Reply With QuoteI 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
Registered User
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.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??
Last edited by JellyBean; February 23rd, 2010 at 03:51 PM.
Registered User
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
Last edited by JellyBean; February 23rd, 2010 at 03:46 PM. : spelling
Registered User
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!
Registered User
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!
Registered User
I think the biggest thing here is really that its a huge gaping difference between your mentality as a parent when you have not been touched by sids to when you have.. I do not mean that offensively at all!! I had 5 children before my niece passed away, and while I knew of SIDS and was scared of it, I would read the literature, then read some more here and there and formulate the best way I knew to protect my children from SIDS. I felt comfort in what I read to what I was doing. Hypothosies worked for me. It was just another something I could add to my arsenal of information to protect my babies.
I have only had one since then - and nothing, absolutely nothing sets my mind at ease. I sit in the same room on my bed next to her during every single daytime nap. If I have to be doing something else then I am walking into the room every 5 minutes. I don't fall asleep - I simply pass out from exhaustion while watching her sleep.
Nothing short of tested and retested unequivocal proof will ever set my mind at ease again.
However the real problem with going on about the red tape of red nose day and putting a downer on research foundations is that it is ignoring the work that they do to help and support families who have lost a child.
Registered User
Yes. I'm sorry if I downplayed this important factor. However, this truth supports the toxic gas mattress chemical link, and yet the medical establishment refuses to accept it as a valid or likely cause (or even a potential link), despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I also want to say that the main doctor behind the toxic gas research is a chemist and forensic scientist. Therefore he is one of those people who are dedicated to their field and probably being paid pittance to do so. He has nothing to gain financially or professionally from educating parents about his research findings (other than save lives)- and he has been fighting an uphill battle with his own community of medicine for over a decade. He has even received death threats and yet he continues to push the truth as he knows it.
As a side note, I am only comfortable co-sleeping or sleeping my babies on their tummy because I have eliminated what I believe to be related risks of toxicity, however I would not feel comfortable encouraging another parent to do the same had they not addressed these issues first. I just wanted to make that clear.
Last edited by Jennifer13; February 25th, 2010 at 12:55 PM.
Registered User
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.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??
"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"
Registered User
I think that is perfectly understandable given your circumstances. I do know people who have been affected with SIDS - although they are not close family or friends of mine.
Even eliminating what I believe to be the major risk factors doesn't stop me from checking on my baby when he sleeps from time to time. I acknowledge that I cannot control all factors in the universe and that sometimes - bad things just happen for no apparent reason.
It is my belief however (after reading the book), that sudden infant death is largely preventable. It just made so much sense to me, you know - there was no mystery in it - once explained there was just no doubting that I was holding truth between the pages. So I just felt compelled to share what I know - I cannot expect that every parent or reader will feel the same way.
But if there is a possibility that this thread enlightens 1 person to aquire the info that inspires them to make changes that prevent a SIDS incident - I'm glad that I posted it.
Enough waffling now - my house is a mess!
Registered User
it is very hard to have a child's death to be classed as SIDs. infact there is now a law that if the death can not be decided upon(ie SIDs, suffocation), the parents can get charged.
Registered User
OG, My sisters partner did not want a post mortem performed - not because he had anything to hide but he wanted his baby to be left alone. In the end they agreed to it because they threatened to take them to court for an order to allow it to happen and she would be held "in stasis" until then.
Anyway;
To get it classified as SIDS - which is not an actual diagnosis, but a diagnosis of exclusion, absolutely everything has to be within normal ranges and there literally be absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a cause.
So over here SIDS is SIDS, and Suffocation is "Fatal Sleep Accident".
ETA: Sorry if I have upset you, JB, but this is one issue very close to my heart.
Can you give us a link to this law (through austlii or other source)?
Registered User
Are you kidding me? You really believe that because people can walk on the moon we should have the answers to everything in life? Yes i agree that sometimes vaccine companies can push their products with more than just our babies well being in mind, but saying that researchers don't really want to find a cause for SIDS is drawing a pretty long bow IMO.
Registered User
Without going into the rather extensive research on toxicity and vaccinations (and there have been many threads here which cover the topic), I'd like to ask the question which none of the proponents of the 'toxicity' theory as a probable cause of SIDS seem to address - why is there no evidence of toxicity found in those infants affected by SIDS?
Any other animal that is affected by the toxicity of a substance will show evidence of that substance in their blood and cells - so why not SIDS babies? I've yet to see any conclusive evidence demonstrating the effects of toxicity, neither is their any statistical evidence to show that SIDS is more prevalent amongst infants raised in houses built within the last (say) twenty years. In all likelihood the opposite could be inferred from the data, as the SIDS rate showed a marked decrease from the time it peaked in 1986 to 2000 (from 568 to 134 deaths).
The research undertaken to support the hypothesis that toxic gases from mattresses has been discredited, with the results unable to be replicated. One study did suggest a link between used mattresses and a higher rate of SIDS, but 'it is not known what condition these mattresses were in or what position these babies slept in. There is no evidence to show that the risk of SIDS increases for babies who sleep on their back and on a firm, clean, well fitting mattress that is in good condition.' Whilst the evidence relating to toxicity may be seen to conflict with advice given in relation to the increased risk of the children of smokers my understanding is that this relates specifically to carbon monoxide - which is associated with breathing difficulty. This also correlates with the statistics (cars using catalytic converters were introduced in 1986, corresponding with the increasing reduction of SIDS deaths that commenced from 1987).
Specifically on a link between SIDS and vaccination, studies have demonstrated that there is no increase in risk of SIDS in the 14 days following vaccination, and that the rate of SIDS is lower amongst the vaccinated population than the non-vaccinated. The Australian statistics on SIDS deaths show no increases at the usual times of vaccination. Although the highest risk for SIDS is in the period from 1-3 months of age, a breakdown of deaths by age show no difference at two months compared to one or three months (two months being the time of first vaccination).
Registered User
My cousin lost her son @ 2 months old to sids... He wasn't vaccinated). (I'll call him DS1 as he was first born)
He was a twin, they were born @ 42 weeks. Twin DS 1 was a 7.5 pound bubba, and twin DS 2 was 7 lb.
The night of his passing he fell asleep in his porta cot in the living room as DS 2 was sick and was keeping my cousin up almost every hour (as children do when they aren't well).
DS 1 slept ALOT (like most bubbas) but people noticed he slept alot more than DS 2.
DS 2 would cry and wake up on any given day and DS 1 would be woken for his food and would sleep sleep sleep ...
I have heard that there are links to autism and other disabilities after being vaccinated.
It is certainly making me think twice about when to vaccinate - but in saying that, these days parents are practically made to vaccinate (for daycare and school) I think next time around we will wait until at least 6 months to start the vaccinations. A post earlier stated a babies immune system doesnt start working until 6 months (i never knew that!!) so WHY are our babies given a HEP shot at birth???DD didnt have the hep shot at birth, I refused it! and when it came time for the other vaccinations I done them one at a time - to give her body time to fight the vaccination.
Well, thats my 5 cents worth .. but this thread has fascinated DP and I! Thank you so much for posting it!
Registered User
Firstly for the comments about the absence of a newborns immunity.
http://www.immune.org.nz/site_resour...munisation.pdf
I hope you can tell me too because nobody in the ambulance service I work for has told me.Originally Posted by Oorki Galoorki
it is very hard to have a child's death to be classed as SIDs. infact there is now a law that if the death can not be decided upon(ie SIDs, suffocation), the parents can get charged.
Sudden cardiac death happens in adults too: without discoverable cause just as in SIDS- if not more often. Whipping up some mechanics and computers to create a big firecracker is a whole lot different to the intricacies of the human body.We have men (and women!) walking on the moon since the 1970's, and we have sattelites orbiting the planet right now, and yet they expect us to seriously believe that they can't find a cause for why babies keep dying in their beds? Nonsense.
Human bodies are not machines. Birth does not guarantee life. Nor does it predict it's progression. When it ends suddenly we want answers we want something to hang our hats on; something or someone to blame. 'Just because' can be never enough.
I can't however hang my hat on ounfounded evidence.
BellyBelly Member
Firstly, I think it is important to note that the funding from Red Nose Day does not just go into researching the causes of SIDS, but goes into supporting the SIDS and Kids organisation which play a HUGE role is supporting families who lose their children in these devastating circumstances. I think it is very sad that this book is trying to stop that funding which provides so much help and support for families who are going through what would easily be the worst time of their entire lives.
I also think the statistics about sleeping baby on their back very much speak for themselves. In 1980 when the SIDS advice was to sleep babies on their tummies (because doctor's believed babies could drown on their own vomit) out of the 250'000 births that year (approx) there were 450 SIDS deaths. Fast forward to 2005 where sleeping a baby on their back (because doctors have discovered that it is pretty hard for babies to drown in their own vomit for psyiological reasons) and other safe sleeping practices have become more dominant, there were approx 250'000 births and only 80 SIDS deaths. Unfortunately, that number was up by 30 deaths from the year before. SIDS and kids have put it down to complacency of parents who have again began to sleep babies on their tummies to avoid flat head syndrome.
I think the statistics very much speak for themselves as far as the reduction of death because of safe sleeping.
As far as co-sleeping goes, there is a lot of research coming out now that says that it is okay to do it as long as the parents are not affected by drugs and alcohol or highly sleep deprived and neither of the parents smoke. I think this is the official info from SIDS and Kids too at the present moment.
I can't remember the study but I did hear on the news recently that a study found that 80% of all SIDS deaths, the babies had been exposed to smoke. Another recent study also showed that third hand smoke (like that in couches or upholstery of cars or clothing) is just as bad for you as second hand smoke (passive smoking) which may have also had a huge impact on the safety of babies while they are sleeping.
I can understand why this is such a sensitive issue for all parents. We all want our babies to wake up in the morning and something this random rocks us to the core of our security. We as humans try to explain it and give reason to it so that we can prevent it happening and lead ourselves back to that place of feeling safe and secure. I think the info provided in this book would be wonderful if it were conclusive, but I think it is just giving many parents that sense of security that they need so they don't have to be scared about putting their baby to bed. I completely understand how each parent feels, I am a parent and never want to experience this pain.
I think many parents feel the same as me and it is hard not to especially when we know someone who has lost a baby to SIDS. I think I do what I believe is best for my baby, I follow the advice given, look at the research and try to make sure that my baby is as safe as possible. 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. Look at the research pertaining to your parenting choices and make the decisions you are most comfortable with based on the information available.
Here is the statistical results of SIDS deaths from 1981 to 2000: http://www.sidsandkids.org/documents...er2003_002.pdf
Registered User
Sids book etc
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.....
Last edited by JellyBean; February 24th, 2010 at 11:30 AM.
BellyBelly Member
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.
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
Bookmarks