or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Co-sleeping and the Family Bed › Questioning SIDS "Back to Sleep Campaign"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Questioning SIDS "Back to Sleep Campaign" - Page 3

post #41 of 64
Gah! Just when I think I've got all the hazards figured out, something throws me for a loop. Now, I'm paranoid again.

I hate being a first time mom. Everything is so frickin' stressful.

Hubby is very aware of our baby and holds him quite close. If baby were to fall from position they are in, he would fall on the floor. That would be bad, but I make sure there's no cushion hazard for him to suffocate in.
post #42 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Sleeping with a baby in a recliner or on a sofa is supposedly one of the most dangerous ways to sleep.

-Angela
It was literally the only way my kiddo and I got any sleep for a week or two. Even putting her on her tummy didn't work then... but it was a big recliner and I only dozed. I think the risk can be assessed on a person/situation by person/situation basis. In general, yes it is unsafe but usually because people don't know of the risks or fall asleep accidentally. Not so much for people who know the risks and take precautions and do it on purpose.
post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post
I've never purposely put my kids to sleep on their backs. I've heard from several pre-back-to-sleep moms that they didn't do it because of the fear that the baby would choke on their own vomit since they couldn't move their heads early on. I usually feel comfortable with my babies on their sides until they are old enough to move and choose their own positions, which is often their tummies.
My grandma's 1940 copy of Dr. Spock tells moms NOT to put babies on their tummies because if they spit up, they could drown in the puddle of vomit in front of their mouth/nose.

I'm thinking the "Choke on barf" argument is old and has gone both ways.

Personally, I think that the "too deep a sleep to self-rouse on their tummies" theory is probably on the right path.

I think that babies that young are not SUPPOSED to sleep long and deeply. When they're tiny and nursing every 2 hours, it just doesn't make sense that they'd need the capacity to conk out for long stretches.

Further, if you were a Primitive Mama, sleeping with your child in a nest of leaves or on a cave floor, would your baby be sleeping on his/her belly in the traditional "Put them in the crib on their belly to sleep" position? No. If they were on their belly, it would be because they were belly-to-belly with you and you were on your back -- and sleeping in physical contact with an adult (or even in very close proximity) has been shown to help babies regulate their breathing and sleep depth/arousal.

So: I would not put a baby alone in their own bed on their stomach until they were old enough to flip themselves over (which is about when brain/nervous system development catches up and they become able to regulate their breathing even during deep sleep). And from my experience cosleeping, putting my babies tummy-down in bed with me would have been very unsafe, given our bed and bedding. Plus, they slept curled in the crook of my arm, mostly.
post #44 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lalemma View Post
I totally support parents making an informed choice about this, but the numbers pre- and post-backsleeping campaigns seem pretty convincing to me.

OP, I know you said your baby doesn't like being swaddled, but have you tried the double swaddle? It's pretty much impossible to break out of, and if you use really light fabrics and put the baby to bed in just the swaddle and a diaper, not hot. I am a total swaddling fan - just a thought.
I guess that's what I'm questioning. I am not convinced just by the numbers decreasing like that. I don't believe that correlation equals causation...just because the time frames match up doesn't convince me that it is the cause of the decrease. I think that the campaign itself brought so much awareness to SIDS that it caused people to cut back on other risk factors. I have yet to see a study that shows what the odds are of a SIDS death with no other risk factors besides just tummy sleeping. I think a lot of infant deaths before this whole campaign were probably labeled SIDS even if they were caused by perhaps suffocation against a large teddy bear or from lying face down in a fluffy pillow or parents constantly smoking around a baby.

And while the numbers have gone down, SIDS still exists and babies placed on their backs still die of SIDS. So perhaps two babies are saved from being put on their backs, while one other baby dies because in his situation, he would have been safer on his tummy. This is why parents need to be really aware of their particular situation and not just blindly follow what "scientists" tell them to do. There are studies that show that a baby's risk of dying on its tummy goes up very significantly if they don't have experience sleeping that way. Babies who naturally want to be on their tummies, but are being forced onto their backs will eventually end up where they want to be in their sleep once they learn to roll over. At that point, they will be at an even bigger risk than they would have been if we had just let them sleep the way they wanted from the beginning.

Back sleeping has been proven to cause sleep apnea in babies. Boys are at particular risk for sleep apnea while on their backs due to differences in how their bodies and lungs are built. Boys are also at an increased risk of having autism/autistic symptoms. The ratio is 4:1 for both coincidentally. My concern is that babies' brains are being deprived of oxygen at a crucial growth phase in their life (infancy). Certain babies are probably more at risk on their backs than others. One concern I have about my son is that he snores. From what I understand, people who snore are at an increased risk of sleep apnea. On top of the fact that he seems pained and spits up on his back, I see all of the risk factors in him that lead me to believe he would be one of the babies safer on his tummy.

Back sleeping also irritates babies with reflux and sometimes even causes it. Many autistic kids also have digestive issues so perhaps that is another possible link.

Some studies have shown that autistic kids can benefit from being in a hyperbaric chamber. That would imply that extra oxygen can help their brains...

Anyway, I'm no doctor and I understand how people can be scared when they look at the raw data and listen to their doctor's advice. I'm just trying to bring to light that there is another side to this issue, and that sometimes statistical data can look one way but when further analyzed, it is not actually as simple as it appears.

I also teach at a high school (kids of all abilities) and work with a lot of kids who were born post BTS campaign and many are autistic. This is part of what makes me so passionate it. I have two autistic family members as well and I always perk up when I hear new or interesting studies done on the subject or if I see a possible link. I just never really stop looking for possibilities kwim?

Also, on the swaddling thing, I don't have AC and it really is too hot for me to be wrapping him up in blankets. I feel bad even when I have him in a light onesie. Also, if he doesn't want his arms restricted, I don't see a point in doing it to him. He did like being swaddled when he was first born, for about 3 weeks, and then he just didn't like it anymore. I think he probably knows better than I do what he wants and seems to really like to stretch out his arms and legs.

Please understand that I am NOT looking to offend anyone or start an argument. I work with plenty of kids who are extremely intelligent athletic, and on their way to prestigious universities who no doubt also slept on their backs! I appreciate any insightful comments that anyone would like to add and in no way consider myself an expert. I am a first time mom and paranoid about everything!
post #45 of 64
Why did you say "scientists"?
post #46 of 64
I wonder if there is a bit of "well my kid is like this so every kid must be". Both of my girls were fine back sleeping when tiny. By the time they could roll over themselves I let them though both tended to stay on their back or side. Both were in the cosleeper or sidecared crib. My youngest is almost 10 months and she occasionally cosleeps with me.

I was especially concerned with DD1. She had a brother in her birth family who died of SIDS at 6 weeks old. Had she not been happy to sleep on her back I would not have slept at all. Her birthmom made very few requests of us but "back to sleep" was one of them.

Neither of my girls had a flat head either. I think because they spent little time in baby holding devices when awake.
post #47 of 64
i didn't read through all the responses, but we had the exact issue. dd did sleep in her swing (one of those cradle swing papasan looking things) sometimes, but what i'd do elsewhere is tightly roll a flannel baby blanket and lay her on her side with that pressed firmly against her back. that kept her from flopping on her back and she seemed to sleep fairly well on her side. at 4 months she started rolling from belly to back, and shortly after from back to belly, so then i just let her flop herself over onto her belly....
post #48 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masel View Post
I wonder if there is a bit of "well my kid is like this so every kid must be". Both of my girls were fine back sleeping when tiny. By the time they could roll over themselves I let them though both tended to stay on their back or side. Both were in the cosleeper or sidecared crib. My youngest is almost 10 months and she occasionally cosleeps with me.

I was especially concerned with DD1. She had a brother in her birth family who died of SIDS at 6 weeks old. Had she not been happy to sleep on her back I would not have slept at all. Her birthmom made very few requests of us but "back to sleep" was one of them.

Neither of my girls had a flat head either. I think because they spent little time in baby holding devices when awake.
I didn't mean to come across that way at all. The whole point of my post was that while back sleeping might save some kids who could have died, it might also be bad for other kids. My point was that all kids are different and each situation must be looked at differently.

The reason I say "scientists" is because a lot of people do their research online and pretty much anyone with a blog can make themselves seem like a well educated researcher, when they might not be. From there, information on websites tends to be contagious in a way until people start regurgitating it as fact.

And, IMO, a lot of research done by reputable scientists is extremely biased and serves only to profit large corporations. Any time I see a study, i take it with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to health recommendations.

I do not mean to offend people who work in the field of science. Sorry if I came across that way!
post #49 of 64
While I certainly agree that:

a) every parent must make an informed choice that's best for their family, and
b) it's good to be skeptical and not take things people tell you at face value

I'm hard-pressed to think of what kind of corporate interest could be behind SIDS researchers. The powerful sleepsack lobby?
post #50 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post
I can see why the couch would be a problem, but why a recliner? My husband's back is blocking any cushions and he holds the baby onto his chest. Baby is upright as well, as it doesn't recline all that far. I don't really see how it's different from falling asleep in a rocking chair or a glider.

ETA: We're not putting baby to bed there, but you know how it is. You fall asleep while holding baby.
Well, my SIL wants me to help her work out a sling specifically for keeping her future next baby up on her when nursing in the recliner because she had a few scares with her ds getting wedged down between her and the recliner. Whereas with a rocking chair, it would've bonked his head and he would've screamed about it and woken her up, instead of quietly slipping down and being "fine".
post #51 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lalemma View Post
While I certainly agree that:

a) every parent must make an informed choice that's best for their family, and
b) it's good to be skeptical and not take things people tell you at face value

I'm hard-pressed to think of what kind of corporate interest could be behind SIDS researchers. The powerful sleepsack lobby?
Ha, you got me there. In this case I think it's more that they wouldn't want to admit they could have 1. Been Wrong, and 2. Possibly harmed thousands of kids by jumping to conclusions. The BTS campaign itself was basically a very large scale experiment on infants, since they didn't know what the results of it would be before starting it.

I could delve into deeper conspiracy theories but I don't think this is the right website for that! I spent several years working for a large financial company before I started teaching and saw how manipulative and inhumane people can be when money is involved. I don't think the SIDS studies are money driven but I think many are, which makes me skeptical of anything put out or recommended by the AAP, etc. And then the media blows everything out of proportion to get their share of the money, too.

Masel, if I were in your situation I would no doubt put the baby on her back, since her birth mom felt so strongly about it, and as a precaution since her brother was a victim of prone sleeping SIDS.

Also, I'm sure there are babies that sleep well and soundly on their backs. I think girls in general tend to breathe better than boys on their backs and again, every baby is different.

You not using other baby "containers" as I called them earlier probably helped, too. I know several moms who used them all the time, and basically gave up on tummy time because their babies were so resistant to it. (My SIL is one of them). Her second baby developed the flat spot and went bald on the back of her head and does not crawl or walk at 12.5 months. If she were more vigilant about awake tummy time, that might not have happened.
post #52 of 64
I put my babies on their tummies without reservation. We had term babies, breastfed 100% don't vax, don't smoke, and co-sleep at night. The risks couldn't be much lower for us. Plus like an above poster said, the back to sleep campaign felt like just another commercialism ploy.

Back to sleep did lower the risk of SIDS by 50%, but that really only means 1/1000 instead of 2/1000.
post #53 of 64
ds is 4months old and sleeps on his tummy. He has done this since at least 2 months old-I honestly don't remember at what point I decided to try it (isn't it funny how those first few months are a big blur, lol) He sleeps either in the cosleeper or pack and play right next to me. I was nervous about it at first, but he sleeps SO much better this way and I feel like I am very attuned to him even when I am in a deep sleep. Sometimes he sleeps in bed with me and then he sleeps on his side mostly, but sometimes on his back or tummy. He started sleeping through the night almost right after I turned him on his tummy on a regular basis.

I have to wonder if dd never slept because we always tried to keep her on her back and wish I would have tried it with her. She coslept and nursed frequently at night until about 2-1/2 years and didn't sleep through the night until closer to 3 years old.

I agree that I would never leave a tiny baby on their belly in their own room or in an unsafe environment (parent is drinking/rx drugs, etc.), but I really believe we can sleep and still be very aware of our babies.
post #54 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post
Gah! Just when I think I've got all the hazards figured out, something throws me for a loop. Now, I'm paranoid again.

I hate being a first time mom. Everything is so frickin' stressful.

Hubby is very aware of our baby and holds him quite close. If baby were to fall from position they are in, he would fall on the floor. That would be bad, but I make sure there's no cushion hazard for him to suffocate in.
I (accidentally) did some recliner cosleeping with our babies, and yes, there were times I woke to a scare - baby would have pushed himself down or over, and then rolled into the crook of my arm (or the chair) face first, or I'd wake to baby lying on his back in my arm, with his head hyperextended back, making it hard for him to breathe.

I'm not comfy doing it intentionally.

I think another poster's idea of a sling is a great idea, though - I've wondered myself if this would work.
post #55 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
Further, if you were a Primitive Mama, sleeping with your child in a nest of leaves or on a cave floor, would your baby be sleeping on his/her belly in the traditional "Put them in the crib on their belly to sleep" position? No. If they were on their belly, it would be because they were belly-to-belly with you and you were on your back -- and sleeping in physical contact with an adult (or even in very close proximity) has been shown to help babies regulate their breathing and sleep depth/arousal.

So: I would not put a baby alone in their own bed on their stomach until they were old enough to flip themselves over (which is about when brain/nervous system development catches up and they become able to regulate their breathing even during deep sleep). And from my experience cosleeping, putting my babies tummy-down in bed with me would have been very unsafe, given our bed and bedding. Plus, they slept curled in the crook of my arm, mostly.
I don't have my baby here with me yet, but I have been following this thread closely. I really felt that if baby is more comfy on his belly then it must be natural. It never crossed my mind that it would be natural if cosleeping! You did a beautiful job with your primitive momma story! I it! It makes so much sense to me, the way you wrote it here. Thank you!
post #56 of 64
There's no question that baby's sleep less deeply on their back so the fact that they are less likely to forget to breathe and then die when htey are in that position makes sense.

That being said, my son would not fall asleep on his back and I didn't even think twice about putting him to bed on his tummy. He always slept in our room next to me (in a cosleeper) and I stayed nearby and checked on him during naps.

The other reason I preferred putting him on his tummy is that i have seen so many babies with completely flat heads as a result of sleeping on their backs and I wanted to avoid that happening. Sometimes the head and even face remain permanently disfigured as a result of the baby always being on his or her back.
post #57 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
I think that babies that young are not SUPPOSED to sleep long and deeply. When they're tiny and nursing every 2 hours, it just doesn't make sense that they'd need the capacity to conk out for long stretches.

Further, if you were a Primitive Mama, sleeping with your child in a nest of leaves or on a cave floor, would your baby be sleeping on his/her belly in the traditional "Put them in the crib on their belly to sleep" position? No. If they were on their belly, it would be because they were belly-to-belly with you and you were on your back -- and sleeping in physical contact with an adult (or even in very close proximity) has been shown to help babies regulate their breathing and sleep depth/arousal.

So: I would not put a baby alone in their own bed on their stomach until they were old enough to flip themselves over (which is about when brain/nervous system development catches up and they become able to regulate their breathing even during deep sleep). And from my experience cosleeping, putting my babies tummy-down in bed with me would have been very unsafe, given our bed and bedding. Plus, they slept curled in the crook of my arm, mostly.
This. Exactly.

OP, you say that you wonder if for some children it might be better for them to sleep on their bellies. For what reason? Young babies don't need and aren't wired to have consecutive hours of sleep at a time. I can't think of a reason other than helps mama get more sleep

We were another side-lying cosleeping family with a very terrible sleeper in the first 6 months. Then I'd let him do whatever he pleased, not that it helped his sleep LOL. In fact, even at 18 months he wakes 1-4 times a night but he's ahead of the curve on physical and cognitive developmental milestones. I've personally, always aimed for cumulative hours of sleep.
post #58 of 64
Regarding those who remarked about milestone delays here are some quick facts:

Since 1998 there have been several studies published which report that infants placed to sleep in the supine position lag in motor skills, social skills, and cognitive ability development when compared to infants who sleep in the prone position.(1,2) A 1998 study (2) reported that prone sleeping infants slept an average of 225.2 hours more (8.3%) in their first 6 months of life than the supine sleeping infants and had statistically significant earlier milestone acquisition for creeps, crawls, pulls to stand, rolls prone to supine, and rolls supine to prone. In addition every other milestone tested was acquired faster by prone sleepers but the results were not statistically significant.

1.Majnemer A, Barr R. Influence of supine sleep positioning on early milestone acquisition. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2005;47:370-376
2.Davis B, Moon R, Sachs H, Ottolini M. Effects of Sleep Position on Infant Motor Development. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1135-1140

Regarding what are considered the "norms" another study concluded:

“…it may be necessary to re-normalize infant developmental assessments.”
(3)

3.Majnemer A, Barr R. Influence of supine sleep positioning on early milestone acquisition. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2005;47:370-376

Regarding SIDS Statistics

I compared the rate of Accidental Suffocations from 1992 to 2004 with the supine sleep rate from 1992 to 2004 and found that there was a positive correlation between accidental suffocation deaths and the supine sleep position (r=.80).(82,83) Infant suffocation rates had a 14% average annual increase between 1996 and 2004(84).

In addition, there was a 38% reduction in maternal smoking between 1990 and 2002 (85) and it should be noted that a pregnant woman who smokes is 2-6 times more likely to have an infant who dies of SIDS than a nonsmoking pregnant woman.(86,87)

A recent analysis of consecutive SIDS deaths contained the following comments of independent medical examiners who examined 5 (21%) of the 24 UK infants who were listed as having SIDS as the cause of death(88):
“Minor congenital abnormailities and VSD. Numerous fresh bruises.”
“Undernourished. Numerous healing scratch abrasions.”
“Bruises on face consistent with slap.”
“Mother had psychiatric history. Found dead with pillow over face.”
“Sibling died of “SIDS” at 6 months”

Check out the article entitle "The Case of New York" regarding SIDS Statistics by Thomas Hargrove for Scripps News Service.

Studies have also shown that changes in U.S. SIDS investigations protocols likely impact the statistical reporting and may be partly to explain for SIDS rate changes.89 In addition, a recent Editor’s Note in an article regarding the SIDS “Back to Sleep” campaign stated the following(90):
“I wonder how many of the infants placed in the prone (and presumably quieting) position would have been at high risk for child abuse if left in the supine position”

82.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Kimball M, Tomashek KM, Anderson RN, Blanding S.US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed From 1984 Through 2004: Are Rates Increasing? Pediatrics 2009;123;533-539
83.National Infant Sleep Position Household Survey. Summary Data 1999. updated: 09/04/07
84.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Kimball M, Tomashek KM, Anderson RN, Blanding S.US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed From 1984 Through 2004: Are Rates Increasing? Pediatrics 2009;123;533-539
85.Centers for Disease Control. Smoking & Tobacco Use - Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) – Smoking During Pregnancy – United States, 1990-2002 – October 7, 2004 / Vol. 53/ No. 39 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...highlights.htm
86.Haglund B, Cnattingius S. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome: a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 1990 January; 80(1): 29–32.
87.Mitchell EA, Scragg L, Clements M. Location of smoking and the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Internal Medicine Journal. Vol. 25 Issue 2, p. 155-156
88.Yukawa N, Carter N, Green MA. Intra-alveolar haemorrhage in sudden infant death syndrome: a cause for concern? J Clin Pathol. 1999;52:581-587
89.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Kimball M, Tomashek KM, Anderson RN, Blanding S.US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed From 1984 Through 2004: Are Rates Increasing? Pediatrics 2009;123;533-539
90.Ottolini MC, Davis BE, Patel K, Sachs HC, Gershon NB, Moon RY. Prone infant sleeping despite the "Back to Sleep" campaign. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 May;153(5):512-7
91.Fleming PJ, Gilber R, Azaz Y, Berry PJ, Rudd PT, Stewart A, Hall E. Interaction between bedding and sleeping position in the sudden infant death syndrome: a population based case-control study. Br Med J. 1990;301;85-9

Regarding the "Back to Sleep" Lobby. Many companies make lots of money when women don't co-sleep and/or breastfeed and blindly "follow the rules". These are formulary companies and they spend a lot of money giving to Back to Sleep campaigns:

This is from a letter to the AAP by Dr. Melissa Bartick of Harvard:

"The AAP’s credibility is eroding already, with heavy
donations from the formula industry, selling the rights to
the AAP breastfeeding book to Ross, and now these
recommendations and the way their publication was
handled. The publication of these SIDS articles shows a
serious lack of rigorous scientific oversight. The articles,
as a whole, may be valuable, but the recommendations
drawn from them are seriously flawed."

Pediatrics 2006;117;992-993
Melissa Bartick
Infant Death Syndrome: To the Editor
Bed Sharing With Unimpaired Parents Is Not an Important Risk for Sudden

In the exact same Letter to the editor of the AAP another group of doctors questioned the safety of the pacifier recommendation:

"However, from the perspective of the field of pediatric
sleep medicine, the policy statement’s laudable but narrow
focus on SIDS prevention raises a number of important
issues that need to be addressed. In particular, the
revised recommendations regarding cosleeping and pacifier
use have the potential to lead to unintended consequences
on both the sleep and the health of the infant.
The potential implications of a SIDS risk-reduction strategy
that is based on a combination of maintaining a low
arousal threshold and reducing quiet (equivalent to or
slow-wave sleep) in infants must be considered. Because
slow-wave sleep is considered the most restorative form
of sleep and is believed to have a significant role in
neurocognitive processes and learning, as well as in
growth, what might be the neurodevelopmental consequences
of chronically reducing deep sleep in the first
critical 12 months of life?"

Regarding Flat Heads. Here is a quote by Peter Fleming regarding moms and flat heads.
According to the Bristol University Website he has saved the lives of over 100,000 babies worldwide.

But Peter Fleming, the professor of infant health at Bristol University, who is an expert in cot deaths, is dismissive of the "syndrome". He is concerned that parents will start to put their babies to sleep on their fronts again. "This dramatically increases the risk that they will die by 10 times," he says. "This problem only exists in a health care system where they get paid to carry out work - so plastic surgeons will be involved.

"It is not something which is happening in the UK or Europe. In the UK babies will get slightly flatter heads from sleeping on their backs but there is no evidence it will do them any harm. It really is not a significant problem. My major concern is if people start putting babies to sleep on their side or tummy it will increase the risk they will die.

"I do not think it is a medical problem - it is more of a cosmetic one. Mothers may feel it is a syndrome and a problem when it really is nonsense."

However, he recommends that babies do not sleep in the same position every night and there is some variation in how they are placed to sleep.

According to Professor Fleming, in some Asian cultures a slightly flattened baby's head is considered to be attractive.

The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths is also concerned about the US report. A spokeswoman says: "This is a temporary problem which will correct itself. It would be absolutely appalling if parents stopped putting their babies to sleep on their backs. It is literally a matter of life or death.


Flat outBabies sleeping on their backs reduces the risk of cot death but may flatten their heads. Should we be worried, asks Helen Carter
Tweet this
Helen Carter The Guardian, Tuesday 8 July 2003

BTW, Peter Fleming is the same doctor who was part of the baby organ stealing inquiry in the UK although he was cleared it's quite interesting:

"The families of cot death victims were facing fresh agony last night after it emerged that hospitals kept organs from their babies' bodies.
They were used, without the families' knowledge or consent, in research by world expert Professor Peter Fleming.
The revelation has left hundreds of parents wondering whether or not they buried their baby's complete body. The scandal has just been uncovered through dogged inquiries by one mother, Sally Savage.
Mrs Savage, who became suspicious after reading about organs being taken at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool and elsewhere, said last night: 'Words cannot describe how it feels to lose a child.
'But to be told their organs have been taken from them is like losing the baby all over again.'
It has now emerged that organs or tissue were taken from 88 babies who died between May 1985 and April 1989 in the Avon area.
They were used for Professor Fleming's study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome published in 1992."

Doctor kept baby body partsby CLARE KITCHEN and JENNY HOPE, Daily Mail

Biases by Dr. Kattwinkel - the head of the U.S. SIDS Task Force since 1992:

Here are some additional quotes that show other people are also concerned about the negative effects of the Back to Sleep campaign:

“Since the implementation of the ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, therapists are seeing increasing numbers of kindergarten-aged children who are unable to hold a pencil.”
Susan Syron, Pediatric Physical Therapist

“There are indications of a rapidly growing population of infants who show developmental abnormalities as a result of prolonged exposure to the supine position.”
Dr. Ralph Pelligra regarding the impact of the Back to Sleep Campaign

“The increasing incidence of deformational plagiocephaly is likely related to the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and others that infants be placed to sleep on their backs.”
Persing J, James H, Swanson J, Kattwinkel J, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Plastic Surgery, Section on Neurological Surgery. Prevention and Management of Positional Skull Deformities in Infants

“With regards to the mental developmental index scores, none of the infants with deformational plagiocephaly were accelerated, 90 percent were normal, 7 percent were mildly delayed, and 3 percent were severely delayed. With regards to the psychomotor development index scores, none of infants were accelerated, 74 percent were normal, 19 percent were mildly delayed, and 7 percent were severely delayed.”
Kordestani R, Patel S, Bard D, Gurwitch R, Panchal J. Neurodevelopmental delays in children with deformational plagiocephaly. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Jan;117(1):207-218; Note: Plagiocephaly is also referred to as “flat head syndrome”

Sign my petition and read more here:

"More Research on SIDS and Plagiocephaly"

on Petition Spot website
post #59 of 64
Here's a bit more. I don't have the Internet working at the moment so I may not be able to reply in a timely manner until I get it fixed. Sorry for writing the book. I really feel the biases by kattwinkel, Fleming, Jean Golding, Rachel Moon, etc. are fascinating. In addition the lobbying by the Formula Corporations is also quite interesting. here's some more food for thought:

“A lot of us are concerned that the rate (of SIDS) isn’t decreasing significantly, but that a lot of it is just code shifting,’ said John Kattwinkel, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s special task force on SIDS.”
Scripps Howard News Service Interview
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cf...=SIDS-10-08-07

"Federal records show a dramatic decline in reported cases of SIDS, dropping from 4,895 cases in 1992 to only 2,247 in 2004, the most recent year for which complete data is available. The records reviewed by Scripps showed that cases of SIDS virtually disappeared in some states and cities over the last several years, but closer examination of the data makes it evident that thousands of those lives have not been ‘saved,’ but rather lost under another name. Coroners and medical examiners said SIDS was responsible for nearly 80 percent of all sudden infant deaths 15 years ago and only 55 percent in 2004. What increased during this time were diagnoses that CDC statisticians labeled as "threats to breathing" and ‘other ill-defined causes of mortality.’"
Bowman and Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service

Regarding John Kattwinkel (Chairperson of the U.S. SIDS Task force since 1992):

Many parents say they would be "devastated" if their infant died. To me that seems like it would also create an inherent bias.
Dr. John Kattwinkels infant daughter died at 3 days of age and now he's the biggest zealot advocating the SIDS Back to Sleep Campaign.
This may be noble but it undoubtedly skews and biases his perspective. He does not think so.
I personally think he should resign from the U.S. SIDS Task Force but I doubt he will.

From the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine article entitled "The Reluctant Doctor":

"He was doing his residency at Duke when he decided to specialize
in neonatology. Sadly, the impetus was the death of his infant daughter.
She had a congenital heart defect—hypoplastic left heart syndrome,
in which the left side of the heart is underdeveloped—and
died when she was just three days old. 'It was an emotional time for
me,” Kattwinkel says. “Why should she be a beautiful, healthy-looking
girl and be dead two days later?'"

Later on in the article he says they chose him to be the head of the SIDS Task force in 1992 because he didn't have "an agenda." If my child died at 3 days of age I would definitely be devastated and definitely have an agenda. He's likely in denial that he doesn't have an agenda or a bias:

"'About 6,000 infant deaths a year were attributed to SIDS in the early
1990s. No one understood what caused it. But doctors had been advising
parents to have babies sleep on their stomachs so if they happened
to throw up, they’d be less likely to aspirate their vomit.
I was not involved with SIDS before,' Kattwinkel says.
'The Academy was looking for someone
who didn’t have an agenda.
So they chose me.'"

To sum it up, I question the statistics reporting that the supine sleep recommendations has caused a 40% (123) reduction in the U.S. SIDS rate considering that there was a 38% reduction in maternal smoking between 1990 and 2002 (124) and infant suffocation rates had a 14% average annual increase between 1996 and 2004 (125). It should be noted that a pregnant woman who smokes is 2-6 times more likely to have an infant who dies of SIDS than a nonsmoking pregnant woman (126,127).

123.American Academy of Pediatrics: Changing Concepts of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Implications for Infant Sleeping Environment and Sleep Position . PEDIATRICS Vol. 105 No. 3 March 2000, pp. 650-656
124.Centers for Disease Control. Smoking & Tobacco Use - Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) – Smoking During Pregnancy – United States, 1990-2002 – October 7, 2004 / Vol. 53/ No. 39 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...highlights.htm
125.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Kimball M, Tomashek KM, Anderson RN, Blanding S.US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed From 1984 Through 2004: Are Rates Increasing? Pediatrics 2009;123;533-539
126.Haglund B, Cnattingius S. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome: a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 1990 January; 80(1): 29–32.
127.Mitchell EA, Scragg L, Clements M. Location of smoking and the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Internal Medicine Journal. Vol. 25 Issue 2, p. 155-156

Here are some final facts:

Prone Sleep Physiology1:
Infant Age: 2 ½ months (n=30)
Prone+Head Cover (Common method prior to Back to Sleep campaign)
•Post sigh apnea duration, non-REM (seconds)=4.8
•Post sigh apnea duration, REM (seconds)=2.6
•Apneas 3 to 10 seconds, REM/20 minutes=6.3
•Episodes of periodic breathing, non-REM/20 minutes=0.1
•Episodes of periodic breathing, REM/20 minutes=0.2
•Heart rate (beats/min)=131.1
•Respiratory rate (breaths/min)=36.3
•Pearson Correlation Coefficient: (r)= -.611

Supine Sleep Physiology1:
Infant age: 2 ½ months (n=30)
Supine+No Head Cover (SIDS Prevention “Back to Sleep” Campaign)
•Post sigh apnea duration, non-REM (seconds)= 10.5 (119% Increase)
•Post sigh apnea duration, REM (seconds)= 7.6 (192% Increase)
•Apneas 3 to 10 seconds, REM/20 minutes= 15.1 (140% Increase)
•Episodes of periodic breathing, non-REM/20 minutes= 0.3 (200% Increase)
•Episodes of periodic breathing, REM/20 minutes= 0.7 (250% Increase)
•Heart rate (beats/min)=119.4 (9% Decrease)
•Respiratory rate (breaths/min)=27.6 (24% Decrease)
•Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)= .702

1.Skadberg BT, Markestad T. Consequences of Getting the Head Covered During Sleep in Infancy. Pediatrics 1997;100;e6
post #60 of 64
Whoa. There's a heap of info here. I've only gotten through the last page, but thought I'd share one of my professor's theories about SIDS/Back to Sleep. Apparently the apex of deaths during tummy sleeping coincided with the widespread practice of dousing crib mattresses and bedding in flame retardant chemicals. The theory my professor had was that tummy sleeping put babies that much closer to the toxic chemicals, and that the Back to Sleep campaign distanced babies just enough from the crap that death rates fell due to decreased chemical exposure/proximity.
I haven't investigated the facts that may or may not support this theory, and it was just a theory, but it does make a certain amount of sense to me.
I, too, think that many SIDS deaths from "back in the day" of tummy sleeping are more likely to have been caused by factors other than simple sleep position.
We are comfortable with tummy sleeping in our family, though dd was typically cradled in a side-lying position or in a tummy to tummy position for the first month or two. She's been a belly sleeper for a good long while though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Co-sleeping and the Family Bed
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Co-sleeping and the Family Bed › Questioning SIDS "Back to Sleep Campaign"