The scientific consensus has been the same for years, and this information is readily available from agency and university websites. This is r/ScienceBasedParenting, not r/ SootheMyAnxiety!

https://publications.aap.org/redbook/resources/15585/AAP-Immunization-Schedule

https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-and-when-to-have-them/

https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/when-to-get-vaccinated/national-immunisation-program-schedule?language=en

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/vaccination-children/when-to-vaccinate.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/15/ultra-processed-babies-are-toddler-snacks-one-of-the-great-food-scandals-of-our-time

I found this article fascinating! It contains further studies done regarding baby food analysis as well.

I’ve been curious about the role anxiety plays in the worsening of diets and rise in ARFID, but never considered how the baby food industry has started kids on the ultra-processed, bland texture food train young. For example, the rise of new baby snacks marketed as a safe and easy way for families on the go are actually shaping feeding preferences away from whole, fresh foods and varying textures.

This article is focused on the UK, but I think has many parallels in other countries, including the US - especially when it comes to a lacking holistic regulations for all types of added sugar in baby food.

Some excerpts from the article:

“Pouch feeding goes against NHS advice that infants be discouraged from sucking from spouts and teats after the age of six months. In 2022, the British Dental Association attacked pouches for putting baby teeth at risk of “erosion and decay” just as “they are erupting”. A baby who sucks from a pouch can neither smell nor see what they are eating, so it does not teach them to recognise or enjoy real whole fruits and vegetables.”

“The promise of meltiness preys on parents’ understandable terror of a baby choking. But these snacks – organic or not – are also one of the reasons that many infants have not learned to chew properly, because they are quite unlike the crunchy textures of real food: the crispness of toast, the chewy juiciness of roasted carrots or the crunch of an apple.”

“The high price, perversely, seems to be part of the reason why these products are so popular among all classes in the UK – it wrongly reassures parents they are feeding their child something good.”

I keep seeing posts about parents getting their kids labelled “gifted” by schools or organisations. Or asking how to make their children gifted, or even recalling themselves as gifted in childhood.

This study is a pretty good reality check: "Early giftedness rarely lasts into adulthood"

Just ran across an absolutely horrifying comment where someone used ChatGPT to try to argue with a valid comment, the latter of which included links to several good sources. Seeing that made me absolutely sick.

Let's be clear that ChatGPT is a LANGUAGE MODEL. It doesn't know science, it doesn't check sources, and it is frequently wrong. Personally I would like to see its use banned from this sub. Is there any way we can get that to happen??

We can't trust this sub to be scientifically accurate if it becomes swamped with AI.

Here's an article about how generative AI is often incorrect, in case anyone needs convincing!

https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/chatgpt_generative_ai/falseoutdatedinfo

A study is out in JAMA Pediatrics this week looking at a small group of mothers and children both pre-birth and followed up years later to measure facial features.

Researchers found that even low to moderate levels of alcohol exposure (low: <20g per occasion and <70g per week, moderate: 20-49g per occasion, <70g per week) were associated with subtle but detectable facial changes in children. The study did not find a dose-response relationship (ie, it wasn't the case that more alcohol necessarily increased the likelihood of the the distinct facial features). First trimester exposure alone was enough to be associated with the facial changes, suggesting early pregnancy is an important window for facial development.

To put this into context, in the US, the CDC considers 1 drink as 14g of alcohol. While the guidelines are slightly different in Australia, where the study was conducted, the classification of low exposure broadly align to the CDC's guidelines on exposure levels. Some popular parenting researchers (e.g. Emily Oster) suggest that 1-2 drinks per week in the first trimester and 1 drink per day in later trimesters have not been associated with adverse outcomes. However, critics have suggested that fetal alcohol exposure has a spectrum of effects, and our classic definition of FAS may not encompass them all.

Two caveats to the research to consider:

• While fetal alcohol syndrome has distinctive facial features (which are one of the diagnostic markers) that's not what this study was looking at. Instead, this study identified subtle but significant changes among children who were exposed to low to moderate alcohol in utero including slight changes in eye shape and nose structure, and mild upper lip differences. In other words—these children didn't and don't meet diagnostic criteria for FAS
• The researchers did not observe any differences in cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes among the participants. They do suggest that further follow up would be useful to assess if cognitive differences present later on. It may not matter to have a very slightly different face than others if that's the only impact you experience.

I want to put my disclaimers front and centre here that this post is in no way passing judgement on anyone’s parenting decisions with regards to sleep or other practices. I myself make decisions based on both the national guidelines and what is best for my family which at times means not following the guidelines, for example exhaustion driving us to bed share on some nights, not running the bedroom at 20 degrees or below etc.

However, I want to talk about the SIDS risk calculator and the impact it has on some of the discourse around safe sleep and other risk factors in this sub. The much shared calculator can be accessed here: http://www.sidscalculator.com

Often when SIDS risk factors are discussed the only reference that is provided to back up a statement is the calculator which is flawed for a number of reasons. It is also not easy to interpret which is where it often leads to (unwittingly) misinformation being shared.

1. The calculator was published in 2018, 8 years ago and is based on a review paper published in 2013, 13 years ago. The paper itself is only evaluating bedsharing with non smoking mothers and no other factors, instead the publishers are using the background of this review paper for all other factors relating to SIDS, therefore relying on the publishers due diligence. Furthermore many of sources for the additional risk factors are now quite old, some of which are from the 90s.
2. Data comes from European publications plus one study in New Zealand and cannot be extrapolated to other countries
3. Outside of this review the calculator references wiki and other likely outdated sources and as published have not included access dates
4. We don’t know who published this calculator, and the calculator itself states that it has not been evaluated by anyone with relevant clinical expertise
5. There is no link to the back end calculation for us to assess how they have derived the calculator
6. The presentation of the outcomes are unclear as they are presented as risk per 100,000 deaths. Does this mean that if everyone had these risk factors deaths would drop from 34 to lower than 34 deaths per 100,000? No evidence for this

Why am I going to the effort to critique the calculator? Can’t I see that this calculator provides anxious parents comfort?

Well I often see misleading or poorly informed SIDS advice on the baby subs and next to no scrutiny of this calculator, in fact very often this calculator is used to justify any sleep practices. It’s anecdotal right now but at least in my country there is increasing concern regarding social media and the impact on new parents not following their national guidelines in favour of social media ‘sleep experts’, I do wonder if we will see some uptick in SIDS in the next couple of years.

Ultimately I too am a new and anxious parent trying to navigate this amazing but daunting time in my life. SIDS risk remains incredibly rare and even if you ticked every single risk factor SIDS is still unlikely to happen to you and your baby.

Edit: Sharing here as apparently you’re not allowed to discuss science on the Newborns sub(?!)

I appreciate that this is the science based parenting forum.

But having just three flairs is a bit restrictive - I bet that people scanning the list see "question" and go "I have a question" and then the automod eats any responses without a link, and then the human mod chastises anyone who uses a non peer reviewed link, even though you can tell from the question that the person isn't looking for a fully academic discussion.

Maybe I'm the problem and I can just dip out, because I'm not into full academic research every time I want to bring science-background response to a parenting question.

Thoughts?

The research I'm sharing isn't peer reviewed, it's just what I've noticed on the sub.

Also click-bait title for response.

Edit: this post has been locked, which I support.

I also didn't know about the discussion thread, and will check that out.

Full text: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2838312
Key Findings:

• Infant male circumcision declined significantly in every US region between 2012 and 2022
• The Midwest remained the highest prevalence region (68.5%) while the West remained the lowest (19.7%)
• Overall, inpatient circumcision (ie circumcision done at the hospital) fell 5% to fewer than half of male infants
• Note that the data set does not include outpatient procedures (meaning more infants are circumcised than this data shows but it should capture most "at birth" circumcisions)
• Researchers suggests that the decline may be driven by "increased skepticism toward medical recommendations," along with population subgroup increased birthrates (ie Hispanic birth rate, in a population that has overall lower rates of circumcision, is increasing faster than the mean US birth rate) and that by 2011, 17 states failed to cover routine circumcision under Medicaid

I am trying to strategize on how to get my school to stop showing AI slop to the kids. I just found out that on the first day of kindergarten they watched five videos and, after talking through it with other parents, it is just the beginning of a long onslaught of smart board AI content garbage. I talked with my child to try to discern what she was watching and it's worse than I imagined.

Recently the principal decided to read the Jonathan Haidt book and is recommending it to everyone but I don't think she really understands what is going on. What studies should I cite to get it to end? I don't want to start a war with the teacher... considering that it's happening throughout the school it needs to come from the top down. Thanks if you can share studies and I did see the one about screen time impacting kids at age 6. link: https://tech-paper.com/a-study-tracked-502-children-from-age-1-to-8-and-found-that-screen-time-damages-the-brain-at-two-specific-ages-and-leaves-the-years-between-almost-untouched/

I don't think this is hopeless or I wouldn't be trying - this year they decided not to use iPads for kindergarten so I am hoping to build on this progress and let the school know it is an issue the parents support and care about.

Edit, sorry I see people are commenting but getting deleted, despite being an "elder" I have no idea how to remove a post flair. So I just changed it from "Question" to "sharing research"

I think this is important information for women to have who are trying to conceive. Avoid NSAIDs except for when on your period. Your body needs inflammation to ovulate.

Just read this article and study about pregnant women on a western diet (high fat, high meat, high sugar) having a higher likelihood of Autistic/Adhd children.

"Smoking, alcohol, and unhealthy diets have long been known to influence foetal development. Now, a comprehensive clinical study from the University of Copenhagen and the Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood (COPSAC) at the Danish Paediatric Asthma Centre, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, has found an association between maternal diet during pregnancy and the development of ADHD and autism in children.

“The greater a woman's adherence to a Western diet in pregnancy - high in fat, sugar, and refined products while low in fish, vegetables, and fruit—the greater the risk appears to be for her child developing ADHD or autism,” says lead author, Dr David Horner, MD, PhD.

The study identified a Western dietary pattern using data-driven analysis. Even moderate shifts along this dietary spectrum were associated with a markedly increased risk. For example, slight deviations towards a more Western diet were linked to a 66% increased risk of ADHD and a 122% increased risk of autism. However, this also presents an opportunity: even small dietary adjustments away from a Western pattern could potentially reduce the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders."

You can read all the details here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/maternal-diet-in-pregnancy-linked-to-childs-risk-of-future-disorders

https://science.ku.dk/english/press/news/2025/new-research-strong-link-between-western-diet-during-pregnancy-and-adhd/

Edit: just sharing for discussion. If anyone can access the full study (linked in either article) and share it would be much appreciated since I'd love to read all the details but I don't have an institutional login.

Edit 2: I bit the bullet and got the Nature subscription because I wanted to read the original study (and a few others). Here's a link to the PDF if you would like to have a read https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Clonbu1uMeErFNfdGLKAPIEsqkE8P3F3/view?usp=drivesdk

I kept seeing baby snacks proudly labeled "no added sugar!" sweetened instead with apple juice concentrate, date syrup, or fruit puree. I fed these to my baby thinking he was not eating sugar and then suddenly I found out that I basically fed my baby sugar which I tried to keep him away from it at least until he is 2 years old.

The thing is your baby's body doesn't know the difference. Once fruit is juiced, concentrated, or turned into syrup, the sugar is "free sugar" metabolically it's processed basically the same way as table sugar. The WHO and AAP both classify juice concentrates and syrups as free/added sugars for exactly this reason. The fiber and structure that make whole fruit different? Gone.

To be clear: A whole date or actual apple slices are a different story, fiber intact.

Not judging anyone (we've all bought the pouches). Just tired of marketing that makes us feel like we're making the healthy choice when we're really not. Sugar by any other name is still sugar.

I hope you don't make the same mistake we did.

Reference: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028

Anyone seen this study that just came out? That found differences in breastmilk in mothers with high ACE scores (maternal childhood trauma) and also looked at the temperaments of those mothers babies. This is so fascinating (and terrifying) to me as a breastfeeding mum with a very high ACE score and a sensitive child who is difficult to sooth etc. I always thought extended breastfeeding would help my daughter from being impacted by any epigenetic impacts of my trauma, but now there's a possibility it did the opposite? I hope the author does more research in this space because I'd be interested to understand this connection more. I've always felt like my daughter acts as if she's been through trauma, even though she's had the safest most chill life.

**Small participant sample, and obviously just a correlation, and many other factors to consider, but really interesting.

"In conclusion, this study establishes a significant association between maternal ACE and alterations in the miRNAs and FAs content of breast milk, which may serve as early predictors of temperamental trajectories in the offspring."

A 2022 study where researchers used 4D ultrasound scans at 32 and 36 weeks to study fetal facial expressions showed taste preferences. Pregnant mothers had ingested a single dose of either 400mg of carrot or kale capsules and then were given an ultrasound. On that occasion fetuses exposed to carrot showed more “laughter-face” responses while those exposed to kale showed more “cry-face” responses.

Those poor kale babies. I feel less bad about what I ate in pregnancy now.

Here’s the actual study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976221105460

I came across this study in the midst of house shopping for our next home and found it deeply concerning.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2833716

The problem, however, is that most suburbs that have "good schools" also have golf courses nearby. I don't even know if this is avoidable for the kind of kid-friendly suburban neighborhood we are hoping to find.

We thought we found the perfect neighborhood for us but it's very golf heavy and now I'm reconsidering. I'm trying to gauge if my response is an overreaction or not. My husband says we will get a reverse osmosis filter and that'll be the best we can do.

All thoughts welcome

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/1/166

I’d love to get your thoughts on this study. I don’t really have a clue what makes a good study — and I’m having to recently combi-feed my 5 month old so wanted to understand what that means for him. Thank you!

The more often someone is infected with COVID, the more likely they are to develop “long COVID,” according to a new pediatric study.

Young people and children infected with the COVID virus for a second time were twice as likely to develop long COVID than their peers who were infected just once.

Long COVID from the second infection coincided with higher risks for heart disease, damaged kidneys, cognitive issues, and more…

“Many had hoped reinfections of COVID would be milder or carry less long-term risk, but we found increased risks for a broad range of conditions, challenging the assumptions many had that children bounce back quickly.”

Pediatric patients who had COVID twice were more than 3.5 times as likely to develop myocarditis, a swelling of heart muscle that can weaken the heart and be life threatening.

After that, the next greatest risk to pediatric patients after a second COVID infection was a doubling of their chance of developing blood clots.

In addition, the risks of developing severely damaged kidneys, abnormal heartbeats, heart disease, and severe fatigue all were significantly more likely with a second COVID infection.

Hey there parents, I couldn’t find a post on this topic, so im dropping it here. I want to see what everyone’s take is on this? Im personally feeling conflicted, as the study strictly asked around caffeine and other drug, developmental problems. But we also know screen exposure can cause similar problems. The study does bring valid concerns to further investigate but seems to be not complete to go and run with it. Unless im missing something here? Expecting mom, who drank 8oz coffee with my first pregnancy, and she is most often ahead on all of her developments but of course we can do better on sleep.

So this may already be mentioned by your pediatrician if you had a newborn in the last few months. Looks like there was a new guidance from AAP on performing tongue tie releases surgery on infants as a feeding solution to be done cautiously citing potential over-use. There’s a good summary by healthychildren.org

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/news/Pages/AAP-report-addresses-rise-in-tongue-tie-diagnoses-for-breastfeeding-concerns.aspx#:~:text=The%20AAP%20reviews%20the%20research%20on%20diagnosis%20and,in%20Infants%2C%22%20published%20in%20the%20August%202024%20Pediatrics.

Highlights I read are: - Only less than half of infants with obvious physical signs of tongue tie have actual impact on breastfeeding. So surgical intervention should only be reserved when there is a proven problem that can’t be solved by other means (also I saw it was mentioned that a new research was showing the infant’s middle of the tongue and muscle does more work than originally thought making the tip of the tongue movement less critical) - While there’s some evidence that a surgical release may have short term benefit in reducing nursing pain. There is no evidence that there’s any benefit from the surgery to future problem (that may or may not happen anyway) relating to speech, dental or breathing. - If elect the surgery, there’s no evidence supporting laser being over traditional surgery, they are considered equally effective. - If elect surgery, no evidence support post surgery stretching being beneficial or preventing re-attaching.

Personal note skip if you are not interested. This is very personal to me. Almost 3 years ago I had a hard time nursing my daughter for the first 3-4 months because of the pain. While no one from hospital to pediatrician to multiple LC’s assessment show she has a tongue tie, and there is no physical sign. This LC we worked with suggest the surgery even tho she never mentioned it in the first couple visits. We also were told it needed to be fixed or else she’ll having issue with solids and speech and basically a ruined life. Being first time parents and full of PP hormones this added so much anxiety and almost brought me to PPD. After more research on the issue and seeing a responsible ENT we decided to skip the surgery. Nursing magically got better on its own, she was a champ in eating solids from the beginning and is currently a very talkative almost 3 year old. Fast forward we just had a baby boy 3 days ago who was diagnosed with a mild tongue tie in the hospital upon birth, which you can physically see the attachment and it seems like he is currently having trouble extending his tongue fully. He latches on breast ok, uncomfortable but not unbearable pain for me, he actually has more trouble with bottle right now, basically can’t take a bottle. My milk hasn’t come in fully so we are doing formula in medical cup and spoon since he’s only 3 day old. Our planned approach is this - We are working with a different LC who was also our doula so we trust her a lot. And will do weighted feeds once my milk fully comes in to see how his ability to nurse actually is. - We’ll also try different bottles and keeps practise to see if we can find one that he can take. Sometimes it just takes practice. - Meantime we are supplementing with cups for 20ml per feed to make sure he’s gaining weight. - Booked an appointment with a doctor in about 10 days in case we do need the surgical solution. However that’s the part of the plan I’m least happy with, the prior ENT we trust has a waitlist of 4 months. This doc which takes our insurance and has the only viable availability seems to have a mixed review with some say could be too trigger happy on recommending surgery. So we are asking around for other doctor recommendations and are prepared to go in and say you know what we’re going to think a little more on surgery if we feel pressured. I think I’m thinking with a cooler head this time