Home

Is it true?
Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Parenting our children -> Toddlers


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


amother




DarkYellow
 

Post Fri, Aug 05 2022, 12:23 am
amother [ Bergamot ] wrote:
What dark yellow said:
This advice is not for high risk babies.

For babies at high risk of allergies there are different rules. Speak to your doctor.


Actually, the way I understood it was that they encourage moms of kids with greater risk to give the bamba at 4 months in hopes that they WONT develope an allergy.

For kids who have no predisposition to develope allergies, when you first give them peanuts doesn't make a difference. It made a difference specifically to those children who WERE at higher risk.

In this category would be babies who have siblings with allergies or who have eczema or asthma. They found that when giving peanuts to this population at 4 -6 months, the rates of developing an allergy were lower.

In my Case my baby was already 7 months, had eczema and had actually tested positive for peanuts on the skin test. The doctor thought it was a false positive and said it was very common. But obviously he was wrong.. I think the Dr should have had him try the bamba in the office.

What the mother above me said , that the daughter ate nothing until 18 months and by that logic should have been allergic to everything is faulty logic. Some kids are predisposed to allergies and some kids aren't. Her baby obviously wasn't.

The bamba study was designed to see if they could lower the rate of children developing the allergen, and the pool of kids in the study were specifically those who were at risk.
Back to top

amother




Burgundy
 

Post Fri, Aug 05 2022, 10:14 am
amother [ DarkYellow ] wrote:
Actually, the way I understood it was that they encourage moms of kids with greater risk to give the bamba at 4 months in hopes that they WONT develope an allergy.

For kids who have no predisposition to develope allergies, when you first give them peanuts doesn't make a difference. It made a difference specifically to those children who WERE at higher risk.

In this category would be babies who have siblings with allergies or who have eczema or asthma. They found that when giving peanuts to this population at 4 -6 months, the rates of developing an allergy were lower.

In my Case my baby was already 7 months, had eczema and had actually tested positive for peanuts on the skin test. The doctor thought it was a false positive and said it was very common. But obviously he was wrong.. I think the Dr should have had him try the bamba in the office.

What the mother above me said , that the daughter ate nothing until 18 months and by that logic should have been allergic to everything is faulty logic. Some kids are predisposed to allergies and some kids aren't. Her baby obviously wasn't.

The bamba study was designed to see if they could lower the rate of children developing the allergen, and the pool of kids in the study were specifically those who were at risk.

Actually my dc was predisposed being that I myself have food allergies and I have an older child with many food allergies. Additionally, this child herself actually does have an egg allergy so according to this belief, she was at risk of having many more since she didn't eat food until 18 months.
Back to top

amother




RosePink
 

Post Fri, Aug 05 2022, 11:21 am
I introduced bamba at 5 months and my child threw up which is an allergic reaction. The next allergic reaction was much worse and now she is anaphylactic to peanuts. So in my case it definitely did not help.
Back to top
Previous  1, 2 Recent Topics

Page 2 of 2 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Parenting our children -> Toddlers