Printable View
This was how it was explained to my family in 07 as XBIL did not want an autopsy performed on his baby. He wanted her left alone. They were trying to express the need for the examination as an unknown cause of death in a baby is not readily accepted by child services unless they have excluded everything else for it to be classified as SIDS.:
Interesting point Mayaness.
I just found this on the website of a wellness institute in America. I'd like to contact them to see if they can point me in the direction of this study.
Biochemical Causes:
- Serotonin Deficiency
Serotonin deficiency has become much more common in the American population secondary to lack of crop rotation; which causes vitamin and mineral deficiencies in many Americans. Our serotonin factories, cannot produce serotonin if we suffer from zinc, magnesium, or B6 deficiency. A recent study suggests that up to 70% of Americans suffer serotonin deficiency because of nutritional deficiencies and chemical toxins created by our industrial revolution.
Inanna my love - FWIW - I do agree with you - and as I mentioned - I agree that there is a danger to cumulative exposure to low levels of toxins, and don't use synthetics in the home or on my child myself so there's obviously common ground between us. :hug:
Because it was hidden in amongst a whole bunch of stats and what-not, I think my point got lost in amongst the waffle. I hope I can do it justice because DS is in the middle of destroying the computer room, but I'll try.
Just as I am sceptical of the things that I don't agree with (eg: the AMA's stance on homebirth and its subsequent 'doctoring' - pun intended - of the stats to make an invalid point), I am also careful to be as equally sceptical of the things that I do agree with. Just because a scientist is supporting a good cause doesn't mean that their methodology is good, and unfortunately, there are people out there involved in research who believe so strongly in something that they are prepared to accept poor methodology, or to interpret findings in a misrepresented way that supports their hypothesis (or to ignore points that contradict it). This is across the board and across all levels of research.
I am not saying that something is right and another thing is wrong. Toxicity may well be a direct contributor to SIDS. It may well be that we have not yet attained the level of sophistication of measurement that allows us to accurately determine this. It would be a poor scientist who was not aware of any potential limitations of their capacity to accurately determine something.
All I'm saying is that at this point in time this hypothesis is not able to be supported by peer review or by statistical data. This does not mean that the subject should not be further researched, or that it will not one day be proven to be right. It just means that right now, all that can be said is that a link is suspected and further research is warranted. I do not claim to be certain that toxicity is not responsible for SIDS (or that SLES is not carcinogenic), I can only claim that the hypothesis is not supported at this point in time, and I am wary of any scientist who claims absolute scientific certainty in the matter.
For the record, you know that I have a huge amount of respect for both your intellect and your instinct for what is right, and I do know how much you research things, and your background in science. This is not a criticism of you, or anyone else here, but a critique of the science behind the hypothesis. Neither is it a criticism of anyone who believes so strongly in something because all of the personal experience they have had points in that direction, but of scientists (who must be held to a much higher standard of accountability) who claim something as fact when it is not yet provable.
I don't believe that only those educated in scientific methodology can know things, and sometimes such methodology can restrict the very valuable trait of instinct, but by definition, the only way to prove something is through scientific method.
I understand where you are coming from bending reality and again I cannot express enough sympathy for your family's loss.
I think people deal with grief in different ways... and I have no idea how I'd react (I understand very well where your BIL was coming from) but there are other parents out there who feel differently and wish to know all they possibly can, and to have an ambiguous statement written on such a significant peice of paperwork despite evidence against it must be hurtful to those families who just want the truth to be told.
I'm not sure if Australia is different to the US regarding this matter - these findings refer to the US, but I do know of Australian parents who dismiss their childs cause of death as SIDS for various reasons. Unfortunately no amount of fighting the system will bring back their child - but I guess the desire to challenge the authorities stems from a willingness to prevent the same thing happening to someone else.
i co slept in hospital the midwives promoted it said as long as i had the buzzer near by and the rails were up i was ok to co sleep as yeah promotes better breast feeding
my son still on and off co sleeps with me and i find he sleeps alott better when im close or hes close by not half way up the house
i followed all the guidlines sids and kids had when i had my son and hes healthy
with the toxins i hated J And J and hardly used it my son was breastfed till he was 5 mnths then on formula i worry all the time about sids it can happen at any time same with adults but hey if they can tell us better without riddles what to avoid ill do it
I understand Suse & it's fine if you don't agree, I've got my big girl undies on! :lol:
I believe that it's fact that it causes cancer from all I have studied - however, correctly it may not be published in a journal so for all intents and purposes I cannot call it a known carcinogen so I remain corrected!
Well done gorgeous Women & Men for discussing this with respect and kindness... It's wonderful to have a conversation of such sensitivity that is kept respectful... :hug:
I tried finding out about Vaccine Induced Encephalopathy.
Every search flows back to non mainstream groups including the assertion that even Shaken baby syndrome is also synonymous with Vaccine induced encephalopathy.
An encephalopathy is a blanket term with many forms however generally is a syndrome. A group of symptoms.
Despite a lot of writing and the quoting of many low patient studies, I'm still not convinced. Hypoxia and subsequently anoxia (the absence of oxygen) leads to cerebral oedema-brain swelling. Difficult to separate this from other causes however this is pretty constant.
A case (Yurkos) case highlighted one of it's potential witnesses an Australian Dr. One who purports to prevent SIDS and cure Heroin addiction with Vitamin C......
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!
Well at least i take my Vitamins......
I think you make a point their SB - even a known cause say encephalopathy can have only probable reasons (unless there's clear other evidence to indicate something definate like shaken baby syndrome etc). So, encephalopathy that followed a vaccination may be given as a probable cause - but no-one knows for sure do they, it's SIDS.
SIDS it's a blanket term - and I give my kudos to the SIDS for KIDS organization for doing their part in reducing KNOWN SIDS causes such as suffocation caused by loose bedding, or a heavy-sleeping/intoxicated parent laying them over. There is a lot of research yet to be done but still credit should be given where it is due for what HAS been done.
Just wanted to add I get the impression people may view the the SIDS for KIDS and other advise as being anti co-sleeping . . well the pamphlets in all the community centres on the Central Coast (so I can only assume NSW) all have safe co-sleeping guidelines such as not to on a sofa, if you smoke, or even if a very heavy-sleeper (like my husband!! Not everyone, especially those with apnoea are aware subconsciously of little people next to them in their sleep) etc - but it does not say not to do it if those don't apply to you so I don't think the official guidelines are 'anti' co-sleeping, more just careful co-sleeping the same as they are with careful cot-sleeping, saying not to put bumpers & pillows etc in the cot of a very young baby doesn't discourage cot-sleeping so I don't think saying to follow certain precautions co-sleeping is either.
I personally do not like the term that it is a Western Disease - SIDS has been around for a long time and in many cultures - there's even a case in the Bible. And like someone said, Africans and Native Americans have even more chance of suffering from it.
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.
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... :think:
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! :lol:
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.
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.:
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.:
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.