I read the paper during my lunch hour this week. It seems to be a decent study (sometimes studies aren’t that good. Remember that the next time you see an inflammatory headline and try to always read the study, or at least the fine print, for yourself!)

The researchers claim that children who are given antacids or antibiotics in the first six months of life are more prone to “allergic conditions” – like allergies, eczema, asthma, food/medicine allergies, and so on.

The study looked at over 790,000 kids in the Military Health System database from 2001 to 2013. It was a pretty big study.

What it concluded was that if a child got an antacid medication (like Ranitidine or Lansoprazole, amongst others) or an antibiotic (Amoxicillin, Augmentin, Bactrim), the kiddo had a higher chance for those problems listed above.

Antacids in the first 6 months doubled the chance of food allergy. Antibiotics doubled the chance of asthma.

The general thought is that antacid medications and antibiotics mess with our “gut biome.” Those are the living organisms in our gut that help us digest food and help our immune system to know friend from foe.

We want lots of different “good gut bugs” living in there to help us out. When you use antacids or antibiotics early in life, the theory is that this diversity is reduced.

As a mom, I asked myself, “Did those two months my son was on ranitidine cause him to have his awful cantaloupe allergy?” The guilty feelings were already sinking in.

Stop right there! Let’s not feel guilty about this. We are always learning and medicine is always changing. Let’s move forward. Yes this study seems solid, but what questions can we ask about their study methods?

Maybe we’d have more knowledge of a true connection if each individual medication was studied, instead of all of them lumped together?

Maybe kids who deal with reflux or infections as babies are just more prone to allergies and illness in general later on in life?

Are military families living in or with environmental conditions which may predispose the kiddos to allergic conditions?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. But boy, is this article making me think!

Like any “big discovery,” do we need more studies on this same topic to reduce any bias and truly know if there is a connection between these medications and allergies? Absolutely. We’ve done similar studies on animals in the past, but now it’s time to do more studies on humans.

For me, as a pediatrician, I’m going to walk through these risks with my patients a little more thoroughly.

Children with reflux suffer. I watched it happen in my own kid. Do some of them need the antacids to survive? Absolutely (some kids lose weight with reflux). Will I try to talk parents of children with more “mild” cases of reflux out of it? Probably.

Children with bacterial infections need antibiotics. Will I make sure to be certain to use the “least strong” antibiotic I can muster so as not to kill off too many of the important gut biome? Absolutely.

This article will no doubt cause some strong opinions. If, in the end, we are using less medication to treat our children’s mild infant illness, I think it will be better for everyone. I look forward to reading more research on this in the future!

A recent poll by Common Sense Media shows how much teens rely n their media devices. About 50 percent of teens say they are addicted to their devices. 

But what are the consequences to this addiction?

While social media itself is not inherently dangerous, the content that teens are exposed to on social media can be harmful.

It may be all fun and games at first, sharing funny videos or posting pictures from vacation. But social media exists in an arena where comparison, bullying and inappropriate content can occur. While teens may not be using social media for these reasons, they are still in danger of exposure to potentially hurtful content, especially cyberbullying.

JAMA Pediatrics (The Journal of the American Medical Association) conducted 10 studies that explored the link between social media victimization and depression. Alarmingly, every single study showed a significant correlation.

Twenty-three percent of teens report that they have been targeted by cyberbullying. There’s something about the privacy of a keyboard and a screen that gives teenagers a false bravery and security, convincing them that they can post and share whatever they want, without consequences.

“Cyberbullying can be more extreme than other forms of bullying because it leaves the victim feeling as if they have no escape. Since it occurs on their personal electronic devices, they can be sent and received quickly with a feeling of permanence,” said Lisa Elliott, a licensed psychologist and clinic manager of Cook Children’s Behavioral Health in Denton

The National Institute of Mental Health estimated that 2.2 million adolescents have had at least one major depressive episode in the past year due to social media. Even worse, victims of cyberbullying are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide. It’s heartbreaking to think that because of a cowardly comment typed from behind the security of a screen, a teenager decides that life just isn’t worth it.

Even if teens are not experiencing cyberbullying, some are finding their self-worth on social media. Teens invest emotion into the number of likes and comments on a post. The Common Sense Media poll found that 72 percent of teens feel the need to respond to text messages, social media messages and other notifications.

The more likes, the more validated they feel. The less likes, the more self-conscious and lonely they feel. It’s as if there’s some unspoken ranking based on the number of likes an Instagram post can get. Sorry, teens, but validation is not found in the double-tapping of a screen.

Social media is also the perfect platform for teens to experience what they call “FOMO” (fear of missing out). They compare themselves to their “friends” on social media, and are constantly exposed to things that make them yearn to be included. If your teen is commenting #FOMO on everything on their news feed, then they feel extremely dissatisfied with their life compared to somebody else’s because of the false reality social media has the power to project.

So what is the solution? If you ask a teen to quit social media, you may run the risk of sending them into a state of shock and withdrawal. It is also not fair to say that every teen on social media is depressed. So how do we address the ones that are suffering from the harmful effects of social media?

Elliott said to check what your teens are following. If their news feed is filled with braggadocios posts and bullying, then they need to reassess their “friends.” Social media should be a safe place to socialize.

Therefore, encourage your kids to be a light on social media – talk to them about how real life exists beyond a handheld gadget or a lit up laptop screen. Ultimately, challenge them to use their social media for positive interactions. If they wouldn’t say that comment out loud, in person, don’t say it. If they wouldn’t want their dad to see that photo, don’t post it. If they see something inappropriate on their news feed, report the content and remove the friend (they sound like trouble, anyways).

“Educate your children that everything they put out into the cyber world is there forever and how important it is to have a positive online reputation,” said Dr. Elliott.

Social media is not going to go away. However, there are ways to overpower the harmful effects it can have on our teenagers. Pay attention to their demeanor. If they’re in a bad mood, ask them how many Instagram likes they got that day.

Written by Elizabeth Sparks

We have said this before (many times), but a new study shows just how true this statement is.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) looked at the combined data of 18 published measles studies on several measles and pertussis outbreaks.

Reviewing a total of 1,416 measles cases, 56 percent had no history of measles vaccination. This is way higher than you might expect given that most still choose to have their child vaccinated.

Still the study states that “a substantial proportion of the US measles cases in the era after elimination were intentionally unvaccinated.”

Intentionally unvaccinated?

As a pediatrician this concerns me. As a dad, it terrifies me.

In one outbreak the risk of contracting measles was 35 times more likely when parents had skipped the shots. A child who isn’t vaccinated is much more likely to spread measles than a vaccinated child.

We know that the pertussis vaccine is not working as well as we would like. The protection from the vaccine is falling off quickly. However, this study showed that despite this, vaccine exemptions continue to be a factor in the spread of pertussis outbreaks. Somewhere around 1 out of 3 kids who got pertussis during these outbreaks was unvaccinated.

Why are children not getting the vaccines? Not all studies had the information necessary to say. But, for those that did, most families skipped the vaccines for personal or religious reasons (70 percent for measles, 60-90 percent for pertussis).

This is further proof to something we’ve suspected for some time. Having even small pockets of unvaccinated children increases the risk to the whole community.

Each of these families who chose not to vaccinate gamble on 3 issues:

1.Their child would not be exposed to the disease (banking on herd immunity whether they know it or not).

2.If their child was exposed, that they would not contract the disease.

3.If their child contracted the disease, they would not suffer serious consequences.

These are consequences I’m not willing to gamble on.

In the case of measles, consequences could mean pneumonia, hospitalization and, later in life, neurologic complications.

In the case of pertussis, consequences could mean painful coughing, broken ribs and, in the very young, death.

This is further proof to something we’ve suspected for some time. Having even small pockets of unvaccinated children increases the risk to the whole community.