Amber necklaces and teething babies
 |
Let’s check the science: Amber teething necklaces – should babies wear them? |
My grandchildren are all past the age when teething is a big problem, but I still shudder when I see small children wearing amber teething necklaces. Surely any parent can see that harnessing a child with such a bauble is inviting a serious strangling or choking incident. You would have to be very desperate, and very certain of the effectiveness to take such a risk, I would think. Is the risk justified? Do these necklaces work?
| This article assumes you are happy to accept science as the best way of discovering the truth about the natural world. If that’s not the case for you, why not have a look at Trusting the science first? |
The promoters’ arguments – science or red flags?
As I would have expected, some of the claims range from the magical:
•Allows body to heal itself •Radiates soothing energy and absorbs negative energy, thus needs cleansing often •Calms nerves, stimulates intellect •Aligns ethereal and physical energies, cleanses the environment •Success in treating disorders of the kidney and bladder
to the ridiculous:
Amber teething beads work on a simple theory of mild magnetism, which has been found to have the potential to reduce mild pain, such as accompanies teething.
However, many promoters do suggest a plausible mechanism. They claim that amber contains an analgesic substance called succinic acid which is released by the beads in response to the warmth of the child’s body and absorbed through the skin (here, here and here).
Do I see any red flags? Yes, lots of them. I see appeals to ancient wisdom and esoteric energy (here), magical thinking (here), use of anecdotal evidence (here), empty edicts (such as boosting the immune system, here), and pseudoscientific jargon (here).
Being skeptical
Initially I was suspicious that the promotion of these necklaces would rely heavily on nonsense about the magical properties of crystals. But most of the sites I found based their claims on the succinic acid mechanism, so it deserves to be checked. Does amber contain succinic acid? Is it released by warmth and absorbed into the body? If so, does it have any physiological effects? Is there any scientific evidence that these beads work? My feeling is that there must be very solid evidence for their effectiveness to justify the risks of choking and strangulation.
The scientific evidence
In my search for evidence, I got off to a great start when I found this posting by Scepticon. It gave me lots of references and analysed the situation very impressively. But I couldn’t take Scepticon’s word as authority, of course. I needed to find primary sources myself.
This is what I managed to discover:
- Baltic amber (the type usually recommended for teething) does contain succinic acid (here). Other types may not.
- I could find no evidence that Baltic amber releases succinic acid at body temperatures. Succinic acid melts at 187 °C but it’s moderately soluble in water. So if it indeed seeps out of the amber, it couldn’t be in molten form. Body temperature (about 37 °C) would be insufficient to melt it. There is a possibility it could be dissolved by sweat.
- Succinic acid is found naturally in our bodies and in many foods, including beer and wine (here). In some countries, it’s allowed as a food additive (number 363). Generally, it’s considered safe (here), although, just as there are no studies on its analgesic effects (see next point), there are none investigating its safety in humans. Interestingly, in bulk it’s regarded as a skin and respiratory irritant, with a risk of serious eye damage (MSDS here). The oral rat LD50 is 2.26 g/kg.
- There is some history of succinic acid being used externally to treat pain. I could find no scientific evidence that it works. Scepticon had the same problem – no studies, no RCTs, nothing. There is a single animal study (here) showing that succinic acid may help in reducing anxiety in mice, but nothing on analgesic effects.
- So, putting it all together, even in the unlikely event that succinic acid is released from the amber, there is no evidence that it is absorbed or has any effect. And even if it does, how sensible is it to allow a completely unregulated dose of a chemical to flow into a child’s body over a long period?
- Apparently, the necklaces are made to break easily so that strangulation risk is reduced. But surely this would increase the risk of choking on the beads. Australian government agencies have warned against allowing children to wear them while unsupervised or sleeping (here, here).
DIY evidence
There are plenty of blogs and websites describing personal experiences of parents who have tried amber teething necklaces and have been convinced they are effective (here and here); others have the opposite opinion (here). Needless to say, such anecdotal evidence is worthless, and the examples described in the preceding links are likely to be cases of regression to the mean. In other words, the teething pain eventually gets better. The only way of showing that these necklaces really work would be to conduct proper randomised controlled trials.
Conclusion
This is an easy call. The complete lack of any good evidence that amber necklaces relieve teething pain means that there is absolutely no benefit to offset the risk of wearing them. Remember that in risk assessment, the size of the risk depends on two factors – the likelihood of the event happening, and the severity of the consequences. In this case, one consequence could be death by choking, and in my book, that rules them out completely. I’m disgusted that they are sold in some pharmacies (here).
The Australian Dental Association has suggestions for much less risky methods of reducing teething pain (here). Why would anyone use a ‘treatment’ with such large risks and no supporting evidence?
Update 2013/03/21: At The Conversation (here), Ken Harvey explains that pharmacists are ignoring their own standards by stocking these and other products that are not backed by credible evidence.
Illustration modified from a photo by David Green on flickr.
|
This is one of ScienceOrNot’s Let’s check the science series. |
The advertising of these wretched things is in the UK is restricted to “availability only.” No claims are allowed to be made for their mode of action or effectiveness any longer http://autismum.com/2012/10/29/amber-teething-necklaces/
That’s at least better than the situation here, Autismum. Thanks for the link. Your post is very informative.
Update 01/01/13: Autismum has had further success in her worthy struggle against amber teething necklaces in the UK. See this post on Skeptoid.
Very informative, the breakaway thing is crap though. The beads are knotted on so tight they cannot come apart. Yes, the clasp can separate, but each bead is strung and knotted before the next one. I have one for my daughter, not for the teething crap, but because I thought it was cute. The necklace is too short to get tangled on anything to strangle her, yet seems to have stretched in the 2 years we’ve had it, as it now can fit my neck and hangs lower on her neck than it once did.
Yes, Nicole, I think the choking risk (as a result of the necklace breaking) is much more significant than the strangulation risk.
November 11, 2012
Just like all of you, I thought it was all a crock of s**t but my wife wanted one so two days ago I went and got the cheapest one I could find. (happy wife, happy life) Before getting it, my son was drooling constantly from his teething, and never slept for more than a couple of hours. We had to use a cold soother for him to suck on to ease the pain. Within 24 hours of putting the necklace on him, the drooling stopped and he slept through the night for the first time in weeks. I don’t really care what the science says, or the skeptics think. It worked for us. I realize this is anecdotal evidence that the writer thinks is useless. Again, I don’t care. It works. There is no way it was just a coincidence his teething just happened to stop and get better on the day we put the necklace on him. He’s 6 months old and only his two front, lower teeth have started to come out. His teething is far from over.
As for the strangulation part, I was a US Marine for 4 years and I can tell you that it is very hard to kill a human being by strangulation with a rope or string. There has to be a tremendous amount of force exerted, and meanwhile the person flays and struggles and, yes, screams. There is no way a baby can exert the amount of force required to strangle themselves and not cause enough noise from their struggling to bring the parents running. But again to keep my wife happy, we put the necklace around his ankle and put a sock over top to keep it in place. It’s never been around his neck, and yet, I can say that it worked. Anyone who tells me that I’m crazy or desperate can suck s**t through a straw. Last night my baby, my wife, and I had one of the best sleeps we’ve had in a month. This just works despite what the science says.
Mark,
I understand how you feel about your experience, but I must say your reasoning sounds to me like a classical case of rooster syndrome – you put a necklace on your son, his symptoms disappeared some time afterwards, therefore this was due to the necklace. Despite your conviction that it’s unlikely, my guess is that his symptoms would have disappeared anyway. That’s what happens with situations like this – after a while they get better. It’s regression to the mean. That’s one reason why anecdotal evidence is unreliable. For every case where the treatment seems to deliver a ‘cure’, there’s a case where the condition disappears with a different treatment or without any treatment at all (and I can offer my own three kids as anecdotal evidence there). The only way you can say for certain that “it works” is to do a randomised controlled trial.
Like you, I wouldn’t be overly concerned about strangulation. I think the much larger risk is that of choking from inhaling loose beads that have broken free from the necklace.
I’m sorry, but I agree with Mark. I was skeptical about the necklace, but was willing to try anything. Within 24 hours we had our happy little girl back. No more drooling or screaming. You can call it a case of rooster Syndrome, I don’t care. I would rather my happy baby than a screaming one. Plus, we take it off to bathe her as we don’t want to risk the string wearing thin from being wet, and forgot to put it back on. The next day we had an unsettled baby again. Got home, put the necklace back on and again, by late afternoon, happy baby. Baby had 2 teeth at the time the necklace was put on and was cutting 2 more. She now has 8 teeth and is cutting molars, so far no dramas. So science or not, it works for us, and if it means I’m not pumping her full of panadol and teething drugs then I am happy too. I have read your article and taken it on board, as one solution doesn’t necessarily work for everybody.
Anita, there is no realistic explanation for how teething necklaces may appear to work apart from the placebo effect. I suspect that in this case it operates on both the infant and the parents. My point is that these necklaces are a very risky way of bringing on the placebo effect, and it it were up to me, I’d find a safer substitute.
Anita, if the necklaces work as they are supposed to, then while you aren’t pumping her full of teething drugs, you are instead allowing a chemical that is not proven safe for humans, that has not been proven to have an analgesic effect, flow, unchecked and unmeasured, into your child. Why is that better than the odd dose of Panadol?
Plenty of things that ‘science’ has proven to be safe for humans, has turned out not to be safe. Just because ‘science’ hasn’t proven it to be safe doesn’t mean they aren’t. I’m not waiting for science to prove it one way or another. It works for us. In saying that, my doctor, my childrens doctor, my paediatrician, and my ENT specialist don’t have a problem with my baby wearing it, so thats all that matters, to me, for now.
Its not just the odd dose of panadol either, every 4-6 hours for too long can have bad affects on a baby. Teething doesn’t just go for a couple of hours every so often. For some it can go for days and weeks.
‘Science’ in scare quotes?! Does that mean you have an issue with science, Anita?
Same with my DS. 2 hours after wearing the Baltic amber necklace I’ve got a happy baby.
For what it is worth, when our first child started teething around 3 mths old, and was dribbling profusely we put on the beads too and within 2-3 days it stopped completely and a rash under her chin disappeared. If we forgot to put them on after her bath, she would have an unsettled night and in the morning we’d see why… coinsidence it may be, but when we tried it several times, every time it helped… our second child who is now 3 mths doesnt seem to be a fan of them as every time we put them on her, she seems grizzly so we’re not using them at this stage – we will be interested to see how she manages with teething and if it makes any difference. Enjoy your evenings
Thanks for the observations, Sonia. Have you used or will you consider using other methods of relief?
Mark, your knowledge of strangulation when it comes to adults may or may not be accurate but when it comes to babies I fear you are completely wrong. A baby only has get string caught on something and their own body weight will be more than enough for them to quickly and quietly pass away. It is why is many countries there are laws about fixing curtain cords to walls so that a child is less likely to be able to loop it around his neck. When it comes to strangulation, suffocation and drowning a child can die quickly and quietly. I was surprised find that the number of children that drown in a dog’s water bowl is statistically significant for example.
Excuse me while I suck s**t through a straw.
Amber therapy gives nutritional therapy that helps babies . Its good to have such remedies and amber jewellery
This is the sort of statement I’d expect from someone selling the stuff, Darius. Just pseudoscientific jargon and bald, empty edicts without any attempt to supply evidence. Anyone making a claim like this has the burden of supplying evidence, and there’s absolutely no evidence that amber has any nutritional value at all.
Very interesting article, I always thought this was a natural remedy for babies, other than using bonjela as I heard that it isn’t very safe…so why exactly DO they sell amber necklaces & advertise it as such… if it is a cause of suffocation and strangling… would it not be avoided and warned about like SIDS?????
I don’t know that we can say that these necklaces have definitely caused choking and/or strangulation, Sarah. I don’t know of any reported cases, and I suppose that is what it would take to have them banned. However, kids have choked on lots of small objects, and I can’t see why amber beads would be any different. So whether there is actual evidence or not that they have caused harm, I think it’s irresponsible for anyone to promote their use when there is no evidence that they do any good.
Update 03/02/2013: To put some perspective on the risk, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the five years 1999 to 2003 show that “other accidental threats to breathing”, which includes accidental suffocation, strangulation, and hanging as well as selected other separate causes, was a leading cause of death in children under 1 (88 deaths out of a total of 213).
For some accounts describing actual choking incidents involving beads, see here and here.
Meanwhile Doctors everywhere aren’t demanding evidence that the level of toxic ingredients in vaccinations is ‘safe’… that empirical experimental evidence (seeing we all don;t like ‘anecdotal’ as is pointed out in this article) of ‘safe levels’ doesn’t even exist because it is ‘unethical’ to conduct studies injecting babies and children with heavy metals and toxic substances for experimentation sake, yet it is being done every day anyway. What IS known is that the heavy metals DO negatively impact neurological function and development, that is conclusive. The levels at which this begins to happen is unknown. So in that regard, the evidence that Succinic Acid is safe already is yards ahead of what modern medicine has been doing for decades. And you have parents ‘horrified’ that someone will put a necklace on their child, who then march their own child off to get their 10th dose of heavy metal poisoning for their short year or two of life and then give themselves a pat on the back for it.
Human beings have been putting jewellery on infants and young children for thousands of years. Baltic Amber necklaces that are made properly (knotted between each bead, genuine baltic amber, the correct length for the baby) and that are checked often by parents can be worn safely. I know of zero cases where an Amber necklace has caused choking or strangulation. Pretty sure it would be highly publicised in the media should it happen. The Baltic Amber industry (or even the natural therapies industry as a whole) is hardly a force to be reckoned with, unlike the pharmaceutical industry, where hundreds of thousands of severe reactions to various drugs and vaccinations every year world wide get swept under the rug because of their ability to sway media or at least create spin… Um, the phrase ‘wake up’ comes to mind.
Pidge,
I don’t know about elsewhere, but in Australia no childhood vaccines contain mercury (or any other heavy metal): http://ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/thiomersal-fact-sheet.pdf
You say:
…which shows exactly why anecdotal evidence can’t be trusted. The fact that you don’t know of any cases is, I’m afraid, completely irrelevant.
I suggest that you could benefit from the latest post on Science Or Not?, The scary science scenario – science portrayed as evil.
Can you sight any cases of children or babies choking on or being strangled by teething beads Graham?
I’ve searched the web and can’t find anything. The two cases you referenced above were beads of sorts (which can come in many sizes and shapes) but not amber teething beads.
The first case you referenced was anecdotal. The second case says that the father and girlfriend are being investigated which says to me that there is more to it then is contained within the article.
You might like to re-check my comments above, where I’ve addressed this issue, Jaime. As I pointed out, I can’t cite any cases of amber beads causing choking, however there are plenty of instances of infants choking on small objects and I fail to see how amber beads would be immune. I might point out also that by definition, a case study must be anecdotal.
Here‘s an old, but pertinent paper that highlights the risk of small objects.
I found this while Googling the words of an image crossposted on Facebook. One thing I enjoy doing is checking Snopes for those stupid things that people share blindly without checking the facts, and saw an image claiming that a child had died from SIDS in NSW after wearing amber teething beads, and encouraging people to remove them – from the neck or ankle or otherwise.
I couldn’t find anything refuting it, however. But I did find this place, so that’s a win!
lol Thats how I ended up here too!
all vaccines contain mercury in australia also wat a crock o shit…vaccines are deadly and can cause autism n lots of other ailments and they are ok but natural amber beads not doesnt make sense to me panadol is toxic just like so many other pharmaceuticals they r deadly …
kmc, the reason it doesn’t make sense to you is probably that you are badly informed. No childhood vaccines in Australia contain mercury (here). The possibility of a vaccines-autism link has been exhaustively tested, and there is none (here, here, here, here and here).
May I suggest you have a look at these ScienceOrNot posts to overcome some of the misinformation you have encountered:
The scary science scenario – science portrayed as evil
Appeal to nature – the authenticity axiom
Empty edicts – absence of empirical evidence
Despite the lack of Thiomersal in vaccines this day in age, there are tons of other ingredients that can affect children and adults. Research the ingredients of a given vaccine and you will probably be appalled. The risk of beads coming off of a properly made amber necklace is far lower than the body’s ability to handle all the foreign contaminants in vaccines at the young age they are administered.
I am not at all appalled by the ingredients in vaccines, Nicholas. There are certainly no “foreign contaminants”. You have been hoodwinked by the antivaxers. Nothing in life is risk-free, but submitting children to a risk is inexcusable when there is no benefit, as in the case of amber beads. With vaccination, the risk of adverse reaction is tiny compared to the risks of contracting the disease. Vaccines significantly reduce the risk – that’s simple risk management
Graham, seriously? Have you ever asked your doctor for a copy of the ingredients from the syringe he was about to inject? Obviously not. The info is freely available if you ask for it.
I’m well aware of the contents of vaccines, Nicholas, and as I said, I’m not concerned. However, this post is about amber necklaces, so I hope you understand if I don’t allow any more comments along these lines.
kmc sounds like you’ve been spending a bit too much time on the Australian (anti)Vaccination Network website.
Also, I fail to see how panadol is harmful. It works to bring down temperature during fever which is highly valuable to me when I see my children suffering from fever. The health risks from fever are not acceptable when simple medical treatments like panadol are available. Basic first aid. You wouldn’t refuse a dressing for a gash on your arm, would you?
You do understand that a fever is the body’s way of fighting off infection? Research when fevers start to be a problem for a child. There is no reason to mediate a fever that isn’t high enough to hurt you, you are just pausing the bodies fight on the virus that is likely causing it. Science for the win here.
LOL – same here!! Did a child die from choking on these???
I found this also by googling bout the post on Facebook so is it true? I enjoyed reading the article and reading the replies I believe it is a personal choice for you to choose I think it comes with being a parent! You know what’s good and what’s not for your baby and when in doubt dr google always helps lol no just kidding checking with your nurse or obs or gp is always the best! We have notice a big difference to wearing them and taking them off in the drooling and fist mouthing and her general mood! So they work for us! I was actually told a complete different story the other day I was told the were used by South American women for years and the minerals would absorb through the skin and through the breast milk the baby would receive the benefit of the minerals due to me not being very scientific I obviously may have the story a bit wrong but I like that story! Sounds heaps better sorry!!
Sounds like a fairly unlikely story to me, Trish. Amber is fossilised tree resin, so my guess is that any mineral content would be pretty minimal. Even if it is absorbed through the skin (which I doubt), any contribution it made to the mineral content of breast milk would be negligible in comparison to the amount contributed by breakdown of normal food items.
I was totaly skeptical about using an amber necklace and expected it to do nothing. I was surprised when my son stopped drooling and was calmer, happier. I would take it off him loads of times and then have the same effect when I put it back on.
Science can be slow at working out why things work and even slower at finding out what is actually bad for us. I don’t want to wait around and suffer with my baby while it takes it’s sweet time.
Stranglation or suffercation via amber teething necklaces are unscientificaly proven, there is no data or very little incidence. Therefore good odds and whether you like it or not, whenever give your kids medication or vaccine- you are also taking odds on their health. I like the weigh the odds and inform myself with the whole story and that includes parents experiences as well as science. The best of both worlds
Neen, in response to your comment, I can do no more than reiterate what I’ve already put into the post above. I’m intrigued about what you mean by “unscientifically proven”, but it seems to me that there’s plenty of evidence that small objects can cause suffocation. The fact that those small objects are not frequently reported to be amber beads doesn’t mean that there’s some magical quality about them that prevents suffocation. I think it’s also important to realise that humans are not good at intuitive statistics, and that’s why randomised controlled trials are used to settle issues like this. An RCT would take account of cases where the beads don’t work, the cases that people don’t bother telling you about via anecdotes. However, I suspect there’s not likely to be a RCT ever done on this issue because the ethical issue of risk would prevent it.
placebo or not Rooster syndrome or not, they work for lots of families. I think the risk of choking appears to be minimal, especially as you have only been able to find 2 cases. I need more evidence of a choking risk to be alarmed. Each individual bead is knotted so if the string breaks one bead comes off, a very small baby would be unlikely to be able to then pick that bead up, lacking the pincer grasp until approx 6-8 months of age, and put it in their mouth let alone swallow it, young babies have a reflex until around 6 months that pushes the tounge forward and pushing out of their mouths, which is why babies in our culture start solids around 6 months of age when this reflex disappears. At 6 months a baby might have better luck swallowing or inhaling a bead and thus choking but once again 2 reported cases is not enough evidence for me to be alarmed.
Graham with all due respect your article is interesting but your subsequent comments are a tad argumentative and you are contradictory. You state anecdotal evidence lacks substance and that mere opinions cannot lend credit to an arguement and yet in your last comment above me here, you clearly use your own opinion to try to discredit a story, how can you guess and claim to be scientific???. Thanks but no thanks, I will continue to use amber beads on my daughter and quite happily at that. I also think you fear things that cannot be explained, things that cannot be explained are not witchcraft, voodoo or black magic.. there are some things that just..are.
Angela, the difference is that I offer my opinion as opinion, not as evidence.
The 2 cases you refer to are media reports I found in a quick search. They were never meant to be a measure of the prevalance of choking, but simply to show that it can occur.To use these cases as an indicator of the risk involved is misleading. You’ll notice that in one of the comments above, I gave some actual statistics:
Regarding your argument that babies younger than 6 months can’t choke – isn’t the typical age for first teething around 6 – 9 months?
Graham, whats good for one is good for another.. is an offer of opinion not what some other commenters here have offered?
your ABS statistics are not specifically about amber beads, more evidence of amber beads and their specific risk is required for this argument, to present those figures in this case is just drumming up a scare.. in my opinion of course… The full statistic needs to be explored to ascertain what the cause of choking, strangulation or hanging was in each case. My GP recently told me that he had read the most likely cause of choking or inhalation of a foreign body in infants was a peanut, im unsure if this is entirely true and I apologise I do not have tme to check myself at this time. I could almost guarentee that you will not find an amber necklace with beads anywhere near as large as a peanut.
Hmmmm Im suprised that you have comprehended my comment as a statement that babies can’t choke, that is clearly not what I said Graham!. I was simply pointing out the diffuculty a small baby would have in picking up a fallen amber bead, placing it in their mouths and choking on it.
While it’s fair to say the typical age for the appearance of the first tooth is around 6-7 months it is not necessarily the norm either, my baby started teething at 3 months of age which is when I first started using a necklace. In my mothers group of 16 babies, 4 have teethed before 6 months.
A baby then who is used to solid food beyond 6 months is more likely to swallow an object they have picked up then choke on it ..read again: the beads are QUITE small and just not likely to become lodged in the oesophagus or trachea. Perhaps this is why a quick search is unable to find more incidence of choking, becasue it simply does not happen. If it did, it would certainly have gotten around to us mothers fairly quickly, especially in the age of social media ready to stamp out any and every product that is likely to cause or children the slightest harm, Instead what you will find is a plethora of mums and dads swearing by the use of these necklaces in aid of teething pain, scientific efficacy for them or not.
Angela,
Opinion offered as opinion: I think amber teething necklaces are dangerous
Opinion offered as evidence: I think amber teething necklaces made my child feel better; this means they work.
I think we all understand your view graham. You don’t like amber necklaces and you want them bad. But as you can see they work for dome. You have told us your children and grand children are well and truelly padt teething issues, well thats awesome for you. So why are you attacking a parenting choice. I don’t use tgem but I believe parents have a right to make choices with out having would be parents dicated how they raise there kids. You’ve had your turn, now let this generation have theres. Its seems in this day and age all of sociality believe they have the right to tell parents what to do. I’m sure if some question your choice of how you raised your kids you would have stood up for your parental choice! Sadly your are not letting parents do that! You are slamming them with the same comment over and over again. Its your way or the high way. Society need to leave parents alone we aren’t dumb we make informed choice and do what we believe is right for OUR children.
Apologise for spelling on phone
You have missed the point of my post altogether, REC. I don’t think you’ll find any evidence that I want amber teething necklaces banned. My attitude is that no one, least of all pharmacists, has the right to promote and/or sell them as effective in relieving teething discomfort unless there is good, scientific evidence supporting this claim. There is none. And it’s not as though it’s simply a matter of promoting something that’s ineffective. There is a significant risk involved (again, I don’t believe in magic, and I don’t see any reason why an amber bead can’t suffocate a baby). Personally, I think people who use them on their children are behaving irresponsibly, and I don’t think they have the right to subject babies to the risk, but I have no intention of interfering. It’s when they want to recruit others into the practice on the basis of flimsy anecdotal evidence that I get concerned.
I guess that goes for all the people who put necklaces on their babies for religious reasons too? So many irresponsible parents…..
I can’t see any reason why religious necklaces would be immune, either, Anita
Have you actually held one of these necklaces in your hand Graham, to get the feel of one as far as risk goes? have you personally done any tests upon them to have any reason to suggest that they are in fact a risk of suffocation and that a huge percentage of parents are therfore irresponsible?. I guess i’d feel more comfortable about you calling me irresponsible if you had.
As you have as yet presented no clear case of definate risk to babies suffocating, I will continue to use one on my daughter with a clear conscience and remember that you are just one man, one man who from some of your statements it would appear is from the era where it was thought putting small pieces of soap into a babies anus was a good way of relieving constipation, so having said that I think the very small risk of my baby choking on a bead (which is in itself unlikely to become detached from the necklace itself as they are all knotted individually) is a risk I’m willing to take if the necklace APPEARS to give her relief from teething.. thousands of parents have sworn to the benefits of using amber I will say it again- scientific efficacy for them or not. I think you would find if yourself in a little bit of strife if you told alot of those parents that you think they are acting irresponsibly and they should not have the right to endanger their babies, Ithink you might find many of them telling you that you do not have the right to pass judgement on them. Do you honestly think that these parents would willingly endanger a child?
Please tell me what test I would perform to find out whether a baby can choke on an amber teething necklace.
have you tried to pull a necklace apart? have you tried to isolate one bead from the rest so that It could be swallowed? have you tested how strong different brands of the necklaces are? the strength of the different clasps used?
evidence that they work? my baby stops screaming when wearing it, starts screaming again when it’s taken off. that is not an opinion that is a fact, you cannot convince me that the pain would have gone away on its own. Amber teething necklaces work here for my chilkd at reducing her pain and many parents agree with me. Just live with it, it’s something that cannot be scientifically proved through RCT’s but the evidence lies in the opinions of people that use them.. I don’t have time for this anymore, Ihave more important things to do like feeding and bathing my children than to sit on the computer and argue and pontificate with someone who is never going to see it any other way than the opinion you have alreaqdy made..
thats me out
Angela
In case you change your mind Angela, I’d be interested to know your child’s response to the necklace compared to the response to the other methods you’ve tried.
where teething is concerned nothing is a sure fire solution… ive tried calpol powders liquids for the gums and still my babies have suffered… my sons management seems to be better since wearing his anklet… and i feel the risk of strangulation isnt a factor at all and the risk of choking nil as the beads are so small the one that became free between the thread would go straight down… when i can keep the anklet on my daughter im am sure it will benefit her too
I do want to add my two cents. I have a son who was extremely fussy and began cutting teeth quite young. I personally wouldn’t feel right medicating a child at that age with substances that have been found to cause issues for children. Every pain reliever or gum number on the market that I researched was reported as causing some sort of side-effect that I am not okay with taking a chance on.
We decided on using an baltic amber necklace, after some testing of the product’s integrity. We saw improvements within days. Less drooling, less whining… We put the necklace on our son at 8 months old and have not seen an issue with it’s integrity since. I have checked for any loose beads or frays in the thread about once a month since putting it on. We never remove it, he bathes with it, sleeps with it, runs around buck naked in it… He is now 22 months and it still looks great, he is also way past the eating random things stage. He hasn’t known life without this necklace and I know it would be upsetting for him if we removed it or it broke.
Parents should take responsibility in making sure their children are safe, yes. However, there are plenty of other things that children are put through that are far worse (and riskier) than these necklaces. There is tons of research out there to support the dangers of many of them too. Whereas these necklaces do not have much research either way (other than anecdotal evidence) on their effectiveness or safety. WFM I guess.
The things I would rather see someone campaign against than a d*mn necklace are: vaccines, circumcision, feeding children junk (soda, processed foods, etc.), cry it out method, spanking, shaking babies, and removing stigmas surrounding breastfeeding, co-sleeping, midwives/doulas/homebirth and many other things that are proven to be way more beneficial to a child and the parent/child relationship than what the popular media tries to convince us of.
These necklaces should not be a target of controversy with the problems we have in how we are promoted to parent our children by mainstream media, bigpharma, the food industry and the government. Find something else to do with your time.
Nicholas,
I think my time is well spent, particularly as I approach things rationally and don’t see conspiracies everywhere.
I never said anything about conspiracies, only that industries guide us through mainstream media, which is their job. Capitalism alone has driven various industries/companies to work on conditioning people to believe whatever it is that is most profitable to their business. Anyone who blindly believes the mainstream media is not looking out for their children the way they should.
Anyhow, that is off topic as far as amber necklaces are concerned, so really no reason to debate. However, not sure how your (insinuated) attack at my “see[ing] conspiracies everywhere” gives any more discredit to amber necklaces. Rather than make an intellectual response you attempt to follow with a simple insult by gleaning what you can from my comment, how very… clever. The statement you made is more of a retort than anything, you might as well just said, “yo mama!”
Hi Graham,
I just discovered your website via this post, and I want to compliment you on your calm, polite tone in response to comments, the reasonable way you approach topics, and the discussion you facilitate. Well done.
Carly – that is hilarious! im half wondering if you are being sarcastic but sadly I really think you mean it.. Oh dear
Hi Graham, what an excellent blog. I’m amazed at how defensive parents are about the methods they think have worked for their children. The very fact that some of the babies apparently scream as soon as the necklace is taken off should tell them something, like maybe it’s become a habit for the child to wear it? I’m no expert but if this amber did release something into the baby’s system (in which case it is horrifically irresponsible to use with no evidence on what else it might be doing to the child) wouldn’t it take some time for this to work its way out of the baby’s system?
I do not believe in “respecting” all of parents choices. A parent’s choice is not some sacred, infallible thing. They can make the wrong choice and it’s not disrespect to call a bad choice a bad choice. It’s common sense.
Thanks cindel,
I agree. Frankly, I find it difficult to accept that amber releases anything at all into the child, at least in comparison with the levels of succinic acid that are already in the body. My feeling is that most of the use of these necklaces is based on magical thinking.
Parents need to realise that their choices are not some infallible thing that everyone else needs to respect. If you want to put a necklace on your child that you think is having some kind of physiological effect without proper evidence of what it is actually doing to your baby, nobody has to respect that. It’s common sense.
Angela says she first started using the necklace as soon as her baby started teething. She then has no idea whether it’s making any difference and the fact that her baby screams could be nothing more than the baby being used to the necklace and breaking the habit of wearing it upsets the baby.
I’m no expert, but if there was something in the baby’s system from this necklace wouldn’t it take some time to work its way out of the baby’s body?
In fact Angela, you say that it’s “Not something that can be proved [sic] with RCTs” but of course it could be. It could be easily studied and proven one way or another.
The fact that it hasn’t been and you use it anyway is irresponsible and nobody is under any obligation to respect an irresponsible choice that a parent makes.
cindelella – my daughter is 7 months old, shes not aware that shes wearing a necklace, if its taken off she does not scream immediately, but if she begins teething again while she is not wearing it, her screams of pain stop, and in my opinion her pain eases when its put back on. I am under no obligation to respect your opinion of my parenting which you have formed from a few comments on a blog, on the internet! nor should I take offense to it, so I don’t. Narrow minded people sit behind computers and pass judgement on things they are afraid of and people they disagree with. You have the right to your opinion however. I have the opinion that im glad my daughter is not jammed full of panadol and i have not covered her gums in bonjella because I found an alternative therapy that eases her pain. Graham for the record and in response to your question – panadol is difficult for her to swallow, she gags and we feel like we are traumatising her by forcing her to swallow it when we give it, have tried hiding it in food also and it gets spat out and there is no clear way of knowing how much of the dose she has received. we have also tried brauers teething relief which is a homeopathic formulation, using it when the symptoms are acute as well as using the necklace is what we do to ease our daughters pain. It is not irresponsible or horrific that we use amber on our child, we are both educated and doting parents. amber has been used as natural and homeopathic pain relief for centuries, there have been no RCT’s to prove that it works but generations of families must be wrong as no scientific evidence as yet exists as proof of its properties and their actions? really?
Angela, you might like to have a look at Appeals to ancient wisdom – trusting traditional trickery and Appeal to nature – the authenticity axiom to get my perspective on your argument. By the way, our grandchildren are quite happy taking childrens’ panadol liquid from a syringe.
I’m not asking you to respect my opinion. In fact I am saying the same thing, it amazes me how parents are surprised that people find their unscientific and possibly dangerous choices to be a stupid approach and think we should all just hush up and bow to their parental wisdom because it’s their “choice”.
You think you’ve found something that works for your child, but the fact that it’s untested means you are being irresponsible.
There are many generations of families in many cultures that do ineffective or damaging things to their kids based on superstition or untested pseudo science.
Also I’m sorry but what is it I’m supposed to be “afraid” of here? That some parents use remedies that are either ineffective or effective for an unknown, untested reason? Actually you’re right, that is kind of scary.
Also you used the work “homeopathic”, therefore I’m excused from engaging with you any further as you obviously have no interest in anything that can be measured or tested and would rather cure your child of ailments with new aged magic. Graham is right about the “magical thinking”.
Despite the fact that there is a million dollar prize up for grabs if someone can prove under reasonable experimental conditions that homeopathic remedies work better than a similarly administered placebo NOBODY HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT. Many have tried and it has failed 100% of tests. Homeopathy is placebo. The placebo effect is fine when talking about head colds but dangerous when people try to cure their cancer with homeopathy. Lots of people die this way, so it is not harmless.
But whatever, you do what you want with your kid buy all the homeopathy, healing magnets, power bracelets and magic water you want, it’s your money. It’s just lucky for you that you don’t care what people think.
You think I’m irresponsible – I think you are narrow minded.. Your opinion of homeopathy is laughable.. I love opinions, everyone is entitled to them and everyone has them.. I feel sorry for you actually and I’m glad my child will have the opportunity to grow up in a loving and peaceful environment where magic is encouraged and supported, where homepathic remedys are used in abundance and natural therapies are allowed, also allowed are antibiotics when they are required for infection, immunisation as essential, we are parents who read widely and think long and hard about parenting and all it’s many facets.. I will not ever dismiss a thing or begin using a thing without first finding out as much information as I can about it, discussing it with my partner and then make an informed descision…I did not blindly walk into a store and see an amber teething necklace and say
hh pretty.. and hang it around my daughters neck! Just for the record here I am a registered nurse and I often come across cancer patients who use homeopathic remedies.. You are clearly afraid of things that cannot be tested, things that cannot be proven.. in my career as a nurse I have come across many things that have no meaning, explanation or place in the world of science and medicine.When I did my degree we were encoraged to learn about homeopathics and to, in the right circumstances advocate their use to patients I have also watched medicine and science cure, and it’s a marvelous thing to see. I can see both sides of this coin.. .. Sadly there are many people who cannot.. there are religous nuts who believe the world is 4000 years old and there are science nuts who believe that homeopathic rememdies are unproven and therefore dangerous.. there are naural nuts who believe that they should put no chemical in their bodies and many harmless things are poison.. but they are all nuts.. open your mind!. . by the way I had no intention of making you bow to my parental wisdom, Im quite aware that Im human and no human is perfect, I dont claim to know it all or be the best parent who ever lived, but I believe there are things more shocking than using amber.. the fact that I use an amber teething necklace with great sucess as a remedy for teething pain on my daughter does not make me an irresponsible parent, that is has been untested does not make me irresponsible, I think parents who allow their children to suffer without treatment or continually dose with panadol are irresponsible..but once again that of course.. is my opinion…
Angela, not proven by definition means failure to provide evidence. If you can’t provide evidence more than likely it doesn’t work. Homeopathy is dangerous nonsense. It is magic. A substance is diluted so much that not even one molecule of active ingredient still exists in the water. You’re medicating with water or sugar pills. There is nothing in it. No evidence has ever been provided of homeopathy’s eficacy. If you’ve read as widely as you say you’d know this.
Why is panadol irresponsible?
Shane – http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/23/3/60/1
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/9/609.long
Paracetemol is dangerous… in the hands of a parent who does not know any better, they may inadvertently overdose a baby.. lots of babies spit it out resulting in the parent redosing, then an unkown amount of paracetemol is given. Babies teethe for days at a time, I certainly see dosing with Panadol for pain relief for more than 24 hours to be irresponsible and potentially life threatning.
I did mention that I have a nursing degree and that we were encoraged to study homeopathics briefly, so of course Im aware a lack of hard evidence exists for their eficacy. That however, does not mean I have dismissed them, placebo or not. I am not afraid of using them myself, for my family, or recommending them to a patient as a complimentary treatment. i do not believe they are dangerous. Panadol however….
Just out of interest, Angela: I accept the scientific evidence (here and here) that homeopathy is no better than a placebo. I also accept the evidence (here) that the use of homeopathy in lieu of evidence-based methods can be harmful. Does that make me a “science nut”?
from everything I have read here on your blog, i would have to say that you are a bit of a nutty scientist that has no time for the unkown, the unexplainable and the magical of the world.. therefore yes a bit of nut im sorry..you are but another extremist, In my opinion, and It is only an opinion, sometimes science does not answer everything, it is unable to, or it has not been done/proven/tested YET… I have enjoyed the debate and I truly mean no disrespect.. but those of you that cannot accept these things are as bad as the nut variety that believes the universe is 4000 years old.. Im not a believer that a cancer patient should forgo chemotherapy or radiation therapy and turn solely to homeopathy I would however not discourage that patient from using them as a complimentary therapy
Hmmm. An interesting perspective. So my stance, that claims should not be accepted unless there is supporting evidence, is, in your view, extremist and nutty, while your stance, that all opinions are equally worthy of consideration, is not?
I think having an open mind is the best way to learn and live in this world, I think steadfastly holding onto a viewpoint be it scientific, magical, religious/atheist is folly.. i’m always learning and Im always willing to think twice ..
Sounds like a recipe for wishful thinking to me Angela. Open-mindedness does not imply that any idea that comes along is just as valid as any other. Surely you must have some criteria for deciding what is realistic and what’s not? Science is absolutely based on the concept of being open-minded. All scientific models are tentative – they are regarded as being the best explanation unless evidence for a better model turns up. But simply latching on to some idea because it sounds good is indeed folly. Evidence is always the key.
oh for goodness sake! – okay im not arguing with you, im not trying to trick anyone into beliving something they are against!! you really sound a bit like a nut job now! and I had you pegged as fairly intelligent! Graham, every child is different, Panadol comes with a syringe and of course thats how we have tried to give it, she struggles, wails, goes red in the face and spits it out.. incidently we give her the brauers teething relief in exactly the same syringe and she has no problem swallowing that. Im not going to traumatise my child and force her to swallow it unless she has a fever and needs panadol as an antipyretic. Im not going to waste anymore time here, You are never going to change your views on amber, I really hope a scientist does an RCT on the efficacy of succinic acid as a pain reliever soon so there is some evidence for all of us “irresponsible” parents
Good day and peace to you and yours
I’m sure many of us would change our position on amber for two reasons:
1. Efficacy – if it could actually been shown to work.
2. If it wasn’t in the form of a choking hazard.
Exactly Shane.
I just want to know: In exactly what way do you believe it is a choking hazard.. details please
Assuming you’re not kidding, small beads on a string for starters and if the string is strong enough it is a strangulation hazard.
well that proves that you have not actually had anything to do with an amber teething necklace in the flesh. Each individual bead is individually knotted so if in the case that the necklace snaps beads do not go flying.. Im not sure about others but I am not in the habit of leaving my 7 month old daughter alone long enough for her to swallow the necklace or try to choke on it for that matter.. as far as a strangulation hazard, once again, I cannot speak for others, but she is always with me, I do not leave her alone long enough to give her the opportunity to strangle herself. By the way the individual knotting I think you will find is standard with almost every brand of amber teething necklace sold, i know myself I did quite a bit of hunting around to find the best quality one I could find. You cannot pass judgement on the risk of something that you have not physically or scientifically if you please, tested yourself or can provide evidence of being tested by another.
Angela,
I can’t speak for shaggeroz, but I’m very relieved to hear that you don’t leave the necklace on while your daughter is sleeping or away from supervision. That reduces the risk significantly.
Fascinating reading. Scary at times. I am sitting with a cranky baby in my arms, periodically offering a sliver of ice (boiled before frozen, contained in a munchkin mesh…before anyone gets upset) to soothe his gums. Amber necklaces is a bit of craze in my neck of the woods, but I have been cynical so thought I would do a bit of research before purchasing one. And what a minefield! Parenting issues are always emotive I suppose. I appreciate Graham’s measured response to some outrageously fallacious claims made by those furiously defending their stance. Do people who will not consider any other views contrary to their own actively seek out posts like this? Most curious how they end up here…
While I am aware that science has its limitations (just because there is no proof of the necklace’s efficacy doesn’t mean that there is no effect, good or bad) I shall keep my $30 and carry on with the hard work of getting my boy through teething without the amber beads. My decision is based on the fact that there are some obvious, if unlikely, risks and no proven benefit.
I hope you won’t mind if I say that you are sensibly skeptical, but not cynical, haadijames. I admire your decision and hope that your son is over the worst of it soon.