Inanna my love - FWIW - I do agree with you - and as I mentioned - I agree that there is a danger to cumulative exposure to low levels of toxins, and don't use synthetics in the home or on my child myself so there's obviously common ground between us.

Because it was hidden in amongst a whole bunch of stats and what-not, I think my point got lost in amongst the waffle. I hope I can do it justice because DS is in the middle of destroying the computer room, but I'll try.

Just as I am sceptical of the things that I don't agree with (eg: the AMA's stance on homebirth and its subsequent 'doctoring' - pun intended - of the stats to make an invalid point), I am also careful to be as equally sceptical of the things that I do agree with. Just because a scientist is supporting a good cause doesn't mean that their methodology is good, and unfortunately, there are people out there involved in research who believe so strongly in something that they are prepared to accept poor methodology, or to interpret findings in a misrepresented way that supports their hypothesis (or to ignore points that contradict it). This is across the board and across all levels of research.

I am not saying that something is right and another thing is wrong. Toxicity may well be a direct contributor to SIDS. It may well be that we have not yet attained the level of sophistication of measurement that allows us to accurately determine this. It would be a poor scientist who was not aware of any potential limitations of their capacity to accurately determine something.

All I'm saying is that at this point in time this hypothesis is not able to be supported by peer review or by statistical data. This does not mean that the subject should not be further researched, or that it will not one day be proven to be right. It just means that right now, all that can be said is that a link is suspected and further research is warranted. I do not claim to be certain that toxicity is not responsible for SIDS (or that SLES is not carcinogenic), I can only claim that the hypothesis is not supported at this point in time, and I am wary of any scientist who claims absolute scientific certainty in the matter.

For the record, you know that I have a huge amount of respect for both your intellect and your instinct for what is right, and I do know how much you research things, and your background in science. This is not a criticism of you, or anyone else here, but a critique of the science behind the hypothesis. Neither is it a criticism of anyone who believes so strongly in something because all of the personal experience they have had points in that direction, but of scientists (who must be held to a much higher standard of accountability) who claim something as fact when it is not yet provable.

I don't believe that only those educated in scientific methodology can know things, and sometimes such methodology can restrict the very valuable trait of instinct, but by definition, the only way to prove something is through scientific method.