You don't have to think anything about me. I'm not trying to discredit anything you are saying apart from that what you think is a fact. "we don't want guesses" - why? Guesses are fine if stated as such - what is not helpful is opinion stated as fact.
Yes, wilson is about the dundee cohort. I feel there are huge holes in that not least that it takes no account of childcare arrangements/socialising of baby and is based on a questionnaire filled in by parents. Cochrane reviews are helpful for producing NHS frameworks but are a pretty lazy way for an individual to find out about the research as they are providing the conclusion for you.
I have NEVER said it would harm to wean at 6 months just that I thought it would be later than most babies would choose to start and that I felt it cannot be argued it is nutritionally superior as the baby has to rely on it's (particularly iron) stores to see it through. The OP has already started to wean so from your perspective the 'damage' has already been done.
The Cochrane review you are offering says it is better to wait, says that waiting has been found to reduce respiratory and gastro-intestinal problems. Do you know WHY this is? Have you read the research this review is based on (clearly you have at least heard of the Wilson one)? Which studies/trials take into account factors such as type of solids given, food hygiene practises, general exposure to germs, consistency of solids given, frequency of solids given, what those solids were, portion sizes, whether the children have been to nursery, have siblings of various ages/numbers, family history of gastro-intestinal and respiratory diseases, sterilising practises, quality of food given, whether organic or non-organic produce given exclusively, occasional supplementing with formula, vaccinations, smoking - how often mother smoked in pregnancy, who smokes in the house, how many cigarettes they smoke, how often they are around people smoking, how often ppl wait after smoking before picking up the baby, independent confirmation of a parent's perception that their child has respiratory/gastro-intestinal illness, prevalence of gastro-intestinal/respiratory illness before weaning began, actual age in weeks/days weaning began, what cross-sections of population geographically and socially were used, living conditions - damp/mould, age of exposure and frequency of exposure to each factor, parent's attitude to illness/ability to recognise illness e.t.c. There are soooo many factors involved in gastro-intestinal/respiratory illness and in the observing of it's prevalence that I would want to know which were taken into account in these studies and how the data was collected and categorised.
The reality of the iron situation is that as we live in a developed country and are all well-nourished during pregnancy there is very little chance any baby will develop anaemia during the first year of life whatever it eats/drinks as it's own stores should see it through but this does depend on things such as the mother's medical history e.t.c. Also, let me remind you that most of the studies about allergies - other effects on the gut including the absorption of iron are about 'early weaning' pre 4 months.
I never objected to following the advice as a guideline, in fact I have said several times that as it won't do any harm to follow the advice it would be better to revert to it if you don't feel confident working outside it - it is difficult to do as there are lots of factors to consider and decisions to make.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the advice just people's interpretation of the advice being that if you give your baby solids pre 6 months your baby will be damaged and that people think it is OK to tell the mother, who has already started weaning, that she should stop as it is too early - without actually knowing anything about her or her baby. The guidelines work on a better safe than sorry basis that in itself does not imply an actual superiority. Some of the research implies superiority but equally, some does not.