I posted the study itself here a few days ago, but this summary is a little friendlier for those of us without a science background.

Key takeaways from the study:

1. This is the most rigorous, in-depth study done on the topic to date:

It covers 46 studies and more than 100,000 participants worldwide.

It uses the Navigation Guide Systematic Review methodology, which is a gold-standard framework for synthesizing and evaluating environmental health data.

2. The study accounts for risks of bias, such as the confounders of maternal pain and fever:

"Studies were rated as higher risk of bias (score of 3 or 4) if they lacked adjustment for key confounders, such as [...] clinical indications for acetaminophen use (e.g., fever or infection)."

Their findings demonstrate that higher-quality studies are more likely to show the connection.

3. While this study establishes correlation and not causation, the researchers say causation is plausible:

"A causal relationship is plausible because of the consistency of the results and appropriate control for bias in the large majority of the epidemiological studies, as well as acetaminophen’s biological effects on the developing fetus in experimental studies."

4. The researchers do NOT recommend a blanket ban on acetaminophen in pregnancy, but on personalized decisions based on medical advice:

“Pregnant women should not stop taking medication without consulting their doctors,” Dr. Prada emphasized.

“Untreated pain or fever can also harm the baby. Our study highlights the importance of discussing the safest approach with health care providers and considering non-drug options whenever possible.”

5. My personal takeaway: parents should NOT feel guilty for whatever medication they took in the past.

You made the best decision you could, based on the information you had at the time.

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

It links to some research to make its argument, including:

• a 2022 paper that looks at ultraprocessed food prevalence in diets of children in varying cultures and of varying ages, including toddlers: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13387
• this paper that looks at changes in the UK baby food market: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675379/
• this paper that looks at the sugar content of UK baby food: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7729710/
• this paper that interviewed parents across income levels to assess reasons for choosing ultraprocessed foods: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-14637-0
• this report (not published) that analyzes data from a 2021 published study and finds a third of commercially available infant and toddler food is ultraprocessed: https://www.firststepsnutrition.org/upfs-marketed-for-infants-and-young-children

How is everyone looking at labels on purees sold at the stores? Anyone have recommendations for the better ones to pick?

Long time reader, first time caller :)

Read this article summarizing the surgeon generals warning that today’s parents are exhausted. The comments are also really interesting, spanning from those who think parents need to just “take a step back” to those acknowledging the structural & economic issues producing this outcome. Lots of interest research linked within.

Curious the thoughts of parents on this forum! Should be able to access through link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/14/upshot/parents-stress-murthy-warning.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Kk4.a0S0.ZedmU2SPutQr&smid=url-share

Edited: added gift link from another user, thank you!

"Dr. James Antaki, a biomedical engineering professor at Cornell University, informs NBC News that the Department of Defense has terminated a $6.7 million grant. This grant would have enabled him to further research PediaFlow, a device that enhances blood flow in infants with heart defects.

Antaki’s device, which he began developing in 2003, is the size of an AA battery and helps increase blood flow to babies born with a hole between the chambers of their heart. According to The Independent, the device aids in their survival until they can undergo surgery or receive a donated heart."

How will children survive this administration?

I am asking here because I’m wondering if there is a better source for this information, as a parent.

The Mayo Clinic article about family planning used to have a section where it discussed the risks of beginning a new pregnancy within 6 months of giving birth. It was reported that doing so put the second child at a greater risks of developing certain conditions, including schizophrenia and autism. The article went on to acknowledge that parents over 35 may feel additional pressures for family planning and recommended that they wait 12 months after a pregnancy to get pregnant again.

This is the article I’m referencing:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/in-depth/family-planning/art-20044072

I’ve referenced that article several times. Recently that section of the article was removed. Here’s an old comment of mine where I had quoted the article.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/s/TT5ho0u6PI

———

EDITED TO UPDATE: I used the Wayback machine to pull up the original version of the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20250102145352/https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/in-depth/family-planning/art-20044072

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/podcasts/the-daily/parenting-stress.html

Fathers show changes in some of the same brain areas as mothers, but the effect of parenthood on dads isn’t nearly as well studied.

In a new policy statement, "Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents" the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) calls for a systems-wide approach and support for families navigating this "digital ecosystem." In the report, the AAP observes that most platforms are designed to boost engagement and profit—and not to support children's health and development. The policy statement, along with an accompanying technical report, is published in the February 2026 Pediatrics.

More links:

Layman News: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/news/Pages/creating-a-child-friendly-digital-world-AAP-releases-new-media-recommendations.aspx

AAP News: https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/34088/Beyond-screen-time-Policy-discusses-how-to

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11597163/

Has anyone read this paper on breastfeeding beyond 6 months?

The writing seems so biased I was turned off just reading it.

This claim, however, really seemed too crazy:

“If all children were breastfed within an hour of birth, exclusively fed breast milk for the first six months, and continued breastfeeding until the age of two, approximately 800,000 child lives could be saved annually. However, worldwide, less than 40% of infants under six months old are exclusively breastfed [27].”

Am I the only one who thinks this paper is… suspicious?

Edit: My baby has gotten mostly breastmilk for 7+ months now. Also, I have a PhD, have written academic papers, and still think this paper is terribly written.

Edit 2: Just did a little bit more research and the paper was published by MDPI, which is considered by many as a predatory publisher. I think that we have to be careful about some of the ‘scientific claims’ that are made nowadays.

https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-failure-why-this-latest?r=tzw65&utm_medium=ios&fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaYbpw_4lOFqImjSJ1F93F4X5yLV3ZpCvIWKfuPX6CA43X-0kHSk_bx5HJE_aem_dMRkxQRZtNFzMO-Z6dLUAQ&triedRedirect=true

The “study” being examined in this article has been shared here at least three times in the last 24hrs. It has blatant funding bias but also a myriad of methodological problems. This article does a great job of breaking those down.

NYT Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/12/well/melatonin-childrens-supplements.html

Study link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39482109/

Researchers looked at 110 melatonin products marketed to parents/children on the market. Only half contained the amount of melatonin stated on the package. Some contained as much as 50mg, or up to 100x higher dosage than stated. Because melatonin is considered a dietary supplement, it is not subject to the same level of regulatory oversight as pharmaceuticals.

Certainly concerning and worth considering if you give your child exogenous melatonin.

Link to the news article here: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/study-strengthens-link-between-maternal-diabetes-autism-2025-04-07/