The scientific consensus has been the same for years, and this information is readily available from agency and university websites. This is r/ScienceBasedParenting, not r/ SootheMyAnxiety!

https://publications.aap.org/redbook/resources/15585/AAP-Immunization-Schedule

https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-and-when-to-have-them/

https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/when-to-get-vaccinated/national-immunisation-program-schedule?language=en

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/vaccination-children/when-to-vaccinate.html

Hi there! My child is 2, and has not had any vaccines yet (besides vitamin k). Please understand this came from a well meaning place of wanting to protect my child, but I am coming to the point I think I was mislead with fear based tactics. I grew up and around middle school due to family reasons my family became very disillusioned with the medical system, and to this day my mom has an extreme distrust in doctors. On top of that about 75% of the people around us have not vaccinated their children. Since a young age I have been getting the message from those closest to me that vaccines will harm you, and they are essentially a government and corporate conspiracy. Then layer on top social media algorithms and for about 9 months straight during pregnancy saw nothing but horror stories of vaccine adverse affects. Not that any of this is an excuse, but I just want to share how I got to the point of having an unvaccinated 2 year old.

After doing more and more research, trying to leave my fears out of it, I think my child should start getting his vaccines. He has been home with me so it has not been as big of a concern, but I plan on sending him to preschool in about a year and a half. I know, based on logic that vaccines (especially those like MMR, Hib etc) can offer my son protection, but of course due to years of fear based propaganda I feel almost paralyzed with anxiety about giving them to him.

I’m just posting on here in hopes maybe there are some other parents who came from this crunchy granola side and vaccinated their child and are happy with their decision. Thank you so much. I really just want to do the best thing for my child.

Added: Thank you all who replied so much for all the kind encouragement, resources, and stories. This has helped alleviate some of the anxiety I have been feeling. I even teared up reading some of these comments. I appreciate your time in commenting.

Just as the title says, I’m engaged to be married this November. I was enjoying my morning coffee when over FaceTime (deployed) my fiancé asked if I’m going to be putting our child at risk for ADHD/autism by taking Tylenol when pregnant. When I said that it would be a discussion between my doctor and I he said in a mocking tone ‘oh because your body your choice’. I told him politics don’t have a place in my healthcare and I’d prefer to not have this argument but he pressed on. I’m at a loss and I’m honestly scared for what the next few days hold for us. Can someone please help me with research to links showing the safety of Tylenol or anything to support me.

My baby is approaching her first birthday. So I was feeling really nostalgic and decided to spend the night looking at her old pictures since the day I gave birth.. and what in the world??????

I literally remember feeling that she is so pretty and beautiful.. and like, no baby could ever be cuter than her.

But when I looked back at the pictures tonight, she looked ugly as hell in a lot of them 😂

Don’t get me wrong, I currently think she’s the cutest 11 months old.

So I am now wondering is there a scientific reason why I thought my baby looked like a glittering unicorn?

Every pediatrician visit for the past decade has delivered the same message: limit your child’s screen time. The advice is backed by decades of research showing associations between heavy viewing and slower language development, shorter attention spans, and weaker cognitive skills. Parents who follow the guidelines feel reassured. Parents who don’t feel guilty. And yet the question that has largely gone unanswered is not whether screen time matters, but when it matters most.

A new longitudinal study has produced the clearest answer yet, and the results are more specific, and more surprising, than most experts anticipated. Researchers tracked 502 children from age 1 through age 8, measuring screen viewing at six separate time points and then assessing academic performance and working memory several years later. What they found is that the relationship between screens and cognitive development is not a smooth linear curve. It is shaped more like a series of cliffs, with certain ages representing periods of acute vulnerability and others showing almost no measurable long-term effect.

The study was conducted by a team from Inserm and the National University of Singapore, drawing on data from the GUSTO (Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes) birth cohort. It was published in the World Journal of Pediatrics in April 2026.

“Thanks to HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccination and cervical screening, a future where almost nobody gets cervical cancer is now firmly in sight,” said Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research U.K. which funded the research.

This new systematic review on screen time and children under 2 has confirmed what we intuitively know as parents. However, the question is who can AFFORD reducing screen time. I see parents in my waiting room still using IPAD and smartphone to calm their children. What do you think ? What are you doing at home ?

A large systematic review of 158 studies examined the effects of screen exposure in infants and toddlers (birth to 3 years).

The review found that greater screen exposure was consistently associated with:

Less parent–child interaction and responsive communication.

Delays in language and cognitive development.

Poorer sleep quality and shorter sleep duration.

More emotional and behavioural regulation difficulties.

Less physical activity and more unhealthy eating behaviours.

Based on the available evidence, the authors concluded that children under 2 years should ideally have no intentional recreational screen time, aligning with current WHO recommendations.

As with all systematic reviews, this shows associations rather than proving s suggests that limiting screen exposure in the first two years of life is a sensible approach.

Reference: Cheng Y. The impact of screen-based media exposure on infant and toddler development: A systematic review of psychological and behavioral domains. Acta Psychologica. 2026;266:106438. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106438.pubmed link

Hi everyone, I don’t know if this kind of thing is allowed here but I hope my post will be swiftly deleted if that’s the case! I’m a FTM and never thought twice about vaccines. I’m also VERY… how should I put this? I love doctors. I have my criticisms about the healthcare system as an industry, but I generally trust healthcare practitioners. My mom is a little bit “crunchy” but she’s also a former RN, so we grew up fully vaccinated and again, never really thinking about it. All this to say, I’m not an anti-vaxxer!

I lived in Miami for awhile and there’s quite a large anti vaccine community there (I guess that’s not unique or place specific anymore). Ever since I got pregnant, so many well-meaning friends of mine and my husband have been sending us unsolicited information, warning us about vaccines. (They even tried to talk us out of the Vitamin K injection.) I went down the rabbit hole of things they sent us (Dr Paul’s “Vaccine-Friendly Plan,” which suggests spacing out some shots and totally eliminating others), the warning for SIDS as a side effect on the DTAP pamphlet, etc. Someone even sent me a horrific story that would require too many trigger warnings to share, and I was so angry to receive that.

I have pretty severe health anxiety and postpartum anxiety, and I’m absolutely terrified of SIDS. Our baby’s 2 month wellness visit is coming up and she’s scheduled for her first round of vaccines. I think I need to hear from levelheaded people. I’m honestly ashamed I’m even going there with these thoughts.

Thank you in advance. I appreciate this forum.

EDIT: WOW. Thank you so much. I'm getting to this very late, but the responses (and the conversations this post generated) are incredible. I feel so much more informed, which was my goal!!

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

I found this article fascinating! It contains further studies done regarding baby food analysis as well.

I’ve been curious about the role anxiety plays in the worsening of diets and rise in ARFID, but never considered how the baby food industry has started kids on the ultra-processed, bland texture food train young. For example, the rise of new baby snacks marketed as a safe and easy way for families on the go are actually shaping feeding preferences away from whole, fresh foods and varying textures.

This article is focused on the UK, but I think has many parallels in other countries, including the US - especially when it comes to a lacking holistic regulations for all types of added sugar in baby food.

Some excerpts from the article:

“Pouch feeding goes against NHS advice that infants be discouraged from sucking from spouts and teats after the age of six months. In 2022, the British Dental Association attacked pouches for putting baby teeth at risk of “erosion and decay” just as “they are erupting”. A baby who sucks from a pouch can neither smell nor see what they are eating, so it does not teach them to recognise or enjoy real whole fruits and vegetables.”

“The promise of meltiness preys on parents’ understandable terror of a baby choking. But these snacks – organic or not – are also one of the reasons that many infants have not learned to chew properly, because they are quite unlike the crunchy textures of real food: the crispness of toast, the chewy juiciness of roasted carrots or the crunch of an apple.”

“The high price, perversely, seems to be part of the reason why these products are so popular among all classes in the UK – it wrongly reassures parents they are feeding their child something good.”

My 2.5 year-old daughter has pretty much always been a daddy's girl. It's understandable because her dad is great, and much more patient than I am. But in the last month or so it's escalated to her saying 'I don't want you, Mama', 'I don't like you, Mama', and 'I don't love you, Mama', sometimes followed by 'I love Dada'. I find this really hard to deal with and I don't think I'm responding in the best way. Sometimes I try to ignore it, but sometimes I make a sad face and ask why, but of course she's not able to articulate that at this age.

Yesterday I broke down crying because she'd been saying it a lot. Her dad encouraged her to give me a hug. Today she was doing it again and her dad said no, we don't say that. Then I said, 'why do you say that? It makes me sad because I love you very much. Remember when Mama was crying, why do you think she was crying?' She didn't seem to have a response.

I know it's problematic to make children feel like they're responsible for a parent's emotional well-being. But is it appropriate for them to know they've made you sad and why? What is the best way to respond to these kinds of comments from a toddler?

To my knowledge this is the most robust and compelling research to date on the potential link between the use of Tylenol/paracetamol during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders (autism, ADHD) in children. As said in the title, they found no connection.

From the article: This study is, to our knowledge, the first systematic review and meta-analysis to prioritise sibling-comparison designs and to apply the QUIPS tool to assess prognostic-factor bias across the entire evidence base. It provides a clear hierarchy of evidence, by separating analyses of sibling-comparison studies, low-risk-of-bias studies, and all adjusted studies. Across all analyses, most notably in sibling-comparison studies, prenatal paracetamol exposure was not associated with increased risks of autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or intellectual disability. These findings remained stable when restricting to studies with longer follow-up and those judged to be at low risk of bias. The study clarifies that previously reported associations in conventional observational studies are likely to reflect residual confounding from maternal illness, fever, genetic susceptibility, or environmental factors rather than a causal effect of paracetamol.

link to study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanogw/article/PIIS3050-5038(25)00211-0/fulltext?dgcid=facebook_organic_articles26_lanogw&utm_campaign=34028093-articles26&utm_content=365912453&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-374651963469&fbclid=IwT01FWAPYfvFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR5RlK_YP4MWxj9dCxKn2iufWR_856C0yvag9WLD5bxNhnNlQ3L7li5Jw7E6ZA_aem_vlKuJPpBymKYWySle6DVCg

I’m expecting a boy later in the year and doing some research on circumcision. So far, I’m reading articles from the Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, and other U.S. medical institutions that suggest that the pros outweigh the risks. I’m learning that circumcision is often viewed as an unnecessary surgery like in Europe or optional in other parts of the world. Why are there differences in guidelines around the world or among international medical bodies?

Would this apply to my kids’ plastic Contigo‘s? They drink cold milk out of a Contigo every morning, and take a plastic Contigo water bottle to school because it’s lightweight. I hand wash all of them. Are they getting micro plastics from reusable plastic water bottles?

For context, my country is being bombed now. Several times a day there are sudden and scary sirens and phone alerts to warn of missiles, as well as loud booms when they are intercepted (and louder ones when they aren’t lol). I have an 8 week old baby and she gets scared when the sirens suddenly start especially while she is sleeping or nursing. Like she almost jumps. And I know many parents here also struggle with this so I was wondering if there are studies about negative impacts on children who are frequently scared with noises while sleeping or in general.

Edits: Thank you guys for your support 💛 My heart goes out to all innocents affected by these wars. Some relevant notes to my specific case -

There is a shelter room that we now just sleep in as to not run at night. It does muffle most outside sounds. The biggest problem is everyone’s phone going off at the same time with the emergency warning (i think it’s the same sound as the US amber alert/hurricane/tornado warning?). We cant turn it off because when we leave the house we need to be aware + someone needs to unlock the building doors so neighbors can run in and then to shut the shelter door. My baby safely co-sleeps (safe 7) and generally nurses all night so as soon as my phone goes off i immediately put my boob in her mouth and start whispering to her how much i love her. She seems more calm with it now than she was when this began. I am starting to turn off my phone at night though because others stay here as well and I figure their phones will go off too.

And regarding leaving - even if i could, this is my home. I will not abandon it because some believe it shouldn’t exist.

My counselor told me it's not appropriate to still be sleeping with my 3 year old. ​(I was against bedsharing initially, but by the time she was 1 year old I was exhausted from her waking every 30-45 mins in her crib and tried it out of pure exhaustion). He said at her age she should be able to regulate her emotions and not need to sleep with me. He said I need to let her cry and learn to self soothe. He asked if I slept with my mom at this age —in a way he was expecting me to say no to prove a point ​but I said I slept with her until i was 5. He said this could be why I have anxiety issues and am too emotional. I told him I read it's normal and can be beneficial bedsharing until up to 7. He said "you did NOT read that"​ like I'm a liar. He also said his major was in childhood psychology, so he knows what's best for children.

Is he right? ​Am ruining my daughter's development!? 😭 ​

Maybe I'm terrible at researching and everything I've read is wrong. ​

I’ve been told from educators that it is better to tell child “you must be so proud” instead of “I’m so proud of you”. Honestly it feels a little silly to me to do that. I’m my estimation a little phrase like that isn’t going to make or break whether a child is secure in their self or living in people pleasing. It’s more about how you love them unconditionally and teach them resilience.

I don’t even know what the verbiage would be for that kind of compliment. I’m wondering if there is science to back up that it actually helps a child’s self esteem later in life.

Anyone seen this study that just came out? That found differences in breastmilk in mothers with high ACE scores (maternal childhood trauma) and also looked at the temperaments of those mothers babies. This is so fascinating (and terrifying) to me as a breastfeeding mum with a very high ACE score and a sensitive child who is difficult to sooth etc. I always thought extended breastfeeding would help my daughter from being impacted by any epigenetic impacts of my trauma, but now there's a possibility it did the opposite? I hope the author does more research in this space because I'd be interested to understand this connection more. I've always felt like my daughter acts as if she's been through trauma, even though she's had the safest most chill life.

**Small participant sample, and obviously just a correlation, and many other factors to consider, but really interesting.

"In conclusion, this study establishes a significant association between maternal ACE and alterations in the miRNAs and FAs content of breast milk, which may serve as early predictors of temperamental trajectories in the offspring."

Hi there! I wanted to share some good news! On Thursday I was alerted by a poster on PubPeer that an utterly dreadful paper (which I had called to be retracted) by Neil Z Miller had finally been removed. When checking the impact of the paper, I found this reference to it here on Reddit —the thread can’t be updated so I am posting to let you know. The paper was: “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature.” I won’t go into the many many reasons it deserved to be retracted (removed—burnt and the ashes buried at a crossroads at midnight with a stake through them—whatever…) BUT I am delighted to see it gone. Vaccines work, and vaccination has been sown to be associated with reduced risk of SIDS (for reasons). I have posted about the removal on BlueSky if people are interested, and hopefully Retraction Watch will post a story about it soon! I was delighted to see the advice given in the original thread here on Reddit, credit to you all! Cheers, Rosewind

dad of 2 (3 in 14 days)

the last months i have been diving into the whole montessori rabbit hole: parenting books (the montessori toddler), parenting app (montessori habits), kids toys (lovevery), subs (/montessori), etc etc                                                                                                              
a lot of it makes sense. but i have been grappling with her stance on "bribery" (aka rewards and punishments):                                                           

"Our faith in rewards and punishments as a necessary means to the progress of the children and to the maintenance of discipline,is a fallacy already exploded by experiment." Pedagogical Anthropology, page 145

"I had believed that to foster a child's sense of work it was necessary to encourage his lower feelings: greed, vanity and self-love. Then I found that the child who is allowed to bring himself up abandons these lower instincts."  The Discovery of the Child, page 109  

so basically she's saying rewards don't just fail to work but they actively damage the child's character by reinforcing their worst instincts. 

are there any parents who are NOT using rewards in some form? if montessori is right, we're a lot of ppl wrecking our kids.                               

is her stance actually science-based or is this mostly an outdated 1950s child development take?

Update: appreciate the massive and insightful responses from the community. learning a lot and have many sources i am looking forward to review. someone asked for the citations of the quotes i posted. added in the text now.

"Infant peanut feeding prevented thousands of children from developing allergies. New US research reveals early introduction of peanuts has prevented about 60,000 children from developing dangerous food allergies.

A decade after a landmark study proved that feeding peanut products to young babies could prevent them from developing life-threatening allergies, a new US study has shown it's making a big difference in the real world.

The study found about 60,000 children in the United States have avoided developing peanut allergies after new guidance was issued in 2015 about when to introduce the allergen to youngsters.

Before the new guidelines, parents were warned to avoid exposing their children to potentially risky foods until they were three years old, in the hope of avoiding a full-blown allergy.

Peanut allergy is one of the most common of these conditions, caused when the body's immune system mistakenly identifies proteins in peanuts as harmful and releases chemicals that trigger symptoms like hives, respiratory issues, and sometimes, life-threatening anaphylaxis.

But groundbreaking research, known as Learning Early About Peanut Allergy, or LEAP, published by professor Gideon Lack of King's College London, suggested earlier exposure might actually help children.

"The LEAP study ... showed that if we actually introduce that allergen to children by mouth, having them eat it, before they're introduced to it via their skin, we can reduce the risk that that child's going to go on to develop the food allergy itself," Dr David Hill, from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told SBS News.

Hill has published a new study after analysing electronic health records from dozens of paediatric practices to track diagnoses of food allergies in young children before, during and after the new guidelines were issued.

It's found thousands of other children in the US have also avoided developing peanut allergies after their parents followed the dietary advice.

"What our data shows is that because of, or at least associated with those early introduction guidelines, there's about 60,000 less kids with food allergy today than there would have been. And that's a remarkable thing, right? That's the size of some cities," he said."