So fevers aren’t to be feared?

I love this kind of stuff -- debunking accepted wisdom. Here’s how “What to Expect: The Toddler Years,” puts it: “It appears that higher body temperatures help the immune system to fight infection and that some microorganisms are unable to thrive at these elevated temperatures.” Even temperatures as high as 106 do no permanent damage, the authors quote scientists as saying. Fevers, they say, are a way for the body to protect itself.

Our 1-year-old has had fever spikes lately, and it’s startling to see those numbers rise above 100. But it’s reassuring to know body reacts on its own to a virus, even if we reach immediately for the Children’s Tylenol. “What to Expect,” for example, goes on to say that fever may lower iron levels, “while increasing the invaders’ need for that mineral – in effect, starving them.” Fascinating. There’s more, so read up.

This seems to be part of a trend. It’s like the rediscovery of the swaddle for babies. Or people realizing the benefits of breast milk over formula. It’s as if we’ve had a collective recognition of “oh, yeah, this stuff is there for a reason.”

This is not an argument to ignore a kid’s temperature (and there are exceptions, such as heat illness, to this). Clearly, there’s something going on the when the numbers rise. But what’s misplaced is the automatic alarm I grew up with about fevers. I always assumed that once a fever hits, then you’re really sick. Turns out the opposite might be true.

> Please comment