Tuesday, September 25, 2007

"Studies Show"....whatever

I am sick of all the stuff that "studies show". First off, I don't buy that most of those studies have ever been done. Secondly, a lot of those studies have zero chance of having used good substantiatable scientific method. Case in point.

SIDS. Clearly this is a serious problem, 500 deaths per year, and no one has any idea what causes it. However, this has not stopped lots of people from making claims, and putting out very forceful warnings about what responsible parents should do. Many are very common sense, one is a huge pet peeve of mine. I'll quote from a SIDS website,

Always place babies on their BACK at nap and nighttime. Side and tummy sleep positions are not safe choices.

Sounds very definitive doesn't it. I am sure there is verifiable evidence that this is a true statement, after all, the association of pediatrics endorses this position, right? Yeah, try finding one piece of backing for this argument. Here's one gem, from the same website, that explains why they should sleep on their back.

As human beings, when we exhale we exhale carbon dioxide or“bad air.” This is normal – we all do it! But when a baby sleeps on its tummy, or there is soft, fluffy or loose bedding or other objects in their sleep area, that carbon dioxide can build up around their head and face.

Okay, so lets put some common sense to this. The fluffy, loose bedding thing makes sense, as it could trap carbon dioxide, totally believable. Now, take away any obstructions, no fluffy, loose, or soft bedding. How in the world will sleeping on the tummy cause carbon dioxide to pool around the face? How does that even make sense?

This page I found particularly ironic. It not only lists several big problems associated with back sleeping (which it tries to downplay as very unimportant), AND it lists benefits of what it calls "tummy time". Health benefits the baby needs, since it can't develop those muscles and abilities because the baby never sleeps on its tummy.

So, why is SIDs such a pet peeve of mine. Because it is a health risk, that no one understands, no one can put any ACTUAL finger on what causes it, or why it happens. Theories are constantly being debunked (like toxic gases from flame retardent mattresses). And yet, if you go to a pediatrician in this day and age, you are grilled and guilted about the loving responsible parent puts their baby on its back.

Well, guess what. My mom had seven kids, belly sleepers, my mother-in-law had seven kids, belly sleepers. We are on our third, belly sleepers. They sleep better, the are less fussy, they sleep through the night quicker, they don't have to wear the football helmets because their head is flattened, etc.

Fake science, perpetuated by scare tactics, that have no relation to common sense, shouldn't be pawned off as responsible parenting.

8 comments:

Unknown said...

My personal favorite, though less widely accepted by intelligent people, is that vaccinations cause autism.

No proof. None. Debunked hundreds of times. Yet, every few months I hear someone claim that immunizing children is irresponsible because it causes autism.

I hate people. They're the worst.

Dan said...

its because of all the mercury they are secretly putting in the immunizations.

Look, I'd rather my kids battle the odds on polio, and diptheria.

Alisa said...

Nice bryan. "I hate people". You just gave alot of credence to your argument.

Dan said...

In Bryan's defense, I almost entitled my blog, "People are Stupid"

RealFruitBeverage said...

My favorite is that the anthrax immunization shot causes an increase in birth defects. Ehh wait. Just to play devil’s advocate (if you play devil’s advocate so much are you really playing?), you know these pseudo scientific studies are necessary because conducting an actual test that conformed to variable isolation in these kinds of instances would be considered morally wrong. Killing babies to find out the cause of what kills babies would be a big bad. So, these pseudo studies are just the best we can do when social conventions get in the way of science.

tetonmark said...

There's a handy graph here: http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/28/6/209/F1 that shows a nice correlation between the percentage of kids advised to sleep on their backs, and the corresponding decrease in SIDS incidence. The main idea is that children who succumb to SIDS may have enzymatic troubles in their lungs that are compounded by decreased arousability which is associated with sleeping in the prone position. Many studies show that healthy children in the prone position are less likely to wake up to perturbations than children in the supine position. By the way, when you hear someone say that "studies show," the best place to look for corroborating evidence is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/

I found the link to your blog off of Jeremy Stewarts. Just checking things out, and keeping the facts straight.

Dan said...

Mark, along the line of 'keeping the facts straight'. You seem to know something about the medical side of it, however, the big problem is in the complete mistatement of the statistical information. It is a logical fallacy to say because a) parents have been told to put their children on their backs and b) the incidence of SIDS has decreased, therefore c) putting your kids on their back lowers their chance of dying of SIDS.

"The main idea is that children who succumb to SIDS may have enzymatic troubles in their lungs that are compounded by decreased arousability which is associated with sleeping in the prone position."

This is a theory unsubstantiated by any proven studies. As I stated, there is no known cause of SIDS.

BTW, if you want to keep the 'facts' straight, your first link is broken.

I'm curious, do you think that anything I posted was in error? If so, is that your opinion, or do you have anything to back that up with? If its your opinion, thats fine, everyone is entitled to it. But don't claim 'facts' or 'proof', unless you can actually back it up.

Silent E said...

I love people who go back and post comments on old discussions.

Like me.

Dan, I think you're wrong on this one. Just wrong.

You write that you don't get the logic of how CO2 can pool around an infant's face while sleeping on its tummy. I suggest you think about it a little more. The little nose and mouth are pressed up against the blanket/bed, generally all within one inch, or even a half inch, from the surface. The little lungs just barely press the old air out, and immediately take another breath, largely made up of what has already been exhaled. Putting a baby on its back or side improves this situation just enough -- the nose and mouth are generally over an inch (sometimes a couple of inches) away from the bed/blanket, which gives enough space for exhaled air to dissipate before the next breath is taken.

The whole "if it was good enough for my parents, it's good enough for me" argument is ridiculous. Remember the car seats our parents used? I do. They give me the willies when I think about them.