#thanks for that
Bad: FIVE WEEKS.
Dream: What’s wrong?
Skeppy: It’s nothing.
Bad: YOU WATCHED ME WATER A PLASTIC PLANT FOR FIVE WEEKS-
Ah yes nothing says a good day than a random burst of unexplained anxiety
Charles is not happy.
Unlike some ghosts who wear the clothes they died in, Ghost!Charles has returned to his natural state of shirtlessness.
That’s because a ghost is one’s most true and honest self. Charles consisted of 99% abs and 1% throat cancer when living. This is a manifestation of his in the purest possible form!
Post link
Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib were a few of the most important preventative steps. So, when SIDS still occurred, parents were left with immense guilt, wondering if they could have prevented their baby’s death.
Dr. Carmel Harrington, the lead researcher for the study, was one of these parents. Her son unexpectedly and suddenly died as an infant 29 years ago. (…) Harrington explained what she was told about the cause of her child’s death.
“Nobody could tell me. They just said it’s a tragedy. But it was a tragedy that didn’t sit well with my scientific brain.”
Since then, she’s worked to find the cause of SIDS, both for herself and for the medical community as a whole. She went on to explain why this discovery is so important for parents whose babies suffered from SIDS.
"These families can now live with the knowledge that this was not their fault,” she said.
(…) As the cause is now known, researchers can turn their attention to a solution. In the next few years, those in the medical community who have studied SIDS will likely work on a screening test to identify babies who are at risk for SIDS and hopefully prevent it altogether.
This blows it up quite a bit. If you read the actual abstract - only two clicks away, go and read it because it’s broken down really well - you’ll read that it’s a potential biomarker. It’s notthecause. It is something to look out for in babies to determine their risk of cot death.
Actually the confidence intervals for BChE levels in babies who died and who didn’t are just about touching - think of two bell curves* sitting side by side, with the outer ends of their tails overlapping. It is statistically significant, and at some concentrations BChE values - in the middle of each bell curve - are a pretty good indication whether a baby is at risk of cot death, but this is not like an on and off switch. If you look at individual babies whose BChE values lie in that area where the tails of the distributions overlap you’d be hard pressed to give a definitive answer to the question whether this particular baby will die of cot death.
It might be - and as a scientist I’d really like to stress the might - that after a ton of further research this gets nailed down further, which might - again with a qualifier - lead to an actual treatment option. But for now the scientists behind this paper say it’s correlation, not causation. I’m pretty sure they’re working on finding out more on the causation bit, though.
* Logistic regression doesn’t use the classic Gaussian bell curves of the normal distribution, but for the purposes of illustration it’s close enough. It’s still a bell curve, just not the famous bell curve.
I have a headcannon that Natasha says “it’s okay” when she knows she’s won’t be but everyone else will be. That she uses it as a placeholder to protect everyone from either her own feelings or what’s going to happen next.
It is too early to feel this fragile.
