And while you're at it, keep on feeding your kid their puffed starch cereal coated in sugar, and the cans and boxes of preservatives
now you're comparing apples to oranges. how does this prove or disprove anything remotely related to your soapbox ramblings ?
Everything. My point being that you'll follow the knee jerk reaction based on no scientific information because a "doctor" told you so, but you won't bother doing your own research into the subject. Case in point: The vast body of evidence showing that parents that feed their kids gads of sugar and preservatives are poisoning their children every day. But these are the same look-down-their-nose bleep that say things like, "so i take it you wouldn't be sad if your child died?"
i'm not telling you you can't feed your baby honey so i don't know what your so mad about.
Your condescending comments, just like those of your ilk, are insinuating that you're making the "better" decision than those who choose to give their kids honey. Because, hey, at least YOU care if your kid dies. Those that give their kids honey obviously don't care at all, right? And yet while being condescending, in every person I've run into, they're the same idiots that poison their kids with tons of other crap because, again, they don't do their research. Since some guy with an "MD" after his name said that canned veggies are healthy if they say "healthy" on the label, then that's good enough for you.
There's nothing quite as insulting as being condescended to by the uneducated. And nobody's telling YOU that you HAVE to give your kid honey. But you've mentioned several times now how YOU do it because YOU CARE if YOUR KID DIES. And obviously WE DON'T. That's what this boils down to. And that's what sparked my frustration about this topic in the first place and has for years: If a parent chooses not to give their kids honey, fine, don't. If you choose to be a vegetarian, knock yourself out. But don't tell ME that I'm a lesser parent when I've actually DONE the research, and you haven't. Don't get on MY Facebook page when I'm offering honey to my family and start wailing about how if they give my honey to my nieces and nephews that it will kill them, and basically saying I'm some idiot for even offering it to families with children. If you're REALLY that stupid, and don't have any intention of rectifying the situation, then it's probably best if you stay off the interwebs.
what i've read is that you shouldn't give honey to children under the age of 1. it's risk/reward. what are the rewards ? unproven propaganda, what are the risks ? also unproven.
By this very notion, this is how we get things like a screwed up dietary pyramid, antibiotics that are put in everything causing weaker immune systems and stronger bacteria, antibacterial hand gel that we continue to use despite clinical studies showing it INCREASES bacterial growth, etc. The benefits of honey are unproven? REALLY? Here's a little list from the Mayo Clinic for you:
* Early evidence suggests that honey may reduce burn-healing time. Additional study is needed to make a firm recommendation.
* Early evidence suggests that honey may help lower blood sugar levels in diabetic patients. Additional study is warranted in this area.
* Preliminary study found honey effective in treating labial but not genital herpes. More research is needed in this area to draw a firm conclusion.
* Currently, there is preliminary evidence that suggests benefit in the use of honey in the treatment of high blood pressure. Additional study is needed to make a firm recommendation.
* Currently there is limited study showing a small benefit in the use of honey in the treatment of gingival plaque and gingivitis. Further study is needed.
* The primary studied use of honey is for wound management... Although honey has apparent antibacterial effects, more human study is needed in this area.
And that's from one page of a 2 second search. Other things we know (from science) about honey: It has a chemical called Quercetin that is an antihistamine. (It's found in much higher doses in the pollen.) The natural sugars are far easier for your body (eg: a BABY'S body) to metabolize than processed sugars or grains.
Then there's the fact that there's a BETTER chance that spores consumed in honey would help BUILD the immune system instead of cause a reaction.
given that i'd be more inclined to choose the lesser of two evils. i don't need to be some high-falutin "scientist" to exercise a bit of common sense. for all of your posturing and lecturing you have failed to even once disprove the theory. a lack of evidence for something is not proof to the contrary.
So if I tell you, "all candy has been proven to cause childhood diabetes" even though this is blatantly false - it's never been proven - it's also never been DISPROVEN. So are you now, as of this instant, going to quit giving your child any sort of candy? I mean, what's the reward there? The risk is every bit as real and significant. And you can quit with the "high-falutin scientist" crap. You were the one that demanded that I qualify my opinion. That's what I did. So now why don't you just go right ahead and exercise some of that there "common sense" you've got and make sure your kid never eats any more candy.
It's almost comical that you think the rule should be that every theory should be believed until proven false. Here's a few theories for you that you should also stick with: Drinking distilled water causes cancer. Exercise causes heart attacks. Swimming pools cause lung cancer.
I could go on forever. Yes, all of these are actual theories, and yes, they ACTUALLY have more fact and research behind them than the one you've chosen to blindly follow with your "common sense."
You do realize that jumping to an opposite extreme is every bit as stupid?
i was going to ask you the same thing.
Really? Is this the part where I'm supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"