how not to have an allergic child - Page 7

[wendy1221]

I'm part PA Dutch, I'm from PA, I've been around a lot of Amish people. They eat a ton of refined white flour and sugar. And most of them eat very little fresh veggies. They can everything they're going to eat, and sell the fresh stuff usually.

[Wolfmeis]

Originally Posted by wendy1221

I'm part PA Dutch, I'm from PA, I've been around a lot of Amish people. They eat a ton of refined white flour and sugar. And most of them eat very little fresh veggies. They can everything they're going to eat, and sell the fresh stuff usually.

Wow. That really speaks to that vax-autism discussion. Eep.

[wendy1221]

Originally Posted by Wolfmeis

Wow. That really speaks to that vax-autism discussion. Eep.

I'm confused. What are you talking about? Did I miss something? We're back in IN. I think my brain is fried from the drive.

[happyfrog]

:

[Wolfmeis]

Originally Posted by wendy1221

I'm confused. What are you talking about? Did I miss something? We're back in IN. I think my brain is fried from the drive.

The Amish have a freakishly low autism rate. The ongoing assumption (Based on doctor's observations) is that it is because they don't vaccinate their children.

This is completely tangent to the current discussion, I just blurted. Online. Yes I did. Blurt. Online.

The only application to this thread we've been having is that obviously nutrition, as we're trying to practice in my home and in many others represented on these boards, hasn't played a part in the devleopment of allergies or in autism for the Amish.

They're just a healthy lot! No, I think (God help me again) that environmental toxins, traffic exhaust, the whole living-in-America pollution thing is what's doing this to us.

[mamazig]

ok -- here's something a little OT . . .
I was reading on my new fave site godairyfree.com about the "new" AAP suggestions for prevention of allergies (not that I always listen to the aforementioned association . . . I just like to read a lot ) So anyway, within that text they give the recommendation to hold off on solids until at least 6 months and then -- here's the kicker -- they recommend using "canned" or storebought fruits and veggies as first foods rather than homemade because they say that will reduce the risk of becoming or being?? allergic to it. Anyone hear of this or want to hypothesize why they would suggest this? I will look for the link in the meantime, so you can read it outright.

[nikirj]

Originally Posted by mamazig

ok -- here's something a little OT . . .
I was reading on my new fave site godairyfree.com about the "new" AAP suggestions for prevention of allergies (not that I always listen to the aforementioned association . . . I just like to read a lot ) So anyway, within that text they give the recommendation to hold off on solids until at least 6 months and then -- here's the kicker -- they recommend using "canned" or storebought fruits and veggies as first foods rather than homemade because they say that will reduce the risk of becoming or being?? allergic to it. Anyone hear of this or want to hypothesize why they would suggest this? I will look for the link in the meantime, so you can read it outright.

Errr, because Gerber provided all the notebooks for their study?

[Wolfmeis]

Originally Posted by mamazig

ok -- here's something a little OT . . .
I was reading on my new fave site godairyfree.com about the "new" AAP suggestions for prevention of allergies (not that I always listen to the aforementioned association . . . I just like to read a lot ) So anyway, within that text they give the recommendation to hold off on solids until at least 6 months and then -- here's the kicker -- they recommend using "canned" or storebought fruits and veggies as first foods rather than homemade because they say that will reduce the risk of becoming or being?? allergic to it. Anyone hear of this or want to hypothesize why they would suggest this? I will look for the link in the meantime, so you can read it outright.

I am still pissed with them. It was following then-current AAP guidelines to the letter thatled me to giving my 14 mo a peanut butter sandwich. In their thick, published guide, Raising your infant through age 5, the peanut butter sandwich was on their sample menu for a twelve month old.

Color me pissed.

I have no idea why they would suggest that, unless they're making the assumption that people are too stupid to grind food themselves.

The AAP can bite my butt. I do like the AAAAI, but they're still very, well, medical.

[atomicmama]

Originally Posted by JaneS

I could not disagree more with the belief that this is inherited or luck of the draw.

in my case it is inherited. I didn't eat peanuts, or peanut products during my pregnancy with dd, but she's severly allergic to peanuts. (her paternal grandma is allergic to several things)

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by atomicmama

in my case it is inherited. I didn't eat peanuts, or peanut products during my pregnancy with dd, but she's severly allergic to peanuts. (her paternal grandma is allergic to several things)

This has already been discussed in this thread. It is impossible to directly inherit allergies. Genetic predispositions only predispose someone to becoming atopic, they don't guarantee it. There HAVE to be other factors. Many of those other factors have yet to be identified, but they are absolutely necessary for the development of allergies. It's like cancer - you don't inherit breast cancer. You inherit a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. If you are then exposed to certain catalysts, you will develop breast cancer. If you aren't exposed to those catalysts (whatever they may be) you will not develop breast cancer.

[atomicmama]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

This has already been discussed in this thread.

yes, I know.

[atomicmama]

Q.
Are allergies inherited? If I have allergies will my children have them too?

A.
The inheritance of allergy is complex and dependent on many factors, but the tendency to become allergic is inherited in many families. The crude rule of thumb is that if both parents have allergic disease, there is a 50% chance a child will have some allergy, only one parent, a 25% chance.




from Allergybuyersclub.com

[insider]

Allergies are not inherited.

If you've inherited a tendency to become allergic then you've only inherited a genetic predisposition. You have not inherited the disease. A genetic predisposition is nearly inconsequential: it means only that you have a gene that encodes a protein that interacts with environmental factors in a way that increases the probability of developing allergies. Neither the gene nor the gene's product causes the situation. The genetic predisposition is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of the allergy. The determinants of allergic disease are not genes but things that act on genes (and gene products). And these things are not inherited.

There's also an epidemiological way to prove that allergies are not inherited - and that's to look at the change in rate of allergic disease over time. The rate of inherited diseases does not change significantly over time (for many reasons). But allergies have dramatically changed: allergies are proportionally at least ten times higher today than a century ago. That increase can not be related to genes because our genes have remained constant over that time - our current genes and genetic predispositions existed 100 years ago in the bodies of our ancestors. But back then they didn't cause allergies.

Allergies are not written into our genes. Allergies are programmed onto our genes by the environment that pervades us. That doesn't mean allergies are evitable. The ubiquitous conditions in which we live force the probabilities in favor of developing the allergic phenotype in more and more children. It's often biologically programmed before birth, but it's not written in our genes.

If you've got the genes for redhair you have an inherited genetic predisposition for skin cancer. But whether or not you get skin cancer has next to nothing to do with your genes. This seems obvious. But let's remove the ozone layer, wait a hundred years and then take note that skin cancer now runs very distinctly in families with fair skin, especially redheads. The gene is now definitively linked to skin cancer. But it's still not genes that are causing the disease. And no way is it an inherited disease. It just seems like it because the real cause is ubiquitous and not evitable.

[JaneS]

Originally Posted by Wolfmeis

The Amish have a freakishly low autism rate. The ongoing assumption (Based on doctor's observations) is that it is because they don't vaccinate their children.

(snip)

They're just a healthy lot! No, I think (God help me again) that environmental toxins, traffic exhaust, the whole living-in-America pollution thing is what's doing this to us.

Actually according to Dan Olmstead's series of articles for UPI we've been following in the Vax forum, there are no cases of autism among the Amish. Except, if I'm remembering correctly, an adopted child who received vaccinations before being placed.

I think it might be a number of things that don't pertain to the Amish lifestyle, all of which damage immune system: no antibiotics, steriods, bcp's, etc. in addition to no vaxing. They must birth at home and don't have modern medicine messing with a babe when their immune systems are not fully developed. I would think that they would BF more than the average too. The mamas' immune systems have not been suppressed from a lifetime of these common interventions as well.

They are not plugged into the very damaging medical model. I now think that is much more significant than pollution and toxins.

[JaneS]

Originally Posted by insider

If you've got the genes for redhair you have an inherited genetic predisposition for skin cancer.

Really? I did not know this!

Great. Something else to obsess about. So does that mean my DS, even though his hair is not red, may still have inherited this trait?

Sorry for the OT everyone.

[insider]

The genetic predisposition is that redheads burn more easily in the sun and are more susceptible to damage by the sun's UV radiation. It was just an example of how peripheral genetic predispositions are to the evitability of disease.

[wenat]

A really interesting article in my local paper today about epigenetics -- a "second genetic code" overlaid on top of what's obviously inherited. Researchers' names are Arturas Petronis and Moshe Szyf if you're googling for more.

Here's a snippet of the story (unfortunately the full story is for subscribers only, and I'd violate the UA if I pasted more). (Mods, this is less than 25% of the full story.)

The idea of epigenetics was meant to answer some fundamental questions that genetics could not. One of those was the problem of identical twins. Even though twins carry the exact same DNA, it has been known for decades that one twin can develop hereditary diseases the other one does not. This was the problem Petronis set off to explore about eight years ago. He noticed that in about half of the cases of schizophrenia found in twins, only one twin developed the condition, even though schizophrenia is widely considered to be genetic. "After 50 or 60 years of study, there was no specific explanation of twin discordance," Petronis says. "Ninety-nine per cent of geneticists still believe environmental factors play a role, but when you ask for specifics, they can offer nothing."
...
What [Marcus] Pembrey and his colleagues found was astonishing: The grandsons of men who experienced famine during mid-childhood went through puberty earlier and had longer lifespans, while the grandsons of men who were well fed in early childhood had an increased likelihood of diabetes. For females, the effect was similar but it was tied to the grandmother, rather than the grandfather. "This is not a 'trickle-through' [of genetic material], this is clearly an evolved response," Pembrey says. He speculates the purpose of such a response "would be to adjust early growth and reproduction to accommodate unpredictable or adverse environments."

I just googled "Marcus Pembrey" and found this interesting article. http://www.ifgene.org/vines.htm

So it is possible that something in our modern environment is causing the allergy epidemic.

ETA another link:
"Pregnant smokers increases grandkids' asthma risk"
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn7252

And we all know that asthma and allergies go hand in hand. I continue to suspect that the epidemic of smoking in the baby boom generation in the 50s and 60s is what's causing the allergy epidemic today. That was definitely the first generation where cigarettes were (a) affordable, (b) plentiful and (c) fashionable. Yeah, people smoked in the war years, but it certainly wasn't an affordable habit then.

[insider]

Epigenetics is very interesting, it's actually a look at environmental factors affecting gene expression, usually during development. Schizophrenia is no longer considered to be an inherited genetic disorder. Causation has been linked to a few environmental factors, one big one is the maternal immune response to influenza infection during pregnancy. Apparently some immune factors aimed at the flu virus affect gene expression, alter fetal development and predispose the child to a future condition of schizophrenia. Before anyone understood the role played by the viral infection, it appeared as if it could only be genetic. Those subtle genetic changes that occur because of the environment are often credited as if they'd been programmed that way from the start.

[Wolfmeis]

Originally Posted by wenat

ETA another link:
"Pregnant smokers increases grandkids' asthma risk"
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn7252

And we all know that asthma and allergies go hand in hand. I continue to suspect that the epidemic of smoking in the baby boom generation in the 50s and 60s is what's causing the allergy epidemic today. That was definitely the first generation where cigarettes were (a) affordable, (b) plentiful and (c) fashionable. Yeah, people smoked in the war years, but it certainly wasn't an affordable habit then.

::::

[newcastlemama]

Originally Posted by JaneS

Really? I did not know this!

Great. Something else to obsess about. So does that mean my DS, even though his hair is not red, may still have inherited this trait?

Sorry for the OT everyone.

Your good tradtional fats are protecting you though

Great discussion,
Jennifer