Talk:SIDS

SIDS is wrong

What is a sudden infant? The placement of the word "sudden" requires that it modify "infant," which is absurd. It should be "Infant Sudden Death Syndrome" instead. I guess ISDS wouldn't catch on as well, though. The soft blanket of acronym popularity smothers the baby of grammar, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe at one point it stood for "infantile", using the adjective form, with both modifying the noun "death".

Think of it more like "Sudden Infant-Death Syndrome", as the instance of Infant-Death is sudden. Mylakovich (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and I would like to add that the addition of syndrome at the end of this is odd. When I think of syndrome, I think of some sort of condition, not an event which occurs. They don't call it a heart attack syndrome, or a stroke syndrome, do they?12.167.200.173 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, I don't see the point in arguing semantics on a Wikipedia talk page, but secondly it isn't modifying infant but rather "infant death" as a collective noun. While I appreciate someone being on the lookout for proper grammar, the 7th graders that I teach could tell you this (or at least the ones that passed the "Parts of Speech" test that we just did). As far as it being a syndrome versus an instance, I believe the logic behind that one is that we assume that there is some sort of causal relationship between this instance and some otherwise unknown syndrome. DirtySocks85 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

How many deaths per year in the US are attributed to SIDS? David W. Hogg 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered my own question—see the article. I used statistics for 2002 from the CDC; should I cite these directly in the article? I will probably add a link to the CDC WWW page. David W. Hogg 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Prevention

I'm adding a section on things parents are told to do to help prevent SIDS. Parhaps someone (me if I have the time...) could do some research to see if any of those things have actually been shown to help in studies. Starfoxy 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientific studies have shown a definite link between lowered SIDS rates and the increase of children being placed on their backs to sleep. The national SIDS organization in the United States did a major promotion about this, called "Back to Sleep," so that might be a starting point for your research. David Hoag 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this page has been edited by David Hoag and David Hogg. David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you are right about the Back To Sleep program, which was started two years after my brother died of SIDS. THere is an article that First Candle/SIDS Alliance will send to you if you request it that is published by NVSS. But outside of that and the JAMA article from November one, you would have to use Google Scholar to find. (Just a note, I just editted in a recent finding for the possible causes. Feel free to clean it up, but that is shown in a recent research article. Sculleywr 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Archie Kalokerinos MD and Vitamin C as cot-death prevention

"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.

Thanks John, very enlightening. JFW | T@lk 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you wont remove it if I put it on the main page? john 09:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mwah. The page you've linked to reads "Why a Satisfactory Solution to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Has Not Been Achieved by Dr Archie Kalokerinos". So he hasn't achieved a satisfactory solution. Why link to him.

Joking aside, his article about it (vaccines/kal.html) contains opinion only and is not supported by any references. He cites the case of the twins, hardly a cohort. He completely neglects the important finding that since the introduction of advice to make children sleep on their back the incidence of SIDS has decreased markedly. Since the late 1970s the only journal that has accepted his papers has been Australas Nurses J. He links SIDS not to smoking, poor socioeconomic background and sleeping prone, but to the pertussis vaccine. If you wanted to bring out that point, you could have linked to PMID 15231967. Linking SIDS to vitamin C produces some highly speculative research that has been unverified[1].

In short, the Kalokerinos view is a rather poor candidate for an external link in this article. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote we have a page devoted to him so people can make up their own mind. Your list of criteria to exclude him--is that your yardstick as to links or inclusion on Wiki? And is this your yardstick or a Wiki one? Are saying the Australas Nurses J. isn't an acceptable journal---who makes you the judge of that, you? I don't accept that you are qualified to be the judge for the reason you are an allopathic physician and Dr Kalokerinos is an orthomolecular physician, so you are biased from the position of medical politics, quite apart from your ignorance of the subject, which you are demonstrating now by trying to keep him off Wiki. For one thing anyone who knows anything about medical politics would know that medical politics keeps people like him out of medical journals for obvious reasons. Secondly since you have orthomolecular scientists eg Irwin Stone [2] and Linus Pauling [3] on Wikipedia I find it extraordinary that you don't want the physicians on also, as what use is the science if no one puts it into clinical practice? Thirdly, and most significant, you already have two on, Dr Klenner [4], and Abram Hoffer [5], so not only should a link to put to his articles or my page devoted to him, but a page should be put up to him on Wiki. He duplicated most of Fred Klenner's clinical work, and did much more besides, so he is deserves a page more than them. If he says he has the scientific research to back up his cot-death/vitamin C claim (quite apart from never losing a baby to cot-death in decades of clinical practice), then his evidence should be made available to anyone who wants to see it, not suppressed by allopaths such as yourself. john 16:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, create a page about him on Wikipedia! Of course it will be subject to editing by allopaths and non-allopaths alike. Andrew73 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you can't get beyond Australas Nurses J to publish views on SIDS then one wonders. But I agree with Andrew that his views should be on his own wiki page. Please not John that you can link to Wikipedia articles by putting them in [[square brackets]]. No URL needed. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a foreword to his book by Linus Pauling [6]. So that is a recommendation by a Nobel prizewinner (the only person in history to individually receive two Nobel Prizes). I have put a page up to him now Kalokerinos. john 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved his page to Archie Kalokerinos to simplify his listing. Andrew73 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you can put his vitamin C prevention research in, as endorsed by Linus Pauling himself! I would do it myself but I am sure your edits don't get removed. I know the vaccine connection will never get in, but that is a major source of vitamin C depletion. john 11:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI Marie Curie received two Nobel prizes.Jellytussle 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that should be 'unshared' Nobel prizes. john 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Kalokerinos makes rather a lot of referring a patient to a colleague who diagnosed Scurvy. And the elucidation of Vitamin C in scurvy causation and prevention was one of the classics of entirely conventional medicine - well worth talking about. But deaths of children from Scurvy are not SIDS. Midgley 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the this still on the main page at all? Who put it there? The man himself or a Vitamin C peddler? Lindacse 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Crank Editor

Someone from 86.128.x.x keeps putting in a wacky link to "whale.to". David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"A man is eminent as long as he is orthodox. When he begins to think for himself he becomes a crank.... It is the great commercial manufacturing firms who are providing the brains for the medical man of to-day."---Dr Hadwen 1925

es, and some crank keeps removing it. Don't you like the fact vitamin C will prevent all cot-deaths? Or the FACT vaccine deaths been put down as SIDS? 86.128.165.240 10:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.

I don't kniow what the word is for suppressing the cure for SIDS but crank isn't what I had in mind.

Never mind John. Have a look on Talk:MMR vaccine. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Japan did have a decline in SIDS deaths after changing the date when one of the vaccines was given. AlbertCahalan 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation of the Japanese data has been controversial. The decline in SIDS deaths quoted by anti-vaccination activists is based on data for SIDS compensation claims for vaccines. By definition, the rate of any speculated vaccine-related SIDS would decline if the vaccine was given after the time period when SIDS occurs (i.e. less than one year of age). Andrew73 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Scientific facts" that Dr Kalokerinos are from a data collection agency and could have possibly been a result of something First Candle did as well. Considering that the change was no different than the change in percentage from year to year since the Back to Sleep Program was initiated in 1994, I would say that the vaccine is inconsequential at best. As for the vaccine deaths being put down as SIDS, getting regular shots has been shown as a way of reducing the risk of SIDS. This is called coincidence. Sculleywr 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained above why this link is a poor candidate for inclusion here. JFW | T@lk 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogg has gone a bit quiet, I would have though someone who liked to call people cranks could at least back up his abuse with some sort of argument, but I guess having Linus Pauling as a supporter of Dr Kalokerinos is putting him off. john 11:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pauling's credibility was hurt immeasurably by his antioxidant escapades. Dropping his name does not gain instant notability. And I will gladly take over from Hogghogg in calling people cranks if that is what you would like. JFW | T@lk 12:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you do specialise in Name Calling. john 13:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So do you, Mr Anti-Allopath. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Calling again. Was that too revealing to have an endorsement by Linus Pauling in? That 'not endorsed by mainstream science' bit wouldn't look much alongside an endorsement by Linus Pauling. People may just figure out it is just medical politics. Pharma using mainstream doesn't like nutrient using alternatives, as it would eliminate 98% of their market, not to mention dealing with people asking why you never used this medicine 50 (usually) years ago when it was discovered. john 11:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are so unbelievably misinformed about medicine it is shocking you pretend to have an opinion. Nutrient-based therapy has been part of medicine since Maimonides and probably before then. Blaming big pharma is another attempt at strawmanning, something you seem to be good at.

Your figure of 98% comes out of thin air, and I really doubt you can substantiate that. Failing that, doctors are continuously relying on dietary and nutrient interventions, such as fibre and green vegetables for atherosclerosis and cancer prevention, the Meditteranean diet for cardiovascular prevention, fish oil for hypercholesterolaemia (and IgA nephritis), oranges/tomatoes/bananas for hypokalaemia, and what-have-you.

With your bizarre anti-allopath opinions your factual knowledge about health science is miserable and based on prejudice, conspiracy theories and unreasonable presumptions. One of our more outspoken consultants in hospital is known for giving drug company representatives a hard time about the safety profile of their drugs. So much for your claims. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mattress gas

The link given for this "theory" has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy website: mainstream science is out to get them, defending validity through never been disproven, relying on the research of a scientist from New Zealand, et cetera. Does anybody know if this must be left in the article, or is there a Wikipedia policy on conspiracy theories? --Adamrush 06:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you impugning New Zealanders?! But seriously, I agree. In fact, someday I want to read all this crazy SIDS literature and figure it out; it is a mess at the "pop medicine" level. -- David W. Hogg 13:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Babies poison any rational discussion. I'm taking the mattress gas out until a credible source can be found. --Adamrush 16:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the 'conspiracy' angle isn't credible, it is just Name Calling, also 'conspiracy theories' is the usual Name Calling term. Name Calling is a propaganda ploy often called ad hominem. This scientist was in papers recently as a top pathologist specialising on blood samples in accidents. I have studied many conspiracies in some detail, which is more than I can say for the people who bandy about the term 'conspiracy theory'. And Wiki even has a page lauding Name Calling [7] which gives you an idea about Wiki policy towards conspiracies! john 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done, John, that page gives a good summary of your attitude. What's wrong with mattresses? Is it the PVC or the antimony? JFW | T@lk 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The antimony. The theory basically is something like this:

• There are microscopic fungi prevalent in our environment that will grow whenever moisture and warmth are present.
• A baby's mattress is both warm and damp (from breath and drooling) and so constitutes an ideal environment for fungal growth.
• Mattresses are often treated with fire-retardant chemicals that contain phosphorus, arsenic or antimony (nb, group V in periodic table).
• This is the same group in the periodic table as nitrogen and so these elements can form analogous compounds.
• In nature, the fungus metabolises nitrates in rotting matter and releases ammonia (NH₃) - a relatively harmless gas. However, when present on a mattress which has been treated with fire-retardant chemicals as noted above, the same metabolic reaction produces phosphine (PH₃) and arsine (AsH₃) and stibine (SnH₃), which are extremely toxic.
• These deadly nerve-gases are heavier than air and so tend to pool on the mattress surface where a lethal concentration may build up.

I can understand why you might think the toxic-gas theory was a bit of a conspiracy (the main book is entitled "The Cot-Death Cover-Up" for a start) and its proponents a little shrill, but I rather think that's to be expected given the immense emotional gravity of the subject. In any case, a dispassionate look at the theory should reveal that it is at least valid:

• Its proponents include qualified medical practitioners (eg, Dr. Jim Sprott) who can hardly be considered cranks.
• The mechanism is chemically plausible, invoking no unknown science or processes (hence not really "pop-science").
• It is falsifiable - a single case of cot-death on a wrapped mattress would falsify it.
• It is predictive - twins sharing a mattress would be in the same risk environment and could succumb simultaneously. Sadly, such events have been reported.--Oscar Bravo 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some animosity to the Toxic Gas Theory [TGT]... {eg, there was an anonynous, unexplained deletion of a paragraph relating to it - 20:08, 11 June 2006, by 81.170.114.161). As I note above the TGT is plausible, falisfiable and predictive - criteria that should at least allow it consideration as a hypothesis. I can understand skepticism, but why the animosity? Anyone care to explain?--Oscar Bravo 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the fact that Dr. Sprock is directly involved with the marketing and profit from the selling of these afore-mentioned mattress protectors would suggest that his views are not as objective and impartial as an encyclopedia would require. I agree with the user that removed this content, however if the user Oscar Bravo wishes for this content to remain then he should supply satifactory references to articles published in a reputable journal as opposed to an external website maintained by Dr. Sprock himself

I guess you mean "Sprott", not "Sprock" (mixing him up with Dr. "Spock"?). Anyway, fair of you to question his objectivity if he's making money out of wrapped mattresses. Can you supply me with a reference to this fact, so I can verify it? One thing though, Sprott might be cashing in, but does it therefore follow that he's wrong? (sounds a bit ad hominem). What's the scientific objection to TGT? --Oscar Bravo 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like studies since Richardson's into the theory by major SIDS research institutions have found no proof of any correlation between SIDS and antimony in mattresses. See: http://www.sidsalliance.org/FC-PDF4/Research_Position%20Statements/toxic%20gas%20theor%E2%80%A6es%20and%20sid.pdf which contains a synopsis of research results from major US and UK SIDS charities. Also Sprott clearly has a business link here. He seems to be a bit of a quack to be honest - his comments that smoking isn't a risk factor don;t agree with other research and are dangerously misleading. The BBC site article on SIDS ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/cotdeath2.shtml ) does not include mattresses in the list of risk reduction factors - and the page is medically reviewed based on current NHS guidelines. His sheepskin comments clearly don't explain the falls in death rates in countries where babies were almost never laid on sheepskin bedding. Whereas reduce the risk campaigns do explain it.

My main concern with the current article is the claim that "This [changing mattresses] has lead to a 70% drop in cot death rates in New Zealand.". It almost certainly hasn't -the 70% drop is in line with drops elsewhere since medical authorities started giving out risk reduction information (such as not smoking during or after pregnancy, lying babies on their backs, not overwrapping etc) That section is opinion - not verifiable scientific fact. I suggest it be changed to read "There was a 70% drop in SIDS rates in New Zealand, however whether this drop was due to changing the bedding material, or due to risk reduction campaigns in general is disputed. --User:Deathowl 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No response after two weeks so I've removed the offending paragraph. The remainder reads okay without the unverifiable 70% claim. --User:Deathowl 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Dr. Sprott collects any royalties from his mattress covers. To play the "profit motive" card should cut both ways. Where's the castigation of "SIDS" organizations for collecting grants and donations? Money is money. The "Back to Sleep" campaign was originally the idea of Dr. Barry Richardson--who reached the same conclusion as Sprott. I imagine the 100,000 mothers of the babies not dying on Sprott's covers are glad they researched this topic elsewhere. Have the SIDS 503c's investigated the New Zealand Dept of Health's inquiries into SIDS deaths? They haven't found one yet in a case of a baby sleeping on a polyethylene-wrapped mattress.

In cases like this were ridicule is invoked there's generally a reason. This SIDS entry on wikipedia is mostly a red herring.--Hubie59 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather cheap shot, pal. Ridicule is useful when people are tenaciously defending a theory that has no factual basis. If you think the article is "a red herring", are you going to do something about it? JFW | T@lk 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

link

Why does this page not have a search link for "SIDS" and only for "cot death"?

SIDS and age limits

I took out an odd bit near the beginning. The reason for the age range is the definition of infant... Midgley 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Prof Sir Roy

Paragraph including Meadow needs rewriting. Preferably not by me. Midgley 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to an independent mathematical analysis (written in English, mostly) and a link to the Royal Statistical Society intervention explaining where Prof Sir Roy went wrong as a first step. Stephen B Streater 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is your view that Prof Sir Roy was wrong and shouldn't be given so much weight, or that the paragraph itself is inaccurate? Stephen B Streater

External Links

"I spoke with my child?" Hmmm? Do we really need this? 141.149.206.197 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It has no informative value whatsoever. I deleted it. --NoPetrol 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should look into Dr. Alfred Steinschneider in relation to SIDS.

Delete the idiotic "Fresh Approach" Dowser external link please!!!

---

A good external link with easy-to-follow suggestions --- for new parents --- for avoiding sids: http://www.bellababy-boutique.com/n-3-SIDS%20Safety%20Tips.aspx

comments, anyone?

Rmshane 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) rmshane

Not a comment, but a question. If the useful information at this link is taken verbatim from a page by the National Institutes of Health (and it is), why not link to the NIH page instead of posting a spam link? --JFreeman ^(talk) 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with most of it, but #9 is questionable and #8 has exceptions to it. With #9, the SIDS Alliance would disagree with that because of the fact that home monitors are very useful for the purpose they are made for. First Candle (also SIDS Alliance) says that they should be used because you can't be in the same room as your child all the time. #8 is questionable because the SIDS Alliance spends lots of money researching the causes and risk factors, and thus, the products that can reduce the risk of SIDS. If it has a stamp of approval from them on the box, then use it. Such products would be like the Swaddle-Me, created by an active member of the SIDS Alliance. However, bumpers and things that claim to reduce the risk but lack the tag, should not be used unless you have a medical person who knows about SIDS to give the ok. Sculleywr 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

A good external link is [[8]] It is FSID's (Foundation for the Study of Infant Death)website. FSID is the UK's leading baby charity working to prevent sudden infant deaths, also known as cot death, and promote infant health - funding research, supporting bereaved families, providing information to the public and working with professionals to improve investigations when a baby dies. They also have a helpline for concerned parents and professionals. Tel 020 7233 2090.

---

Another good external link is [[9]] This is the Australian SIDS organisation who have been funding research, education and support since the late 1970s. SIDS rates dropped by 70% as a result of the work of this organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.172.164 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

SIDS and sex

The article states that because more boys die of SIDS, Any supposed cause of SIDS that is independent of gender (same risk for males and females) can be rejected a priori on that basis.; however, it says later in the same paragraph that boys have a corresponding general susceptibility to cerebral anoxia. If anything, this seems to imply that the specific trigger for SIDS is independent of gender. Am I missing something? Henry^Flower 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "independent of gender" means that males and females have the same risk of the purpoted cause. Since boys have a greater suceptibility to cerebral anoxia, that cause would not be independent of gender Nik42 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If any cause independent of sex can be rejected, why does every possible cause mentioned in the article other than in the sex section have nothing to do with sex? The article is contradicting itself. The sentence "Any supposed cause of SIDS that is independent of gender (same risk for males and females) can be rejected a priori on that basis" needs attributed...sounds like WP:OR. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Continual activation

I'm removing this section, whose only support is a couple of links to a website. I can't find the phrase "Continual-activation Theory" in PubMed, so I suspect this violates WP:NOR.

Continual-activation Theory of SIDS

The continual-activation theory of sudden infant death syndrome proposed by Jie Zhang hypothesizes that SIDS occurs when one of two brain mechanisms that are evolved to provide a safeguard for life to go on during sleep time, failed to activate while asleep. Zhang believes that the human brain can be divided into two subsidiary systems: the conscious brain and the non-conscious brain. In order to maintain proper brain functioning, both subsidiary systems have to be continually activated through their life times. To carry out this task, Zhang suggests that there is a continual-activation mechanism in each subsidiary system of human brain. When the level of activation in a subsidiary system descends to a given threshold, the corresponding continual-activation mechanism will be triggered to generate a pulse-like activation signal. Zhang believes that both continual-activation mechanisms have to be alternately activated during sleep. According to this theory, failure of activating either continual-activation mechanism during sleep is the root cause of SIDS. (Zhang, 2005a & 2005b).

Link to the SIDS Network

I would like to recommend that a link be added to the SIDS Network at http://sids-network.org

Thanks!

Chuck Mihalko

Executive Manager

SIDS Network, Inc.

Anonymous, unreferenced, poorly written para

However, there has been no research to prove Dr. Sprott's theories. He sells mattresses which he proclaims safe for babies, so he has a vested interest in scaring parents with his "research." The New Zealand Ministry of Health makes no mention of his claims in their SIDS prevention information. (See [8]) Globally, his theory of mattress-wrapping or buying his special mattress has been ignored.

I removed this para for a number of reasons:

• It's badly written. The para before it already begins, "However, " yet this para agrees with it - semantically nonsensical.
• It contains accusations that may be actionable [Sprott is creating a scare to increase demand for mattresses which he sells] without providing evidence.
• Its main point, that Sprott's theory has been largely refuted, is covered already by the extant preceding para.
• It adds no new information to the issue.--Oscar Bravo 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re edits of 24.10.2006: Much better, 69.255.241.189. I've cleaned it a little to make it flow better from what's gone before.--Oscar Bravo 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

older children

I belive children can die of crib death as late as the teens.

However SIDS seems to be defined (per this article) as any sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant aged one month to one year. Also cribs are used to bed down babies not teenagers. So whilst the underlying medical condition in a particular case of SIDS might also affect older children I suppose, such deaths wouldn't be classified as SIDS. --User:Deathowl 19:36, 02 January 2007 (GMT)

Yes, Because of the most likely culprits involving brain function reliability (most of which is taken care of by the time the brain stops developing in the late infancy to early toddler years) the cot death of older children is generally scrutinized much much more than of an infant, although in some states and regions, the police still try to blame suffocation for the death. The possibility of late age cot death similar to SIDS is remote. I can find no research into the topic, even with an extensive search through EPSCO (I love how being a college student grants you free access to thousands of research articles at the push of a button). Without the proper research to back it up, having a section about it would be pointless and likely misleading.

Sculleywr 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Studies, studies, studies

I added a whole bunch of links to studies in pubmed, but i think that the whole article needs cleaning up to use a single reference style.

Also, I added a section on the (lack of) a link between vaccination and SIDS. I figure it's probably another bogus claim, but it's good to have a place to put references to studies that actually looked into it. Perhaps this should be in a new section like "refuted causes"?

MatthewMastracci 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just finished a major re-org. May as well try to file all this stuff in a sane manner.  :) Lots of cleanup left with making the text flow as a single article instead of a mish-mash and fixing references, if anyone is interested

MatthewMastracci 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

The text said "A study published in the May 2003 issue of Pediatrics revealed that breastfeeding infants have 1/5 the rate of SIDS as formula-fed infants." While strictly true, that makes it seem as if there's a causal relationship, which is contrary to the study's finding. The study showed that the difference became statistically nonsignificant when adjusted for other environmental factors.

The next sentence in the wiki article said "Two other studies supported breastfeeding for reducing SIDS rates," citing two older (1988 & 1991) articles which aren't available online. Not having read the studies, I am not sure whether that's true or not. However, the 2003 article says "These results are consistent with most published reports and suggest that other factors associated with breastfeeding, rather than breastfeeding itself, are protective." It cites several studies on the topic, including research more current than the two studies cited in the wiki article, and suggests that is the conventional scientific view.

So, I'm adding to the first sentence to explain a bit more, and replacing the second sentence and its two citations, with text quoted from two sentences of the 2003 article. I wanted to explain why, so it's not viewed as a politically-motivated edit or something. -Agyle 15:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Respiritory Connection

It is more than likely the result of below normal oxygen levels in connection with the issues addressed in this article. A happy baby is a healthy baby! ;-)[10]

SIDS and secondhand (tobacco) smoke

The documentation supporting a link between SIDS and secondhand smoke is a presentation made by the US Surgeon General at a press conference on 27 June 2006, available here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html. However, his remarks regarding the effects of secondhand smoke are presented without any supporting documentation. Two assertions in particular, that secondhand smoke causes SIDS and that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, are practically begging to be debunked or supported, as may be appropriate. I would suggest that those editors who tend to the SIDS article look for more solid scientific evidence for a link between SIDS and secondhand smoke. I don't mean to suggest that I doubt that there is a causal relationship, in fact it sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. But all of the sources I've looked into in the last hour or so have come up short on actual documentation. (For example, the CDC's factsheet on SIDS and secondhand smoke cites the Surgeon General's report: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/Sids.htm) R0m23 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

whoops, my bad - the actual text of the report offers copious citations to (presumably) solid studies - see http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter6.pdf, pp 180-194. So the problem with the assertions regarding SIDS and secondhand smoke is that they are supported in Wikipedia by citing the Surgeon General's remarks at a press conference rather than the text of the report he is discussing. The report itself is available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/, and the section pertaining specifically to SIDS is available in the URL given above. Sorry for any confusion. R0m23 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

popular culture

I removed the popular culture section per WP:MOS which discourages trivia sections. I can't imagine anything more trivial than an assortment of random mentions of SIDS in songs, novels, and soap operas. For the record, here is the material: --Lquilter (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The novel Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk has SIDS as a central element in its story.

Musician Stephen Lynch mentions SIDS in his song Baby.

In the novel "Sloppy Firsts" by Megan McCafferty the main characters' brother died of SIDS and is a main theme of her growth.

In the British soap Emmerdale, Laurel and Ashley's baby died of SIDS.

Removed the section again. This time it only had the "Lullaby" thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SIDS and co-sleeping studies

The following sentence taken from the bottom of the Co-Sleeping section seems to imply that ALL research on co-sleeping indicates excess risk which is contradicted by statements regarding some of the previously mentioned studies in the section: "Research on co-sleeping indicates an excess risk with an adjusted Odds-Ratio of 2.71." In addition to this concern, It also needs to have some sort explanation for the laymen as to what is was means. As a non-scientist I am not clear what "adjusted Odds-Ratio of 2.71" means. Also it seems that statement is lacking in details which would better explain what the research paper/article was saying. Since the research article is not directly linked to and I am not in a position to easily access it myself, I am inclined to remove this sentence until it can be improved upon by adding more details as to what paper/article says in a language the average reader can understand. --Cab88 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the section on co-sleeping (that begins "From the preceding evidence ...") reads more like an advertisement or pop interpretation of one study than actual science or fact. It also seems not to follow from the preceding evidence. I'd change it myself but I don't know the facts. Maybe it's better to remove it for now. What's the (Sears, 2006) reference? --67.186.57.139 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sears, 2006 reference at the end seems to make it excessively weighted in favor of co-sleeping, while I believe that more scientific studies are now labeling it is bad. It appeals to emotion, rather than to fact. Thus, I have added an NPOV banner. -131.151.129.130 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The "sears" thing seems to be about this page on "Ask Dr. Sears". Part of the co-sleeping section was copy/pasted directly from that page too, I added a proper reference. I'm not sure about the quality of this source.

Also, some of the statements are derived from this page which is a low quality source. It needs to be replaced with reliable sources from mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope people don't mind but I was bold and removed the following part for not meeting the writing standards of Wikipedia:

coleeping and SIDS Risks: Current Status. 1999. Pediatric Grand Rounds. ...... The London Times (Sunday edition), “Bedsharing May Prevent Cot Deaths”

From the preceding evidence it seems that separate sleeping is not only unnatural, but may even be dangerous for some babies. Put new research findings together with the intuition of wise parents and you wonder whether sleep-sharing could not only make a psychological difference but also a physiological difference to babies. Each year more and more studies are confirming what savvy parents have long suspected: sharing sleep is not only safe, but also healthy for their babies. Thus, I leave it to parents to consider the following: If there were fewer cribs, would there be fewer crib deaths?

Some of it doesn't even make sense. I'm not objecting to the content itself, but it needs to be worded better. Also, co-sleeping should only be discussed in this article with respects to its benefits for SIDs, not for psychological or parenting techniques. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-writing the section, keeping only a bit of the original material. The first paragraph is not entirely necessary and seems to promote "research" discussed on a non-scientific site before a peer-reviewed paper has been published to any journals or the like. It also didn't explain what the preliminary results were but directed to the site itself. There's still a source in there that isn't very authoritative but I'll leave it for now.

If someone could, please go over my rewrite and if this resolves the dispute, can the tag be removed? Also, please help in editing this section as I don't think what I've done completely finishes it off. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the statement about the AAP's stance on cosleeping isn't sourced and their website is quite extensive so I haven't found this document. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A little more empathy.

This entry has great potential to be a lot more respectful, much better researched, and a lot less "jokey" on a general basis. I get the impression that the people editing this article are Wikipedia junkies rather than people actively researching SIDS or personally affected by SIDS. Please even consider this wording in your first paragraph: "Typically the infant is found dead after having been put to sleep, and exhibits no signs of having suffered." (emphasis added)

After losing my first niece to SIDS, I can say that I don't appreciate the tone of this article, nor do I respect its authority. Unfortunately, it's a top result on a Google search. To the true Wikipedians out there, I apologise for not signing in for this comment, but the last thing I want is for my sister and very best friend to link this to me and have one more thing to break her heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.218.42 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Remembering that this is an encyclopaedia article, can you please cite examples of what you think is wrong with it? When you say you don't respect its authority, do you mean you think its sources are inadequate? When you say "jokey", I don't see what you mean, can you clarify? And as for the tone of the article, do you think it violates NPOV?

If you mean that the article has not sugar-coated things enough, please remember that the studies produced by scientists trying to find a way to stop SIDS are drier and less "empathetic" than this because they deal with facts. If you are grieving and looking for comfort, I recommend a support group like sidsfamilies.com. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

birth order?

I didn't see this covered, but extrapolating from the thought that a longer delivery time raises the likelyhood of SIDS and that shorter delivery times are associated with non-first-time pregnancies, are first-borns more prone to SIDS?--Younmm23 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

5 Speculated associations: SIDS and child abuse

Section could do with some edits. First sentence of second paragraph "The Royal Statistical Society issued a media release..." does not belong with "The New York Times covered...". They are not talking about the same UK cases (first paragraph). That they are in the same paragraph because of the word media is laughable. The former mentioned first sentence should be in first paragraph as it was influential to the UK cases. And the second sentence should clarify that the The New York Times article is practically a book revue and so presents the conclusions of the book's authors rather than investigates both sides in the argument. The effect of the book on prosecutions and whether it promoted possible miscarriages of justice would be a useful addition if a source can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.138.180 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

adding how mainstream science views the association to vaccination

I added a sourced sentence about how mainstream science rejects the studies associating vaccination to SIDS, but it was deleted citing WP:NPOV [11]. However, NPOV says to represent significant views that are sourced reliabily. Now, I think that we can agree that the view of mainstream science is significant, and I am reusing a source that the same editor was using (so I expect that he considers the source to be reliable!).

The sentence in question is:

, altough the association has been rejected by established medicine on the argument that the studies are based on anecdotal evidence.<ref name="coulter"/>

Notice that I was reusing the Coulter source[12], which was added by the deleting editor [13]. Notice also that the the whole point of the Coulter article is to complain about how mainstream science rejects the evidence for the association).

Saying that only that "other studies suggest", without pointing out that those other studies have been plainly rejected by mainstream science, would be non-neutral, as these are fringe views. NPOV should not be used as an excuse to remove everything negative from articles.

Comments about adding this sentence? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I guess that nuking all the fringe views also works[14], specially when they were backed only by sources from activists, and specially when the CDC source (which I didn't check at the time) clearly says that studies have concluded that vaccines are not a risk factor for SIDS, and doesn't give any prominence to any of the studies cited on the two removed sources.

Also, i replaced "some studies" with "studies", as the whole paragrah turned out to be a word-by-word quote from the CDC source, except for the word "some", which must have been added as a hook for the removed sentences. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh, it's been reverted again by the same user as "NPOV"[15], with no explanation for why the CDC source is wrong, or why fringe sources should be used to correct a source that is probably the best authority on the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

editing of speculated associations = vaccinations

"mainstream" thinking used to believe the Earth was flat.

In the spirit of truthful, rational, objective, independent thinking:

I urge you to do classic debate research and truly learn both the for/against positions for vaccinations to the point where you can effectively argue both points of view, taking into consideration in your research:

What are the annual profits from vaccine manufacture?

Why in the 1970s were there approximately 10 mandated vaccines and now there are over 35?

Are vaccine manufacturers publicly traded companies which have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to continually earn profit?

Does the pharmaceutical industry contribute money to the CDC? If so, how much?

What would happen to the CDC should it publicly admit an association between vaccines and SIDS? How would this affect their relationship with vaccine manufacturers?

Is the CDC biased in favor of protecting vaccine manufacturers?

There are findings within the medical and scientific community that link vaccines and SIDS:

Vaccination Citations and Death

Na, "DPT Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death - Tennessee, US Dept HEW, MMWR Report, Mar 23, 1979, vol 28(11): 132.

Arevalo, "Vaccinia Necrosum. Report on a Fatal Case", Bol Ofoc Sanit Panamer, Aug 1967, 63:106-110.

Connolly, J H, Dick, G W, Field, CM, "A Case of Fatal Progressive Vaccinia", Brit Med Jour, 12 May 1962; 5288:1315-1317.

Aragona, F, "Fatal Acute Adrenal Insufficiency Caused by Bilateral Apoplexy of the Adrenal Glands (WFS) following Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccination", Minerva Medicolegale, Aug 1960; 80:167-173.

Moblus, G et al, "Pathological-Anatomical Findings in Cases of Death Following Poliomyelitis and DPT Vaccination", Dtsch Gesundheitsw, Jul 20, 1972, 27:1382-1386.

NA, "Immunizations and Cot Deaths", Lancet, Sept 25, 1982, np.

Goetzeler, A, "Fatal Encephalitis after Poliomyelitis Vaccination", 22 Jun 1961, Muenchen Med Wschr, 102:1419-1422.

Fulginiti, V, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Visits to the Doctor: Chance Association or Cause and Effect?", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 7-11.

Baraff, LJ, et al, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 5-6.

Reynolds, E, "Fatal Outcome of a Case of Eczema Vaccinatum", Lancet, 24 Sept 1960, 2:684-686.

Apostolov. et al, "Death of an Infant in Hyperthermia After Vaccination", J Clin Path, Mar 1961, 14:196-197.

Bouvier-Colle, MH, "Sex-Specific Differences in Mortality After High-Titre Measles Vaccination", Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 1995; 43(1): 97.

Stewart GT, "Deaths of infants after triple vaccine.", Lancet 1979 Aug 18;2(8138):354-355.

Flahault A, "Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria/tetanus toxoid/pertussis/poliomyelitis immunisation.", Lancet 1988 Mar 12;1(8585):582-583.

Larbre, F et al, "Fatal Acute Myocarditis After Smallpox Vaccination", Pediatrie, Apr-May 1966, 21:345-350.

Mortimer EA Jr, "DTP and SIDS: when data differ", Am J Public Health 1987 Aug; 77(8):925-926.

Namecharger (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

original research and conspiracy theories about doctors and medical agencies purposefully mandating during decades stuff that kills babies in order to protect the benefits of the medical industry, using cherrypicked clinical trials instead of using reviews and staments from medical organisms. No, this has no place at wikipedia.

Cease and desist of trying to insert WP:FRINGE views at wikipedia. We are trying to build a serious encyclopedia here, and we can't let every article on a medical condition to be flooded by every fringe view on them. For the opinions against vaccination, the correct artile is vaccination controversy, so go there to argue for the insertion if this info. If you have a problem with this, then go to the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)