Amber necklace for teething baby

Kaz2904

I was commenting on the article and (well meant to). You also have to heat gold and copper to melt it down but have still both got proven benefits from wearing against arthritic joints. It's not a million miles from this to believe that amber works too is it?

MandM90

bigmomma051204 wrote: »

I agree that it is each to their own etc..... BUT i notice nobody has responded to the article that GinghamR posted and in particular responded to the point i highlighted. If science tells us without doubt that unless a substance (in this case Amber) is heated to a particular temperature (in this case 200 degrees C) then no volatiles will come out, HOW can it be feasible within the laws of nature that when you pop an amber bracelet onto your child whose temp will be no more than about 37 degrees C that "oils" or anything else will come out and therefore produce an analgesic effect......

Anyone? Don't get me wrong, i can understand wanting to clutch at straws and i am all for trying anything once but for me, the science wins out here

And even if something could seep out, a quick google of salicyclic acid (supposedly the 'active ingredient') returns some worrying safety implications. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it safe. Would you feed your children a strange looking plant you found growing by the side of the road, just because it doesn't come in a package? Natural =/= safe. And I wouldn't put something around a babies neck.

Then again, as parents we all make our own decisions and risk assessments. If someone feels that an anklet helps their child with pain, fair enough. Frozen fruit and teething rings were fine for mine. Whilst teething is hard on us mums, the guilt of an accident due to a tangled necklace would be horrific so if I were to ever invest in something like this (doubtful!) I'd only ever get the anklet.

Chances are it is fine but if you don't know how it works or what seeps out of it how on Earth can you judge people who've used painkillers (the effects of which have been extensively researched). Just a thought.

MandM90

Kaz2904 wrote: »

I was commenting on the article and (well meant to). You also have to heat gold and copper to melt it down but have still both got proven benefits from wearing against arthritic joints. It's not a million miles from this to believe that amber works too is it?

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/10October/Pages/Copper-bracelets-and-arthritis.aspx

Redouble

MandM90 wrote: »

And even if something could seep out, a quick google of salicyclic acid (supposedly the 'active ingredient') returns some worrying safety implications. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it safe. Would you feed your children a strange looking plant you found growing by the side of the road, just because it doesn't come in a package? Natural =/= safe. And I wouldn't put something around a babies neck.

Then again, as parents we all make our own decisions and risk assessments. If someone feels that an anklet helps their child with pain, fair enough. Frozen fruit and teething rings were fine for mine. Whilst teething is hard on us mums, the guilt of an accident due to a tangled necklace would be horrific so if I were to ever invest in something like this (doubtful!) I'd only ever get the anklet.

Chances are it is fine but if you don't know how it works or what seeps out of it how on Earth can you judge people who've used painkillers (the effects of which have been extensively researched). Just a thought.

No one judged those using painkillers (I think one person mentioned them and said they personally would rather use the necklace)

To be frank, you are the one judging. The tone of your post is patronising (your clutching at straws comment in particular) and rude. To suggest those of us who use these would feed our child a strange plant from the side of the road... Thats a tad mean and more than a tad insulting...

I have a medicine cabinet with all the 'recommended' remedies for everything but I also dabble in alternative remedies as and when I see fit.
I would not, ever, in a million years put my child at risk. You may think I am, but I have risk assessed it and am happy. That is what is important. I would never dream of saying everyone should use them, we do what we think is best for our children.

(and on an aside, with regards to painkillers having been extensively researched, I'm not so sure. There are always new studies coming out showing the dangers of paracetamol, and I remember not too long ago we were told bonjela was dangerous for babies. Now again I will say that I use these products, when I feel they are necessary, but they are not definitely and absolutely totally safe. Now I am not saying that therefore these necklaces are, just pointing out that the 'norm' isn't always without issues. )

We all make choices and decisions as parents, yours are neither better nor more safe than mine. They are just what work for you and your family and what you judge to be the best for you, as mine are what work for me, my husband and my children.

Teenie_D

Redouble wrote: »

No one judged those using painkillers (I think one person mentioned them and said they personally would rather use the necklace)

To be frank, you are the one judging. The tone of your post is patronising and rude. I have a medicine cabinet with all the 'recommended' remedies for everything and I also dabble in alternative remedies.
I would not, ever, in a million years put my child at risk. You may think I am, but I have risk assessed it and am happy. That is what is important. I would never dream of saying everyone should use them, we do what we think is best for our children.

(and on an aside, with regards to painkillers having been extensively researched, I'm not so sure. There are always new studies coming out showing the dangers of paracetamol, and I remember not too long ago we were told bonjela was dangerous for babies. Now again I will say that I use these products, when I feel they are necessary, but they are not definitely and absolutely totally safe. Now I am not saying that therefore these necklaces are, just pointing out that the 'norm' isn't always without issues.

We all make choices and decisions as parents, yours are neither better nor more safe than mine. They are just what work for you and your family and what you judge to be the best for you, as mine are what work for me, my husband and my children.

Thank you, yep that was me and I did start replying to the poster but deleted it as I shouldn't have to explain myself to people who will never agree that alternative remedies just may help, but I never once said that people shouldn't use painkillers, as I said I use them if absolutely necessary but I don't need to use them that often because the amber works

People (especially doctors) will always be sceptical about natural remedies and hey that's fine but in my experience a good lot of them work for us and tbh that's all I care about, doing what I think is the best for my children

Kaz2904

MandM90 wrote: »

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/10October/Pages/Copper-bracelets-and-arthritis.aspx

I stand corrected on the copper then. How about the gold? A few years ago, I had a patient who was being given "gold injections" (their words). Presumably they've been proven inefficient too now?
I'm obviously year out of date with this because I've not looked into it for ages.

Kaz2904

Teenie_D wrote: »

People (especially doctors) will always be sceptical about natural remedies.......

*snipped*
You'd be surprised! The medical profession is getting a lot more advanced with it's recognition of natural remedies. They are looking back to more 'oldstyle techniques' in a lot of areas

onlyroz

barbiedoll wrote: »

I thought that they were for babies to chew on as well....I was horrified that mums were giving their babies beads to chew, an obvious choking hazard etc etc.

So basically, babies wear a necklace or bracelet made with amber beads and it magically stops teething problems......how does that work then?

Sorry, but..........:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I agree. Sounds like a load of cobblers to me

I am astounded that a parent would rather believe anecdotal evidence from dubious sources rather than even attempt to look at genuine scientific studies. There is no way I would let a baby wear a necklace and surely any sane parent would agree that this is an extremely dangerous practice.

Redouble

Ah now we're insane :cool:
Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows how to be respectful in their replies in this place.

I am genuinely upset by the flippant disregard for people's feelings and choices.

I wouldn't dream of being so rude about others. I enjoy a debate, and I enjoy learning new things and hearing peoples opinions, but I strongly dislike being called stupid (not in as many words but the implication is there), and insane etc.

Whatever happened to treating others as you would like to be treated?

MandM90

Kaz2904 wrote: »

I stand corrected on the copper then. How about the gold? A few years ago, I had a patient who was being given "gold injections" (their words). Presumably they've been proven inefficient too now?
I'm obviously year out of date with this because I've not looked into it for ages.

I have absolutely no idea about the medical properties of gold but gold injections sound scary to me :eek:

I didn't mean to sound patronising in my previous post but to be honest I'm sick of the 'natural is always better' brigade and I do feel uneasy about putting something around a babies neck; I know when my DD was young I couldn't keep an eye on her every second of every day and that would worry me. As I've said before I don't believe natural always means safe, fair enough if you want to put necklaces on your babies but, as a scientist, excuse me if I'm overly sceptical about anecdotal "evidence".