On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:30:56 GMT, "JG" <jg030103@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Roger Schlafly" <rogersc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:OTmOa.2781$JA.999098385@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "JG" <jg030103@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> > Another article for the "Well, DUH!" file. Amazing how some people
>> > manage to walk without someone else (a physician?) telling them
>
>> It seems obvious, but a lot of people have trouble distingui****ng
>> the good pediatrician advice from the ungrounded goofy opinions.
"A lot of people"... e.g., you.
The 40% reduction in SIDS deaths due to the Back to Sleep campaign
(which is five to six babies NOT dying every DAY in the U.S. as a
result) is well documented and consistent worldwide. It has nothing to
do with opinion.
>Apparently: "Up to 48 percent of infants develop the deformity." This
>certainly doesn't bode well for our country's future, does it? It looks
>like we have a generation ("GenX"?) that hasn't been taught to question
>"expert" advice and to think, *at all*, for themselves. No wonder so
>many didn't even blink at WJC's "It depends what 'is' is," or when
>Congress passed the USA Patriot Act.
I'd say 48% sounds about right in my experience. What you fail to
realize is that for most of them, the deformity resolves with time.
Back to Sleep started in full force around 1994. Do you know many
9-year-olds with misshapen heads?
>> There are other drawbacks to putting babies on their backs. Nowadays,
>> a lot of babies never even learn to crawl.
>
>Yeah, something else a whole generation won't learn...
Please tell me what the problem with this is. I don't want your
conjecture, of course, but you should cite studies showing that
failing to learn to crawl (something many, normally developing and
healthy babies have done even before Back to Sleep) is detrimental.
Roger: "My kid always slept face down."
And I bet you put your kid in a walker, too, no?
Effects of baby walkers on motor and mental development in human
infants.
J Dev Behav Pediatr 1999 Oct;20(5):355-61
Siegel AC; Burton RV
Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland,
Ohio, USA.
Because baby walkers enable precocious locomotion in very young,
otherwise prelocomotor infants, walker experience might be
conceptualized in terms of early enrichment. However, walker devices
prevent visual access to the moving limbs by design. Therefore,
prelocomotor walker experience may be conceptualized in terms of early
deprivation, reminiscent of that created in a classic series of animal
experiments on the critical role of visual feedback in developing
motor systems. This study analyzed motor and mental development in 109
human infants, with and without walker experience, between the ages of
6 and 15 months. Walker-experienced infants sat, crawled, and walked
later than no-walker controls, and they scored lower on Bayley scales
of mental and motor development. Significant effects of walker type,
frequency, and timing of walker exposure were observed. Considering
the injury data along with the developmental data, the authors
conclude that the risks of walker use outweigh the benefits.
|
