it never ceases to amaze me that people can't differentiate between something being potentially harmful and it causing harm to everyone. "my child escaped unscathed" is an argument i hear all the time for all kinds of things that are less-than-ideal or potentially harmful (formula feeding, starting solids too early, turning your baby's carseat forward facing at a year, whatever). Just because it didn't affect *your* child's spinal or hip development doesn't mean it isn't true that it can have a detrimental effect. Just as it's true that plenty of kids thrive on formula, while some fail to.
For me, I want to do what's ideal for the development of my child. Why use something that has the potential to do harm when there are hundreds of other, similarly-priced options that don't have that potential?!?! i seriously don't get it.
I had a knock-off bjorn last time that I plan to replace with a buckle mei tai. It's not necessarily because the news hype swayed me- that only got me thinking that perhaps I should research my options. With my first baby, I thought my only options were whatever was on the shelf at babiesrus. In looking at the mei tais, it just looks like common sense design- the structure looks more comfortable and properly supportive for both me and my baby. As a layman, I could clearly see that a SSC, or wraps as well, would of course be better- just the logisitics of it. No scientific data or expert opinions needed. Now that I know there are better options, I'm changing carriers.
Sure my baby turned out fine and developed walking and running skills by 8 months, and he slept in the bjorn with ease, but that didn't mean he was comfortable. He probably couldn't tell if it hurt because it cut off circulation to his legs.. poor chubby blue stumps. It didn't look natural to have a baby dangling out in front of me, and it killed my shoulders. Reason enough for me to suspect that this was not our best option.