"I could not find a cause of death, but with babies who die suddenly and unexpectedly in the first year of life, that is not uncommon

gabon wrote:
Your right Bolton Dave to much of dont do this dont do that, Hardly heard of any allergies 30 yrs ago you smelt it if it smelt ok you ate it, No friggin sell by dates either i mean how can you have a sell by date on crutons its stale bread, Bring back them days heh Dave

BoltonDave wrote:
My Mum and Dad and Grandparents all smoked around us when we were kids and we all survived and have grown up with no ill-health.
Just another thing for the namby pamby PC state to latch on to.
It's no wonder people are so ill these days, with all this don't eat that and don't drink this etc. etc. people don't get a chance to build up a resistance to anything. Anybody ever hear of nut allergies 30 years ago?

Andrew wrote:
Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said:

"The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking.

"This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."

Gloria wrote:
Does that mean you think its good for them?

Andrew wrote:
I see my eponymic friend is being attacked once again...

Anyway, I don't think anyone here can dispute the fact that smoking kills. Passive smoking is much less of a killer than actually smoking yourself, but we must all agree that it can be a contributing factor in some cases.

This could quite possibly have been one of those cases.

Master of ignorance.

Andrew wrote:
I think your comment was directed at my "eponymic friend" from Bury, rather than me, Rocky!

Master of ignorance.

Well, you said it!

spiceman wrote:
if anything can help the health and progress of a child, we should stop giving it the "if's" and "buts"..and take on board the facts.

gabon wrote:
He as still not answered my question to him from last night, Why can we not comment on asians who commit crime, We can comment on white people who commit crime, So is this classed as racist towards the white people. If he can give me a resonable answer i will stop asking but all he says is it relevant. I think its relevant because its all one sided, Like the guy on the other thread calling councillors thieves bolton people thick and other remarks and then gets shirty because we have a go back, Doubple standards i say.By the way he called himself ahmed could this be one of erics tricks to get another thread closed.

Rocky wrote:

Andrew wrote: Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said: "The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking. "This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."

Why doesn't he publish it then? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF.

blue wrote:

Rocky wrote:

Andrew wrote: Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said: "The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking. "This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."

Why doesn't he publish it then? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF.

Im sick of this argument but here we go. According to the World Health Organisation, and indeed many tobacco companies, the evidence between ETS (Environmental Tobacco smoke) and dangers to public health is clear.

Now what I do accept is that it has not been demostrated exactky by which biological pathways that cigarette smoke causes harm. Now part of the problem is we are not allowed to stick cigarettes in babies mouths and cut their lungs open too see what the result is. I would draw a comparison to say, Ibuporfen. A drug released in 1969, it was the late 90's before we knew exactly HOW it reduced pain. The exact physiological pathways by which the drug has its pain relieving effect. To get the licence on drug tarrif it is only necessary to show proof of efficacy (its safe and works)
Now the statistical evidence IS proof enough alone to show that smoking is harmful. And while Animal models may be used to show how this happens it has never been demostrated in Humans. Take another drug Ritalin, no one knows how it works, its thought to prevent reuptake of dopamine but it actually may work like antidepressants. Seaweed is known to have haemostatic porperties, sailors have used it for years on rope burned hands, again no one knows why.
Don't be fooled, cigarette smoke is detrimental to health, and the pro smoking lobby uses every opportunity to spread falsehoods and doubts, but there can be no argument, the overwhelming amount of evidence is there and clear to see.

blue wrote:
well lets agree that its not conducive to good health and move on. lifes short enough eh?

gabon wrote:
You have still not answerd it you just keep ranting about racist, If you had answered it i would not be back asking would i, why can we not post on anything about asians i cant see in your last post where you gave me an answer only rants again, Perhaps i should have named the bloke Andrew and not frank in that last post,

Andrew wrote:
I can't remember anyone claiming that they knew that smoking is the *cause* of SIDS.

If you accept that it may increase the risk of it occurring, then surely that is good enough - why take the chance of increasing the risk of SIDS?

Rocky wrote:

Andrew wrote: I can't remember anyone claiming that they knew that smoking is the *cause* of SIDS. If you accept that it may increase the risk of it occurring, then surely that is good enough - why take the chance of increasing the risk of SIDS?

Indeed.

gabon wrote:
No i dont agree i am still waiting, I think i will ask the BN tomorrow see if they can tell me, See mustaf got the message two faced sod calling others then gets the hump when we fight back,

Andrew wrote:

gabon wrote: He as still not answered my question to him from last night, Why can we not comment on asians who commit crime, We can comment on white people who commit crime, So is this classed as racist towards the white people. If he can give me a resonable answer i will stop asking but all he says is it relevant. I think its relevant because its all one sided, Like the guy on the other thread calling councillors thieves bolton people thick and other remarks and then gets shirty because we have a go back, Doubple standards i say.By the way he called himself ahmed could this be one of erics tricks to get another thread closed.

I HAVE answered it. Now b*gger off you boring, stupid racist git. You are thick otherwise you would understand. Or you choose not to understand in order to wallow in prejudice. Rocky, I never said their would not be a housing fall. frankly I'm expecting it. I just get perplxed by Sun's apparent economic mastery and dismissal of economists - and that he seems to be willing a recession which will hit the working classes hardest, the very people he claims to support. As for infant mortality, hmm, let's see now. Who has more credibilty - a gobby get with no medical training or a consultant paediatrician pathologist? I wonder. There is evidence out there - why not use the power of google rather than whatever right wing rag you appear to be using as a source.

Rocky wrote:

spiceman wrote: if anything can help the health and progress of a child, we should stop giving it the "if's" and "buts"..and take on board the facts.

And it is fact that passive smoking doesn't kill anyone.

Andrew wrote:
If people understood the difference between cause and risk factor it might help.

chas wrote:
A few years ago Sally Clark and other women were sent to jail for killing their children. Sally was accused of killing two sons. They were convicted because of evidence gien by an 'expert' witness, paediatrian Prof. Sir Roy Meadows. On appeal Sally was released because it was shown that Sir Roy's evidence was not based on fact but on his opinion which was flawed. The other women were all released because Sir Roy's evidence could not be trusted. Unfortunately last year Sally died, some say she died of a broken heart and some say because of that wrongful imprisonment. Sir Roy has been banned form ever giving 'expert' evidence again.

Andrew wrote:
If people understood the difference between cause and risk factor it might help.
i agree

So all scientific evidence should be discounted because of one rogue "expert

My understanding is it was the presentation of the evidence

chas wrote:
If you think that cars are a necessity, then how did people survive before the 20th century?

chas wrote:
Andrew wrote.

My understanding is it was the presentation of the evidence

Exactly, FACT not opinion. Most SIDS is due to genes. I'm not an 'expert' and neither are you. You obviously will believe expert until every one has been discredited. If you think that cars are a necessity, then how did people survive before the 20th century?

chas wrote:
Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.

chaswrote:
Now try the 19th century.

Most SIDS is due to genes.

Andrew wrote:

chas wrote: Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.

I said needs and wants, as bnalanced by risk. I'd be interested to know though how you think people can afford to eat, cook, drink, pay water rates,be housed, kept warm and so on without working which necessitates using, crossing or walking besides roads.

As absurd as using one case of a discredited paediatrician to dismiss scientific research per se.

chas wrote:
I like to believe FACTS not opinions and so do judges. I was not the one to bring risks into the debate. You brought up one risk, so I brought up other risks. Let's stick to FACTS. How many children have been proven to have been killed by passive smoking? Answer, NONE.

BoltonDave wrote:

Andrew wrote:

chas wrote: Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.

I said needs and wants, as bnalanced by risk. I'd be interested to know though how you think people can afford to eat, cook, drink, pay water rates,be housed, kept warm and so on without working which necessitates using, crossing or walking besides roads.

There's plenty parasitic scum on benefits who manage it Andrew. Many of them appear to be better off than those of us who do work.

He gave scientific evidence which proved false. He was given all the evidence available, but that evidence was and is flawed.

Andrew wrote:
chas said:

He gave scientific evidence which proved false. He was given all the evidence available, but that evidence was and is flawed.

I seem to remember the professional statisticians were equally alarmed by Meadow's duff data as the rest of us. He appeared to come up with his own evidence, basing it loosely on true scientists' findings.

chas wrote:
The parents said that they did not smoke in front of the baby.

Sleeping in the same bed as a child could be harmful in that the parents could roll over and suffocate a baby, but this did not happen in this case.

chas scripsit Thank god that there are only a few idiots like you that believe it.