I want your feedback! Help me figure out what to blog, facebook post, tweet. How can I best serve you? |
In all honesty, there is no way for me to vet everything that I see coming in daily. However, the more in depth I go into one science article means that quite likely I will miss something important elsewhere. At the same time, I want you to see what all is out there, so if you choose, you can evaluate it for yourself. Hmm... thoughts, anyone?
Something that troubled me yesterday was seeing articles circulate based on a new study in the journal Allergy (link to the study) - Food Allergies In Children Linked To Mother’s Vitamin D Intake During Pregnancy (link to article about the study).
The thing is, we know that environmental factors during prenatal/postnatal life are critical to a child's development, hence, strong recommendations like avoiding alcohol (prevent fetal alcohol syndrome) and taking folate (prevent nervous system defects) during pregnancy. As a mother, I want so very much to give my child the best start possible for a lifetime of good health. I knew that my second child would be at increased risk for allergic disorders, so I personally took measures during pregnancy and early postnatal life that I believed could be preventive based on the current evidence. One of the measures happened to be Vitamin D supplementation. Akkk!!!!
Anyway, upon closer inspection, the fanfare to the general public over this particular study seems premature at best, in my opinion. Whew, personal crisis of setting my second child up for allergy temporarily averted, especially since we are currently trying to figure out what we think is a food allergy, gosh darn it (see previous post) :(. However, what I'm wondering is how many out there don't have the experience to read between the lines and realize the study is premature? How many out there are considering changing their behavior as a result of this study? Worse yet, how many out there begin having trust issues with science when one week you should "vitamin D," only the next week you find out you shouldn't "vitamin D?"
I really want to provide people with access to scientific studies, but at the same time, I don't want to be a purveyor of unnecessary angst and worry - the vitamin D study a prime case in point.
Help! What would you like to see? Please send me your feedback!
One of my peeves is the use of the word "allergy" to describe all manners of food intolerance. The pseudoscience of IgG testing, applied kinesiology, NAET etc, which are all readily available at many naturopath / chiropractor / DCTM is causing an increase in the numbers of those who *believe* their child has food allergies, causing unnecessary dietary restrictions and, more importantly, muddying the waters for those of us who have a hard enough time trying to convince caregivers and / or restaurants to treat our son's allergies seriously. Scott Gavura has done some excellent writing of these topics on Science Based Medicine and his main blog, Science Based Pharmacy, but the more voices emphasizing the distinction between science-based testing and what I affectionately call "fake allergy" testing the better!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, Connie. I've been known to follow a little SBM myself! I think in general the uncertainties even with diagnosing a "true" allergy and a lack of understanding with its literal definition (vs. intolerace), unfortunately make this area ripe for quackery. At the same time, what I've personally struggled with is explaining truly promising, clinically-backed "alternative" therapies like the Chinese Herbal studies, also called FAHF-2. But yes, overall, I agree that more posts on allergy testing and their underlying science-based reasons or lack thereof, should be in the works. Thanks you!
DeleteBravo, Jessica, for taking on this challenge. One of the things we pay attention to at our website is what happens to research as it makes its way from hypothesis to print. Even good science can be rendered misleading by the time it's reported, leading to false hopes for some readers or depression in others. To your knowledge, do any peer-reviewed journals consider the possibilities for misinterpretation at the editorial level? For your readers, I attach this piece we published on exactly this dilemma: http://www.asthmaallergieschildren.com/2012/11/21/contradictions-in-allergy-research-if-it%E2%80%99s-tuesday-money-must-be-the-root-of-food-allergy-evil/
ReplyDeleteGood question, and thanks for sharing the link. I honestly do not know. You just gave me an idea for finding out, though! Perhaps I will leverage the knowledge a former chief editor of a major neuroscience journal that I know :).
DeleteI would love to see your in-depth analysis of studies that you believe warrant the attention! It gets frustrating seeing the "study of the day" about the cause of food allergies and asthma, and sometimes I don't even want to read them. "Studies are showing a link between having a vowel in the child's name and having a food allergy!"
ReplyDeleteThanks, Selena. Your last sentence made me giggle because it's somewhat true! I think you're onto something here, and this is line with emphasizing quality over quantity. More fundamentally, though, I think a future post may be in the works for trying to explain the different types of studies themselves - e.g. what is the difference between a study that shows a "link" versus a study that truly establishes "cause." I can give a man a fish, or I can teach him how to fish - maybe?
DeleteFor certain I'd like to see your vetted picks - that would be a great resource! Most of all I'd like to understand why allergists tell me that oils or lecithin shouldn't cause a reaction but I have experienced that my child has reacted to food containing, say, soy lecithin or soy oil. Also, when my daughter was diagnosed she wasn't eating solids even at 15 months (well, not regularly, I could have her try a bit here and there) and the allergist said that her eczema from about 3 days old onward couldn't possibly be because of allergens passing through nursing. I wonder why he'd say that and what the basis for it is. Oh, and now I'm on a roll but I have personally been exploring whether there's a link between speech delay and food allergy. Some people I've asked have told me no, except maybe secondary to things like frequent ear infections or the like while others have said they've experienced it themselves. Most of all, I'm so glad Caroline introduced me to your site, I love the work you're doing and look forward to learning more! I blog about food allergies but mostly recipes and advocacy so I love reading about the science of it all.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much! You just gave me ideas for many posts! The short answer for oils is that if they are highly refined, there should be very little protein in it, which is the food part that is reaction-inducing(not true for pressed oils, so I'm told). That said, I actually want to dig a little deeper into the manufacturing process itself because it could provide clues to whether traces of protein could remain and if so, how (generally proteins want to be in water, not oil, and if you mix water and oil together, we know that they don't mix. Hence, why proteins are not generally found in oil). If there are very small traces, they may not be a problem for most, but again, I think it requires a better understanding of the manufacturing process. We regularly consume soy lecithin with no issues, but again, it could be a sensitivity thing. Very interesting! I have no idea about a link between speech delay and food allergy, but I'll keep my eyes open for studies! Same to you, and your blog! Thanks again and I look forward to answering some questions in future posts :).
Delete