# New CDC report on co-sleeping



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-your-baby/?hp

What do you all think of this?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

eh, same ol' same ol'

The biological standard is not dangerous by itself.

Other things make it dangerous.

-Angela


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

I would love for someone more detailed and knowledgeable than myself to break it down.

Wasn't there a thread on here awhile back that did this with the old statistics?

I also found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/health/16infant.html

And it says the infant mortality rates overall are in the 7 per 100,000 range.

>?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Problem is that there is not enough information to begin to make sense of it.

They lump intentional, educated cosleepers in with druggies and drunks and oops-I-fell-asleep on the couch.

-Angela


----------



## big-mama (Nov 13, 2007)

79% of the deaths were on waterbeds!! Wow.

I think if safe cosleeping was promoted, then that would greatly reduce the number of deaths even further.

I liked this comment:

Shame on the American Pediatric Association for this fear mongering. As if parents don't have enough legitimate things to worry or feel guilty about.

These sorts of studies are really ridiculous. People are supposed to rearrange their parenting because of a suffocation rate of 12.5 out of a hundred thousand? Maybe the CDC will next suggest that parents should look into funding their children's college education using lottery tickets.

Nobody should change their beliefs about parenting because of such infinitesimal risks. You face a larger threat just by walking outside each day.

- Matt


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

i loved most of the comments after it. i was glad to see most folks were like, "whatever, 'experts'







"


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *big-mama* 
79% of the deaths were on waterbeds!!

I read it as such the first time through also- actually it's 79. Not 79%

-Angela


----------



## merrybee (May 18, 2002)

How exasperating! I like that comment by Matt too!


----------



## psychethemuse (May 13, 2008)

I wish the actual report could be read without paying a fee. It seems that saying "between such and such a time more babies died of X" and "between such and such a time the rate of cosleeping increased" therefore "babies die of X because of cosleeping" is shoddy science. Such reasoning follows so many assumptive fallacies that I can't even decide which to call it.


----------



## big-mama (Nov 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I read it as such the first time through also- actually it's 79. Not 79%

-Angela


Oops, my bad. I read it too fast!!


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Here is the CDC press release:

http://www.aap.org/pressroom/aappr-feb09mailing.htm

(Scroll down to #1.)

Now check out what Dr. Amy has to say about it:

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=93512

She makes the point that there has been NO increase or decrease in the total number of deaths - just that the classification/reporting has changed such that the number of SIDS deaths has gone down and the number of accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed "ASSB" have gone up - just due to the guidelines for classifying something as SIDS being more strict. NOT due to co-sleeping.


----------

