Hi Janet,:
Just wondering where you heard that early vaccination was a risk factor for SIDS? Do you have any scientific research studies to back up this claim? I've never heard of this.
Cheers, Mary
Printable View
Hi Janet,:
Just wondering where you heard that early vaccination was a risk factor for SIDS? Do you have any scientific research studies to back up this claim? I've never heard of this.
Cheers, Mary
I've been lucky with my two - both have slept on the backs ALL the time, rarely did tummy time because they both hated it, and both sat independently fairly late (8/9mths). Yet neither of them have had even a trace of flattening on their heads.
Ive also heard that vaccination was a risk factor for SIDS..it saddens me that reliable information is hard to come by though. If you google Japan and what they did with their vaccination schedules though, you can get an idea of how it dropped when vaccinations were moved until 2 years of age.
Jo
Hey everyone.
I think the important thing to remember about the BFinf/co-sleeping and early-vaccination risks is that these are TENDENCIES. There is NOT a direct link between FF and SIDS or cot-sleeping and SIDS - there is just a small statistical tendency to FF, cot-slept babies being more at risk.
The reasons for this are NOT to do with the FF or the cot, they are to do with lifestyles that MIGHT include these things which are riskier. A mother who is not interested in her baby, can't be bothered interacting, smokes, drinks, uses recreational drugs, leaves baby unattended or with minors, and generally isn't very attentive is unlikely to BF or co-sleep - this DOES NOT mean that ALL FFing mums who cot-sleep their babies are uninterested mothers!
The statistics look at giant numbers of women, not individuals. There are many many reasons why Japan is different to Aus or UK, not only BFing, co-sleeping and late-vaccination. Their diet, lifestyle, culture, is TOTALLY different, there are too many factors to count - they've just picked the ones that were easy to see. They only ask about what they're interested in!
Too often with this sort of "research" we ask the wrong sorts of questions. Recently there have been lots of studies to see if electricity pylons cause an increase in childrens cancers. SOme studies found they did, some found they made no difference, some found they seemed to DECREASE the risk. Those who wanted to criticise the power companies jumped on this and stated that the magnetic fields arouns pylons caused cell-changes and damage. Now, magnetic fields haven't ever been found to do that - that's why we use them in medicine to see inside the body, and the average 40kw pylon gives out a negligable amount of magnetic power. The everyday hairdryer gives out hundreds and hundreds of times more and people hold them right next to their heads! We're not all dropping dead of brain cancers with our dry styled hair! The mobile phone, so vilified by many, gives out less than 100th of what the hairdryer emits! THe study only looked at pylons. It did not look at waterways, roads, chemical plants or any of the dozens of environmental factors (background radiation increase etc., localised pollution) that could have been a factor, and so it is with the studies on SIDS. The general advice is good advice to follow, try to backsleep, don't smoke around bubs, don't cover bubs head, keep feet to foot of cot etc. Beyond this TRUST YOURSELF. Tragedies sometimes happen and no-one is to blame.
Loving attentive engaged mothers who are close to their babies will be doing everything necessary to avoid SIDS, not matter WHAT feeding or sleeping choices they've made.
Sorry to be on my soapbox, but i think that people need to know how flawed the research can be, and how false the conclusions can be too!
Bec
Bless you Bec. Couldn't have put it that articulately myself, so I am glad to have read your post!
I am as paranoid about SID as every other mother however both my bubs have only slept on their tummies, sides OR co-slept so when I'm not sleeping with them they are on their tummies. I check on them obsessively. I love co-sleeping and Caro I have also heard that the sound of parents breathing and heartbeat stimulate baby which nis why SIDS council reccomend same room sleeping but I wish they could admit that cosleeping is good when done sensibly!
There was some groundbreaking research last year from SIDS council that suggested one of the main risk factors for SIDS was actually serotonin levels in the brain, something that cannot be controlled by safe sleeping principals but by following safe sleeping principals you prevent those babies that wouldn 't wake up when their breathing was obstructed from falling victim to SIDS whereas babies with normal levels f serotonin would wake and cry if their faces become covered.
As or flat head syndrome I thought most of that was from during the day when bub is lying on the floor/buncer etc.
On the "flat head" thing.........my SIL has 3 children, all close in age. She has parented them in the exact same way. Same genes, same bassinet, same cot, same bouncer, same levels of floor time etc.
Her eldest DD = no flat head
Her middle DD = a very flat head, which is now rounding out at age 3.......
Her DS = no flat head
So that would make me think that the flat head thing is just what a babies genetic tendancy is, rather than lifestyle? (I don't know which is the case..........curious now though.........)
Ta Lucy :)
I wanted to add that one of the factors not taken into account in the later-vaccine SIDS decrease in Japan is that during that time every single mother was told WHY the vaccines were being given later (they though it might contribute to various things which is why they changed policy). This amounts to a massive, NATIONAL increase in awareness of SIDS and the contributing risk-factors for SIDS. That alone could have been responsible for the drop in SIDS incidence in the same way as it dropped suddenly in the UK when Anne Diamond, a morning tv presenter in the UK lost her child Sebastian to SIDS in 1991 and the tv company she worked for started a massive national drive (Back To Sleep Campaign) to raise awareness. SIDS dropped from 2000 cases a year to just 200. Back To Sleep remains the UK's most successful health campaign in the UK to date. Knowledge is power. Again, the studies do not look at such factors because how much an individual already knew, learned from the campaign and implemented in reality is pretty much impossible to measure.
Some babies are more prone to flat heads and yes, it's far more common in babies who spend long periods of time in bouncers or on the floor or in a cot, and aren't much handled. Normal parenting will avoid most cases and where it doesn't the child would almost certainly have gotten it anyway. MOst babies grow out of it (how many adults do you know with flat heads?) and for a very few who won't a helmet can be used for a few months to rectify the problem. Another worry forced on us by hyped-up media "medics"...
B
Bec - great post.
I haven't posted on BB for a few weeks now, but what you wrote made me need to pipe up and applaud you for your sensible comments.
More mums around the place (not here, IRL everywhere) need to listen to sensible statements like this and know that they can parent in all sorts or ways and avoid tragedy or suffer it, and sometimes its just bad luck.
We sleep on the side, and with jenna I was checking her constantly. I would wake in the 3hrs between feeds and cehck on her.
With Hamish I'mso happy to get some sleep, that I dont even think about it! But I agree, whenever we are co-sleeping, (ie I fall asleep whilst feeding him in bed ;) ) when I wake up and realise he is still next to me, he wakes up too. Its bloody annoying with a bad sleeping baby!!
Give yourself a break mums one and all - We are good parents and none of us wouldbe so negligent as to carelessly contribute to something like SIDS.
Thank you HOOBLEY, I was starting to feel like an absolutely horrible mother by all the claims of BF over FF and cot sleeping etc.
I from day one have let my DD sleep in her own room, in her own cot but with a movement monitor. I stopped BF when she was 5 weeks old because i couldnt take it any longer. My DD is the best thing that has ever happened in our lives and to think that just because i did not co sleep or BF I would be putting her life in possible risk really makes me feel sick. I love being a mum and i do the most craziest things on a daily basis just to make her smile.
Sids is a terrible tragedy to happen to any family and blaming it on simple factors as not BF, cot sleeping etc are not helping to solve the problem and may in fact make some mothers feel like they are not safe guarding their babies enough.
I'll do my best to explain this... if any of you want more information or clarification I can explain further.
Formula fed babies have a different gut flora to breastfed babies. It is a proven fact that formula fed babies are more likely to have lower amounts of protective benefical bacteria and higher amounts of potential pathogenic bacteria in their guts.
When certain pathogenic bacteria reproduce or die, they shed highly toxic endotoxins. If the filtering organs like the kidneys and liver are not at 100% for whatever reason (vaccines affect those organs), they are unable to deal with the endotoxins properly. Sometimes those filtering organs shut down completely. Then the endotoxins get into the blood and theres endotoxic shock which closely resembles SIDS. The result is an excess of serotonin and deep sleep! (groundbreaking research? Its been around for AGES and they're just making this connection now with serotonin and SIDS?) All the vital organs just shut down, the baby dies.
There are also other crucial nutritional imbalances and bioavailably issues with formula which puts a formula fed baby's metabolism and biochemistry under more stress than that of a breastfed baby. Metabolic rates and body temperatures in sleeping formula fed babies are higher since formula puts the body under a lot of physiological stress. Doctors have known about this for years!
The researcher that pointed this out also warned about unnecessary antibiotics for ear infections that are not bacterial in origin and prophylatic antibiotics where there is no infection present because antibiotics destroy all bacteria indiscriminately. A massive die-off of pathogenic bacteria releases A LOT of endotoxins into your gut. Some babies can't handle it all, and babies with history of health problems or family history of health problems are even more suspectible.
You also have to remember that the filtering organs of a newborn are immature and not as able as a fully functioning adult's.
Cot sleeping means babies sleep alone when they are biologically designed to sleep with their mothers. We are the only mammals it would seem, that sleep alone. I don't think I know of any animal young that do not sleep with their mothers. Biologically, our heartbeat, our body warmth, our breathing and our movement in the night regulates our babies and helps to protect them until they develop properly.
I don't think Janet meant that in an offensive way. Don't you think it is true that western society on a whole isn't very supportive of mothers and babies? How many mothers get the support that they need to look after themselves while caring for newborns and trying to recover from their births? How many babies are seperated from their mothers at birth? A lot of us are told that babies are manipilative little creatures, they cry to get us to do what they want us to do etc and that we need to remain strong and not 'cave in' to them. We are conditioned to ignore our very basic mothering instincts, we aren't supported to trust ourselves or our babies. Mothering is one of the most important jobs, yet we aren't paid for it and we are expected to be 'super mums' and stay on top of everything else in our life while mothering.:
We really fail to nurture mothers and babies in our society.
References listed below since we can't link here.
Olsen, E. 1949. Studies on the Intestinal Flora of Infants. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Dubos, R. et al. 1963. "Alteration and effects of the intestinal flora". Ped Proc, Nov/Dec: 22: 1322-1329
Miller MJ et al. 1990 "Casein: a milk protein with diverse biologic consequences" Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, Nov; 195(2): 143-59. PMID: 2236098
Ansher, S. et al. 1992. "Role of Endotoxin in Alterations of Hepatic Drug Metabolism by Diptheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis vaccine adsorbed" Infection and Immunity, Sept: 60(9): 3790-8 PMID: 1500188
Caps, R.B. 1955. "Hepatitis in infants and small children". Amer J Dis Child, Vol. 89: 701-716
Yes it is a terrible tradegy :( This isn't about blaming it on one or two reasons, it is about building a bigger picture of what is going on within the bodies of newborns when they are exposed to standards that are not biological standards ie, what their bodies were designed to biologically expect and need. Information is power, understanding why something happens or how something works isn't about blaming mothers or making them feel guilty. We all do the best we can given what we are told and what we know and we all love our children very dearly.:
Sids is a terrible tragedy to happen to any family and blaming it on simple factors as not BF, cot sleeping etc are not helping to solve the problem and may in fact make some mothers feel like they are not safe guarding their babies enough.
Hey Morgaine,
Those are good articles and great food for thought, but i'm afraid i'm on my soapbox again...sorry! :)
I note that the articles refer to the fact that SIDS-like conditions exist in horses, cattle, sheep, goats and monkeys, NONE of which are FF. I also note that the articles refer to "cows-milk bottle-feeding", NOT formula feeding. The prevalence in modern formula of e.coli (which can "block" the reaction to endotoxic shock until it is too late) is as close to nil as makes no difference. The bacteria that cause the problems are not IN the formula, it's just that the formula does a (slightly) less good job if protecting the baby - that breast is best for the immune system has been known for decades, that doesn't equate to all FF babies being significantly at risk, nor does BFing provide 100% protection from these things. Also, some of these studies are quite old (1949!!?? - post war formula was what left my dad with rickets!) - formulas improve year on year in catering to the needs of baby's bodies. Again the risk factors are there, but they don't paint a full picture. The FF baby who is not cared for properly, given inappropriate things to eat, not kept clean, and left where there is animal faeces or spoilt food is OBVIOUSLY more at risk of contracting e.coli and similar than an excellently cared-for FF baby.
Please don't misunderstand me. I FULLY support breastfeeding and i fed my DD myself for as long as i could. However, i do think when it comes to research like this, the "facts" can be misleading - a little bit of the picture is true, but the whole picture can give us a wider, fuller truth. A woman who had so many problems BFing that she moved to FFing should know that BFing can do something to contribute towards defence against SIDS. BUt this knowledge should only translate into a little extra determination next time, a little extra courage to DEMAND the help she deserves in BFing, a little more power over knowing her choices, and not be something to add her the pile she beats herself up with over her inability to BF.
Breastmilk is another shield against SIDS, but if a woman has to FF her baby there are many other ways to ensure they're as safe as possible. I agree that a woman should be given as much support as possible to BF her child, but i don't think it's helpful to take these studies as gospel when they're clearly flawed. This generates panic and stress and terror of failing to BF, all of which contribute to failure to BF.
As for mammals and co-sleeping there are many, many mammals (most of the deer species for instance) which leave their young while they eat or hunt, sometimes for days (seals) at a time. Little deer are spotted so they can hide alone for long stretches of time when they're too small and vulnerable to be with the herd. There is no evidence this increases the incidence of sudden death and in fact mother nature has designed those creatures to work that way for survival. Some creatures young cannot even mess (pandas) without mum's stimulations, so that they don't pee or poop when hidden and are sniffed out by predators. Wolf cubs, panther cubs and leopard cubs may all be left in dens alone for hours during the first few weeks when their mothers are hunting. It is very common among "loner" species when there is no pride to hunt/babysit. We are not wild animals and we cannot know our history long-enough back to know whether co-sleeping is biologically indicated or culturally dictated.
Man, i agree 200%!!!!:
Mothering is one of the most important jobs, yet we aren't paid for it and we are expected to be 'super mums' and stay on top of everything else in our life while mothering.
Bx
Never apologise for getting on soapboxes with different views :)
I didn't mean to insinuate that formula was a source of e-coli. E-coli exists in our bodies and it normally is not a problem because in healthy guts, the beneficial bacteria keep it under control and in really small numbers.
The point was formula fed babies do not have the gut flora that a breastfed baby does, and that type of gut flora makes them more susceptible. Formula changes the pH of the gut as well which can make the gut environment more friendly for potential pathogens. If you think about that, it makes sense why scientific evidence shows that formula feed babies have an increased risk of illnesses. Its not about the formula itself or how the formula is prepared, its about how an infant body processes formula when it is meant to process breastmilk.
(In case information offends, I just want to state that I'm not pooh poohing formula, obviously there will be women who NEED to use it because they can't breastfeed. This isn't a pro bf / anti formula stance, its just what the evidence is showing)
There is an old study (Gerstley, J 1932, "Factors influencing the Fecal Flora of Infants" Amer J Dis Child, 43: 555-565) that shows that any breastfed baby receiving one bottle of formula has such significant gut flora change that they must be classified as formula fed for two weeks. That study was replicated recently with modern formula according to Dr Robert Reisinger, and it was not published because the journal said it had no "meaningful application".
Not much help in a world that considers up to date references more valuable than common sense,and references are the only way to prove the credibility of information.
But I did find some more recent research on infant gut flora;
:
The climax intestinal flora is attained in successive stages.
The foetal intestine is sterile and bathed in swallowed amniotic fluid. Following delivery, multiple different antigens challenge the intestine of the newborn. The maternal intestinal flora is a source of bacteria for the neonatal gut.
The bacterial flora is usually heterogeneous during the first few days of life, independently of feeding habits. After the first week of life, a stable bacterial flora is usually established. In full-term infants a diet of breast milk induces the development of a flora rich in Bifidobacterium spp. Other obligate anaerobes, such as Clostridium spp. and Bacteroides spp., are more rarely isolated and also enterobacteria and enterococci are relatively few. During the corresponding period, formula-fed babies are often colonized by other anaerobes in addition to bifidobacteria and by facultatively anaerobic bacteria; the development of a "bifidus flora" is unusual. In other studies the presence of a consistent number of bifidobacteria in infants delivered in large urban hospitals has not been demonstrated, whether the babies were bottle fed or exclusively breastfed. The predominant faecal bacteria were coliforms and bacteroides. According to these studies, environmental factors may be more important than breastfeeding in gut colonization after delivery.[1]
[1]S Fanaro; R Chierici; P Guerrini; V Vigi Intestinal microflora in early infancy: composition and development Acta Paediatrica, Volume 92, Supplement 441, Supplement 441/September 2003, pp. 48-55(8):
The most important determinants of the gut microbiotic composition in infants were the mode of delivery, type of infant feeding, gestational age, infant hospitalization, and antibiotic use by the infant. Term infants who were born vaginally at home and were breastfed exclusively seemed to have the most "beneficial" gut microbiota (highest numbers of bifidobacteria and lowest numbers of C difficile and E coli).[2]
[2]Factors Influencing the Composition of the Intestinal Microbiota in Early Infancy PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2 August 2006, pp. 511-521
You're thinking of e-coli infection, not contracting e.coli. We already have e.coli, and that bacteria exists everywhere in our environment. People to people transmission occurs, its not just a matter of 'clean' environments or avoiding animal faeces. E-coli is also not the only gram negative bacteria that is capable of shedding toxins during reproduction or dying, there are other gram neg bacteria that exist in babies not breastfed, not born at home, given ab's etc.:
The FF baby who is not cared for properly, given inappropriate things to eat, not kept clean, and left where there is animal faeces or spoilt food is OBVIOUSLY more at risk of contracting e.coli and similar than an excellently cared-for FF baby.
Like the above research shoes (there are more studies as well), formula isn't just one determinant of gut flora but it is an important one along with antibiotic use which I mentioned previously. I didn't want to mention caesarean surgery and place of birth because I figured I sounded out of there enough as it was :lol: but they are also determinants in gut flora of babies.
The SIDS like conditions in animals in the previous research I posted is an important link as it is about animals being deprived of their mother's colustrum and breastmilk. Its about not getting breastmilk. It wouldn't matter what you fed a baby, commerical formula, homemade formula, solid food, glucose IV etc their gut would still be different to a breast fed baby's.
As for a SIDS / Formula link, there was a SIDS symposium in Auckland, New Zealand that looked at the epidemiology of SIDS presented by Shirley Tonkin that stated "Of the 86 cases of 'cot deaths' occuring in those three years, 83 were artifically fed and only three were breast fed at the time of death". Obviously breastfed babies die from SIDS too, nobody's saying that FF is the reason for SIDS. What I was saying though was that it does contribute to the risk and why it contributes.
With this sort of information you know what I am seeing? A way to help minimise the risk of formula feeding further than just good formula preparation and clean environments.
Since our gut makes up 70 percent of the immune system and the predominant bacteria of exclusively breast-fed babies is bifidobacteria, wouldn't it make sense to support the babies on formula by supplementing them with bifidobacteria powder? Why do you think formula companies are starting to advertise probiotic or bifidus formula?? How much of those bacteria actually survive formula processing and preparation? Perphas it would be a good idea to supplement as well as use a probiotic formula to ensure that the bifidobacteria reach the gut.
I don't like the idea of giving babies cows milk, and most formulas are based off cows milk. I don't agree with giving our infants milk from other species but with that said I know someone who is really educated in bacteria and he has been giving his baby homemade organic yogurt made from bifidobacteria powder and organic, unhomogenised milk. The bacteria cultured in yogurt are alive and teeming in high numbers compared to shelved probiotics. He is always talking about the health benefits of doing so. He has been experimenting with making yogurt based off human breastmilk and goats milk and rice milk. (By homemade I do NOT MEAN EASYIO OR POWDERED YOGURT MAKERS, its no better than commerical yogurt.) But there you have it, more information that could be beneficial for mothers wanting to look into bacteria further to support their babies.
What are they going to do about the alkalinity of formula? What about the base body temperature of formula fed babies? I don't know what can be done to improve on those but I bet the formula companies are trying because they are aware of the downfalls of their products. Mothers should be aware too so they can do what they can to minimise it if they need to formula feed. Why should we wait around for the companies to click on to research that has been around since the 1900's? Thats not really acceptable IMO.
Wow - some great information in this thread!
I wonder why?? Are they assuming they're irresponsible? or is there something physically different to a baby born to a teen??:
And the info on formula and baby's gut, seritonin levels and deeper sleep - yikes - that reaffirms my decision not to use formula to help bub sleep at night... might not be a 'good' sleep.
I'm also not sure why we compare ourselves to other mammals? I mean.. some mammals - the male kills and eats the offspring, but I don't see us ever grabbing at that bit of mammalian information. hehe. I think it's usually a case of finding something to suit our arguments looking at other species.
But otherwise - thankyou for all the information posts!
LOL well here is my two cents worth, I think that everyone has valid points, and no mum is going to harm her bub because they don't want a flat head. Because the rates of SIDS has gone down, people have become complacent, even the SIDS awareness campaigns, they should still be overpromoting what could happen if you do this KWIM?
The thing is that they don't really, really know why SIDS is caused, but they do know when they find the babies, they are generally on their stomach, it isn't rocket science to correlate this finding with put your child on its back to sleep.
My pediatrician is a researcher for SIDS and totally scared me one day, we have an angelcare moniter (a true blessing by the way) and Parker has reflux, so I started putting him to bed on his tummy during the day, because I thought there would be no harm, nothing ever happens in the day KWIM? Well she then started telling me all the stories about the people who this happened to, and how last week a baby had died, the mum went to the shops and left the child with the grandparents, was gone an hour and died, she thought the same thing...so no more tummy sleeping for me.
I honestly beleive in going with what you think is best, there is no definate reason for it, if you bottle feed then there is formula with probiotics in it these days, and if you breastfeed taking probiotics daily is recommended, not just for this, but to alieviate allergies, reflux and eczema.
I do agree that breathing moniters and car seats should be mandatory, and instead of the government giving out $5000, they should give $4000, plus a car seat, breathing moniter AND a first aid course. How easy would that be and how many lives would be saved or made better?
And with the breathing moniter, my story is when Parker was 7 months, ours went off, it never went off in 2 years with ds1, but this time it did, we ran in there to find Parker on his stomach, face flat down and not breathing, we were able to rouse him, and subsequent testing led to the diagnosis of apnea, but I always wonder what would have happenned without the moniter, they wont stop SIDS so just because you have one you shouldn't be complacent, but I think, why not if it gives you at least a chance.
Breastmilk has high amounts of bacteria in it ;) Everything that babies need, breastmilk has it so probiotic supplement with breastmilk isn't really necessary if other factors like antibiotics are absent. Everytime you breastfeed you are supplementing your baby with healthy dose of probiotic bacteria.:
, and if you breastfeed taking probiotics daily is recommended
Morgaine my LC recommended probiotics for breastfed bubbies with reflux as well... I wonder why.
My first child died of SIDS he was 2.5 months old
He was fully breastfeed, had not been immunised yet, I sleep him in a hammock since birth, but unfortunatly the day he passed away i had to put him in a bassinette as he had thrown up all over the hamock, so the first night he was in a bassinette he died, he was always put on the side in the hammock......that what the health professionals told us back then that babies to be put on their sides to sleep, i found him face down in the bassinette.To this day i wonder what if i never put him in their? would he still be with me?
I am very saddened to hear that sids is on the increase, as i wouldnt wish this upon anyone, Give me a flat head anyday.