Teething sos amber necklaces recall

dollybird2

Ericaa wrote: »

Have you taken it from her more then once?

I have, the first time was accidentally, when removed for a bath & left at my mother's house. This was when the nappy rash flared up. I took it off again for a bath and just didn't think to put it back on. The dribbling and rash started up about two days later iirc and cleared up when it was put back on. The last time I left it off was for a wedding last November, I had thin tights for my daughter and the bracelet looked so prominent underneath them that I took it off. This time the rash started up overnight literally. Once again, it cleared when I replaced the amber beads.

As much as I advocate them for my daughter, I know they aren't of benefit to all children. My husband's nephew who is 11 months old doesn't get any relief from them at all. He has worn them but there isn't any difference between teething pain/rash/drooling when the beads are off or when they are on. I guess it's an individual choice as to what works for each child.

Ericaa

dollybird2 wrote: »

I have, the first time was accidentally, when removed for a bath & left at my mother's house. This was when the nappy rash flared up. I took it off again for a bath and just didn't think to put it back on. The dribbling and rash started up about two days later iirc and cleared up when it was put back on. The last time I left it off was for a wedding last November, I had thin tights for my daughter and the bracelet looked so prominent underneath them that I took it off. This time the rash started up overnight literally. Once again, it cleared when I replaced the amber beads.

As much as I advocate them for my daughter, I know they aren't of benefit to all children. My husband's nephew who is 11 months old doesn't get any relief from them at all. He has worn them but there isn't any difference between teething pain/rash/drooling when the beads are off or when they are on. I guess it's an individual choice as to what works for each child.

That's amazing!

My six month old isn't really showing any signs of teething yet, except for gnawing on my fingers haha.
I'd be curious enough to try the amber, but I'm just gonna stick with the hope that he won't be a bad teether :P

pwurple

Ericaa wrote: »

That's amazing!

My six month old isn't really showing any signs of teething yet, except for gnawing on my fingers haha.
I'd be curious enough to try the amber, but I'm just gonna stick with the hope that he won't be a bad teether :P

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

dublinlady

pwurple wrote: »

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

I respect your opinion pwurple but not your way of protraying it. I appreciate we are on the Internet but its still appropriate to be respectful of others and have manners.

I wonder about the effects of homeopathy being so insignificant that arnica isn't always recommended as it can interfere with blood clotting... Hardly the work of an inert product.

Anyway my point is I do think amber works in a lot of cases - I appreciate you don't and I won't mock your point of view just because we are not face to face.

Ericaa

pwurple wrote: »

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

Yes, while that is a fair point, it has nothing to do with the fact that stuff flared up every time she removed them.

pwurple

Sugar-coating is never my strong point... I'll try to be more diplomatic.

I actually have no problem with complimentary stuff being used by adults who choose it for themselves, or even for children where they are safe. Whatever helps. I've given plenty of kisses to banged knees that sort everything out straight away.

But applying things that can choke them, or worse, withholding treatment in favour of the 'alternative' method, I'm afraid I go right for the straight-talking every time.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

Either internet or in person, putting children in danger needlessly is not something I pussyfoot around.

Jesus Christ

dublinlady wrote: »

I wonder about the effects of homeopathy being so insignificant that arnica isn't always recommended as it can interfere with blood clotting... Hardly the work of an inert product.

Arnica isn't contained in homeopathic remedies, they're composed exclusively of dihydrogen monoxide, which is an incredibly dangerous substance.

Neyite

pwurple wrote: »

Sugar-coating is never my strong point... I'll try to be more diplomatic.

I actually have no problem with complimentary stuff being used by adults who choose it for themselves, or even for children where they are safe. Whatever helps. I've given plenty of kisses to banged knees that sort everything out straight away.

But applying things that can choke them, or worse, withholding treatment in favour of the 'alternative' method, I'm afraid I go right for the straight-talking every time.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

Either internet or in person, putting children in danger needlessly is not something I pussyfoot around.

I also differ from you in my opinion re amber beads, but I do agree with you that these are complimentary therapies - no harm if used in conjunction with medical treatment and advice. This is the opinion of my rather excellent and thourough GP also.

If their use causes continued pain, discomfort or hazards to the child then I would not be using them. I think that most fans of amber beads here use them around the ankle where babies cant get at them, because they understand the risks and seek to minimise them.

wmpdd3

Before I got pregant, I didnt trust anything unless it had drugs in it. I thought it was all crap and a load of clap trap. I used yoga while pregnant for sciatica and it gave better relief than paracetamol tablets.

With my daughter, she never dribbled or had nappy rash, I never used any cream on her bot. But my son was in a agony with colic and finally CranioSacral Therapy worked.

His dribble burned his chest when he started teething and his skin peeled on his bum from rash. Within 3 days of putting on the beads the rash had receeded on his bum and he stopped dribbling. The only issue he has had was an asthmatic episode before the last tooth!

He has had the beads off twice, once at my mums as she would not allow him in to the house with anything around his neck. He came home with nappy rash.

And the second when I took the beads off to clean them and left them off for 24 hours, he was dribbling when I took him up the next morning.

I would respect the creche if they asked for them to be removed while he attended, but I would let him wear them at home.

My only concern is that if another child pulled them from behind, they will not break and they would apply pressure to the baby's neck at the front. The ones I have, each bead is knotted before and after the bead and the clasp is made of amber. The day I got them I put them around my foot and pulled them with my havd to see how strong they were.

I can only offer my opinion, each parent has to decide for themselves.

January

This will be the first and final warning on this thread. The charter states to attack the post and not the poster and anyone breaking this rule after this post will receive an infraction and possible ban from the forum.

What works for one parent/child, might not produce the same results for another.

Cienciano

My child uses amber, and I'm a firm believer that it's for the benefit of the parent, not the baby
If I had a skin condition or swollen gums I would definitely get proper medication, I wouldn't wear an amber necklace! Bonjella ftw.
And that teetha is a load of crap too!
I think the whole choking hazzard is blown out of proportion too. Your child could pick up a bit of dirt off the ground that's bigger than one of the beads.

Ms2011

Did anyone find any stats regarding the numbers of beads sold v the number of children harmed by the beads??

Hobbitfeet

Some people really have a problem with amber and the possibility of choking or any other 'side effects' but the majority of people have no problem with giving their baby calpol, nurofen or both for teething. Both of these have actual real reported cases of numerous side effects some being minor and some being serious. Calpol has additives that are banned for consumption in some European countries. Yet it is totally unacceptable to question the use of them. There has been 2 threads on here recently about the dangers and negative side effects, both were closed pretty quickly because people got so angry at the suggestion that giving your child these medications might not be a good idea.
Some people prefer to use a more natural method of relief for their children some prefer to use medication instead.

pwurple

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

Some people really have a problem with amber and the possibility of choking or any other 'side effects' but the majority of people have no problem with giving their baby calpol, nurofen or both for teething. Both of these have actual real reported cases of numerous side effects some being minor and some being serious. Calpol has additives that are banned for consumption in some European countries. Yet it is totally unacceptable to question the use of them. There has been 2 threads on here recently about the dangers and negative side effects, both were closed pretty quickly because people got so angry at the suggestion that giving your child these medications might not be a good idea.
Some people prefer to use a more natural method of relief for their children some prefer to use medication instead.

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol. There is no ban on consumption of that orange food colouring, it just isn't licensed for use in medicine.

And the big difference is, calpol is for fevers. Untreated High temperatures in infants can cause febrile convulsions, which in turn results in brain damage.

Untreated teething causes teeth .

See the difference?

How Strange

Ms2011 wrote: »

Did anyone find any stats regarding the numbers of beads sold v the number of children harmed by the beads??

As far as I can ascertain there are none because there are (thankfully) no recorded incidents of choking, strangulation or death arising from the use of amber necklaces.

Hobbitfeet

pwurple wrote: »

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol. There is no ban on consumption of that orange food colouring, it just isn't licensed for use in medicine.

And the big difference is, calpol is for fevers. Untreated High temperatures in infants can cause febrile convulsions, which in turn results in brain damage.

Untreated teething causes teeth .

See the difference?

I did not tell anybody to stay away from GPs or Calpol. A lot of parents use it for teething.
Brain damage from febrile convulsions is rare and there has been no studies that prove the use of calpol or any fever lowering drug has any effect on convulsions. Here explains about febrile convulsions and if you read the paragraph on "How are febrile seizures prevented?" you will see it states there is no proof calpol helps. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/febrile_seizures/detail_febrile_seizures.htm

I understand the worry of something like that happening, I would hate to see my boy go through it but all studies show children who have them are perfectly fine and if giving calpol does nothing then why give it?
I also understand your concern and worry about children wearing amber but there are steps you can take to prevent accidents, of course something could happen it could in all aspects of life. People have different views of risk and safety.

pwurple

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

if giving calpol does nothing then why give it?

You are seriously setting this website up for a serious legal action with that kind of stuff. Medicines here (like Calpol) are licenced for sale only after proven clinical efficacy and safety.

Efficacy means they are proven to work as claimed. How exactly can you justify it 'does nothing' and then advise people to ignore febrile convulsions? It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Hobbitfeet

pwurple wrote: »

You are seriously setting this website up for a serious legal action with that kind of stuff. Medicines here (like Calpol) are licenced for sale only after proven clinical efficacy and safety.

Efficacy means they are proven to work as claimed. How exactly can you justify it 'does nothing' and then advise people to ignore febrile convulsions? It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Setting The National Institutes of Health up for legal action?? Are you serious?Do you know what this organisation is? The National Institutes of Health are the ones doing the clinical trials Did you read the full link? Please do

Quote from the link "If a child has a fever most parents will use fever-lowering drugs such as acetominophen or ibuprofen to make the child more comfortable, although there are no studies that prove that this will reduce the risk of a seizure.
Prolonged daily use of oral anticonvulsants, such as phenobarbital or valproate, to prevent febrile seizures is usually not recommended because of their potential for side effects and questionable effectiveness for preventing such seizures."

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Calm down pwurple. Attack the post not the poster. Calling someone psychotic is not acceptable. You know the rules about reporting posts if you have a problem with them.

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol.

Let's clarify something here - Calpol is just sugar coated paracetamol. That drug can reduce fever - but it purely treats the symptom not the cause. I've used Calpol but it would never be my drug of choice. If anything, I've given my kids actual paracetamol but only if deemed necessary. Hobbitfeet isn't saying not to give it but is stating, correctly, that it has ingredients classes as food additives that are banned in some countries. It's not unreasonable to not use calpol on those grounds - especially when there are other remedies available.

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

You are seriously setting this website up for a serious legal action with that kind of stuff. Medicines here (like Calpol) are licenced for sale only after proven clinical efficacy and safety.

I'm not going to do it for you but look up various drugs and where they are licensed and where they are banned. Different countries have different standards. The US FDA bans more drugs that it allows but a lot of them are legally for sale in the UK and Ireland.

Take Calpol as an example - it's for sale in UK, Ireland, India, Cyprus, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Why not other countries? Because the colourings in it are banned in a lot of EU countries. It contains a laxative which is not good in a fever reducing medication. It contains sorbital - a sugar alcohol. Ethyl parahydroxybenzoate - a hormone disruptor banned in France. Pink colouring E122 - suspected carcinogen banned in Austria, Norway, Sweden and the US. E122 and E218 (another suspected hormone disrupter) are both suspected in causing hyperactivity (a potential reason for the upsurge in ADHD diagnoses).

So who's licensing body is more right? The countries that have banned the sale of Calpol or ours which allows it?

Hobbitfeet

Thanks Orion this is the point I'm trying to make that there is other alternatives and there is negatives to calpol. I never told anyone not to use it. This is a decision for the individual family just like using amber is. Parents need to make an educated, informed decision on what medication or alternative therapies they choose to use ad it's clear that from pwurples post that some are making decisions based on incorrect information. I just wanted to put correct information out there so people could make better decisions themselves and hopefully decide to read more about topic like this. Knowledge is the key and the more knowledge we have the better we will be able to raise out children.
It's great that we have medicine like paracetamol and ibuprofen that we can use when we really need them. What we don't need is paracetamol medicine that is overused and containes additives that may be unsafe and are unneeded.

Jesus Christ

Thinking that fossilised resin will make baby better is neither educated nor informed. There's zero evidence supporting it's use - what's been posted here is not evidence - and bringing Calpol into the equation is simply trying to distract from this. There's no active ingredient. It's a rock.

meeeeh

Calpol is sold in more countries. I know because I bought it elswhere. I'm not a fan of the thing but don't compare it to amber. Those neclaces are probably harmless around the ankle but also as efficient as any placebo.

Hobbitfeet

Jesus Christ wrote: »

Thinking that fossilised resin will make baby better is neither educated nor informed. There's zero evidence supporting it's use - what's been posted here is not evidence - and bringing Calpol into the equation is simply trying to distract from this. There's no active ingredient. It's a rock.

We seem to have lost all respect for the observations of parents. Unless something has had numerous clinical trials we call it useless or do not trust it could work. Observations and testimonies from countless parents say that using amber helps there child. Why can't we have a little faith in this.
I brought up calpol as I felt it was totally acceptable to question amber or anything other non mainstream treatment but not ok to question calpol.
Amber is not a rock it is fossilised tree sap

Hobbitfeet

meeeeh wrote: »

Calpol is sold in more countries. I know because I bought it elswhere. I'm not a fan of the thing but don't compare it to amber. Those neclaces are probably harmless around the ankle but also as efficient as any placebo.

Yes and we know calpol can be harmful there has been many documented cases. We also know that it is not as effective as its portrayed

Rose35

Only saw this now!!! my boy is 8 months old and has been wearing the braclet/anklet one, i did not feel comfortable with the necklace, he is now pulling his socks off and have found it in the cot on a number of occasions, i spoke with the seller on the phone before purchasing and she assured me if baby swallows a bean that it passes easily therefore it would not cause choking as the beads are made in a way to easily swallow if put in mouth, I dont know now, what if he puts the whole thing in the mouth, which is possible, im unsure what to do now, im not sure if it works or not but im not taking the risk I think!!!!! The creche he attends allows the anklet but not the necklace.

meeeeh

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

Yes and we know calpol can be harmful there has been many documented cases. We also know that it is not as effective as its portrayed

And we know that because proper research was done. And it could turn out Calpol is complete poison. We will find out when scientific research will be done. But you are comparing I tried it and it works mummy research to proper clinical tests with control groups and everything. If you want to have a bracelet around your child's ankle and ignore the warnings (we do ignore them quite often), fine, just don't compare them to medication. My son is four and he is playing with 5+ years lego. In the same way those neclaces can be safe but you still have to be careful. Just don't confuse mummy testimonials with proper research.

Hobbitfeet

meeeeh wrote: »

And we know that because proper research was done. And it could turn out Calpol is complete poison. We will find out when scientific research will be done. But you are comparing I tried it and it works mummy research to proper clinical tests with control groups and everything. If you want to have a bracelet around your child's ankle and ignore the warnings (we do ignore them quite often), fine, just don't compare them to medication. My son is four and he is playing with 5+ years lego. In the same way those neclaces can be safe but you still have to be careful. Just don't confuse mummy testimonials with proper research.

How do you think most medicines originated? Lots of medicines we now use were discovered by individual observations. Historically, drugs were discovered through identifying the active ingredient from traditional remedies or by serendipitous discovery. So why now do we automatically not trust something just because there has not been a clinical studies on it? Personal testimonials were the basis for what medicine is today but now we have been lead to believe that we should not trust personal testimonies and only trust something which has the backing of pharma companies and governments. I personally feel its very sad that we have lost faith in our own judgement and natural instincts.

Rose35 if the anklet is coming off and you feel like your child will be able to take it off and play with it then I would either remove it or find a way to make sure it is safe on the ankle eg using babygro instead of footless pjs you can also buy thing called 'sock ons' which keep socks on!! lol maybe this would help.

meeeeh

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

How do you think most medicines originated? Lots of medicines we now use were discovered by individual observations. Historically, drugs were discovered through identifying the active ingredient from traditional remedies or by serendipitous discovery. So why now do we automatically not trust something just because there has not been a clinical studies on it? Personal testimonials were the basis for what medicine is today but now we have been lead to believe that we should not trust personal testimonies and only trust something which has the backing of pharma companies and governments. I personally feel its very sad that we have lost faith in our own judgement and natural instincts.

Natural instincts also told us that cat piss and leeches did wonders. I'm not discrediting every home remedy there is, I'm just saying that they can't be compared to the actual medicines. It is a bit naive to say that those beads are just like Calpol. They might be once they are properly tested and bias is eliminated. Anybody who ever did completely basic stuff on research knows that testimonials are useless. This is not a slight towards anybody in particular it's just basic human nature and i'm afraid we can't be trusted.