SIDS book that will blow your mind....

:

---

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?

:

---

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.

Yeah, fo rme and the research I've done, I'm reducing my risk of SIDS by co-sleeping. My baby's safest place is right next to me. I have no sleep disorders, take no drugs of dependency that affect my cognition or consciousness and I am of average weight. I use my own doona for my baby mostly and my baby sleeps on a lambskin. Just an example of how someone makes a decision :)
It's not just that other cultures don't have a name for a syndrome, they don't have the syndrome to report in the first place. Their babies don't just suddenly die for no reason. They die for other reasons, just like in our culture, and also for reasons that shouldn't exist like famine or disease, but not for no reason.
There is emerging evidence that Western disorders are being universalised (if that is a term!) and people from other cultures are developing disorders previously unknown to them - depression and anorexia being among them. We are so ethnocentric that we assume all cultures have these symptoms and that the DSM-IV applies the world over, when it does not. And not being Western doesn't automatically mean deprivation, either. My family in Central America may live completely differently from us and live on a lot less money, but they aren't riddled with disease, suffering from drought or famine or any ohter symptoms of poverty. Western doesn't mean better, and I think this is the trap we fall into as a society.
To me, sleeping with my babies is the normal thing. The science only backs up a decision I would have made anyway.
We've spent so long telling mothers how to do things that it's no wonder they aren't able to identify what is intuition in order to know to trust it or not. 'Intuition' can't be measured or 'proven', so it's suspect in our world.
I think, as we're talking about SIDS (and not accidental rollovers), you'd be hard pressed to find instances of SIDS whilst co-sleeping, where the mother wasn't impaired in her normal functioning by substances or known medical conditions (like sleep apnoea).

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...? :lol:

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...

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.

I hear that you believe that the comments were accusations against charity - but just to angle it differently... I certainly didn't draw that conclusion from the OP.

What I heard is that some research is to support a theory rather than to search on a completely different tangent.

I have heard support for the immense support and comfort organisations such as SIDS for Kids gives. I for one have benefited from that comfort & certainly do not support berating the support that is given... However, to believe also that simply because an organisation does wonderful grief support does not mean that one cannot and should not question the direction that research has taken for that organisation...

Red Cross has saved many lives - but in other areas has behaved quite contentiously (IMO)...

Foster Parents Plan... another with a rather shady past...

We of course need to remain open - but we cannot with balance believe that charity organisations will always be wonderfully exempt from perhaps needing to be realigned... (IMO)

No i totally agree- it is healthy and normal to question these things, especially given past history.

i just felt that the comment "and yet they expect us to seriously believe that they can't find a cause for why babies keep dying in their beds? Nonsense." was a little unfair, and unfounded.

I take it to mean that the book and/or JB are implying that there is some kind of cover up and that they should have the answers if they were any kind of scientists.

I just thought it was a bit over the top. imo, of course! ;)

The problem I have with 'viral' medicine is that it flows like it's counterpart viral marketing and viral conspirators.

(This isn't directed at Inannas SLS comments which I CAN appreciate and understand)

When the so-called saviours who have a revolutionary outlook on life, medicine or relationships appear it's usually in a book (anyone can get published these days) or via the net or even better between midnight and 4am.


Those with these discoveries seem to follow the same pattern with some of the following claims or behaviours.

• Mainstream researchers are being bought off by big business or pharmaceutical companies
• Mainstream researchers or practitioners regard THEIR work as quackery
• They'll use the old chestnut of Galileo and the earth is flat or similar old world discoveries
• The public is being conned or misled (we are all clearly gullible)
• Someone in the past madea great discovery but was ignored
• Someone was once a non believer but now after a miraculous level of proof changed their view.
• Use of non local research from non existent or obscure small circulation journals with little specificity to the actual subject.
• The chance to "reveal" the truth. Only partly but fully if you buy.
• Language that follows a "credible" tone. The attempt to "sound' plausible.
• Written diarrhoea. Write enough, you begin to think "Hey! With all this info it must be right!"
• Belittlement of those who still don't believe or some sort of guilt line that promotes doubt of thought.
• Aim to create fear in the reader.

Most of the worlds great discoveries especially in health care aren't done for profit but for the betterment of mankind.

Explain to me why I need to pay $19.95 to learn the secret to keeping my child alive or how I am being duped or why it takes 6 monthly instalment to fix my mental health.

I am all for radical change in health car practices supported by quality peer reviewed processes. Why do these new discoveries follow an alternative route to dissemination?

So I'm off to to cook a well done on my Teflon coated aluminium fry-pan. It's the only natural follow on as a vaccinated and formula fed grown man!

I do agree with some of what you say SB... (shocking I know! :hug:) I guess all knowledge and books are bought. My Merck cost me a pretty penny... YK?

I just think sometimes if we "suspend reality" for a short time. Listen with more than our ears - sometimes we learn that it's all trip - but just sometimes we learn something new & helpful...

Yes Galileo comes to mind! Also so does that famous slimming tea & the woman with rather large breasts promoting it!

However, when we just become lemmings who believe only that which an "expert" has proven then perhaps we might also be living a dangerous reality. For we are ignoring colloquial evidence, gut instinct and personal experience. Often these mediums prove worthy of a listen... :hug:

Just to prove I can look into the grey rather than the black and white, here's I site I've been browsing as it was linked from an ambulance site I am a part of. Mainly because it's an area of interest!

http://www.wordsaremedicine.com/

And yes Merck Manuals and their siblings are a surefire way to send you broke!

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.

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

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.

Ok the thing that has been running through my mind on all this toxicity talk is simply that I am being told that it can come from many sources. However I also have to believe that every single source of toxicity will escape postmortem examination. Every single one. Thats not possible.

Now here is the kicker and I mentioned it before. SIDS is not a diagnosis. It is a "disgnosis of exclusion". To be classified as SIDS, there must be absolutely nothing - and I mean not even a hint of size abnormalities - that could have attributed to a cause of death. These babies are perfectly in weight range. Their organs are perfectly formed and of an nominal weight. Their bloods and other tests clean of levels of anything that could have caused an adverse affect to the body.

So if any adverse level of toxicity is detected in an angel baby, its not classified as SIDS.

Yes, this new stricter use of the term SIDS has helped attribute to the reduction in SIDS babies in a year (its not all Sleep Safe and I will admit that), but it is very possible that there are toxicity deaths in a year - they are just not included in the SIDS numbers.

I can't answer you from a place of knowledge my love... But I can say it makes sense to me when we are bombarding our homes, bodies and environments with known toxins it has to have an affect.

My body didn't show any toxic level but we know that autoimmune disorders (of which perhaps SIDS is one - who knows???) are triggered by environmental toxins (amongst other triggers)...
One of my Drs couldn't "prove" this was my case - however, he personally had seen enough to believe it a strong possibility...

The issue I have with people throwing around large volumes of text books and saying "unless it's here it's not true"... We can miss the intracacies and colloquial tales of reality!

For an example I do know a lot about... NK cells... We all have them otherwise we'd need to live in a bubble. But, when we have too many it appears they will amongst other things kill our babies in utero... (actually the cells don't kill the baby my body does because of the high number of killer cells)..

It is seen as "an old theory", "not proven", "just a lucky guess"... However, personally I have a baby playing on the floor that I believe I would not have had had I not researched until I had blisters on my fingers and my credit card was at the limit due to buying medical literature.... :lol:

This Dr is seen as a crackpot by some - and a God by others... I believe he is right one day there will be a name & proof. Now there isn't so we look to people to share their ideas and feelings, experiences and opinions. Some will be learned scholars - others will be Mamas who don't know a synapse from an atom - but they learn hard and fast because they are passionate about their kids, or their passed over babies, or their own health...

I believe it is sheer arrogance to believe that only those that are scholars can know... We all know if we watch, listen and really "feel" into something.

Yes, I love science & yes, I have degrees & yes I am reasonably intelligent - but I cannot "prove" all I believe I know... But I won't shut up because someone with a PHD thinks I am uneducated!!! :lol:
And I didn't... And I have my baby when it was deemed I would never again have a live child...

Suse: I cannot produce for you on screen any references at this present time. I am happy to try & scan what I have so you can look at it. (I don't have a scanner but I can see what I can do)... However, I have read enough, learned enough and really believe that the chemicals I listed are dangerous and should not be used in our homes & especially around our children... :hug:

That is true, Inanna - but while they could not detect any toxicity, there was evidence of an auto-immune issue. Now there is many different auto-immune dis-eases. But the reason they have a name, and have a diagnosis is because it can be diagnosed. There is evidence.

Damage to the liver/kidneys/heart. Or just a high NK count.

None of this evidence would have gone undetected for so long.

Now I think that it was Just Me that summed it up beautifully before that they are extremely cautious before they lull parents into a false sense of security. For example the "new" Serotonin discovery was actually first noticed a long time ago, and the first results of it were published in 2006. Now it has been peer reviewed through another country rechecking these results with other labs and other researchers, NOW they are ready to say there appears to be a link between serotonin levels and SIDS.

Now knowing that really does s*** me off because my niece was born and lost in 2007, but if that information is going to be useful then it needs to be done right. These days less and less parents are impressed with the rushed vax's to - in their mind - protect babies from DTP, MMR, Polio. Those researches found the problem, found a way to try and prevent loss of life - and it was rushed through and now people are refusing those needles because it is in some minds as bad as the disease they are protecting themselves from.

They are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Same with parents really, isnt it. No matter what you do for a child, someone is criticising you.

Big hugs Bending Reality :comfort: I truly get the hideous grief at a possible answer too late for your little Niece. I am so sorry... :hug:

As for me though - no no name. No diagnosis... I was told it was bad luck, one of thsoe things... It wasn't until I alone... Just me! Researched, studied and self diagnosed - then I found someone who had a similar ethos who just happened to be an obstetrician with a special interest in immunity... Who I found had written papers on NK cells & it fitted my profile...

As I have been told I have an "antiphospholipd like syndrome".... Because my blood doesn't test positive but my body has acted that way in that it's kills my babies... It clots my blood and causes my heart o arrest!

Every single Dr at the hospital I birthed Imogen in thought it was ludicrous that I had an autoimmune condition that caused my losses... Until I got "better" when given steroids before Imogen's birth... They were shocked, puzzled a& delayed the c/section - as nobody gets better from eclampsia... Nor is it usual to develop Eclampsia so suddenly, or in a fifth pregnancy with no previous symptoms of this & with the same partner. Except when they have no longer got an attatched placenta! Then when the steroids wore off... I got worse. Then more steroids and my liver started to bleed less etc etc etc... Then after her birth I had a cardiac arrest...

It was then decided that I had an "antiphopholipid like syndrome"of which there is no test for - but one day there will be". "One day there will be a name for what you have"... I had multi system failure caused by coagulation caused by what appears to be an autoimmune response"...

So, no name. Just "feelings & ideas"... That can't be proven.

Not everything can be proven right now it takes time. Remember Lupus is a disease only diagnoseable by blood test for 25 years! Lots of people had it before then but there was no name so therefore no disease existed in text...

Imogen has a rare chromosomal abnormality of which only 5 children have been written up as having it in the world. 10 years ago it was undetectable due to there not being sufficient technology available to pick up chromosome microdeletions!

We have to be balanced. To only turn to medical journals & only turn to colloquial evidence is dangerous. We need to use both. Hold one in each hand and weigh them, feel them and see the bridge between them grow... That I believe is the way forward in science.

Science does not explain a lot of what happens in our World - Heresay does not explain it either. We are fools to not use both - I think... :hug:

:

---

O

Now here is the kicker and I mentioned it before. SIDS is not a diagnosis. It is a "disgnosis of exclusion". To be classified as SIDS, there must be absolutely nothing - and I mean not even a hint of size abnormalities - that could have attributed to a cause of death.

---

Unfortunately this is not the case, although we have been led to believe so. Many autopsies state that a child has suffered encephalopathy from vaccination as the cause of death, and yet the infants death certificate is not changed to reflect that cause of death. It just remains as the blanket term SIDS.
A parent should not have to fight to have their childs death certificate reflect the evidence stated in their autopsy report.
I agree, however that SIDS should refer to exactly the instance you described.

BR - I think this is the reason I'm very interested in the low seratonin findings recently. They make the most sense to me of all I've ever been presented with. What I would hate to see is red herring research that tries to inject seratonin or whatever, and that ignores the environmental/cultural reasons our babies have lowered seratonin than in other cultures and environments.
I would really like 'them' to take into consideration the research done into attachment parenting and the research into the hormonal transfers that occur in 'natural' parenting, compared to when babies are 'sleep-trained' etc.