3 ms·

Looks super quacky. US cot deaths have also massively declined, and the trajectory of the decline matches up with the uptake of back sleeping for infants. http

Looks super quacky. US cot deaths have also massively declined, and the trajectory of the decline matches up with the uptake of back sleeping for infants. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many...

snuxoll 9y ago
Every time I see a picture online or in-person of a baby laying in a crib with a blanket, stuffed animal and a crib bumper I want to smack them. For as much as the rate of SIDS has declined, there is still many more parents out there who are ill-informed or ignorant about safe sleep of their child. I have seen people spend money on these Angelcare monitors while doing one or more of the above, it's insane!
m_mueller 9y ago
1.) SIDS still occurs at a rate of around 0.5 in 1000 in the Western world [1]. To compare, the probability of death in a traffic related accident over an 80 year lifespan is 0.85 in 1000 in the US. So it's still far from negligible. 2.) Sprott has at least a hypothesis to explain the correlation between back sleeping and decline in SIDS. His skeptics on the other hand have no explanation for why there is no confirmed case of SIDS for wrapped mattresses, other than it being a statistical fluke. That may be the case, but why is no-one investigating? 3.) Compare the SIDS rate of Japan and Asian Americans to Europe / European Americans. Why has it always been lower? Genetic prevalence? Bedding culture? It seems simple enough to do much more statistical studies on this, but when searching for it there seems to be a very low depth of knowledge. To put it differently, what you're saying is quite close to "hey, we've figured out traffic related deaths, and it's all solved with safety belts and air bags, case closed, QED". Calling something quacky because of the journal is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. If someone's research stands on its own then it doesn't matter where it's published, it could as well be Arxiv - if not, then it should be easy enough to disprove based on facts. [1] https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/ https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/
- cjbprime 9y ago
  Honest question re 2): are there current confirmed cases of SIDS for back sleeping babies with no foreign objects in their crib? The NPR article I linked mentions that the current 0.5 rate is considered to be due to ignorance/non-compliance with safe sleeping policy.
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    At least I'm not aware of one. I find the amount of information on this topic overall quite thin. I get the feeling that prevention based medical research, without a background of commercialisation (i.e. drugs or treatments), isn't getting too much attention/funding overall, at least compared to its potential benefits.

snuxoll 9y ago

Every time I see a picture online or in-person of a baby laying in a crib with a blanket, stuffed animal and a crib bumper I want to smack them. For as much as the rate of SIDS has declined, there is still many more parents out there who are ill-informed or ignorant about safe sleep of their child. I have seen people spend money on these Angelcare monitors while doing one or more of the above, it's insane!

m_mueller 9y ago

1.) SIDS still occurs at a rate of around 0.5 in 1000 in the Western world [1]. To compare, the probability of death in a traffic related accident over an 80 year lifespan is 0.85 in 1000 in the US. So it's still far from negligible. 2.) Sprott has at least a hypothesis to explain the correlation between back sleeping and decline in SIDS. His skeptics on the other hand have no explanation for why there is no confirmed case of SIDS for wrapped mattresses, other than it being a statistical fluke. That may be the case, but why is no-one investigating? 3.) Compare the SIDS rate of Japan and Asian Americans to Europe / European Americans. Why has it always been lower? Genetic prevalence? Bedding culture? It seems simple enough to do much more statistical studies on this, but when searching for it there seems to be a very low depth of knowledge. To put it differently, what you're saying is quite close to "hey, we've figured out traffic related deaths, and it's all solved with safety belts and air bags, case closed, QED". Calling something quacky because of the journal is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. If someone's research stands on its own then it doesn't matter where it's published, it could as well be Arxiv - if not, then it should be easy enough to disprove based on facts. [1] https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/ https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/

cjbprime 9y ago
Honest question re 2): are there current confirmed cases of SIDS for back sleeping babies with no foreign objects in their crib? The NPR article I linked mentions that the current 0.5 rate is considered to be due to ignorance/non-compliance with safe sleeping policy.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  At least I'm not aware of one. I find the amount of information on this topic overall quite thin. I get the feeling that prevention based medical research, without a background of commercialisation (i.e. drugs or treatments), isn't getting too much attention/funding overall, at least compared to its potential benefits.