Just a note re "I did x and mine are fine"

[hunkermunker]

If the children to whom you refer aren't 85 (at least), it's not all that bright a statement.

That's all.

That's exactly it Hoochie. I'm just furious that no attempt is being made to try to identify sub-groups of children who are susceptible to adverse reactions. We know these reactions happen and we know that not all individuals react the same.

It appears that the medical community is afraid of opening a Pandora's box when it comes to indentifying at risk children.

For example a pre-existing casein intolerance is well documented as being a risk factor but how many doctors try to find out if a child is allergic before vaccinating them?

It is now becoming increasingly clear that mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role too in neurological damage from certain vaccines. This is of huge importance but the science is being buried and you certainly don't get to hear about it in the mainstream media.

I understand that the authorities want to protect the public health aspect of vaccination and do not want to tarnish the image of vaccination for fear of putting the frighteners on parents. However, currently such a policy means that no attempt is being made to determine criteria for what puts a child at risk. It also means that the Department of Health is VERY reluctant to investigate suspected vaccine damage.

Have to go now folks, will pop back in later.

Poppycock, I'll have a look through the info I have and see if there is anything of interest for you re premature babies.

Might not get a chance until tonight or possibly tomorrow.

Bloss, can you post here, please? I think you were one of the posters I'd seen talking about the weaning age going back to 4 months?

Bloss - "Guidelines have tightened very significantly over the last few decades about when to introduce foods - narrowing the range, and much later"

Not true!

Guidelines have been pretty consistent over the past 30 years - and it's no good quoting guidelines anyway, without knowing what people actually do which is, largely, to ignore 'em!

What we would term 'late weaning' - around 9 mths or so for the routine and regular incorporation of solids - was pretty common for the first half of the 20th century. It's likely that many babies had 'thickened' feeds - I have a collection of old baby books which talk about adding cereals and fortifiers to a bottle of milk - long before this. Older people I have talked to mention this, too.

Then there is a short period round about the 70s when mothers are urged not to give anything before 12 weeks, which is a hint that a lot of them are doing this. The UK Infant feeding surveys start in 1975, and it is only the 2005 survey where significant numbers are waiting until 4 mths - only 1 per cent of babies are on nothing but breastmilk at 6 mths.

"- and allergies have skyrocketed in that period as well."

?????? In what period? And what is 'skyrocketing'?

bloss, how many children are being weaned later though? MN gives the impression that everyone follows the guidelines but just pay a visit to NetMums or Bounty or BabyExpert and you will soon find that the majority of parents are actually weaning at incredibly early stages. It's stupid to try to connect "later" weaning with a rise in allergies because not enough children are being weaned following the guidelines.

Bloss, it's only in the last few decades that so many babies are routinely being given formula and regularly weaned onto solid food so early.

Message withdrawn

Ah the good ol' "we're not African's".

Yup - that sounds like 'shyrocketing' in Australia, all right

Would the same figures apply here in the UK? What has happened vis a vis solids in Australia? So your speculation does not hold water.

I've already said that the evidence surrounding the development of allergies is contradictory, and personally, I don't think we can say that there is much difference between solids after 4 mths (as opposed to after 6 mths) - from the allergy angle. However, there is evidence for better health outcomes in other ways, and as there is no good reason (as routine, public health guidance) to recommend solids before 6 mths, then 6 mths can be taken as public health guidance in all parts of the world.

shyrocketing = skyrocketing

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I honestly did not think I was scathing - I thought I was discussing, honest!

I welcome the extra information about the figures in the UK, but the main question to ask in both Aus and the UK is

what are people doing that's different with regard to their babies and solids?

And I don't see any evidence that people are introducing solids much later, and in fact, there is less exclusive breastfeeding (in the UK) than here used to be. There are indeed fewer people introducing solids before 3 mths, but very few leave it until 6 mths.

The second question is

what else might account for the rise in anaphylaxis?*

Anaphylaxis is the scary end of allergy, anyway...how far does it represent allergy generally? Not a challenging question, truly, but one I really don't know the answer to!

X-post - glad I am not scathing, thanks, bloss

I have already been reported once on this thread (by someone engaging in idiotic knee-jerk sensitivity I might add!) so wouldn't want it to happen again

Message withdrawn

bloss, it's not me 'thinking' anything about what people do....it's looking at the figures in Infant Feeding surveys which ask something like 15000 women from all social classes and areas, every 5 years, what they actually did and there is very little movement between 1975 and 2005 apart from a fairly recent shift away from giving solids before 3 mths.

Message withdrawn

bloss

This may well receive scorn from some but have a look at the research into leaky gut. There's quite a bit of decent stuff out there now. Unfortunately people working on it work in different areas and academics from one area always have problems talking to those in a different discipline. Clostridium rates have skyrocketed for example - something that people are beginning to look at (seems to effect the leakiness of the gut).

Would explain why breastfeeding offers some protection from various conditions including allergies, but isn't going to be able to stop the damage done by say repeated courses of antibiotics.

If I was in charge of the world I would fund someone to look at this properly

Message withdrawn

surely though it goes without saying that this isn't just about breastfeeding and early weaning.

How many studies have been done for instance, into the effects of additives in food? Because additives are certainly one thing that have increased in the past 20 years or so, coupled with the fact that people now work more so are more inclined to feed their babies food in jars as opposed to home-made. (not criticising those who feed their babies jars, but I don't believe anything in a jar can be totally free of any additive).

Hi Bloss

We're doing very well. How are you? I had a bit a life changing moment with ds1 a year or so ago (for me, not him!) We sat on Dartmoor - somewhere in the middle of it, and I looked across and he was enjoying himself every bit as much as me, so I kind of realised he's happy being who he is, with some help he can experience lots, and that's what life is about - experiences. Since then he's been climbing a few times and surfing which we all enjoyed and camping which he loved but half killed us, so he's active and happy! We're teaching him to read and type, which is challenging but might just be feasible. We won't know without trying. Although when I left this morning he was winding up my MIL by repeatedly dropping his trousers Sorry that's all rather OT! We need the ancient old timers password to catch up in our comfy chairs.

I haven't got time to look at in detail as by posting on here I'm avoiding writing a report which I need to do, but if you search for gut permeability allergies and something like clostridium or probiotics you get some interesting stuff coming up. I'm sure that's where people should be looking to explain the increases in allergies and autoimmune conditions. I know a model for autoimmune conditions was published in 2006 in Gut. I'm interested in all this, but have no time to explore it!

Well, a huge difference in some third world countries is a lack of cows milk/dairy in their diet, whereas European and US diets contain heaps of cows milk/dairy produce.

I've no studies to link to to extrapolate that into how it affects allergies, but, it's an interesting fact, all the same

It is thought that a greater number Europeans digestive systems have developed a way of getting around the lack of lactase that digests cows milk/dairy products which those from third world countries havent because they arent 'exposed' to dairy products constantly.

just been reading who literature

in a nut shell

family foods pdf 1998 - bf alone for at least 4 months, weaning from 6 months unless baby is still hungry after feeds and/or not gaining weight adequately, from 4 months. never before as food displaces bm, increases risk of tummy upset as food isn't as clean as bm, less bm means less goodness, to much bulk fills up and replaces bm, mothers get pregnant when not bf exclusively

later publications, state that all the above reasons are why they now say from 6 months as waiting will not harm. Not that weaning from 4 months WILL harm. 1998 booklet is still the one they read from and is the original thinking behind todays guidelines

they also say that from 6 months, bm alone is NOT adequate nutritionally and complimentary foods NEED to be given

3-5 months - bm will have enough nutrients in most cases
6-8 months - the gap is around 200kcal
9-11 months - the gap is around 400kcals
12-23 months - the gap is around 800kcals

So not dangerous for from 4 months, just more risk of the runs (cos I can't spell diarear) and due to less breastfeeding takes away some of the antibody protection and there are some babies that will need feeding earlier. 6 months is not set in stone for bf babies

no mention of leaky/virgin gut

Their literature talks very little of ff babies and why they should be weaned, just says from 6 months in newer publications and that milk isn't adequate alone

Poppycock, I had a look at the info I have and could only find a couple of PubMed papers which look specifically at pre term babies.

They don't examine gut permeability/food sensitisation but look at general immediate reactions to DTP such as apnea. They don't make any recommendations other than to suggest that more study needs to be done (shame it appears that nobody has bothered). They date from 2001.

The conclusion is that rates of adverse reaction are higher in prem babies. My feeling is that it makes sense to wait and let a prem baby get stronger and bigger and give their immune systems a chance to develop a little. My gut feeling is that the poor wee souls need a chance to recover from their difficult start in life before we start making demands on their immune system.

I'll post the link for you here;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11529542

There are a couple of other papers in the relevant articles section on the right.

I really recommend Halverson's book which I linked to earlier in this thread for some good solid info from a mainstream source. Halverson is a GP and is one of the doctors in the UK who offers single vaccines. I have lent my copy to a friend but I'm sure he has a section with advice on a later, slower vaccine schedule.

Good luck with everything, I hope that your wee one is thriving and happy.