No I think I understood, but probably my first sentence was stating your position overly causal and less nuanced than you actually mean.
Essentially your last paragraph boils down to 'it's better for ones health to co-sleep because it reduces stress which is a contributing factor to my disease and others', which is probably true in the most generic sense, but not in a sense that is actionable or can be directly reduced to co-sleeping in general. By that I mean, the same can be said of having a co-worker who chews his food very loudly throughout the day, or living next to a railroad, or any other of millions of things that can cause stress.
I mean, you are saying that co-sleeping is 'better' (even for small values of it) for your health because of stress-related reasons, right? (my whole point hinges on that assumption) Well, my point was that there is no data to even suggest that, or that it's a net negative after taking everything else into consideration. It's just an anecdote, one that is easily explained by the law of large numbers, nothing to draw a normative conclusion from.
Not trying to pick a fight, and I realize that you're not posting a peer reviewed article.
Essentially your last paragraph boils down to 'it's better for ones health to co-sleep because it reduces stress which is a contributing factor to my disease and others', which is probably true in the most generic sense, but not in a sense that is actionable or can be directly reduced to co-sleeping in general. By that I mean, the same can be said of having a co-worker who chews his food very loudly throughout the day, or living next to a railroad, or any other of millions of things that can cause stress.
I mean, you are saying that co-sleeping is 'better' (even for small values of it) for your health because of stress-related reasons, right? (my whole point hinges on that assumption) Well, my point was that there is no data to even suggest that, or that it's a net negative after taking everything else into consideration. It's just an anecdote, one that is easily explained by the law of large numbers, nothing to draw a normative conclusion from.
Not trying to pick a fight, and I realize that you're not posting a peer reviewed article.