zlacker

>>rossan+(OP)
The worst part here is: He spent months researching 500 medical papers to even realize this was a problem. No way in hell will a single defense lawyer get someone to be able to research enough to figure this out. As stated, how many people are in jail or lost their kids due to something that didn't actually happen. And how many people don't know that a minor bump in the head for a baby could be life threatening, but we just mark it as SIDS. And even worse, no medical doctor will go this hard trying to figure out how to defend a person they believe murdered a baby.

It is the perfect combination of crap.

Cyrille Rossant may save a lot of lives, in both parents and children, if this becomes common knowledge.

>>Justsi+8m4
I’ve heard credible rumors that SIDS is the “parent accidentally killed their child but we won’t tell them that” polite fiction.

>>bombca+1o4
Who have you heard these rumors from?

How did you determine them to be credible?

My assumption is that any citation to a rumor should be totally dismissed if these questions can’t be answered.

>>ncalla+Gq4
It seems to me that this rumor is just an alternate framing of the original commenter's assertion that "a minor bump in the head for a baby could be life threatening, but we just mark it as SIDS". I think it's fair to be skeptical of both, but it's worth reflecting on how the same factual assertions can come across as either "science-informed speculation" or "crazy unsubstantiated rumor" depending on how you say them.

>>SpicyL+ur4
> or "crazy unsubstantiated rumor" depending on how you say them.

“How it was said” was literally presented as unsubstantiated rumor. It’s not worth reflecting that when someone says “I heard a rumor that X…” it sounds like an unsubstantiated rumor. It’s just the basic structure of English language.