SIDS book that will blow your mind....

[Kailani]

Would like more info too...

cherished1, that info about vaccinations is very interesting. I won't be starting DS on any until he's 2 for similar reasons, but I never knew about the relation to sids...

[Inertia]

Not to rain on any parades but I do think that the recently reported breakthrough in serotonin levels of SIDS angels does warrant further investigation and therefore further funding.

[Smoke Jaguar]

The thing with seratonin levels is that seratonin is measured after the infant has passed away. I don't believe the Japanese and other south-east Asian countries that don't have SIDS are just genetically blessed, because seratonin is related to stress, or the absence of it. These other cultures have co-sleeping as the norm and don't have a culture of baby-separation that we have (cots, prams, glorified bouncinettes, outsourced childcare etc) - these aren't genetic factors, they are cultural ones.
I have no idea what this book says about it, and I hope it does explore these things - I'd read it if it did! Because the discourse about SIDS in this country is like a dog chasing its tail, especially since the new research findings came out - i.e. what can we give to babies to boost their seratonin levels/screening for low levels/'finally there is a physiological reason for it'.
I'm not saying that SIDS is caused by parents, I'm saying that lowered seratonin is a characteristic of our children here in Oz because of how maternal nurses etc say we should do things WRT sleeping.
Research has also shown that co-sleeping babies have their breathing regulated by the CO2 from the mother's breathing - it seems to trigger the brain's centre for taking a breath when an infant goes a while without taking a breath in. You can't get that when you're not sleeping near your child.
Our culture places a lot of importance on parental independence of children, disguised as training babies to be independent, and a lot of women dont' want to deal with the comments and judgments if friends etc find out they co-sleep, so they don't. Let's face it, the running commentary when you DO follow the prevailing parenting trends is bad enough, let alone when you do things 'differently', so I can understand when parents just go with the 'conventional wisdom'.
I think the only way to avoid lowered seratonin levels is to practice parenting that enhances physical closeness to baby - baby-wearing, co-sleeping, breastfeeding (shown to enhance emotional wellbeing via the 'feel-good' receptors in the brain being stimulated by neural pathways around the lips during sucking on a breast in various research papers I came across a few years ago) - and not by injections of it (if there is such a thing).
As I said, I don't know the contents of the book the OP is talking about. I CAN recommend, for a read on the physical benefits of a tactile relationship with baby, the book by Sharon Heller called "The Vital Touch", which talks about the psychosocial and biological effects of various types of 'touching' for babies and mothers. SIDS is a topic in there, too
I just feel that talking about this kind of parenting is taboo when discussing SIDS, as talking about breastfeeding seems to be taboo to expectant mothers because of the 'softly softly' approach that benefits no-one.
Also, if Australian health authorities started advocating more tactile parenting, there'd be a lot of baby-product companies crying foul - it's a huge industry when you think about it. Separated parenting is our norm, and it's not working for us
Two cents worth.
I would very much like a precis on the contents of this book - as SB said, if it's important it needs to be freely disseminated!

[beckoes]

i agree mayaness...people dont talk about it enough so they dont get judged or offend anyone, but the facts speak volumes. Noone can blame any single factor for sids, but i have read alot about possible contributors. Its called COT death for a reason! i think i read another post on here at some point about that, if there was a thing called 'chair death' we wouldnt sit our babies in a chair for 8-10 hours at a time, would we!? Like others have said, In Asian countries...Japan etc...SIDS cases are very low, and co-sleeping is the norm.

[Lolli]

Interesting thread. Maya and beckoes, I have to say i agree.

[Just Me]

i agree mayaness...people dont talk about it enough so they dont get judged or offend anyone, but the facts speak volumes. Noone can blame any single factor for sids, but i have read alot about possible contributors. Its called COT death for a reason! i think i read another post on here at some point about that, if there was a thing called 'chair death' we wouldnt sit our babies in a chair for 8-10 hours at a time, would we!? Like others have said, In Asian countries...Japan etc...SIDS cases are very low, and co-sleeping is the norm.

I think cot death tends to be quite misleading name for it because it does happen in other places and for a variety of reasons.

I found this article very interesting as it says when statistics are analysed for co-sleeping, they are including statistics for parents that sleep with their babies in bed or on a sofa. I really think two lots of statistics are being analysed at the same time and the results all lumped together: Hazardous cosleeping environments and risk factors amenable to change: case-control study of SIDS in south west England -- Blair et al. 339: b3666 -- BMJ

In light of this information, looking at the following article about parents getting up to feed babies on the sofa because they think it is 'safer' than putting babies in bed with them for feeds in the middle of the night is actually leading to far more deaths as sleeping with a baby on a lounge chair is 25 times more risky than co-sleeping in a bed: Half of cot deaths 'happen when babies are sleeping with their parents' - Telegraph

And this article outlines how research is showing that co-sleeping is not increasing risk of cot death unless there are other factors present: Sharing a bed with a baby does not increase risk of cot death, research shows - Telegraph

I realise these are all news articles with their own spin on what the research actually says, but it looks like the UK is making some headway with research and starting to show that it is not as dangerous as we are all made to believe.

Besides all of that, for my last two pregnancies, I have had to sign a piece of paper at the hospital to say that I had been informed that co-sleeping is recommended by the WHO as promoting a healthy breast feeding routine. My GP just about died on the spot, but it is what has been recommended to new mothers here for about 2 years now.

Sorry for going a bit OT but I thought I would respond to a couple of the other posts about this topic. I hope what I have written makes sense - it is late at night. I'm off to bed now. 'Night All

[Muppity]

Ok - I haven't read or heard about the book - but I am confused. I am trying to think of a way that red tape could be affecting the issue. Are you able to expand on this JellyBean?

[widdly]

just me - I love that your hospital is promoting cosleeping! I had to sneak my baby into bed with me at night and even then I got in toruble for trying to cosleep, they took him to the nursery so I didnt have to cosleep to keep him quiet....at the time I was a first time mum who went along with it, but now, GEEZ LOUISE, look out if they try and discourage me next time!

thanks for the info everyone

[Just Me]

If you search online for the title of the book there is a preview read on Amazon of the first few pages. I had a quick look and I am a bit dubious about the information. I tend to trust the SIDS and Kids Australia website because they do all the statistical analysis and work with families who experience this trauma. This is the response of SIDS and kids to the toxic gas theory which seems to be a theme in the book: http://www.sidsandkids.org/documents...nStatement.pdf