co-sleeping and SIDS

Amy said:

going to be less than serious here
Hehehe. Maybe I am just kind of grumpy today, but it seems that there is
always someone out there who needs to find someone or something to blame for
what could be called a tragic, but probably unpreventable death. SIDS
happens.
It is sad. I don't want to be too harsh on the woman who wants mandatory
baby
monitors and cpr certification for parents. But it is ridiculous, really.

I didn't get the sense that she was blaming anyone or anything as much as she
was trying to find a way to prevent her tragedy from happening again. But it's
the nature of modern society for us to think that we ought to be able to
control things, and especially that there ought to be a technology that can
help!

and now I am going to be sarcastic... I can just see the co-sleeping
investigation squad come busting through the front door at 3 a.m. -- "AHA!
Caught you! Now we are going to drag you off to prison with all the child
molesters and drunk drivers and drug dealers because you were SLEEPING IN BED
WITH YOUR BABY!!!" Ugh. I seriously need some caffeine! ;-)

LOL.

Leslie

Kate said:

Actually they found that about half the suffocations in adult beds
were entrapment, where the baby got caught between the bed and the
wall or bedframe. Only 18% were "overlying", and they acknowledged
that oftentimes that designation is suspect. The authors did take a
subtle potshot at Dr. Sears in their last sentence: "Suggestions from
some (Sears citation) that the risk associated with falling and
entrapment might be lessened by, for example, pushing an adult bed
near the wall are of unproven efficacy, have been known to result in
infant deaths (Pediatrics 1999;103(5)), and should be discouraged".

That's interesting. Thanks.


I think that if we're going to be honest, we have to admit that most
of us who co-sleep choose to do so not primarily because we believe it
to be safer than crib sleeping but because we believe that co-sleeping
has other benefits.

Agreed.

As a co-sleeping mama and halfway trained
pediatrician, I have to admit that the current state of medical and
epidemiological evidence appears to show that crib sleeping is safer
in terms of SIDS and suffocation. The research that's been done is
very limited, and more comprehensive research may show differently,
but that's what the most reputable evidence so far seems to show.
Partisans of co-sleeping can always cherry-pick research that supports
their position, which is what Mothering magazine and Sears do. But I
think it's far more honest to admit that we are choosing to reap (as
yet unproven) intangible benefits at the cost of a small increase in
risk of an unlikely tragedy. The only way around that conclusion is
to selectively choose certain studies that support the outcome you're
looking for, which is never a good way to go about scientific or
medical research.

I guess the magazines I read must be the selectively picky kind. :-)

Leslie

Cathy said:

I've been going over many of the studies you've posted, and many of
them aren't comparing the right things.

For example, NOT ONE study that I've looked at so far compared the
outcomes of safe bedsharing with safe crib sleeping. We all know that
for a baby to be safe in a crib, you have to follow certain safety
precautions. No toys, no fluffy blankets, etc. It is also reasonable
to assume that you must take certain (many of the same) precautions
for a baby to be safe in an adult bed.

I'm still researching. I'll get back to you with URLs (and yes I've
found some. But I'm not willing to post anything until I've learned
more).

Thanks for having the patience to do this research, Cathy. I'm looking forward
to seeing what you learn.

Leslie

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

Obviously, people who don't like what a study finds, will write bad
things about it. So you can find complaints about any unpopular study.

Yes, and when someone LIKES a study, they tend not to see the flaws.
You accuse me and other AP parents who dislike the studies of picking
on the flaws rather than just accepting the outcome of the study.

Sure, I dislike the studies. But I dislike any fear-mongering study
that is inherently flawed, that makes pronouncements about safety
without comparing the proper variables.

What I don't get, is why YOU merely accept the studies without
examining them for sound methodology, and why you promote them, even
when others have pointed out the problems inherent in the way the
studies were done.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

In article ,
(Cathy Weeks) wrote:

By the way, you don't seem to like criticism of peer-reviewed studies.
Someone asked for SIDS research, and you provided smothering and
overlaying research for the most part. They ARE different things.
Your crediblity is lessened, and making comments like "they are just
as dead" is just as much of a two step as you are accusing AP parents
of doing.

Cathy, meet Joshua. I have had at least three "animated discussions"
with him in mkb about iron deficiency anaemia and exclusive
breastfeeding, and his usual tactic is to post irrelevant or flawed
data. After you tell him off he runs away. Six months later he will
repost the same claims, based on the same flawed data. Tell him off,
and he'll run away. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'd killfile him if it were
not that he reposts his unfounded assertions so frequently.

Ellen Hrebeniuk wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Cathy Weeks) wrote:

By the way, you don't seem to like criticism of peer-reviewed studies.
Someone asked for SIDS research, and you provided smothering and
overlaying research for the most part. They ARE different things.
Your crediblity is lessened, and making comments like "they are just
as dead" is just as much of a two step as you are accusing AP parents
of doing.

Cathy, meet Joshua. I have had at least three "animated discussions"
with him in mkb about iron deficiency anaemia and exclusive
breastfeeding, and his usual tactic is to post irrelevant or flawed
data. After you tell him off he runs away. Six months later he will
repost the same claims, based on the same flawed data. Tell him off,
and he'll run away. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'd killfile him if it were
not that he reposts his unfounded assertions so frequently.

I have no association with Ellen whatsoever, and I absolutely
agree with her assessment of Joshua. He's terrible at reading
research and argues based on findings that either aren't there
or aren't relevant, and when he's shown to be wrong he disappears.
The only reason to argue with him is to remind other readers that
his analysis of the data is hogwash.

Beth

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

Obviously, people who don't like what a study finds, will write bad
things about it. So you can find complaints about any unpopular study.

Yes, and when someone LIKES a study, they tend not to see the flaws.
You accuse me and other AP parents who dislike the studies of picking
on the flaws rather than just accepting the outcome of the study.

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.

Arguing over quality of studies only makes sense if there are some
studies supporting you and some not supporting you. Then you can
argue the quality of one group is better than the other. But in
this case, there are no studies which show that co-sleeping is safer
and no studies showing they are equally safe, but many studies (6 or
so) finding that co-sleeping is less safe. (In direct comparison of
co-sleeping vs. not-co-sleeping.)


Sure, I dislike the studies. But I dislike any fear-mongering study
that is inherently flawed, that makes pronouncements about safety
without comparing the proper variables.

Your logic is circular: you don't like the studies because they are
fear-mongering, but they are fear-mongering because you don't like
the results. Ditto with your vague "inherently flawed" complaint.
I guess Pediatrics and the other journals are just filled with
inherently flawed research. According to you they haven't published
a single good paper on co-sleeping in years, maybe not ever!

What I don't get, is why YOU merely accept the studies without
examining them for sound methodology, and why you promote them, even
when others have pointed out the problems inherent in the way the
studies were done.

First of all no one has pointed out a specific problem in any of the
studies. Complaining vaguely that all the studies are bad and they
don't study people like you is nothing like pointing out a specific
problem with each of them.

But more importantly: all of the studies that I listed are published
and peer reviewed. Think about what that means: one or more researchers
came to a conclusion. One or more editors liked the paper. Many peer
reviewers specifically checked for errors in the research. Who am I to
nit pick their work? More importantly: who are you too? Are you so
egotistical that you think you know more about pediatrics than a
bunch of researchers, editors, and peer-reviewers? Of course you don't.
The difference is that you have a specific axe to grind, and they don't.
(Or are you know going to claim some huge conspiracy between the
journal Pediatrics, the authors, the editors, the peep-rviewers,
the various Universities and Government agencies involved, etc?)

Joshua Levy

On 18 Nov 2003 12:42:06 -0800, (Joshua Levy) wrote:

But more importantly: all of the studies that I listed are
published and peer reviewed. Think about what that means: one
or more researchers came to a conclusion. One or more editors
liked the paper. Many peer reviewers specifically checked for
errors in the research. Who am I to nit pick their work? More
importantly: who are you too?

Sympathetic as I am to your argument in favor of peer-reviewed research
results, I have to point out that at least a couple of people have
offered specific complaints about the conditions studied not testing
'safe co-sleeping' as a distinct thing from not-safe co-sleeping.

So a study with a conclusion that co-sleeping is a problem that does not
distinguish among safety measures taken by some co-sleepers can be
reasonably, constructively criticized on those grounds. Constructive
criticism is not the same thing as completely invalidating, of course.

I do agree with Kate that a lack of positive findings in any of the few
co-sleeping studies to date is a bad sign for the safety of co-sleeping
in general, and that people co-sleep for reasons other than 'it's the
safest choice'.

We certainly did not co-sleep because we felt it was the safest thing to
do; we avoided the most obviously risky co-sleeping behaviors and did it
in hopes of being better rested in the morning, which worked for a while
but didn't as the boys got bigger (true for both marriages/sons).

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message om...
(Cathy Weeks) wrote in message . com...
(Joshua Levy) wrote in message . com...

Obviously, people who don't like what a study finds, will write bad
things about it. So you can find complaints about any unpopular study.

Yes, and when someone LIKES a study, they tend not to see the flaws.
You accuse me and other AP parents who dislike the studies of picking
on the flaws rather than just accepting the outcome of the study.

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. I've read the abstracts of your
posted studies and haven't had the time to request the full-text
articles (I can get them for free from the library, instead of paying
the on-line fee). I've read a number of articles criticising the
studies as well.

Arguing over quality of studies only makes sense if there are some
studies supporting you and some not supporting you. Then you can
argue the quality of one group is better than the other.

That is absurd. If there are a number of bad studies, then you point
out why they are bad, then go and do research that IS done well.

But in
this case, there are no studies which show that co-sleeping is safer
and no studies showing they are equally safe, but many studies (6 or
so) finding that co-sleeping is less safe. (In direct comparison of
co-sleeping vs. not-co-sleeping.)

If all the studies say that it's not safe, and none of the studies are
constructed well, then they are much less valuable, and their
recommendations should be taken with a grain of salt. The CPSC study
for example, had some very serious flaws.

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? I'm
pretty sure that it's not standard protocol for an attending police
officer to call them.

Sure, I dislike the studies. But I dislike any fear-mongering study
that is inherently flawed, that makes pronouncements about safety
without comparing the proper variables.

Your logic is circular: you don't like the studies because they are
fear-mongering, but they are fear-mongering because you don't like
the results.

No it's not circular. I don't like the studies because they are
flawed. And their results, based on flawed data can cause fears that
aren't justified.

I guess Pediatrics and the other journals are just filled with
inherently flawed research.

Well, yes. Many of them are. For example, they used to feel that
circumcision was medically necessary. And that was based on flawed
research. The AAP for example, no longer recommends as a routine
procedure.

Flawed research has lead to the over-use of fetal monitoring during
labor and delivery, as well as the over-use of episotomy. And that
was all peer-reviewed. And then discovered to be incorrect.

According to you they haven't published
a single good paper on co-sleeping in years, maybe not ever!

Yes, that just might be the case. co-sleeping in western culture has
a lot of bias to overcome.

What I don't get, is why YOU merely accept the studies without
examining them for sound methodology, and why you promote them, even
when others have pointed out the problems inherent in the way the
studies were done.

First of all no one has pointed out a specific problem in any of the
studies. Complaining vaguely that all the studies are bad and they
don't study people like you is nothing like pointing out a specific
problem with each of them.

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?

But more importantly: all of the studies that I listed are published
and peer reviewed. Think about what that means: one or more researchers
came to a conclusion. One or more editors liked the paper. Many peer
reviewers specifically checked for errors in the research.

Who am I to
nit pick their work?

Someone who doesn't trust themself to think for themself obviously. Or
who cannot read a study critically. Or-I'm guessing here - you were
taught to always believe someone in authority - because they were in
authority.

More importantly: who are you too?

I'm somone who is trusting in my own ability to analize information.

Are you so
egotistical that you think you know more about pediatrics than a
bunch of researchers, editors, and peer-reviewers?

Oh, I see. You think being a pediatrician makes someone qualified to
know and understand the mechanics of co-sleeping? co-sleeping has
very little to do with pediatrics. How long do you think the average
pediatrician spends studying co-sleeping? Half a paragraph in a
textbook?

I certainly don't know more about pediatrics than a pediatrician. But
your average pediatrician doesn't know all that much about
co-sleeping.

Am I egotistical? Sure about some things. But that has little to do
with that. I just don't assume that just because someone's name has
"Doctor" "Editor" etc., that they are right.

Of course you don't.
The difference is that you have a specific axe to grind, and they don't.

And you know this how? You think the CPSC and their co-researchers in
the children's furniture industry doesn't care where babies sleep?

(Or are you know going to claim some huge conspiracy between the
journal Pediatrics, the authors, the editors, the peep-rviewers,
the various Universities and Government agencies involved, etc?)

I don't know of a conspiracy - you brought it up, not me.

Look, Joshua, bad science happens. It happens all the time. And has
over the course of medical history. And it has occured in
peer-reviewed journals. Just because a peer-reviewed journal published
it (and by the way - did you read any of the rebuttals? Not the
comments posted at the end of the abstracts), doesn't mean that all
the researchers in the field agree with the way it was done.

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? Do you even
know what research has been inspired by his findings? Or do you just
call him a quack because he's not in agreement with the majority?

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message om...

What I don't get, is why YOU merely accept the studies without
examining them for sound methodology, and why you promote them, even
when others have pointed out the problems inherent in the way the
studies were done.

First of all no one has pointed out a specific problem in any of the
studies. Complaining vaguely that all the studies are bad and they
don't study people like you is nothing like pointing out a specific
problem with each of them.

You didn't answer the first part. Why do YOU merely accept studies
without examining them for sound methodology?

Cathy Weeks