3 ms·

Interesting, but it concerns me that the first two citations are not in a very reputable journal: Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine In particula

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...
      - m_mueller 9y ago
        Thank you, good find. It appears to me that there's two different subjects here. Richardson found a potential link between toxic gases from fungal growth. Sprott developed a (low cost) method using plastic wrapping to counter it, and has data to back it up. Your linked study says that plastic covers reduces the risk of SIDS. Well, it seems to me that these findings all agree if the fungal growth (within the loose stuffing material [1]) hypothesis is correct. I expect a plastic cover to somewhat shield from such gases since it would make them vent more to the sides. In Sprott's solution there's holes at the bottom of the wrapping such that the vent is also happening around the mattress rather than at the top. One maybe crucial finding in your study that would not agree with Sprott/Richardson is the null result concerning the use of older mattresses. That one seems curious to me. So here's my next question: Blair et al., Richardson as well as Sprott have data that the bedding has significant influence on SIDS risk. Why is there no mention of this in any national health advisory I can find? Why are there no follow-up studies and the medical community just settled on advising for back sleeping, even though it seems obvious that the risk can be mitigated further? [1] It's noteworthy that Blair et al. did not distinguish about the stuffing material, which was a rather crucial point made by Richardson AFAIK. Both Richardson and Sprott have specific advise for what material should be used (pure cotton, no wool and PVC in the stuffing). Was that left out your linked study intentionally?

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...
    - m_mueller 9y ago
      Thank you, good find. It appears to me that there's two different subjects here. Richardson found a potential link between toxic gases from fungal growth. Sprott developed a (low cost) method using plastic wrapping to counter it, and has data to back it up. Your linked study says that plastic covers reduces the risk of SIDS. Well, it seems to me that these findings all agree if the fungal growth (within the loose stuffing material [1]) hypothesis is correct. I expect a plastic cover to somewhat shield from such gases since it would make them vent more to the sides. In Sprott's solution there's holes at the bottom of the wrapping such that the vent is also happening around the mattress rather than at the top. One maybe crucial finding in your study that would not agree with Sprott/Richardson is the null result concerning the use of older mattresses. That one seems curious to me. So here's my next question: Blair et al., Richardson as well as Sprott have data that the bedding has significant influence on SIDS risk. Why is there no mention of this in any national health advisory I can find? Why are there no follow-up studies and the medical community just settled on advising for back sleeping, even though it seems obvious that the risk can be mitigated further? [1] It's noteworthy that Blair et al. did not distinguish about the stuffing material, which was a rather crucial point made by Richardson AFAIK. Both Richardson and Sprott have specific advise for what material should be used (pure cotton, no wool and PVC in the stuffing). Was that left out your linked study intentionally?