4 ms·

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

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?
- comstock 9y ago
  The plastic covers used in Blair et al. are 90% PVC covers. Richardson suggested PVC being digested by the fungus as the cause. So it's exactly the situation that should cause SIDS and it results in lower incidence of SIDS. The mattress wrapping suggested by Sprott is wrapping using polythene. So the results are totally incompatible with the notion that PVC mattresses causes SIDS as suggested by Richardson and Sprott. There are other reports too, such as that conducted by the British government in 1998...

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?

comstock 9y ago
The plastic covers used in Blair et al. are 90% PVC covers. Richardson suggested PVC being digested by the fungus as the cause. So it's exactly the situation that should cause SIDS and it results in lower incidence of SIDS. The mattress wrapping suggested by Sprott is wrapping using polythene. So the results are totally incompatible with the notion that PVC mattresses causes SIDS as suggested by Richardson and Sprott. There are other reports too, such as that conducted by the British government in 1998...