Talk:SIDS/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about SIDS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

"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)

I could swear vitamin C was Linus Pauling's fetish-on-the-side, and that he preached its virtue to everyone; he probably didn't even read it :D Dfruzzetti (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I still wonder if it's correct to use one month as the minimum age for SIDS. In 1954, my sister was born in a hospital and died the next day. The doctors found no cause of death, so I have to think that today her death would be ruled SIDS. JimC1946 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

"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)