![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
How many deaths per year in the US are attributed to SIDS? David W. Hogg 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Answered my own question—see the article. I used statistics for 2002 from the CDC; should I cite these directly in the article? I will probably add a link to the CDC WWW page. David W. Hogg 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding a section on things parents are told to do to help prevent SIDS. Parhaps someone (me if I have the time...) could do some research to see if any of those things have actually been shown to help in studies. Starfoxy 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.
Does that mean you wont remove it if I put it on the main page? john 09:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you can't get beyond Australas Nurses J to publish views on SIDS then one wonders. But I agree with Andrew that his views should be on his own wiki page. Please not John that you can link to Wikipedia articles by putting them in [[square brackets]]. No URL needed. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Kalokerinos makes rather a lot of referring a patient to a colleague who diagnosed
Scurvy. And the elucidation of Vitamin C in scurvy causation and prevention was one of the classics of entirely conventional medicine - well worth talking about. But deaths of children from Scurvy are not SIDS.
Midgley
08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is the this still on the main page at all? Who put it there? The man himself or a Vitamin C peddler? Lindacse 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone from 86.128.x.x keeps putting in a wacky link to "whale.to". David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"A man is eminent as long as he is orthodox. When he begins to think for himself he becomes a crank.... It is the great commercial manufacturing firms who are providing the brains for the medical man of to-day."---Dr Hadwen 1925
es, and some crank keeps removing it. Don't you like the fact vitamin C will prevent all cot-deaths? Or the FACT vaccine deaths been put down as SIDS? 86.128.165.240 10:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.
I don't kniow what the word is for suppressing the cure for SIDS but crank isn't what I had in mind.
I have explained above why this link is a poor candidate for inclusion here. JFW | T@lk 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Pauling's credibility was hurt immeasurably by his antioxidant escapades. Dropping his name does not gain instant notability. And I will gladly take over from Hogghogg in calling people cranks if that is what you would like. JFW | T@lk 12:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So do you, Mr Anti-Allopath. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You are so unbelievably misinformed about medicine it is shocking you pretend to have an opinion. Nutrient-based therapy has been part of medicine since Maimonides and probably before then. Blaming big pharma is another attempt at strawmanning, something you seem to be good at.
Your figure of 98% comes out of thin air, and I really doubt you can substantiate that. Failing that, doctors are continuously relying on dietary and nutrient interventions, such as fibre and green vegetables for atherosclerosis and cancer prevention, the Meditteranean diet for cardiovascular prevention, fish oil for hypercholesterolaemia (and IgA nephritis), oranges/tomatoes/bananas for hypokalaemia, and what-have-you.
With your bizarre anti-allopath opinions your factual knowledge about health science is miserable and based on prejudice, conspiracy theories and unreasonable presumptions. One of our more outspoken consultants in hospital is known for giving drug company representatives a hard time about the safety profile of their drugs. So much for your claims. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The link given for this "theory" has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy website: mainstream science is out to get them, defending validity through never been disproven, relying on the research of a scientist from New Zealand, et cetera. Does anybody know if this must be left in the article, or is there a Wikipedia policy on conspiracy theories? -- Adamrush 06:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some animosity to the Toxic Gas Theory [TGT]... {eg, there was an anonynous, unexplained deletion of a paragraph relating to it - 20:08, 11 June 2006, by 81.170.114.161). As I note above the TGT is plausible, falisfiable and predictive - criteria that should at least allow it consideration as a hypothesis. I can understand skepticism, but why the animosity? Anyone care to explain?-- Oscar Bravo 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the fact that Dr. Sprock is directly involved with the marketing and profit from the selling of these afore-mentioned mattress protectors would suggest that his views are not as objective and impartial as an encyclopedia would require. I agree with the user that removed this content, however if the user Oscar Bravo wishes for this content to remain then he should supply satifactory references to articles published in a reputable journal as opposed to an external website maintained by Dr. Sprock himself
In cases like this were ridicule is invoked there's generally a reason. This SIDS entry on wikipedia is mostly a red herring.-- Hubie59 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this page not have a search link for "SIDS" and only for "cot death"?
I took out an odd bit near the beginning. The reason for the age range is the definition of infant... Midgley 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I still wonder if it's correct to use one month as the minimum age for SIDS. In 1954, my sister was born in a hospital and died the next day. The doctors found no cause of death, so I have to think that today her death would be ruled SIDS. JimC1946 ( talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph including Meadow needs rewriting. Preferably not by me. Midgley 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"I spoke with my child?" Hmmm? Do we really need this? 141.149.206.197 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
How many deaths per year in the US are attributed to SIDS? David W. Hogg 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Answered my own question—see the article. I used statistics for 2002 from the CDC; should I cite these directly in the article? I will probably add a link to the CDC WWW page. David W. Hogg 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding a section on things parents are told to do to help prevent SIDS. Parhaps someone (me if I have the time...) could do some research to see if any of those things have actually been shown to help in studies. Starfoxy 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.
Does that mean you wont remove it if I put it on the main page? john 09:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you can't get beyond Australas Nurses J to publish views on SIDS then one wonders. But I agree with Andrew that his views should be on his own wiki page. Please not John that you can link to Wikipedia articles by putting them in [[square brackets]]. No URL needed. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Kalokerinos makes rather a lot of referring a patient to a colleague who diagnosed
Scurvy. And the elucidation of Vitamin C in scurvy causation and prevention was one of the classics of entirely conventional medicine - well worth talking about. But deaths of children from Scurvy are not SIDS.
Midgley
08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is the this still on the main page at all? Who put it there? The man himself or a Vitamin C peddler? Lindacse 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone from 86.128.x.x keeps putting in a wacky link to "whale.to". David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"A man is eminent as long as he is orthodox. When he begins to think for himself he becomes a crank.... It is the great commercial manufacturing firms who are providing the brains for the medical man of to-day."---Dr Hadwen 1925
es, and some crank keeps removing it. Don't you like the fact vitamin C will prevent all cot-deaths? Or the FACT vaccine deaths been put down as SIDS? 86.128.165.240 10:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.
I don't kniow what the word is for suppressing the cure for SIDS but crank isn't what I had in mind.
I have explained above why this link is a poor candidate for inclusion here. JFW | T@lk 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Pauling's credibility was hurt immeasurably by his antioxidant escapades. Dropping his name does not gain instant notability. And I will gladly take over from Hogghogg in calling people cranks if that is what you would like. JFW | T@lk 12:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So do you, Mr Anti-Allopath. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You are so unbelievably misinformed about medicine it is shocking you pretend to have an opinion. Nutrient-based therapy has been part of medicine since Maimonides and probably before then. Blaming big pharma is another attempt at strawmanning, something you seem to be good at.
Your figure of 98% comes out of thin air, and I really doubt you can substantiate that. Failing that, doctors are continuously relying on dietary and nutrient interventions, such as fibre and green vegetables for atherosclerosis and cancer prevention, the Meditteranean diet for cardiovascular prevention, fish oil for hypercholesterolaemia (and IgA nephritis), oranges/tomatoes/bananas for hypokalaemia, and what-have-you.
With your bizarre anti-allopath opinions your factual knowledge about health science is miserable and based on prejudice, conspiracy theories and unreasonable presumptions. One of our more outspoken consultants in hospital is known for giving drug company representatives a hard time about the safety profile of their drugs. So much for your claims. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The link given for this "theory" has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy website: mainstream science is out to get them, defending validity through never been disproven, relying on the research of a scientist from New Zealand, et cetera. Does anybody know if this must be left in the article, or is there a Wikipedia policy on conspiracy theories? -- Adamrush 06:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some animosity to the Toxic Gas Theory [TGT]... {eg, there was an anonynous, unexplained deletion of a paragraph relating to it - 20:08, 11 June 2006, by 81.170.114.161). As I note above the TGT is plausible, falisfiable and predictive - criteria that should at least allow it consideration as a hypothesis. I can understand skepticism, but why the animosity? Anyone care to explain?-- Oscar Bravo 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the fact that Dr. Sprock is directly involved with the marketing and profit from the selling of these afore-mentioned mattress protectors would suggest that his views are not as objective and impartial as an encyclopedia would require. I agree with the user that removed this content, however if the user Oscar Bravo wishes for this content to remain then he should supply satifactory references to articles published in a reputable journal as opposed to an external website maintained by Dr. Sprock himself
In cases like this were ridicule is invoked there's generally a reason. This SIDS entry on wikipedia is mostly a red herring.-- Hubie59 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this page not have a search link for "SIDS" and only for "cot death"?
I took out an odd bit near the beginning. The reason for the age range is the definition of infant... Midgley 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I still wonder if it's correct to use one month as the minimum age for SIDS. In 1954, my sister was born in a hospital and died the next day. The doctors found no cause of death, so I have to think that today her death would be ruled SIDS. JimC1946 ( talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph including Meadow needs rewriting. Preferably not by me. Midgley 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"I spoke with my child?" Hmmm? Do we really need this? 141.149.206.197 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)