3 ms·

For anyone worried about SIDS I'd suggest looking into [1][2]. The counterarguments summed up in [3] seem rather weak to me. If the claim is true that in 10 yea

For anyone worried about SIDS I'd suggest looking into [1][2]. The counterarguments summed up in [3] seem rather weak to me. If the claim is true that in 10 years no parent following Sprott's method have had a case of SIDS (which no-one seemed to follow up on, even though the study seems quite solid to me), then the counter would have to explain why one should wait instead of just adopting that method. It seems a similar story to Beri-Beri in the Japanese Navy pre-WW2 - one doctor just went and found a cure in the field and everyone else just ignored it because his methods were not proven in a clinical study and because the cure required a change of traditional warrior behaviour. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840400016836 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840400016836 [2] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840400017875 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840400017875 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500741/pdf/jclinpath00267-0003.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500741/pdf/jcli...

comstock 9y ago
Interesting, but it concerns me that the first two citations are not in a very reputable journal: Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine In particular it's on this list: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodicals.html http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodic... It also seems that the author of the first article is selling products to prevent SIDS, which is worrying. Not saying it's without merit. But these things make me want to investigate further...
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Good points. All I'd like is for a second independent study to (a) confirm that SIDS is indeed solved in NZ (i.e. it's not just some statistical fluke e.g. due to counting methods) and (b) figure out why it works. Whether it's that particular fungus or not I don't care, as long as the wrapping method works. Supporting evidence, e.g. about mattress handling, IMO lines up well with Sprott / Richardson and is unexplained by the skeptics - all in all I just don't like how quickly the medical establishment seems to have closed the books on this.
  - comstock 9y ago
    So, on further research it seems pretty clear that the mattress wrapping stuff is junk. Here's a decent study refuting it [1]. One key quote is "SIDS mortality has declined 63% from 1994 to 2004. The prevalence of plastic wrapped cot mattresses has remained constant since 1997. The decline in SIDS cannot be explained by changes in the proportion of plastic-wrapped mattresses." The promotion of "mattress wrapping" coincided with an education campaign promoting other methods known to help reduce SIDS (like having babies sleep on their backs). [1] Mitchell, Edwin. (2008). Wrapping a cot mattress in plastic does not explain the continuing fall in SIDS mortality. European journal of pediatrics. 167. 251-2. 10.1007/s00431-007-0526-8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publication/6196508_Wrapping_a_cot_mattress_in_plastic_does_not_explain_the_continuing_fall_in_SIDS_mortality/links/00463518c816c3c40f000000/Wrapping-a-cot-mattress-in-plastic-does-not-explain-the-continuing-fall-in-SIDS-mortality.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publicat...
    - m_mueller 9y ago
      I'm aware of that one and I don't think it explains everything if you pay closr attention. They don't go further than taking a general population statistic and try to to infer from correlation that mattress wrapping is disproven. What happens if you actually have two groups, one using wrapping and one from the same demographics who don't? Sprott hypothesises that laying infants on their back will reduce SIDS thanks to less exposure to toxic gases from funghi consuming plastics. That causal link is unproven as it seems, but it gives an explanation for the numbers you quote that agrees with the results reported by Sprott / Richardson.
      - comstock 9y ago
        Reference 2 of that paper [1] describes such a study: "We conclude that not only is there no evidence from this study of any identifiable increase in the risk of SIDS associated with the use of mattresses with an integral PVC cover, but also that the use of such mattresses is associated with a lower risk..." [1] http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/blair1995.pdf http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/bl...
cjbprime 9y ago
Looks super quacky. US cot deaths have also massively declined, and the trajectory of the decline matches up with the uptake of back sleeping for infants. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many...
- snuxoll 9y ago
  Every time I see a picture online or in-person of a baby laying in a crib with a blanket, stuffed animal and a crib bumper I want to smack them. For as much as the rate of SIDS has declined, there is still many more parents out there who are ill-informed or ignorant about safe sleep of their child. I have seen people spend money on these Angelcare monitors while doing one or more of the above, it's insane!
- m_mueller 9y ago
  1.) SIDS still occurs at a rate of around 0.5 in 1000 in the Western world [1]. To compare, the probability of death in a traffic related accident over an 80 year lifespan is 0.85 in 1000 in the US. So it's still far from negligible. 2.) Sprott has at least a hypothesis to explain the correlation between back sleeping and decline in SIDS. His skeptics on the other hand have no explanation for why there is no confirmed case of SIDS for wrapped mattresses, other than it being a statistical fluke. That may be the case, but why is no-one investigating? 3.) Compare the SIDS rate of Japan and Asian Americans to Europe / European Americans. Why has it always been lower? Genetic prevalence? Bedding culture? It seems simple enough to do much more statistical studies on this, but when searching for it there seems to be a very low depth of knowledge. To put it differently, what you're saying is quite close to "hey, we've figured out traffic related deaths, and it's all solved with safety belts and air bags, case closed, QED". Calling something quacky because of the journal is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. If someone's research stands on its own then it doesn't matter where it's published, it could as well be Arxiv - if not, then it should be easy enough to disprove based on facts. [1] https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/ https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/
  - cjbprime 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

comstock 9y ago

Interesting, but it concerns me that the first two citations are not in a very reputable journal: Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine In particular it's on this list: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodicals.html http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodic... It also seems that the author of the first article is selling products to prevent SIDS, which is worrying. Not saying it's without merit. But these things make me want to investigate further...

m_mueller 9y ago
Good points. All I'd like is for a second independent study to (a) confirm that SIDS is indeed solved in NZ (i.e. it's not just some statistical fluke e.g. due to counting methods) and (b) figure out why it works. Whether it's that particular fungus or not I don't care, as long as the wrapping method works. Supporting evidence, e.g. about mattress handling, IMO lines up well with Sprott / Richardson and is unexplained by the skeptics - all in all I just don't like how quickly the medical establishment seems to have closed the books on this.
- comstock 9y ago
  So, on further research it seems pretty clear that the mattress wrapping stuff is junk. Here's a decent study refuting it [1]. One key quote is "SIDS mortality has declined 63% from 1994 to 2004. The prevalence of plastic wrapped cot mattresses has remained constant since 1997. The decline in SIDS cannot be explained by changes in the proportion of plastic-wrapped mattresses." The promotion of "mattress wrapping" coincided with an education campaign promoting other methods known to help reduce SIDS (like having babies sleep on their backs). [1] Mitchell, Edwin. (2008). Wrapping a cot mattress in plastic does not explain the continuing fall in SIDS mortality. European journal of pediatrics. 167. 251-2. 10.1007/s00431-007-0526-8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publication/6196508_Wrapping_a_cot_mattress_in_plastic_does_not_explain_the_continuing_fall_in_SIDS_mortality/links/00463518c816c3c40f000000/Wrapping-a-cot-mattress-in-plastic-does-not-explain-the-continuing-fall-in-SIDS-mortality.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publicat...
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    I'm aware of that one and I don't think it explains everything if you pay closr attention. They don't go further than taking a general population statistic and try to to infer from correlation that mattress wrapping is disproven. What happens if you actually have two groups, one using wrapping and one from the same demographics who don't? Sprott hypothesises that laying infants on their back will reduce SIDS thanks to less exposure to toxic gases from funghi consuming plastics. That causal link is unproven as it seems, but it gives an explanation for the numbers you quote that agrees with the results reported by Sprott / Richardson.
    - comstock 9y ago
      Reference 2 of that paper [1] describes such a study: "We conclude that not only is there no evidence from this study of any identifiable increase in the risk of SIDS associated with the use of mattresses with an integral PVC cover, but also that the use of such mattresses is associated with a lower risk..." [1] http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/blair1995.pdf http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/bl...

cjbprime 9y ago

Looks super quacky. US cot deaths have also massively declined, and the trajectory of the decline matches up with the uptake of back sleeping for infants. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many...

snuxoll 9y ago
Every time I see a picture online or in-person of a baby laying in a crib with a blanket, stuffed animal and a crib bumper I want to smack them. For as much as the rate of SIDS has declined, there is still many more parents out there who are ill-informed or ignorant about safe sleep of their child. I have seen people spend money on these Angelcare monitors while doing one or more of the above, it's insane!
m_mueller 9y ago
1.) SIDS still occurs at a rate of around 0.5 in 1000 in the Western world [1]. To compare, the probability of death in a traffic related accident over an 80 year lifespan is 0.85 in 1000 in the US. So it's still far from negligible. 2.) Sprott has at least a hypothesis to explain the correlation between back sleeping and decline in SIDS. His skeptics on the other hand have no explanation for why there is no confirmed case of SIDS for wrapped mattresses, other than it being a statistical fluke. That may be the case, but why is no-one investigating? 3.) Compare the SIDS rate of Japan and Asian Americans to Europe / European Americans. Why has it always been lower? Genetic prevalence? Bedding culture? It seems simple enough to do much more statistical studies on this, but when searching for it there seems to be a very low depth of knowledge. To put it differently, what you're saying is quite close to "hey, we've figured out traffic related deaths, and it's all solved with safety belts and air bags, case closed, QED". Calling something quacky because of the journal is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. If someone's research stands on its own then it doesn't matter where it's published, it could as well be Arxiv - if not, then it should be easy enough to disprove based on facts. [1] https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/ https://www.ncemch.org/suid-sids/statistics/
- cjbprime 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]