6033 pts ยท October 5, 2017
Good
Even if that's the case, this isn't "fake news".
You are actually illiterate, aren't you? Nobody ever said that said that the article says "don't do this ever"; you are the ONLY person who has said that.
Man, what a quoting out of context fallacy. Note how you only responded to this one comment? In fact, you just proved that you didn't read the article. The context of that quote is "The AAP further stated . . . no scientific study had clearly demonstrated the safety and efficacy of training programs for infants that young". THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR IT. When they say "possible benefit", they mean "unproven, unsupported, hypothetical benefit that may or may not exist".
#23 "target sperm" you're going to need a lot more of those
Source?
I think you mean "totally canny"
What possibly could be the bad intentions of this?
In case that wasn't clear enough... What I'm saying is... Did you?
The AAP indicated its position that the possible benefit of early swimming instruction must be weighed against the potential risks (e.g., hypothermia, hyponatremia, infectious illness, and lung damage from pool chemicals).
the AAP stated that it found the evidence at that time insufficient to support a recommendation that all 1- to 4-year-old children receive swimming lessons. The AAP further stated that in spite of the popularity of swimming lessons for infants under 12 months of age and anecdotal evidence of infants having saved themselves, no scientific study had clearly demonstrated the safety and efficacy of training programs for infants that young.
"There may be a link between infant swimming and rhinovirus-induced wheezing illnesses" "the lessons might be traumatic, that the parents will have a false sense of security and not supervise young children adequately around pools, or that the infant could experience hypothermia, suffer from water intoxication after swallowing water, or develop gastrointestinal or skin infections"
"Although this may be done to reduce their risk of drowning, the effects on drowning risk are not reliable" "since the introduction of baby swimming in Germany, several hundred infants had died from brain complications as a result of sinusitis and otitis that occurred after diving. Pediatricians also reported cases of cardiac arrest or respiratory failure."
Same difference really.
Man, you didn't read the linked article at all, did you?
That makes sense. Anybody who has been close enough to smell a wolf's fart is dead - coincidence? I think not
#11 r/menandfemales
"which is bigger, 3 or 12" is not professional level math
A hunter sharpening their sword on a whetfish.
They're, uh . . . occupied.
#8 cats are a pretty good reason
God that brings back memories.
Damn, I was expecting him to turn around at the end there.
Yes, that's the joke.
Good
Even if that's the case, this isn't "fake news".
You are actually illiterate, aren't you? Nobody ever said that said that the article says "don't do this ever"; you are the ONLY person who has said that.
Man, what a quoting out of context fallacy. Note how you only responded to this one comment? In fact, you just proved that you didn't read the article. The context of that quote is "The AAP further stated . . . no scientific study had clearly demonstrated the safety and efficacy of training programs for infants that young". THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR IT. When they say "possible benefit", they mean "unproven, unsupported, hypothetical benefit that may or may not exist".
#23 "target sperm" you're going to need a lot more of those
Source?
I think you mean "totally canny"
What possibly could be the bad intentions of this?
In case that wasn't clear enough... What I'm saying is... Did you?
The AAP indicated its position that the possible benefit of early swimming instruction must be weighed against the potential risks (e.g., hypothermia, hyponatremia, infectious illness, and lung damage from pool chemicals).
the AAP stated that it found the evidence at that time insufficient to support a recommendation that all 1- to 4-year-old children receive swimming lessons. The AAP further stated that in spite of the popularity of swimming lessons for infants under 12 months of age and anecdotal evidence of infants having saved themselves, no scientific study had clearly demonstrated the safety and efficacy of training programs for infants that young.
"There may be a link between infant swimming and rhinovirus-induced wheezing illnesses" "the lessons might be traumatic, that the parents will have a false sense of security and not supervise young children adequately around pools, or that the infant could experience hypothermia, suffer from water intoxication after swallowing water, or develop gastrointestinal or skin infections"
"Although this may be done to reduce their risk of drowning, the effects on drowning risk are not reliable" "since the introduction of baby swimming in Germany, several hundred infants had died from brain complications as a result of sinusitis and otitis that occurred after diving. Pediatricians also reported cases of cardiac arrest or respiratory failure."
Same difference really.
Man, you didn't read the linked article at all, did you?
That makes sense. Anybody who has been close enough to smell a wolf's fart is dead - coincidence? I think not
#11 r/menandfemales
"which is bigger, 3 or 12" is not professional level math
A hunter sharpening their sword on a whetfish.
They're, uh . . . occupied.
#8 cats are a pretty good reason
God that brings back memories.
Damn, I was expecting him to turn around at the end there.
Yes, that's the joke.