Taking Liberties

For years passive smoking has been cited, in some quarters, as a significant factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Now, following a nine-month investigation in the USA, the Scripps Howard News Service reports that most of the victims of SIDS die "because they are accidentally smothered by their parents or other children who sleep with them or because they are placed on dangerous overstuffed sofas or heavily blanketed adult beds".

The Scripps study also found that most coroners are not following the methods of investigation recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prompting them instead to rely on often-incorrect diagnoses of SIDS, still the officially listed cause for 57 percent of all infant deaths.

But the top 11 coroners in the Scripps study said they are confident that the SIDS diagnosis is grossly overused in America because their own investigations overwhelmingly lead to different conclusions ... [They] agree it's difficult to tell grieving families the truth.

"As a coroner, you don't want to look into the face of a grandmother or father or mother who rolled over and smothered their child. There's no way to console them," said Dr John McGoff. "But without that knowledge, there's no prevention."

"A huge percentage of sudden infant deaths will be found to be asphyxia if a proper death scene investigation is done," said Theresa Covington, director of the Michigan-based National Center for Child Death Review Policy. "This is what the national evidence is leading us to. They are not homicides or anything else. They are accidental suffocations."

"If we can get to the truth, then we can craft the right intervention strategies so that we can actually make a dent in the number of sudden and unexplained infant deaths. We are doing a disservice to the parents if we don't tell them the truth," Covington said.

Full story HERE.

It was reported this week that Britain's chief scientist has called for large numbers of badgers to be culled to stop the spread of tuberculosis among cattle. I don't think the word 'epidemic' has been used (yet) but according to Sir David King, who will today give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee, "now was the time for action".

Various parties have lined up on either side of what could become a pretty bloody battle (literally). Wildlife supporters are up in arms, while farming leaders support the cull. As one who is now automatically suspicious of the many fanciful claims made by scientific and medical "experts", I'm firmly on the side of the badgers.

The Daily Mail reported that:

Critics of culling, including the RSPCA, accused Sir David of advocating 'senseless slaughter' and relying on political rather than scientific arguments.

Professor John Bourne, who wrote the report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, said Sir David's advice was not consistent with current science. He said such a policy was more in line "with the political need to do something" about the problem.

The RSPCA said a cull would mean "senseless slaughter, enormous suffering and would be scientifically bankrupt". Rob Atkinson, the charity's head of wildlife science, said: "This latest report seems to be less about science, and more about caving in to pressure to do something even if that something is the worst possible option.

I am further persuaded, not only by my own healthy scepticism (born of experience), but by comments attributed to Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the National Farmers' Union, who said: "Now that we have scientific endorsement for the principle of badger culling, there can be no further excuse for the Government not to act."

"Scientific endorsement ... no further excuse for the Government not to act." Now, where have I heard that before?

Full story HERE and HERE.

'Hazardous drinking, the middle-class vice' screams the front page headline in today's Times.

"Social drinkers who regularly down more than one large glass of wine a day ... risk damaging their health in the same way as young binge drinkers. The figures will be used by the Government to target middle-class wine drinkers and to make drunkenness as socially unacceptable as smoking."

I hold up my hand. I'm middle-class and I like a drink. Three or four nights a week I share a bottle of wine at home with my wife. She normally has two (small) glasses and I knock back the rest. Drunk? Hardly ever. I drink wine (or beer if I'm in the pub) because I enjoy it and - I think - it relieves stress. The same reasons, in fact, that many people smoke.

Apparently, one large glass of wine represents three "units". According to the North West Public Health Observatory (!), a man consuming 22 units a week is in the "hazardous" category. I've no idea whether I'm a "hazardous drinker" or not but I'm certainly not going to waste good drinking time doing the calculations.

Who the hell do these people think they are? This is making me very, very cross. Seriously, I can feel my blood pressure rising. Nurse, quick, I need a drink. And it had better be a large one ..... Cheers!

Full story HERE.