> That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists.
(Just to play devil's advocate)
Yes, but one can surmise an evolutionary reason for that - a colicky child is more likely to be the victim in that scenario; likewise, a colicky child is less likely to be healthy.
A better argument may be that prior to 'modern' medicine, bassinets (or an analog) were spontaneously popularized in various cultures -- (if that's true).
> all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective.
Many doctor's groups positions, when confronted with inconclusive evidence, tend to (rightfully) stand on the side of caution. A great example is caffeiene (as well as many other foods) in pregnancy. Little evidence for harm, but its possible. So its a little less harsh than all experts being dead wrong and studies defective; more likely all experts playing it safe and studies inconclusive (if that is the case).
(Just to play devil's advocate) Yes, but one can surmise an evolutionary reason for that - a colicky child is more likely to be the victim in that scenario; likewise, a colicky child is less likely to be healthy.
A better argument may be that prior to 'modern' medicine, bassinets (or an analog) were spontaneously popularized in various cultures -- (if that's true).
> all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective.
Many doctor's groups positions, when confronted with inconclusive evidence, tend to (rightfully) stand on the side of caution. A great example is caffeiene (as well as many other foods) in pregnancy. Little evidence for harm, but its possible. So its a little less harsh than all experts being dead wrong and studies defective; more likely all experts playing it safe and studies inconclusive (if that is the case).
(/devils advocate)