EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
Chiropracty isn’t “scientific”.
It never was.
Psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. But it is hardly scientific anyway
The idea that animals do not have feelings. I don’t believe complex thought is necessary for emotion. You can take away all our human reasoning, and we would still get mad, or sad, or happy at things.
that comes from religion not science
It’s definitely NOT science that animals don’t have feelings. Maybe 50 years ago.
Now, there’s a concerted effort to discern thoughts and emotions in animals.
If anything I think emotional response is the least advanced part of a human mind. However, if we’re talking about brains of sharks, small lizards, or ants then I think emotion would be a word with a lot more nuance than whatever it is they do.
I don’t think there is a scientific concensus on this. We are constantly finding previously unknown similarities between the minds of other animals and humans. I’ve put together a small lemmy community on animal communication and digital bioacoustics, it is somewhat related to this stuff.
It’s very widely accepted in science that animals feel an array of emotions.
Bees play with toys and do happy actions when given toys. I’m of the opinion that some form of internal experience extends at least as far down the brain size scale as at least some bugs, and might extend into single celled organisms and plants.
Addiction is NOT a disease. Sorry, but your choice do heroin does not get to go into the same category as a child with cancer.
You asked for your problem, they didn’t.
So you don’t care that the majority of people who abuse drugs are doing it to self-medicate something, be that pain, depression from the state of their life, or an undiagnosed neurological condition?
(Adderall is just a dilute relative of meth, and so has similar effects on ADHD brains, i.e. makes us more functional. Also, there is research showing that cannabis has a positive effect on autistic brains, which would explain why so many autistic people I know love their greenery. Plus, anecdotes from fellow ADHDers of “I microdose weed because it helps me focus better, and it’s easier to get than legal adderall”)
No. I don’t care. A junkie is a junkie. Having a neurological condition doesn’t give you an excuse to get whacked out on meth 7 days a week. CANCER is a disease. Addiction is NOT.
I say this as someone with ADHD and ASD, and as a person who lost a friend to addiction this year.
JUNKIES don’t have diseases. PERIOD.
Both the NIH and DSM-5 would disagree.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565474/table/nycgsubuse.tab9/
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/understanding-drug-use-addiction
I can find 10 people to say that ADHD isn’t real for every 1 person who says substance use disorder isn’t a disease.
Does that mean ADHD isn’t a real condition?
Am I disagree with them, which is what OP asked. Are you arguing with everyone here that disagrees with science, or just me?
Believing that the moon landing was a hoax, or that dark matter doesn’t exist, is ultimately harmless. The same cannot be said of disagreeing with proven, helpful medical knowledge, in favour of a gut-feeling based alternative that only makes things worse. It is a moral imperative to make you realise you are wrong, or failing that, thoroughly demonstrate it to everyone watching, so your harmful ideas do not spread.
So, unpacking your worldview here, how do you feel about cancer brought about by smoking, or by prolonged exposure to materials that you know are radioactive and/or carcinogenic? Does that change with the knowledge that processed meat and plastics, things that are impossible to avoid unless you structure your life around limiting exposure to them, are most likely mild carcinogens?
Also, please tell me, regardless of how you classify addiction, that you at least understand that the only evidence-based approach to drugs is decriminalisation. Almost all of the societal ills associated with them are entirely the fault of their possession and sale being crimes. You can’t find safe environments to use them in if they’re illegal, nor can you feel safe seeking medical aid if you’ve taken too high a dose without realising it. If you’re a dealer, you have no regulatory bodies to answer to, and pay no taxes on the money you make. If you’re running organised crime, you’re already sitting on enough of a supply to land you in jail for the rest of your life, and that makes murdering competitors seem like a much more palatable option. And then there’s the developing world. Most of the money this makes ends up back in the hands of rebels, warlords and cartels in the developing world, where they cause untold misery and suffering.
But if you legalise them, that nips most of those problems in the bud. You can publicly admit to using them, feel safe seeking medical aid when you mistakenly take too much, get help from programs designed to end your dependence. The dealers go out of business, replaced by actual stores that pay taxes and follow regulations, like not being able to sell to minors or water down your product to sell more of it. Organised crime loses one of its biggest sources of money overnight, given that their expensive material of unknown origin and purity is suddenly replaced by cheaper material of known origin and purity. The cross-border smuggling also ceases, because what else are you going to find that is illegal, compact, and high in value? Oh, and the developing world can actually benefit from drug production, since the criminal groups will be greatly weakened from the loss of profits, and developed world importers would rather deal with legitimate businesses than violent criminals and rebels.
We learnt this shit a century ago with alcohol, one of the most destructive drugs (even meth would not be as destructive if legalised), why are we still doing it?
I said I’m not debating this. And I’m not.
Wait, what’s your definition of a disease?
Anything that isn’t self-imposed.
2 people take the same dose of heroin, they repeat the experience 5 times each on the same time line. Lets say they both has the same surgery. One person stops easily, experiencing mild withdrawal that feels like a flu and goes on with their life without ever thinking about it again. The other feels a powerful compulsion to take more, they maintain their usage say initially through extending a medical script and later the black market.
What was different between the two? Maybe you think person 2 had terrible moral character but if they had never been given heroin this would never have manifested. We call that pathological difference a disease and try and treat it. What would you call it?
I call it junkies.
So you say the difference is some moral deficiency? ok well why don’t we try and treat that. After all we need pain killers in medicine and we want to make them as safe as possible.
Let’s call junkeyism a disease and see how we can stop it happening. Maybe by understanding if some people respond better or worse to different kinds of drugs, maybe we could identify a test we could do to work out what would be safe for someone?
Like what do you think it means when a doctor calls something a disease? People can make bad decisions and still get diseases. If inject yourself with the blood of everyone you meet you’ll eventually get a few, they don’t stop being a disease just because you gave it to yourself (and also we might ask why someone felt compelled to do something so foolish and could we have helped them).
Junkeyism ALSO isn’t a disease. It’s a bad decision. Tens of thousands of children die of cancer every year. Cancer- a REAL disease. A disease they never asked for.
Their cause of death shouldn’t be categorized alongside dipshits that chose to shoot drugs into their veins.
I’m not arguing this with you. So fuck off.
Dark matter. Sounds like a catch all designed to make a math model work properly.
I know, I was so hype a few years ago when a new gravity well model supposedly eliminated the need for Dark Matter, but recently it’s been in the news as a scandal that also doesn’t fix everything.
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). It’s been the dissenting voice in the modern Great Debate about dark matter.
On one side are the dark matter scientists who think there’s a vast category of phenomenon out there FAR beyond our current science. That the universe is far larger and more complex than we currently know, and so we must dedicate ourselves to exploring the unexplored. The other side, the
On the other you have the MOND scientists, who hope they can prevent that horizon from flying away from them by tweaking the math on some physical laws. It basically adds a term to our old physics equations to explain why low acceleration systems experience significantly different forces than the high-acceleration systems with which we are more familiar – though their explanations for WHY the math ought be tweaked I always found totally unsatisfactory – to make the current, easy-to-grock laws fit the observations.
With the big problem being that it doesn’t work. It explains some galactic motion, but not all. It sometimes fits wide binary star systems kind of OK, but more often doesn’t. It completely fails to explain the lensing and motion of huge galactic clusters. At this point, MOND has basically been falsified. Repeatedly, predictions it made have failed.
Dark matter theories – that is, the theories that say there are who new categories of stuff out there we don’t understand at all – still are the best explanation. That means we’re closer to the starting line of understanding the cosmos instead of the finish line many wanted us to be nearing. But I think there’s a razor in there somewhere, about trusting the scientist who understands the limits of our knowledge over the one who seems confident we nearly know everything.
Yeh, that’s how the scientific method works.
Observations don’t support a model, or a model doesn’t support observations.
Think of a reason why.
Test that hypothesis.
Repeat until you think it’s correct. Hopefully other people agree with you.People are also working on modifying General Relativity and Newtonian Dynamics to try and fix the model, while other people are working on observing dark matter directly (instead of it’s effects) to further prove the existing models.
https://youtu.be/3o8kaCUm2V8We are in the “testing hypothesis” stage. And have been for 50ish years
You’re not wrong. According to the current scientific understanding of the universe, that’s exactly what it is. They just gave it a badass name.
You would like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI
Removed by mod
The experimental observation did not reveal Dark Matter. Nobody has seen or proven Dark Matter, actually. That’s why it is called Dark Matter. The observation just showed that the math model was flawed, and they invented “Dark Matter” to make up for it.
My personal take is that they will one day add the right correction factor that should have been in the fomulas all the time.
Just like with E=mc² not being completely correct. It’s actually E²=m²c⁴ + p²c². The p²c² is not adding much, but it is still there.
Removed by mod
I know that it is not a simple scale thing here. So it might be something else. My bet is that is has something to do with angular momentum,
Removed by mod
I’m no astrophysicist - I just design computer chips. But this issue of “We need dark matter” came up with rotating galaxies, didn’t it? So I’d look into that direction if there is a potential connection. Classic bug hunting technique.
The Bullet Cluster, among several other systems, are very strong evidence that dark matter is actual baryonic matter that does not experience significant (or any) electromagnetic interactions. What we see when we look at these kinds of systems is that there is all evidence of STUFF there, but we cannot see the stuff. It’s not an indication of a poorly-performing math model missing a function term.
It would be like if we saw ripples in the water like we know exist around a rock. But we don’t see a rock. Sure, MAYBE we just fundamentally need to rewrite our basic rules of fluid mechanics to be able to create these exact ripples. But the more probable explanation is that there’s a rock we can’t see, and falsifying that theory will require just HEAPS of evidence.
The evidence we have suggests overwhelmingly that there is actual stuff that has mass that we simply do not have the tools to observe. Which isn’t all that surprising given that we are only JUST starting to build instruments to observe cosmological phenomena using stuff other than photons of light.
Removed by mod
Do you think solutions to dark matter are tied up in a unified GR + quantum mechanics theory?
Removed by mod
For me it’s Colloidal Silver. It’s been used as antimicrobial in wound dressings in the past but I just don’t trust it at all. The reason it suddenly resurged was during the Covid Pandemic a bunch of televangelist snake oil salesmen started endorsing it. If a product contains silver I won’t use it at all, and furthermore I reject brands that sell it. I would even rather bleed than purchase a CVS bandaid.
Interestingly I really only know about because it’s “popular” in the biohacker space for helping with cavities (as in AFTER you have cleaned a cavity you can use it to seal and protect it from further damage). Cheaper and more accessible then proper dental care.
Colloidal silver sold as a cure or “supplement” is absolutely a scam and potentially harmful (it can and has permanently turned people blue/gray). But silver itself is incredibly useful as an antimicrobial and is commonly used in bandages in burn wards.
Silver isn’t the only metal that is effective against bacteria, but other than brass and gold most other options are either toxic to humans in some way or not as effective.
TL;DR: bandaids with silver are fine, colloidal silver you put in your body isn’t.
Psychologists branding everyone with a disorder. You can spend a whole lifetime trying to understand yourself and you won’t. 4 years of schooling and a book full of labels doesn’t give you any extra magical understanding of everyone else.
4 years where? To become a real psychologist (not a therapist) in most places you need a PhD or a PsyD. In total, you probably do at least 8 years of schooling.
Not to mention that that “book full of labels” is constantly reviewed and was made based on consensus from psychiatrists, which are medical doctors with a lot more than 4 years of schooling.
Ok me and several others are constantly reviewing the pirate anime One Piece. It takes a long time to complete and we’ve collectively decided that it’s better than every other show and probably something that happened for real.
I feel that, I feel like diagnoses is one of the least important parts of a psychologists’ work. And if they assign medication based solely on that limited scope, then there is clearly a problem.
Hey it’s ok to be wrong on this one.
Psychology isn’t science so no harm being doubtful about parts of it.
You know I felt this way for years. I felt that way through psychopharmacology in pharmacy school, and I felt that way during our psychiatry and behavior lectures in medical school. I felt like psychiatry was minimizing behavior to these boxes was far too reductionist. Then I spent a month in an inpatient psychiatry facility as a third year medical student.
While I completely agree that each individual is unique and people are more than their diagnosis, you’d be absolutely shocked by just how similar patients’ overall stories, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and behaviors are within the same psychiatric illness. I can spot mania from a doorway, and it takes less than five minutes to have a high suspicion for borderline personality disorder. These classifications aren’t some arbitrary grouping of symptoms: they’re an attempt to create standard criteria for a relatively well preserved set of phenotypic behaviors. The hard part is understanding pathology vs culturally appropriate behavior in cultures you don’t belong, and differentiating within illness spectra (Bipolar I vs II; schizophrenia vs bipolar disorder with psychotic features vs schizoaffective)
You’re part of the problem.
Thank you for your insightful and well-researched response. I’ll remember that as I continue to provide high-quality evidence based care to all of my psychiatric patients in the future while you bitch about stuff on the internet.
That stuff you and your buddies wrote together to justify your income isn’t really evidence. Maybe you even believe it is. Everything you ever thought you know is just stuff others told you and you believed it based on their presentation.
No, in fact I believe very heavily in evaluating primary literature to re-evaluate decades-old dogma within medicine. I regularly disagree with my professors when they present outdated information in lecture. I have no income right now, and I have forgone substantial amounts of income by pursuing medical school instead of continuing to practice pharmacy. I’m not in this for the money.
If you would be so kind, I would love to know what evidence you present in contrary to the decades of peer-reviewed cohort, case-control, and RCT data which validate psychiatry as an effective field for managing psychiatric illness. I’d be happy to discuss any scientific data you have that I haven’t seen, and would be happy to change my opinion if it is data-driven.
I can appreciate your skepticism towards medicine and psychiatry, but if you can’t defend your position with anything but accusations and conspiracy, then I don’t think we have much else to discuss.
Funny how you bring up conspiracy given how psychiatry is widely used as a tool to discredit. You all keep control of public image by posing yourselves as authority and your opposition as mentally ill. You’re literally doing it right now.
I have a feeling you’re in dire need of their expertise.
Ad hominem.
Just keep control of image. You are authority and your opposition is mentally ill.
Op: what are some inherently enraging opinions that fly in the face of everything we know about logic?
Also op: omg guys stop downvoting these inherently enraging opinions. I implicitly made that rule …triple stamped it no erasies!!
I’m going to give you a couple examples:
-
A study showed Dementia brainscans heavily correlating with a form of Plaque. For decades people believed it, but then it was debunked. Someone expressing disbelief in it before the debunking would not have been “flying in the face of everything we know about logic.” They would have been right.
-
A researcher made a study where Aspartame used to sweeten Gatorade correlated with fast developing terminal cancer in mice. The researcher who developed Aspartame shot back by saying they fed the mice daily with the equivalent to 400+ Gatorades. Of course, a French study later showed at large scales people who consumed aspartame were slightly more likely to develop cancer in the following decades, but the outcome was still preferred to the consumption of sugar. This is an example that is much more clearcut in the favor of science, but I think there is still room for skeptics to express doubts.
I think talking about these things in a welcoming environment can both alleviate certain less scientific beliefs while also giving a great idea of how the general public views certain topics. Also it’s fun. There is a guy in here who thinks maybe a dude can fight a bear, not that they should.
Okay, but if anyone forms full beliefs from single studies, they’ve grossly misunderstood the details of how science works.
This particular hierarchy is specific to medical science, it doesn’t fit the other scientific disciplines perfectly.
Also, if I had a nickle for every conflicting pair of meta-analyses… happens so often.
Fair, but my point is that it illustrates how much stock one should put in single studies.
-
Can we not push more anti science rhetoric please
Chill science should be questioned otherwise it’s not science
Science should be questioned by people who understand the science, not by random people who don’t understand the research. Which a lot of people who know nothing about the science or the maths/data or whatever try to question it
Right, all the people talking shit about dark matter in this thread surely all have 4 PhDs up their ass
No investigation, no right to speak
People are free to express what they think about science. There’s no law saying otherwise. Why are you guys so upset?
“There’s no law against it” is a laughably stupid reason to do something. They’re free to do it but everyone else is free to acknowledge that their uneducated/misinformed skepticism is harmful to society and that their opinions are meaningless to those who aren’t dumb. Leave the contemporary science denial to those who actually somewhat know what they’re talking about.
This is a question on AskLemmy. It won’t change anything in the world. Why do you care? You guys should touch grass
The person you’re replying to believes climate change to be a lie, so I think you’re probably wasting your time.
This is like the second or third post I have seen in the past week talking about “belief” in science. Science isn’t about belief, it’s about understanding. Maybe this post should be, “What facts are you questioning because you don’t understand the underlying data?”
Seriously. Science just is. I don’t care if you believe it or not. It still is what it is.
Science just is the way gender just is. It’s a metaphysic.
Could you link to the studies saying this?
Do you not know what a metaphysic is? A metaphysic is something that affects the world without actually existing. Information is metaphysics. Law is metaphysics. Gender is definitely metaphysics. Science is too.
Y’all downvoting me because you’re taking offense to a word you can’t bother looking up the definition of. Peak stupidity and tribalism right here. You make up your identity(which is also a metaphysic) based on imagery and social appeal and sling shit just like chimps.
Could it be that people are downvoting you because you’re using words wrong while acting like you are educated on the matter? 😉
You don’t have to take my word for it. Try Google define: metaphysics.
I’m infamous on Reddit as “that moon landing denier gal”. Sorry but I just don’t buy it. No goalpost was safe that decade and you don’t need the analytical videos to tell you that.
My main come back for this: It was the height of the Cold War and the Soviets didnt question it. Also, recently, the Chinese moon missions has photographs of modules left by the Apollo missions on the moon.
To be fair, the Soviets also thought the space race to be all done with once they put their astronauts in orbit, and they weren’t really paying attention when America went to the moon.
No they didn’t. They had their own moon program and announced their intentions to land in 1961 before the Americans announced in 1962
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
If making a statement, why be quiet about it? That ruins the whole point of making a statement like how better someone is at something, doesn’t it? The civilian population in particular didn’t really care.
I don’t understand what you are saying. They had a moon landing program.
Also, do you really think that if the Soviets had the opportunity to embarrass the Americans by proving the landing was fake, they wouldn’t take it? Of course they would. Instead they were able to track the Apollo mission all the way and knew it was real.
But they also said they weren’t interested in the space race. Note that you can be interested in an endeavor other people are interested with without wanting to engage in a “race” with them. In this case they are claimed as being interested in showing off while simultaneously being insecure about said thing. I would be puzzled if someone’s method of showing off was precisely that, to not show off.
You say the rest like they did see it that way, that we absolutely went to the moon. How do you think censorship works? There is plenty of documentation about the case against the moon landing. Despite looking like plot armor though, the power of our culture has promoted the counters to it over it though.
At the time anyways. Especially the population at large wasn’t interested. It strikes me as weird to say you’re not interested in proving superiority in a certain field when you are when the whole point of making a statement is to be declarative about it.
Bullshit you actually believe somethig that can be disproven by buying a $60 kids toy and looking up at the moon through it
Or at least, you only believe it at this point because changing your view would rock your tiny world too much
cut funding to your black hole detection chamber
I knew you’d come for my fucking black hole detection chamber you swine
First they came for the black hole detection chambers and I said nothing because I was researching Computer sciences.
Then they came for my HPC clusters
Science articles that reference paywalled journals you can’t actually read. Most of them are probably making stuff up because they know no one will be able to call them out on it.
I’ve had a field day while writing my thesis recently, realising I could bypass the paywalls by accessing the papers through the university proxy. It’s still bs, though, because it leaves this stuff only accessible to researchers and not your regular people who may be interested.
Though like PrinceWith999Enemies said, many paper writers will happily send you a copy if you email them about it.
I’ve always thought the classic Hunter - Gatherer gender division of labor was bullshit. I think that theory has gone out of fashion but I always thought it seemed like a huge assumption. It seems so much more plausible to me that everybody hunted some days (like during migration patterns) and gathered others. Did they even have the luxury of purely specialized roles before agriculture and cities?
Another reason I think that is because prehistoric hunting was probably way different than we imagine. Like, we imagine tribes of people slaying mammoths with only spears. It was probably more traps and tricks. Eventually, using domesticated dog or a trained falcon or something.
You can read the dawn of everything book which is a very interesting take at a lot of those assumptions which are indeed false. This book goes deep into the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence.
the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence
Surprised you didn’t get downvoted here. It’s like if you tell people science is done by humans and humans arre flawed people flip out and call you a science-denier.
One of the first things you’re taught to understand when interpreting data is that you have a bias. It is impossible not to have a bias.
Take for example: 1+1=2. Is it an extremely simple equation, or a decades long mathematical pursuit to establish certainty?
Our bias tells us we can confidently assert such simple statements, but the truth is, unless we spend an agonising length of time understanding the most insignificant and asinine facts, we NEED biases to understand the world.
The point of understanding we have biases is to think more critically about which ones are most obviously wrong.
I always assumed that hunter gatherer division was mostly down to the individual, some traits make some better at hunting than others.
I struggle to locate static objects, I for the fucking life of me just can’t see it. I’ll be looking for something and either look right over it or walk past it multiple times
But if I go outside and look in the trees I can spot all the squirrels within seconds. Not like that’s a talent or anything special, but my point is that I’d starve if I had to look for food in the brush, and likely I imagine these types of traits are what defined who did what job, meaning who was good at what, and likely considering lots of hunting was endurance based and not skill based at all, then most adults probably participated to some degree.
I’ve also gone shroom hunting and had to come back empty handed because I can’t see the god damned things.
Is this why I could never find stuff and then when my mother looked she would just go right to it?
The hunter-gatherer gender division is actually proven wrong now.
Also, hunting mammoths was a very rare activity. I would expect it to be some kind of desperate activity in fact. People weren’t more crazy than we are, they would rather live than to be trampled by a mammoth.
The Big Bang being a singular event that only happened once, as if we are so special we just happen to be at the point of time, within the spectrum of infinity where matter is in a state that can support life. (I’m not aware if that’s the prevailing theory anymore)
Also the double slit experiment. We aren’t a phantom observers, we are impacting the experiment. With our equipment.
I don’t think a unique big bang has ever been the prevailing theory in science. If you ask science what happens before the big bang, the answer is “we don’t know”, and if you ask has there been other big bangs, you might get a “not that we’ve observed”, but science has not attempted to explain what happened before the big bang because in the most literal sense, we just don’t have the data to make an attempt.
Predictions do state that the future of the universe will look different from the beginning of the universe (by which I mean the universe since our big bang) and the maths suggest that before the big bang, we think there was a singularity of incredible density, but that doesn’t really deal with how many other big bangs there can have been.
On your second point, that’s what the science actually says. “Observer” or “observation” is used in a scientific sense and was probably a poor word choice. Science journalism gets carried away with anything that has the word “quantum” in it and it drives us mad.
You’re absolutely right that the mechanism that’s causing the wave function to collapse is the presence of whatever piece of equipment the particle is hitting. Whether that collapse happens at the two slits or the back wall changes the pattern, and that change is what shows wave-particle duality.
Also: physics doesn’t claim to know that the Big Bang only happened once. That’s just as far back as we can rewind with our current models. This is again something that science journalism takes a lot of liberty with.
Removed by mod
the leading approaches suggest that the wave function doesn’t collapse at all, it just appears to when our brains become entangled with the experiment.
Aren’t you just moving the point of the wave collapse from the experiment to inside the brain? I mean if the wave function never collapsed, shouldn’t we see all superpositions at once? But instead, the brain seems to collapse to one possibility, i.e. still collapsing the wave function.
Removed by mod
That mothers shouldn’t co-sleep with infants. Every other primate I know of co-sleeps with their offspring. Until very recently every human mother co-slept with her infants, and in like half of the globe people still do. Many mothers find it incredibly psychologically stressful to sleep without their infant because our ancestors co-slept every generation for hundreds of thousands of years.
I would bet money that forcing infants to sleep alone has negative developmental effects.
The reason for this is that we tend to sleep deeper now than our ancestors. Because of this, we are more prone to roll onto a baby, and not wake up.
It can still be done, you just have to avoid things like alcohol, that stop you waking. You also need to make sure your sleeping position is safe. Explaining this to exhausted parents is unreliable, however. Hence the advice Americans seem to be given.
Fyi, if people want a halfway point, you can get cosleeping cribs. They attach to the side of the bed. Your baby can be close to you, while also eliminating the risk of suffocating them.
Maybe if you can avoid stuff like alcohol (easy for most) but also you can avoid sleep deprivation - way harder with little to no maternal leave and forget about paternal leave here in the US.
If you (Royal you, not parent commenter) can live with yourself if a tragedy occurs on your watch while you are flaunting medical advice, then go ahead and risk it, but otherwise yes! Buy the bedside attached crib!
The other thing is SIDS, if the baby can’t lift their head from a suffocation position they suffocate.
We have ours sleep in a cosleep crib beside the bed so you get the closeness and can make contact in the night.
I think something on the UK’s NHS implied the risk is primarily for mothers with various kinds of problems (including drug or alcohol abuse). Made me wonder if it’s largely recommended for everyone to cover the many people who are at risk but don’t want to think they are.
A lot of the advice is almost insultingly obvious. You get treated like you have a single digit IQ. After a couple of months, I fully understand why we were treated like that! It’s a fight to keep your iq in double digits!
The baby shaking one is the big one. It’s obvious, you don’t shake your baby. It’s also obvious that they can be safe, even while screaming. After 2 hours of constant crying, combined with sleep deprivation, I fully understand why they reiterated not to shake your baby, the urge was alarmingly strong! It also made sense why they pointed out you could leave them to scream, if you really needed to. So long as they are clean safe and fed, 10 minutes down the garden is completely acceptable.
With the original advice, telling when it will apply to you is harder than you think. The default advice has to be to play it safe. Some can be deviated from, some can’t. Deviations must be consciously made however.
