You might try the forum : The Family Bed and Nighttime parenting. You may also click on Articles, and Books/Back Issues for more on this topic to start. Failing that do a keyword search ...you'll see the button in the top right hand corner of this page and punch in Co-Sleeping or Family Bed and the word statistics. That should bring up reams.
Read this, please!!
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
moving this to the Nightime parenting forum for you.
![]()
Thank you, ladies!
They don`t seem to want to hear anything positive about cosleeping, though...
![]()
:
And today it has gotten even worse. Norways biggest newspaper har this article all over a page. Cosleeping is now something really bad, it sems. "We strongly recomend that you DO NOT shar a bed with your child until they are atleast 8 months old." the article says...
![]()
Even the Norwegian SIDS assotiation har now a warning against cosleeping on its frontpage online. They say that cosleeping is very dangerous, atleast until baby is 2-4 months old.
![]()
They don`t seem to want to hear anything positive about cosleeping, though...
And today it has gotten even worse. Norways biggest newspaper har this article all over a page. Cosleeping is now something really bad, it sems. "We strongly recomend that you DO NOT shar a bed with your child until they are atleast 8 months old." the article says...
Even the Norwegian SIDS assotiation har now a warning against cosleeping on its frontpage online. They say that cosleeping is very dangerous, atleast until baby is 2-4 months old.
3
ukeI wonder who is funding the studies that say co-sleeping is "bad." (I always look at who is funding studies.)
Anyway, this is definetly bad news.....
There was a thread on this here recently. It was called "Irresponsible Reporting...".
First, that "study" is funded by the CPSC, who is in cahoots with the JPMA, which represents crib manufacturers. This is just phase three of a huge media blitz campaign they have launched to discourage people from cosleeping, and making sure every parent runs out and buys a brand, new crib. Yes, somebody definitely has a good PR firm working for them.
![]()
:
If you want to pass some info on to those who blindly believe everything they hear on TV, here are some interesting facts:
The data that was used for this study did NOT come from any governmental reporting agency, such as the CDC, but came from "reports submitted to the CPSC". This is HARDLY a random sampling of the population, the first major flaw of the study.
Next, there was no attempt made to distinguish families who make a conscientious decision to cosleep because they believe it is best for baby, and those whose socioeconomic situations were so dire that packing kids into the family bed was a matter of necessity. There was no attempt made to distinguish those who practiced SAFE cosleeping from those who were reckless.
This is like test-driving a new vehicle with drunk drivers and then claiming the vehicle is unsafe b/c it crashes all the time!!
They also only looked at "suffocation deaths" where "blankets, pillows, or other objects clearly blocked the intake of air". This was almost certainly in response to criticisms of their previous study, where one infant (just for example) rolled out of the family bed and drowned in a 5 gallon bucket of water placed beside the bed. Note: this is also very interesting because it suggests, and I'm certain is the case, that this is just the same data used in the previous study, repackaged and regurgitated to yield support of the previous studies. That's another MAJOR flaw in this study.
But the point to be made regarding the suffocation data is that people who use cribs are generally well-informed as to the hazards of placing pillows and blankets in the crib, whereas those who cosleep do not have ready access to safety guidelines (especially those who are not making a conscientious decision to cosleep). So the data is biased towards crib users.
Retrospective studies (a study looking at old data collected for another reason, rather than randomly sampling the data at the time of the study) are inherently faulty, and the statical analysis methods (which people often use inappropriately even when NOT performing retrospective analysis) is even more suspect in such cases.
In short, this study is a poorly designed one, the data is biased, the study is funded by an organization with a bias, and it all adds up to DIDDLY SQUAT to anyone familiar with experimental design.
[Can you tell I was fuming over this study for days after it appeared on our nightly news?]
![]()
First, that "study" is funded by the CPSC, who is in cahoots with the JPMA, which represents crib manufacturers. This is just phase three of a huge media blitz campaign they have launched to discourage people from cosleeping, and making sure every parent runs out and buys a brand, new crib. Yes, somebody definitely has a good PR firm working for them.
If you want to pass some info on to those who blindly believe everything they hear on TV, here are some interesting facts:
The data that was used for this study did NOT come from any governmental reporting agency, such as the CDC, but came from "reports submitted to the CPSC". This is HARDLY a random sampling of the population, the first major flaw of the study.
Next, there was no attempt made to distinguish families who make a conscientious decision to cosleep because they believe it is best for baby, and those whose socioeconomic situations were so dire that packing kids into the family bed was a matter of necessity. There was no attempt made to distinguish those who practiced SAFE cosleeping from those who were reckless.
This is like test-driving a new vehicle with drunk drivers and then claiming the vehicle is unsafe b/c it crashes all the time!!
They also only looked at "suffocation deaths" where "blankets, pillows, or other objects clearly blocked the intake of air". This was almost certainly in response to criticisms of their previous study, where one infant (just for example) rolled out of the family bed and drowned in a 5 gallon bucket of water placed beside the bed. Note: this is also very interesting because it suggests, and I'm certain is the case, that this is just the same data used in the previous study, repackaged and regurgitated to yield support of the previous studies. That's another MAJOR flaw in this study.
But the point to be made regarding the suffocation data is that people who use cribs are generally well-informed as to the hazards of placing pillows and blankets in the crib, whereas those who cosleep do not have ready access to safety guidelines (especially those who are not making a conscientious decision to cosleep). So the data is biased towards crib users.
Retrospective studies (a study looking at old data collected for another reason, rather than randomly sampling the data at the time of the study) are inherently faulty, and the statical analysis methods (which people often use inappropriately even when NOT performing retrospective analysis) is even more suspect in such cases.
In short, this study is a poorly designed one, the data is biased, the study is funded by an organization with a bias, and it all adds up to DIDDLY SQUAT to anyone familiar with experimental design.
[Can you tell I was fuming over this study for days after it appeared on our nightly news?]
2
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
