co-sleeping and SIDS

(Cathy Weeks) wrote in message . com...
(Joshua Levy) wrote in message om...
Last week you said you were going to find studies showing that co-sleeping
was as safe as not co-sleeping. From your more recent posts, I guess
you haven't even been able to find one.

Actually, I haven't had the time.

Too bad.

I'm not going to reply to your paragraphs where you claim that you
know more about co-sleeping than all the researchers who publish
co-sleeping papers, and the editors of all the medical journals
that publish them, and all the peer-reviewers that review them.
That's just farce.

But I do want to respond to the two paragraphs were you actually
discuss the studies.

For example: They relied on data that was REPORTED to the CPSC. So
only the deaths that someone decided to pick up the phone and call
them. What about all the deaths that no one reported to them?

What about them? Specifically, how do they make the study flawed?
Sure, it means that not all co-sleeping deaths were counted, but it
also means that not all cot sleeping deaths were counted, either.
Do you think there is some bias, where cot-sleepers would not report
deaths to the CPSC, while co-sleepers would? Actually, I think the
reverse: most people associate cots with the CPSC, and would report
deaths there to them, while more people in bed would not. But that
is just my opinion.

In the larger sense you are mixing up experimental improvements
(which improve a study) with experimental flaws (which make a study
bad). Counting every death in a country would make the study better
than it is (more data: better study), but unless you can show some
bias to the way data was collected, it doesn't make the stuy flawed.

I pointed out one above. And several people pointed out specific
problems. You chose to ignore them. One of them studied only
African-Americans. One relied on a passive data stream, and was in
clear conflict-of-interest. NONE look at the total number of babies
who co-sleep vs one who sleep in cribs.
Is that specific enough for you?

It's specific enough to see your "problems" don't really exist, except
in your own mind. I'll discuss them one by one:

"One of them studied only African-Americans"
No. One of them studied "urban populations", but it was not limited
to African-Americans. But what if it had? That would mean that it
would apply very well to African-Americans, certainly. But that is
no reason for others to ignore it (unless there is some bias built
in). As it is, this study is very powerful for the urban populations
that it focused on, and at the same time there is no reason for the
rest of us to ignore it.

"One relied on a passive data stream"
It relied on reports to the govenment, and these reports were not
legally required. So what? What bias or error did this create?
Lots of studies are done this way. Especially studies of equipment
like cots and beds.

.... "was in clear conflict-of-interest"
None of the authors of this paper had a conflict-of-interest.
None worked for a cot maker, a bed maker, a furniture maker, etc.
Two worked for a government agency (Consumer Product Safety
Commission) and one for a university (St Louis University School
of Medicine). The idea that an agency that regulates cot makers
would be biased in favor of cot makers, is nothing short of silly!
Is The ATF biased in favor of gun makers or wineries? Of course
not, if anything it is biased against them.

All of your comments above focused on two of the studies. Did
the other four disappear? Or just become politically suspect?

You also like to make fun of Dr. Sears...but have you actually gone to
his site and read what he has to say about SIDS? Or read his book
(now very outdated, unfortunately)? Or do you just discount him out
of hand because he doesn't support your side of things?

I have read one of his books and parts of his web page.
I also looked specifically for any peer-reviewed study he has published.
As far as I can tell he has never published any peer reviewed research.
If you think he has, cite it.

Think about that for a moment. You want a study which compares your
ideal co-sleepers to non co-sleeping kids. Dr. Sears has records
for all his patients, many of whom will be co-sleeping according the
exactly the standards you want. Right? Dr. Sears has has this information
for YEARS, maybe over a decade. Yet he has never published it.
It would be the perfect support for his books, showing that his
patients had a lower than expected SIDS rate.

As for the research he cites: the co-sleeping safety page I read on
his web site contained four cites. ALL were old. All were published
before 2000. Three of them were done by people from the same research
lab (McKenna's lab). NONE of these studies included children who died
of SIDS. I'm not making that up! As far as I can tell 3/4 of Dr. Sears's
"research" claiming that co-sleeping lowers the chance of SIDS did not
involve children who died of SIDS at all! The fourth study was over 17
years old, and I haven't followed up on it.

Joshua Levy

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message . com...

I'm not going to reply to your paragraphs where you claim that you
know more about co-sleeping than all the researchers who publish
co-sleeping papers, and the editors of all the medical journals
that publish them, and all the peer-reviewers that review them.
That's just farce.

You are correct. It's a farce that I claimed that. I see that you
attempt to divert attention from points I tried to make, one of which
is: Why don't you feel comfortable criticising research?

For example: They relied on data that was REPORTED to the CPSC. So
only the deaths that someone decided to pick up the phone and call
them. What about all the deaths that no one reported to them?

What about them? Specifically, how do they make the study flawed?
Sure, it means that not all co-sleeping deaths were counted, but it
also means that not all cot sleeping deaths were counted, either.
Do you think there is some bias, where cot-sleepers would not report
deaths to the CPSC, while co-sleepers would?

No, I'm not claiming bias. I'm claiming that the collection method
isn't and cannot be accurate. MAYBE the co-sleeping death rate *is*
higher than their report. Maybe not. But how can anyone assume it's
accurate?

All of your comments above focused on two of the studies. Did
the other four disappear? Or just become politically suspect?

No. I've already said I haven't had time. I will get to this as I do
have time. Unlike you, I work in a full-time job, and am a parent as
well. I gave some examples, and the lack of other examples shouldn't
be taken to mean I am ignoring them. My next step is to get the
full-text of the articles from the library.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01