trust the consensus. It's better to understand why and how the consensus was made, and why people might disagree with that consensus. That gives you a better understanding of the topic. Context is everything, after all.
I agree. To add on to some of the issues with medical science, while controlled trials and studies are great, the statistics most frequently used to evaluate them can be really problematic, especially because when using a large enough sample size, you can sort of hack your way to "significant" results. It's kind of wild how much of medical trials come down to "is it slightly better than no treatment, statistically? Great!"
I think the best points to remember are that many studies don't have a ton of replication, and there also exist conflicting studies that may call those results into question (especially depending on what the studied treatment population is, which may not extrapolate particularly well to the global population). When media gets hold of these results, many of the nuances and caveats may be overlooked, and with social media and the increasingly concise nature of information snippets, this can lead to movements that militantly support an interpretation of science that may not be justified, but it can be hard to tell when you have a peanut case or when you have a vaccine case, and so probably some degree of reading and asking multiple experts is a good idea. Having some idea of the biological relationships behind medical advice (e.g., the introduction of allergens early can reduce their effects later) can maybe help a bit with sussing out realities, but sometimes science is just wrong. We muddle through the best we can, but the nature of investigations (posing a question and comparing different potential explanations) can unfortunately lead to a lot of bias.
Case in point, I gave peanuts to my kids early and often because of advice from researchers and medical professionals (who were correcting earlier researchers and medical professionals).
Unsolicited feedback... that reads as pretty passive aggressive.
Objectively, based on current research, a parent giving their kids peanuts during the time when it was recommended they shouldn't would not have been bad unless the child was part of a very small group that was going to end up with a peanut allergy no matter what.
I think I understand what you're getting at, that in a broad sense we want people to follow expert guidelines, but that doesn't change reality. That particular guideline was bad and if a parent had information that led them to believe they should ignore it, science now tells us that would be the right call for them to have made.
This is part of the point I was trying to make, strong, unempathetic reactions to people who have the audacity to question things are, in my view, bad for society.
It seems to me that you're in a position to make judgements about your own qualifications, but not so much about other people's.
Prior to 2015 there was plenty of research in biology that could lead an informed, thoughtful person to conclude that exposure was beneficial. That it would take some time for further research to alter the guidelines doesn't make a parent who made a considered choice, informed by the data available to them, wrong.
But in the current cultural climate, that is what a lot of people seem to believe. My point, or part of it, is that maybe that's not a good thing.
To pick the most violatile example: we don't want parents to stop vaccinating their kids. That's bad for everyone. But it doesn't logically follow from there that all questioning of conventional wisdom is wrong.
In case anyone made this connection, it is still the case that you should not give honey to infants less than a year old. This is not pop science, babies’ digestive systems cannot yet handle the small amount of botulism that can be found in honey, it causes some really scary symptoms.
I'm still sad as an adult with a peanut allergy. It was discovered on a plane when I was an infant. My mother gave me a peanut M&M, and I apparently swelled up like a red balloon, almost caused an emergency landing.
I'm glad the new guidance is leading to fewer allergies, but there's a part of me that's disappointed knowing that people will have fewer reasons to be accommodating to peanut allergies (like ice cream shops that don't use peanuts).
I wholeheartedly agree with this research, and it's something I've been saying for a long time as a layperson with a background in biology.
I'm still sad that for some people, it's still unavoidable as allergies can come on suddenly at any age, regardless of exposure. I've known a few people, who, despite early and often exposure to allergens like peanuts, still ended up allergic to them as adults. Mr. Tired is one such person, and it sucks because Reese's were one of his favorite candies.
I feel his pain. I picked up two or three food allergies in my 20s, all of which I really enjoyed. Now they cause itchy tongue, excess saliva, and strong chest cramps. Thankfully no airway constriction (yet). It's frustrating not just because I loved those foods, but because I have to pay close attention so to avoid accidentally getting some. They're uncommon allergens so they're never flagged, at least one gained popularity over the last decade, there's several different names for the same things as ingredients, and they're sometimes included in nonspecific mixtures/medleys.
I definitely had to read that twice.
Hopefully they get better and not worse.
I don't understand something here. I was under the impression that you shouldn't feed babies nuts not because of the risk of allergies, but because of the risk of choking. Is that not a concern here? I'm not a parent nor planning to be, so I might just be very ignorant.
Totally separate things -- but yeah, you do need to not feed babies (like, baby babies) nuts because of the choking risk. Peanut butter, though, is fine. (As are commercial products including peanut, often designed specifically to introduce the child to allergens.)
That reminds me the news talked about very low peanut allergies in Israel and that one of the most popular snacks there called Bamba is a a puffed corn snack with peanut powder in the flavoring. Puffed snacks are a common first food for babies since they dissolve on their own after a short while, so infants and toddlers were getting oral exposure early and often.