SIDS book that will blow your mind....

[JellyBean]

The solutions to lifes greatest mysteries can come from left field and often do by chance, however to have my path end up with what appears to be quackery scares me more than the risk!

SB, correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the distinct impression from your posts that you are taking some sort of personal offence to this thread based upon your field of work. Can I just say that I have (and I'm sure I speak for many here) a great deal of respect for your line of work. The father of a good friend of mine was an Ambo for many years, and after hearing many of the stories he told us, it always made me feel very at ease to know that we have people like him out there helping to save lives. I have never once drawn any correlation between the type of medicine or injections (ie adrenaline) administered in life threatening situations and other forms of medicine such as vaccinations. They are incomparable lines of work, IMO.

No one here is suggesting that we do away with vaccines, (or mattresses) only that we humble our professional pride, and start to pay closer attention to the growing number of parents, toxicologists and various members of the mainstream medical community who are adamant that they have observed a link between various avenues of toxicity and sids - whether it comes in the form of a peer reviewed medical journal or not. Besides, many of the studies within the field of medicine are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Do you suppose these same companies will be willing to fund more studies to professionally ascertain whether or not there is a link between formaldehyde in vaccines and SIDS? I highly doubt it. You can see the kind of uphill battle these people are fighting - without the funds to spur them on.
How many 'low patient studies' conducted by 'non-mainstream groups' will need to be conducted before people pay attention to the consistent findings? How many families will be paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund for SIDS deaths before parents decide they don't need or want the empirical evidence anymore, and that playing vaccine roulette with their childs life just isn't worth it?

If we have MDs and pediatrician's out there who are no longer willing to administer vaccines due to the years they have spent observing the effects in their patients in an unofficial but very real longitudinal study, then that is worth noting. We cannot simply discount limited studies or personal experience as 'quackery', especially as many of the claims are now coming from the mainstream medical community itself. Did you know that Edward Jenner was considered a 'quack' when he first proposed that a small injection of cowpox disease could prevent humans from getting smallpox? People thought he was a complete nutter and yet he persisted to fight the system. Now he is heralded as some kind of hero.

It only takes one person to make a significant difference in this world. If one parent or one pathologist or one pediatrician believes that their experience or their findings are so significant they feel compelled to share, regardless of the professional ramifications, then I believe we need to have respect for that, listen with open minds and hearts, and simply take it in our stride. Who knows where the future of research will lead us? But we cannot simply dismiss findings as quackery (awful term that) until we have exhausted them to buggery - and unfortunately that is a long, long way off.
Until then, parents deserve to have info - be it from left field, right field or upside down field. At the end of the day its their choice to consider or discard the info as they please.

[Inanna]

SB I am not sure what you mean - can you explain to me? Are you saying you would rather risk knowledge than appearing to others as a "Quack"? That's all good if that's what you mean I am just intrigued...

Sas: I don't think I have read here than anyone is not happy with the support Sids for Kids gives - it's amazing & I have been the grateful recipient too many times... What is being said is sometimes research done by an organisation with a vested interest can be conflictual. Noone is saying this organisation is, was or maybe is. Just that it can be conflictual...

As for what SIDS is defined as in Australia - being a member of this organisation I sought to find out... “The sudden and unexpected death of an infant under 1 year of age, with onset of the lethal episode apparently occurring during sleep, that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation including performance of a complete autopsy, and review of the circumstances of death and the clinical history."

I also would like to correct something that I believe may not be quite accurate... SIDS is more prevalent in Western Society. Except for the indigenous peoples of said cultures... Interestingly these people have a higher rate of smoking & alcohol and drug abuse. We know in cultures such as Asian cultures where traditionally women did not smoke, firm natural fibre matresses are used the rates are very low... (from my information)

We know in homes where people smoke even if they smoke outside the risk of sids is higher - we also know that this is because second hand smoke is toxic. So smoke on clothes, skin & furniture/soft furniture... We know that smoking is dangerous in utero. If a woman smokes her baby has a higher risk of stillbirth, growth retardation & breathing difficulties post natally. We also know that if a woman smokes whilst pregnant that child has a greater risk of SIDS post natally.

We know this even though as little as 25 years ago smoking was not pooed in pregnancy. But things have changed - and what many intuitively knew was proven.

We know that when we sleep on our backs we wake more frequently - this is because our sleep patterns change when we are supine. On your belly you will sleep more soundly, rouse less and have more REM sleep. In REM you cannot move (if you have not got a rem sleep disorder such as narcolepsy), so you and I and our babies are more likely to die on our/their bellies... However, we know if a baby is prem that prone sleeping aids breathing - however once the lungs are matured curiously this seems to not be the case.

This is why back sleeping is promoted. So that a child rouses if they were to "forget" (\which of course they don't as it's not conscious) to breathe.

So, it would seem from the wonderful research that has happened that I know of that it is a central nervous system response... Why do some have it and most don't? That's what we don't know.
If we already know that a toxic carcinogenogenic load such as that found in the average Winnie red is going to increase the risk of SIDS even if I don't indulge in my babies presence will statistically increase her risk of a SIDS death.... It's not really out of the realms of possibility that other "environmental" toxins could be involved...

Just my extra thoughts after contemplation during a very boring meeting this morning!

[Inertia]

As for what SIDS is defined as in Australia - being a member of this organisation I sought to find out... “The sudden and unexpected death of an infant under 1 year of age, with onset of the lethal episode apparently occurring during sleep, that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation including performance of a complete autopsy, and review of the circumstances of death and the clinical history."

As I said. In this day and age in Australia, SIDS is SIDS. It is no longer a blanket term for all unexplained deaths in infants. No autopsy is "Unknown". Suffocation by lay over is "Fatal Sleep Accident" and SIDS is now only used when there is no evidence at all of a cause.

This more stringent classification is part of the reason for the smaller number of SIDS deaths in Australia in more recent years.

[Visitor6]

SB, correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the distinct impression from your posts that you are taking some sort of personal offence to this thread based upon your field of work. .

My fields of work as both a Critical Care Registered Nurse and Paramedic allow me to appreciate the arguments in a different light to a lay person. I take no personal offence from this thread, I'm bigger than that. I do get disappointed at the techniques used by some of those in this area of medicine to make their point and some of the claims. I am not so blind as to ignore research from areas outside my own.

Can I just say that I have (and I'm sure I speak for many here) a great deal of respect for your line of work. The father of a good friend of mine was an Ambo for many years, and after hearing many of the stories he told us, it always made me feel very at ease to know that we have people like him out there helping to save lives. I have never once drawn any correlation between the type of medicine or injections (ie adrenaline) administered in life threatening situations and other forms of medicine such as vaccinations. They are incomparable lines of work, IMO..

I'm not making comparisons between emergency medications either, so I don't understand what you mean. My areas of practice are a bit broader than Ambulance care. I appreciate the kudos.

No one here is suggesting that we do away with vaccines, (or mattresses) only that we humble our professional pride, and start to pay closer attention to the growing number of parents, toxicologists and various members of the mainstream medical community who are adamant that they have observed a link between various avenues of toxicity and sids - whether it comes in the form of a peer reviewed medical journal or not. Besides, many of the studies within the field of medicine are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Do you suppose these same companies will be willing to fund more studies to professionally ascertain whether or not there is a link between formaldehyde in vaccines and SIDS? I highly doubt it. You can see the kind of uphill battle these people are fighting - without the funds to spur them on.
How many 'low patient studies' conducted by 'non-mainstream groups' will need to be conducted before people pay attention to the consistent findings? How many families will be paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund for SIDS deaths before parents decide they don't need or want the empirical evidence anymore, and that playing vaccine roulette with their childs life just isn't worth it?

If we have MDs and pediatrician's out there who are no longer willing to administer vaccines due to the years they have spent observing the effects in their patients in an unofficial but very real longitudinal study, then that is worth noting. We cannot simply discount limited studies or personal experience as 'quackery', especially as many of the claims are now coming from the mainstream medical community itself. Did you know that Edward Jenner was considered a 'quack' when he first proposed that a small injection of cowpox disease could prevent humans from getting smallpox? People thought he was a complete nutter and yet he persisted to fight the system. Now he is heralded as some kind of hero.

It only takes one person to make a significant difference in this world. If one parent or one pathologist or one pediatrician believes that their experience or their findings are so significant they feel compelled to share, regardless of the professional ramifications, then I believe we need to have respect for that, listen with open minds and hearts, and simply take it in our stride. Who knows where the future of research will lead us? But we cannot simply dismiss findings as quackery (awful term that) until we have exhausted them to buggery - and unfortunately that is a long, long way off.
Until then, parents deserve to have info - be it from left field, right field or upside down field. At the end of the day its their choice to consider or discard the info as they please

Why is there an assumption from everyone that promotes "alternatives" their argument includes the idea that big brother pharmaceutical companies support research and therefore must cause bias in their studies? That then suggests that all surgeon who design replacement body parts, all virologists and infectious disease specialists who discover vaccines and antidotes, all psychiatrists who discover mental health medications and many other medical professionals are somehow less than reputable because they accepted a grant from big business. Whilst i detest the money made by big business including pharmaceuticals and anyone involved in saving lives, it is insulting to assume that these professionals are less than honorable and not giving years to the betterment of society.

I deplore the actions that leave parents not questioning their choices (how dare anyone challenge mine as a parent) but potentially living in fear of their choice. I don't think that is a fair way to make a point or to prove a theorem. Why shouldn't they trust the professionals who make the health recommendations with confidence?

I vaccinated my child last Monday. Should I sit up listening for squeals living in fear that something might happen or should I observe as a good parent for reactions as described by those caring for my son?

I get very concerned when fear is created based based on untruths. Thimerosal for example isn't used in the MMR here in Australia yet we keep flogging that old chestnut from US based sources. Is that fair on parents? Even a previous thought on SIDS being that parents can be charged if a cause of SIDS can't be proven. What sort of unfair burden is that to put on a parent who has suffered the loss of a child?

The National Vaccine Reaction Fund is a US based fund. Paying out money I'm afraid isn't an admission of guilt. Or the fallibility of a vaccine.

With such a purported increasing number of medical professionals making claims in the areas we have discussed, all making pretty good wages, selling plenty of books and being able to gain the support of celebrities then where has all the money gone? surely there is enough to support real peer reviewed research?

It's not about discounting "professionals" it's about their methods. If you want to be heard then you play the game. I agree that it's only takes one person and their idea to change the world day and age it has to be done the right way. I hear you about Edward Jenner, but that was from a time different from now.

How would it be if we started changing our lives simply based on unsubstantiated research or just a book or a web site that sound way to reputable to believe and then our loved ones suffered. Who's fault is it? If I chose not to vaccinate my child based on the evidence of web alliances with really professional sounding names and my child suffers from a preventable illness is it their fault as much as mine?

My view is about equity.

Inanna, I'm merely saying that I support research and opinions from left of field. From example, the impact that the mind has on the body as once thought of as the realm of mind body spirit gurus is now much more a mainstream and accepted relationship. Alternatives such as the ascorbate "cure all" are simply quackery.

I agree about the increasing toxicity in our society having an effect on all of us not just out children. it's about balanced informed decisions that any good parent will make.

My views are in some ways about this. I apologise for this simplistic view. Maybe its the ambo in me.

The human body is an amazing creature. No two are the same. It's reactions and behaviours are unique and also similar.

However, people (and babies) get sick and some pretty bad. Some even die.
That's a ***** of a thing to happen to anyone especially a parent.

But that's what happens....And not everything that happens has a reason. It just happens. That doesn't fit right with our beliefs: we need an answer. We need to be able to blame. It's in our nature and part of our grieving process. Made ever so harder for those with SIDS angels. We are given so many heart beats. Some of us more and some of us less no matter how much we try to protect them they run out.

I'm sorry if I offend the views of others just as passionate in their own area of belief.