SIDS book that will blow your mind....

[DANNIIM]

It's really hard you know, i mean there are ppl that have co-slept with there babies successfully and then there are others that have rolled onto them and well lets say the rest is history.
You really need to do what is right for you and your family because there are pro's and con's for both sides and there is never 100% reassurance that something isn't going to happen. All you can do is follow your instincts and do what you feel is right at the time.. that's all we can do as parents!

Ooppps my post was a bit behind...i missed a whole page!

I am finding this really interesting to read though...so please keep going!!

[Kirley64]

It's really hard you know, i mean there are ppl that have co-slept with there babies successfully and then there are others that have rolled onto them and well lets say the rest is history.
You really need to do what is right for you and your family because there are pro's and con's for both sides and there is never 100% reassurance that something isn't going to happen. All you can do is follow your instincts and do what you feel is right at the time.. that's all we can do as parents!

Very true
I am wondering though - if a parent rolls onto their child and they suffocate or they go under blankets - why is that sids? To me; that is a known cause of death. Prehaps to avoid legal obligations it comes under sids??

[JellyBean]

Bending Reality - firstly I want to wish to offer my sympathy for the loss of your sisters baby. That is an awful reality for any parent or family member to have to deal with, and I don't doubt that it plays on your mind alot.
I couldn't help but notice that you mentioned that she died the day after vaccination. I have spoken to another parent to whom this same scenario has occurred. I'm not sure what your thoughts are on that, its a very touchy topic, but the link between vaccination and SIDS is something which is covered in the book.

Firstly, I wanted to say that I actually agree with you re: the mattress thing- and the book does not claim that toxic offgases from flame retardant chemicals in baby mattresses is the sole cause of SIDS. It simply explains why it is a major factor for a percentage of SIDS deaths, as well as the interaction between this source of toxicity and other sources of toxicity. The toxicity comes from various sources - and as Peg has stated, vaccines are a large form of that due to many of the toxic ingredients in them. Another major factor is the childs individual constitution and immune strength, and the fact that babies born premature (before 38 weeks), low weight babies, and those with pre-existing health conditions die more frequently from SIDS - their bodies and immune systems are not as readily equipped to deal with the toxicity exposure.

For anyone interested, below is a response to the off-gas toxic mattress theory on Dr Mercola's website by a woman who researches the link between vaccines and SIDS:

A Response to the Toxic Gas Theory of SIDS
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 19 2000 | 2,845 views

Comments by Dawn Winkler

Note: This was written in response to a previous article entitled Victory Over SIDS that appeared in the November 5, 2000 edition of the newsletter.

I am very familiar with Dr. Sprott and the BabeSafe mattress wrap, but I am compelled to differ with him somewhat on his toxic gas SIDS theory, based on my 5 years of research. This research has led me to believe that in many instances, it is the vaccine that causes SIDS. I don't doubt that some deaths are brought on by gases created by circumstances stemming from crib mattresses and other sources. I also don't discount that some infants die, who are unvaccinated, from a basic immaturity. This same immaturity can be brought on or exacerbated by vaccination, such as with demyelination or delayed myelination.

Of course, premature infants will be even more immature and are much more likely to die of SIDS. I am bringing this to your attention because I feel that it is imperative that parents are not led to believe that vaccination does not play a significant role in SIDS. Therefore, I'm not sure that BabeSafe is the answer; maybe it is and maybe not. But I know that not vaccinating lowers the risk.

I've spoken with many parents whose children died face up on all kinds of surfaces other than crib mattresses, some even in their mother's arms. They all tell the same story - Their child was not the same from the time they were vaccinated until they died. They started sleeping more, they wouldn't eat, they had a high-pitched scream, etc. Some even had trouble breathing. These are classic vaccine reactions. Some parents were "lucky" enough (for lack of a better word) to have medical examiners with experience and honesty who documented the truth and actually put "encephalopathy" and other classic pathological evidence of vaccine damage in the autopsy report.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has even compensated 93 families whose infants' deaths were labeled SIDS because the parent had the evidence in the autopsy to prove the vaccine caused it. Yet, the cause of death listing as "SIDS" was never changed on the death certificates of these 93 babies. This information comes from the Freedom of Information Office.

Studies show that SIDS babies have a significant degree of delayed myelination compared to controls (infants who died of known causes). They also have significantly lower levels of creatine kinase in almost every region of their brain. Creatine kinase is critical for heart function, production of ATP, breathing, blood pressure, and plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of hypoxia. Delayed myelination or demyelination is most likely affecting creatine kinase levels. We know that vaccination can CAUSE demyelination as well as delayed myelination. In fact, SIDS infants may possess even antibodies to myelin basic protein, although no one has checked to my knowledge. Studies have shown that children who have become autistic after their MMR vaccine have tested positive for antibodies to myelin basic protein. I'm not saying all SIDS cases are vaccine related, but I'd stake my life on the claim that 60% or more are. I'm actually writing a book on this very subject presently.

Here are a few points of interest, but this is just the "tip of the iceberg":

*

Of 297 death claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) with SIDS listed as cause of death, 93 have been compensated up to $250,000 because the court felt that the death was really vaccine induced. 28 have not been adjudicated at this point; the remaining 176 were thrown out.
*

Of 471 Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) death reports covering a 4 year period, roughly 60% have the term "SIDS" somewhere in the report along with descriptions like "high pitched screaming from time vaccinated until death".
*

"These SIDS deaths were significantly more than expected were there no association between DTP immunization and SIDS. These deaths were also significantly more than expected. These data suggest a temporal association between DTP immunization, physician visits without DTP immunization and SIDS." (Pediatric Infectious Disease - "Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus-toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome" , Larry J. Baraff, MD, et. al. Vol2, No 1, 1983 p7-11)
*

" ... we found the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DTP to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization." (From American Journal of Public Health - "Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Alexander M. Walker, MD, et. al., Vol77, No 8, 1987 p945-950.
*

"Causality between DPT, NMS, and SIDS is indicated by the brief intervals, atypical age for SIDS or NMS in some, similar SIDS pathology and symptoms in DPT postvaccinal deaths in the literature, reports of DPT-triggered apnea by Shannon, and experimental SIDS animal models by Steinman and Torch (1985)". (From Neurology - "Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) May Be an Unrecognized Cause of Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) and Near-miss Syndrome (NMS): 12 Case Reports", William C. Torch, April 1986, p149)
*

Viera Schiebner, Ph.D. found that all infants experience shallow and/or stressed breathing for up to 30 days following vaccination. She used a unique monitor developed by her husband, a bio-medical engineer that measures breathing. Neither of them suspected vaccines as a cause of SIDS when they began their research, but the evidence was too significant to ignore. Certain days (48 hours, 5-7 days, day 16, and day 24) showed extremely shallow breathing for all infants. These days just happen to correspond with Larry Baraff's study (cited above), he showed certain days to have increased risk for SIDS and he admitted he didn't understand why. (see article on this topic)
* Three unrelated respiratory therapists were interviewed by phone and confided that they warn parents using apnea monitors in non-apneic children to expect more frequent apnea alarms in the few days following vaccination.

As much as I'd like to believe that BabeSafe would save every child from SIDS, one case in particular stands out in my mind. I have become good friends with the mother of a 17-month old girl who died the night of her MMR, Hib, and DPT vaccines. The child had been walking, talking, the whole nine yards. She happened to be a little ill, coming off of antibiotics. She received all three shots (for 7 different diseases) and died during that same night. The pathology in this case is so undeniable, so clear, that I just can't believe that had she been sleeping on a BabeSafe product it would have saved her. This baby girl died from blatant encephalopathy that was clearly vaccine caused. Still, the autopsy report concluded that the cause of death was "unknown" despite the documented encephalopathy.

Her mother filed a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program seven years ago and is finally going to be compensated with the next few months. This is not an isolated instance. I deal with parents like this all the time. Her case just stands out because the child was so much older than typical SIDS cases.

I am not against Dr. Sprott or BabeSafe. I only wish to add this information for a more complete picture.

Sincerely, Dawn Winkler

former Vice President, Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety

[Loula]

where can i get a copy of this book, i think it will be good for DH to read too

[JellyBean]

where can i get a copy of this book, i think it will be good for DH to read too

I bought the book off Amazon - only $19.99 including shipping.
I have seen it on an Aussie site called Booktopia. Very affordable for this sort of information IMO! Cheaper than a trip to the docs!

XX

[Smoke Jaguar]

FWIW, as a firefighter who wouldn't go near a burning mattress, new or old, without breathing apparatus, I use latex and wool mattresses for our beds!

[JellyBean]

FWIW, as a firefighter who wouldn't go near a burning mattress, new or old, without breathing apparatus, I use latex and wool mattresses for our beds!

BINGO Mayaness. Go the latex - plus mould and mildew refuse to go near it as they cannot breed in it - therefore you eliminate the risk of the toxic gases from flame retardant chemicals mixed with mould, as well as hayfever and asthma related allergies.
Shame they are so damned expensive though.

We splurged this time around and got the Organic Pod moses basket with latex breatherhole mattress & organic cotton casing - (which can be removed and washed) so now I can put DS on his tummy where he likes to be, and keep my peace of mind!

[JellyBean]

Very true
I am wondering though - if a parent rolls onto their child and they suffocate or they go under blankets - why is that sids? To me; that is a known cause of death. Prehaps to avoid legal obligations it comes under sids??

Kirley, I have wondered the same thing. However, knowing what I now know, it doesn't surprise me that the medical establishment would group suffocation with SIDS to deter parents from research linking the mysterious sudden infant death with more likely causes that are toxicity related.

[JellyBean]

Are you kidding me? You really believe that because people can walk on the moon we should have the answers to everything in life?

No- not at all. I'm all for the greater mysteries of life (really!). However in this particular instance, having read the research from various sources, it is my belief that the information we are getting from mainstream sids organisations does not add up (or at least - leaves a lot to be desired), and this book helps to provide parents with another rather large peice of the puzzle which not only makes alot of sense, but is based on findings from studies published in peer reviewed medical journals - the same very sources that these organisations derive their research findings. The question is, why are they being so selective as to which sections of the research they choose to promote, and those they choose to ignore? Research is research. Why sections of the medical community (not all charities dedicated to SIDS - of course supporting parents with their grief is an admirable thing) choose to downplay these findings is what is being questioned here - and we do not really know the answer, one can only assume there is some advantageous reason for doing so. Perhaps not directly advantageous for the SIDS organisations themselves, but perhaps for various other related fields of medicine whom they may be answerable to.
For example, when research has pointed to smoking and formula as variables linked to increased sudden infant death, these findings have been reported. However when studies have linked vaccines with sids, the findings are repudiated and ignored. This hardly seems fair to parents who put trust in these organisations to report all potential risk factors.

Can I also say that it is not just a matter of mainstream medicine vs some other hippy alternative health group. There are numerous medical doctors, pediatricians, toxicologists, pathologists, courts of law etc who have helped to complete this picture. Consider the following for examples. (Note that I cannot provide the link because its a bb violation):

*

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has even compensated 93 families whose infants' deaths were labeled SIDS because the parent had the evidence in the autopsy to prove the vaccine caused it. Yet, the cause of death listing as "SIDS" was never changed on the death certificates of these 93 babies. This information comes from the Freedom of Information Office.

*

Of 297 death claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) with SIDS listed as cause of death, 93 have been compensated up to $250,000 because the court felt that the death was really vaccine induced. 28 have not been adjudicated at this point; the remaining 176 were thrown out.
*

Of 471 Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) death reports covering a 4 year period, roughly 60% have the term "SIDS" somewhere in the report along with descriptions like "high pitched screaming from time vaccinated until death".
*

"These SIDS deaths were significantly more than expected were there no association between DTP immunization and SIDS. These deaths were also significantly more than expected. These data suggest a temporal association between DTP immunization, physician visits without DTP immunization and SIDS." (Pediatric Infectious Disease - "Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus-toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome" , Larry J. Baraff, MD, et. al. Vol2, No 1, 1983 p7-11)
*

" ... we found the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DTP to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization." (From American Journal of Public Health - "Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Alexander M. Walker, MD, et. al., Vol77, No 8, 1987 p945-950.

Raymond Obomsawin, M.D. - "Delay of DPT immunisation until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death."
*

"Causality between DPT, NMS, and SIDS is indicated by the brief intervals, atypical age for SIDS or NMS in some, similar SIDS pathology and symptoms in DPT postvaccinal deaths in the literature, reports of DPT-triggered apnea by Shannon, and experimental SIDS animal models by Steinman and Torch (1985)". (From Neurology - "Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) May Be an Unrecognized Cause of Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) and Near-miss Syndrome (NMS): 12 Case Reports", William C. Torch, April 1986, p149)
*

Viera Schiebner, Ph.D. found that all infants experience shallow and/or stressed breathing for up to 30 days following vaccination. She used a unique monitor developed by her husband, a bio-medical engineer that measures breathing. Neither of them suspected vaccines as a cause of SIDS when they began their research, but the evidence was too significant to ignore. Certain days (48 hours, 5-7 days, day 16, and day 24) showed extremely shallow breathing for all infants. These days just happen to correspond with Larry Baraff's study (cited above), he showed certain days to have increased risk for SIDS and he admitted he didn't understand why. (see article on this topic)
* Three unrelated respiratory therapists were interviewed by phone and confided that they warn parents using apnea monitors in non-apneic children to expect more frequent apnea alarms in the few days following vaccination.

In 1985 Dr. Scheibner, a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia, and her husband electrochemical engineer Leif Karlsson invented the CotWatch breathing monitor for babies who are diagnosed “at risk” for SIDS, or “Cot Death” as it is known in Australia. Over the next three years, the couple monitored hundreds of babies and studied the event reports that their CotWatch produced. “By 1988 we knew that vaccines are killing babies,” said Dr. Scheibner Ph.D.

There is alot more of this stuff out there but you really need to seek it out for yourself. If you stick to mainstream sids info you will not find it - thats all I'm saying. The book also covers other potential forms of toxicity, (not just from flame retardant chemicals in mattresses and vaccines), and the interaction that various other factors (lowered immunity, nutrient deficiencies, premature birth, antibiotics, alcohol use etc) have with these forms of toxicity. The way that all these factors are explained to inter-relate is part of what makes it so sense-forming.

The book doesn't bag sids organisations either - that is not its purpose. It simply leaves the reader a little perplexed as to the nature of various parties behind them.

Its not a crime to go against the grain and question what you are told. In the past many truths have been denied before they have been accepted as truth. At the end of the day, its just you and your baby - and we all want to do what we can, and know whatever we can - even if the sources of our information contradict one another, it doesn't matter. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.....

[Just Me]

However in this particular instance, having read the research from various sources, it is my belief that the information we are getting from mainstream sids organisations does not add up (or at least - leaves a lot to be desired), and this book helps to provide parents with another rather large peice of the puzzle which not only makes alot of sense, but is based on findings from studies published in peer reviewed medical journals - the same very sources that these organisations derive their research findings. The question is, why are they being so selective as to which sections of the research they choose to promote, and those they choose to ignore? Research is research. Why sections of the medical community (not all charities dedicated to SIDS - of course supporting parents with their grief is an admirable thing) choose to downplay these findings is what is being questioned here - and we do not really know the answer, one can only assume there is some advantageous reason for doing so. Perhaps not directly advantageous for the SIDS organisations themselves, but perhaps for various other related fields of medicine whom they may be answerable to.

Not all research is good research or reliable research. How studies obtain results and what kinds of control they use to find those results can have a huge impact on findings. I imagine that is why not all 'research' conducted in these fields is published. SIDS is a very difficult issue for many families and I think SIDS organisations are being careful not to lead parents into a false sense of security by claimig that they have the answers. I think reasons behind why research is conducted and biases that researchers place on their research also have a huge impact on results. I think the SIDS advice that we are given is based on research that has constistently stacked up across the board where the methods and controls used to find these results are sound.

Its not a crime to go against the grain and question what you are told. In the past many truths have been denied before they have been accepted as truth.

I completely agree. However, I think it is also important to note that following mainstream research and ideas does not mean that a person hasn't thought about it either. I think it is important to critically analyse all information that we are given and sometimes the end result does point back to the mainstream research.

BTW - good thread! I think it is important to talk about these issues and discuss different points of views. After all, we are all here to learn, share ideas, question what we are told and educate each other. Thanks for posting it

[Smoke Jaguar]

I don't think anyone should co-sleep or not co-sleep because of what others say, you have to do what you are most comfortable with.

The thing is, people don't co-sleep despite a desire to do so because of the naysayers who say it will either kill their babies or that it creates dependent children ( like they aren't already dependents and as if they'll stay that way forever...DS still comes in with us and you couldn't get a more independently thinking 3.5yo!). How can you come to a proper conclusion about how you feel about co-sleeping when there is misinformation about it and a lot of 'authority' about safety standards for baby equipment like cots, prams and other 'mummy replacements'?
SIDS is a Western phenomenon (as with depression and some other symptomology we assume are universal), so what's missing from or what's present in ours that can help us beat it?

[Just Me]

SIDS is a Western phenomenon (as with depression and some other symptomology we assume are universal), so what's missing from or what's present in ours that can help us beat it?

I was wondering about this - is it just a western phenomenon or is it because other cultures accept death more readily than we do and don't need to have a reason? Or because there are so many causes of death that go undiagnosed that babies do die of SIDS and their cause of death (or lack thereof) goes unnoticed? Is it just a phenomenon that we give a label to, as with depression, or are there actual studies showing that these things don't exist in other cultures?

I am asking a genuine question, not trying to make a point. I really don't know much about other cultures and I am interested to know how we know these phenomenons don't exist in other cultures.

I also agree to a degree with your other point Mayaness that people don't co-sleep out of fear of killing their babies, but I also think that the evidence is so inconclusive that it is fair enough to explore all issues. I don't agree with it being used as a vehicle to control what parents do or don't do with their babies because of societal values.

I think lots of parents still make many decisions that aren't 'SIDS friendly' and while they are aware of the info, they still sleep their baby on their tummy or put bumpers in their cot. Lots of people make choices despite what the advice is because that is how the information is intepreted in their family against the risk. People do what works best - I have read plenty of threads of people with babies who have difficulty settling on their back so they put them on their tummy. I have friends who do this too - it is the way they intepret the risk but it doesn't mean the info shouldn't be available or it is wrong. It also doesn't mean people that who sleep their babies on their tummies are wrong. I think it helps us to weigh up the risk and make a decision. I persisted with sleeping my babies on their back though I think they may have settled better on their tummies because that is what I felt comfortable with. I don't think I have been bullied into that decision by misinformation, I think I have made an informed decision. I know what the research says and I have intepreted it as it pertains to my family. I think the issue of co-sleeping is very much the same. People who value it, do it because they see the risk as very minimal.

I think SIDS and Kids position on sharing a sleep surface is changing and it is becoming a more acceptable practice as far as that goes.

There is much debate in the literature about the practice and definition of bed sharing. For the purpose of this statement the term sharing the same sleep surface is used which includes bed sharing and cosleeping practices. Sharing a sleep surface with a baby is a complex issue that encompasses many factors, and there is currently insufficient evidence to issue a blanket statement either for or against this practice. 6

Several studies have demonstrated that babies who sleep in close proximity to their mothers have better outcomes relating to successful initiation and duration of breastfeeding.7-9 A randomised study of infant sleeping location demonstrated that side-car cribs that attach to the mother’s bed are effective in enhancing breastfeeding initiation and preserving infant safety in the postnatal ward.9

I do understand your frustration, but the job of SIDS is to reduce the instances of fatal sleeping accidents and there has been some investigation into co-sleeping. I think the information has been confused with the definition of a sleep surface - beds are certainly safer than sofas and the state of parents also plays a role, but there is evidence that sleep accidents do take place in sharing sleep surfaces, albeit incredibly rare.

My dad was an ambulance officer for about 10 years. He thinks that I am insane for putting my baby in bed with me as he attended a number of instances where women did roll on their babies while co-sleeping and it was fatal. I can completely understand his point of view but I feel that it is a safe practice for me because I am aware of my baby when she is asleep in my bed with me. I don't co-sleep all night but I do from about 4am - 7am and I also do for a bit at midnight when my baby has a feed. The reason I don't co-sleep fulltime is that I don't find it physically comfortable because I don't roll at all when my baby is in bed with me. I sleep much better when she is in her own cot, next to my bed. That's just me. I am not a person who enjoys a lot of physical contact. I like it in moderation, even from DH so I do feel that I need some personal space and I like it while I am sleeping. I do love co-sleeping too but just can't do it all the time. I love waking up and watching my baby sleep and I love being able to cuddle her without the interruption and I love being close to her.

I guess my point is that although it is very very rare that people roll on their babies during sleep and other accidents occur (such as suffocating in blankets and pillows), it does happen and that information needs to be acknowledged. If someone else rolled on their baby during sleep and that info was not available, there would be an outcry that this info was not available. I guess they air on the side of caution but I think it is hard to balance all the evidence in statistics with what is good for babies. I think that is a balance each parent needs to draw for their own baby. Each family has different values and priorities and I guess that makes a difference when intepreting this evidence and how that plays out in their own home.

I think that is good that SIDS is starting to do further research into this topic and they are starting to change their position on it. I think the more recent studies have been more directed and in depth rather than lumping statistics together.

Here is the current information statement on co-sleeping from SIDS and Kids: http://www.sidsandkids.org/documents...nStatement.pdf

I know that it is not pro co-sleeping and there is a lot to be desired about making parents feel comfortable to be doing it, but I think that SIDS have to take into account many different aspects and not just be pro one parenting choice. There main job is to communicate risk and current research and that is why I think it is important for parents to look into this issue for themselves and make the choice they are comfortable making.

[JellyBean]

Wow. When I woke up this morning I truly thought that this thread had been done and dusted. How wrong was I? lol....

Firstly I just wanted to say thankyou Innana for your support. I didn't realise how much that meant to me until I read your post. I didn't intend to make others feel challenged or under attack - I just wanted to 'put it out there'. I want the book to speak for itself - I don't want to speak for it. People can make up their own minds after reading it.

The book also covers the factors you raised Innana about our all the household environmental chemicals which contribute to toxicity in our children - particularly in our western world. But more importantly, it gives parents practical advice on how to minimise these risks. As you can see from my post I too am very chemical conscious and have become a rep for Miessence so that I can do that more cheaply!

I scan the peer reviewed medical journals because that is what our western culture demands as the 'empirical standard' of all intellegence, and it was stuck down my throat an uni, but really it is the colloquial evidence, stories from mothers and 'average joes' and like you say Innana - the intuitive gut emotions that really 'speak' to me.

I do firmly believe that toxicity is the major cause of sudden (or not so sudden IMO) infant death, but that it is the combination and accumulation of factors involving the host and the environment. Host being the inherent genetic constitution of the infant, their immune status, their degree of development at birth - prem etc, the mothers diet during pregnancy & breastfeeding, which all affect how the host responds to environmental factors such as chemicals in the home, chemicals in personal care products, chemicals in the water mixed with infant formula, chemicals in food, chemicals in infant bedding materials, chemicals in medications and chemicals like formaldehyde in vaccines (just to list a few... ).

Toxicity is almost certain to be prevalent in the autopsy of any person young or old, as we all absorb toxins every day, however this is not enough according to science to attribute which or how much of what source of toxicity specifically caused the death. The toxicity will simply be found in the cells and tissues of the body, which may lead to systematic overload, but this is very different to toxicity caused by drinking a gallon of formaldehyde, for example. In this instance the cause of death would be indisputable.

In the case of systematic toxicity, direct conclusions cannot be drawn. Which is probably why, according to scientific standards, they may not ever be able to determine or attribute a single cause or cure, because there are so many factors, and they all interact. Finding formaldehyde and mercury in the body of a baby who died the night of a vaccination doesn't tell us much other than the baby was vaccinated, as we know these ingredients are in vaccines. It is not enough for science to say well, obviously the vaccine caused the death - because other children who received the same vaccine that day will not have died. So instead we have to take a holistic approach, by eliminating as many potential avenues for harm, and lobby to make them safer. Lets remove formaldehyde, thimerosal and aluminium hydroxide from vaccines. Lets treat children as individuals, not numbers - lets not assume that a baby born at 35 weeks can cope with the same vaccine dosage and schedule as an infant born at full term. Let us see if there is a change to the incidence of sids. In the very least, we will have made one potential cause safer and less toxic, whilst still being able to offer the benefit of an antibody response.

One thing is certain in my mind (and I speak for many of you out there!)- if we take measures to decrease our own and our childs exposure to toxicity (which I agree is more prevalent in western nations), we will see a drastic decrease in the number of sudden infant death cases. But if various authorities continue to deny, ignore or dispute these harm reduction strategy recommendations from parents and specialists from all fields of life - we will never know the difference that could be made.

[Inanna]

I won't pretend to in any way know very much about SIDS research. I too have been touched by SIDS. Personally & professionally.

As for exposure to environmental toxins (such as formaldehyde) being detectable during post mortem I would highly suspect that this isn't the case. In my personal experience with my own ill health & the suspected trigger being the formaldehyde it is exposure that in "some" people that will cause a response.

For example some of you may be familiar with the contention around the foaming agent SLS... Sodium Laurel Sulphate has a few differing names and sources. Essentially it still has a similar outcome/reaction. It foams and we know it is a "known" carcinogen... So, we also know that many additives are carcinogenic. Burnt chops are thought to be... So, we all know we have exposure on some level to "known environmental toxins & some of these toxins are known carcinogens. Formaldehyde, sodium laureth sulphate, parabens, some sweetners to list a mere speck in the ocean.

So, just walk with me a while. The above is proven. Its factual. We get away with them as additives to our products and food as they are under the legal limit. Or the limit that we know as toxic. For example vitamin A is toxic to pregnancy... So, it's not "allowed" to be included in prenatal vitamins over a particular level... But if you eat a lot of vitamin A rich foods, take a supplement, perhaps eat supplemented bread, juice & milk you "may" reach that upper level of toxic to pregnancy... Yeah? Are you with me still...?

So back to my arch rival SLS... You get up in the morning and do your wee... Flush your loo and perhaps you have blue loo or ambi pur flushy thing in the toilet... You get your first dose of SLE. You wash your hands and get another dose... You open your dishwasher to get out your favourite mug and get another dose from the fumes of the detergent... Also when you drink your tea you get another dose... While the tea steeps you turn on your shower. The hot water hits the residue of the cleaner you used to wash your shower and another dose hits you... Then you step in and apply shampoo to your hair - another dose - much larger this time and over a large body surface. Then the soap... Then you get out and apply some toxic underarm deodorant and moisturiser all containing formaldehyde as well...

You dress and the SLE from the washing powder seeps slowly into your body... All of this and you have only been awake 15 minutes...

Do you see that we are awash with toxicity unless and only if a conscious choice is made to reduce toxic substances in your home and environment...

I am a little bit lost as to some of the arguments against the issues that JB has brought up from her reading. And whilst I am at it kudos to you Jellybean for being so level & able to accept differences in opinion without getting antsy. I feel just like you. If one life can be saved because an idea or a theory is shared then to me that's a valuable post!

I can't support any "feeling" tjhat it's not a very long bow to draw that just maybe our babies are exposed to so much toxicity that some of their little bodies just can't handle it... But my gut tells me there is a very very big part to play in this and the incidents of un explained infant deaths and the high rate of autoimmune disorders in our western cultures.

We bath babies in Johnson and Johnson cos it smells cute - but it's actually a ****tail of chemicals that smell good to some... We feed them formulas that are concocted in a laboratory, we feed them products in plastic packaged as good choices, teats that are synthetic and also emit gases... Clothing that is washed in more toxic substances... We wash our floors with more and those are inhalded by our little ones. Then we put them on a mattress that emits these toxins. We all know the toxicity of a burning mattress! Have you ever smelt one??? OMG you just can't cope with it... So when it's heated it becomes more toxic - as is often the case with chemical reactions. The sheets are washed in chemicals. People wash their babies in chemicals, feed them chemicals, paint their rooms with chemicals, rub their bodies with chemicals, furnish their rooms with more chemicals.

It is really little wonder to me that we have such high death rates. It also makes sense that when a baby is lying face down on this they will be exposed even more due to the proximity of the nose to the surface...

Babies lie on their bellies in all cultures - but they all don't risk death. Like another poster I eliminated all that I could possibly eliminate from my environment. Because SiDS sxares the crap out of me. It was never just a little fear in the back of my mind. it was real and burdening.

Its not popular to hold views such as mine. For others find it confronting or critical of themselves. That is so far from the truth. Nobody of sound mind does anything to place their beloved in danger - it's just that we have been conditioned to believe in the safety of J & J, of lux flakes, of nice fresh plastic mattresses, of fresh paint, fly spray.... "It never hurt me"... "My mum did it and hers before her - we're all fine"....

It's cool if that's how one sees life. Often it's not until you are faced with a crisis that you begin to ask questions. That the well trodden path seems a little foreign...

I think it's foolish to dismiss any opinion or research - just as I think it foolish to believe that one has all the answers.

I agree that it would be massive to discover that some of the answers of infant death lay in the bathrooms and bedrooms of the affected children. Imagine the cost involved of overhauling our whole method of manufacturing - at the least? It is not such a long bow to me that it would be a very very costly and much bucked idea...

It makes perfect sense as to why western babies have a better chance of survival if they lie on their backs on their toxic mattresses! or why a baby that comes from a home where especially they are exposed to second hand smoke (in clothing and furniture) that they are at heightened risk of fatality. Not again, a popular opinion but one I hold personally...

[Junglemum]

Innana- i am all for any opinions and research and certainly open to anything that opposes current thoughts or beliefs. I myself am very wary of SLS, we try to minimise the amount of products we have in our house. I don't like people using fly spry around my babies. We eat with minimal preservatives, i chose an alternate vaccine schedule for my family, i am passionately against the consumption of soy, but i still get a little off side when people devalue the work that charity groups do. Sure their research may be better directed in some peoples minds, but to insinuate they are part of a big cover up is offensive imo. I believe the majority of scientists and researchers out there are doing the best they can with what they have to help as many people as they can.

I don't have a problem with new ideas, research and theories, i do have a problem with the unfounded accusations.

[suse]

Inanna - without attempting to nitpick, or derail the thread from its intended purposes - I would genuinely be interested to see incontrovertible evidence that SLES (sodium laureth sulphate, not SLS, sodium lauryl sulphate - they are not the same) is a known carcinogen, as it is something that the available evidence does not support. (OK, anyone here who doesn't want to hear a whole bunch of science geekery can skip most of this post). But there is a point to derailing... I'll get to that later.

First, I should point out that I don't use products with SLS because it is a known irritant. I also use organic and synthetic free biodegradable products and only bi-carb and vinegar when cleaning. So I am not an advocate for synthetic use. If anything I am the opposite.

Secondly, I will not deny that SLS and SLES are both known irritants. But they are not recognised carcinogens by any agency, including all regulatory and cancer advisory bodies in Australia, and the FDA, EPA, CTFA, and the US College of Toxicology in the US.

So why the perception that SLS is a carcinogen?

Two reasons:
- Because of a widely spread internet rumour that SLS (as opposed to SLES) is a carcinogen. This arose because SLS is routinely used to solubilize chemicals used in carcinogen tests prior to injecting them into test animals. The solubilizer was mistook for the active ingredient.

- Secondly, because of a confusion with SLES.
Unlike SLS, SLES is synthesised by ethoxylation, and as a result can contain trace amounts of the 1,4-Dioxane (which can be and usually is removed during production, however, this is not mandated). This is listed as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA prompted studies on rats which have demonstrated that carcinoma rates increased with high doses of 1,4-Dioxane administered orally (in drinking water).

However, studies testing inhalation showed no increase in carcinoma amongst the test population, a result which correlates with epidemiology studies on workers exposed to high amounts of inhaled 1,4-Dioxane (cancer rates were on par with that of the general population). Most relevant to the cosmetic industry, tests on mice with skin absorption showed no increase in cancer rates where high doses of 1,4-Dioxane (well in excess of those found in products containing SLES) was used alone. (In combination with another substance, which is not used in cosmetic or domestic preparations but in industrial ones, it was found to be a carcinogenic promoter). However, it is noted by the FDA in their advisory notice that most of the dioxane in preparations applied to the skin evaporates into the environment and is not available for absorption.

So to recap, the evidence is:
- 1,4-Dioxane is a probable human carcinogen. But, the evidence suggests that it is carcinogenic when consumed orally (via drinking water) in high doses, with rates of cancer amongst subjects exposed by inhalation or skin exposure to doses much higher than what is found in human skin being consistent with a control population.
- 1,4-Dioxane can be found in trace amounts in SLES, but can be, and often is removed during the synthesising procedure. As it is not mandated that this is done, it is unknown exactly what percentage of raw SLES has been dioxane scrubbed.
- SLES and SLS are both listed as known irritants. There is no evidence to suggest that they are carcinogens, and the amounts of 1,4-Dioxane found in samples of cosmetic products containing SLES have been sufficient only to prompt further monitoring, they have been well under the amounts advised the EPA as being safe for oral consumption.

So why have I gone on this rather extensive ramble? Not to specifically debunk what you are saying, and I do get your point that cumulative effect of substances can be damaging, as can exposure to a wide variety of substances in combination.

And I also agree that it is absolutely critical to explore all avenues of research in the attempt to discover the cause of SIDS (amongst other things). And I will concede that sometimes respectable or mainstream research organisations or regulatory bodies will cherry pick data without qualm in order to support a political agenda (the AMA's recent exploits are a great example of that), or at the very least follow only conservative avenues of research.

But my concern is that like the SLS debate, or the recent claim that stillbirth can be partially attributed to fluoridated water but is unsupported by any of the stillbirth statistics in Australia (QLD, which has up until this year had a 4% uptake of fluoridated water compared to up to 100% in other states, yet has an identical if not higher rate of stillbirth), is that this research sounds great but is unable to be substantiated. Some of the claims that JellyBean has quoted (in the article from Dr Mercola's site) seem to be similar examples of cherry-picking, and the results of such research have not been able to be replicated at this point. I don't have any issue with the claims themselves, just their veracity. As an example, the work and qualifications of Dr Viera Scheibner (whose PhD was actually in Geology, not in any health sciences) has been almost universally debunked in peer review, and her bias as an anti-vaccination advocate is well known to the point that any claim that she makes that she was not initially looking for a link to vaccination as a cause for SIDS is dubious at best. Any article using the claims of such a scientist as a lynchpin of its argument holds no credibility for me.

So it is not possible to claim them as fact when most of this research is not supported either by peer review, by supporting research or by statistics (and I gave examples of these in my previous post). If these claims can be supported, then great. If they were presented as possible theories that were worthy of further research - that's great too. But I think that the way that this information has been presented sounds like conspiracy theory presented as fact rather than science; once it is presented as legitimate science I will take it much more seriously.

My issue with these claims have nothing to do with mainstream conditioning (which, if you knew me you'd agree is pretty funny as I am pretty close to the extreme end of raving anarchist sceptic), but with the veracity of the science behind them. Just like my issue with some of the claims behind SLES. Doesn't mean that they're not worthy of further investigation, but also doesn't mean that they will turn out to be the correct answer either.

[wysiwyg]

Very true
I am wondering though - if a parent rolls onto their child and they suffocate or they go under blankets - why is that sids? To me; that is a known cause of death. Prehaps to avoid legal obligations it comes under sids??

I am not sure the status in Australia but I know in other countries like the US due to campaigning by SIDS groups, suffocation and being rolled onto are no longer categorised as SIDS or are separated out within the stats.

"After years of lobbying the SIDS community has passed laws in almost every state requiring an autopsy and requiring first responders to identify the difference between SIDS, overlaying and abuse"