I got an email today from my mom who is desperately trying to get us to vaccinate DD with a link to the AAP's updated recommendations on preventing SIDS, and one of the recommendations says that research has shown that receiving all of the recommended vaccines prevents SIDS. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this (sorry, if this isn't new news, DD is our first so we've just started to research vaccinations) and if anyone knows what sort of research went into the AAP making this conclusion? I always had a feeling that vaccines may contribute to SIDS so I'm curious as what sort of research went into this!
Here is the link to the article: http://firstwatch.jwatch.org/cgi/content/short/2011/1018/2?rss=1&q=mednews_home
I am at a loss for words. I don't see how there can be any evidence to support that.
Go with your gut, follow your heart.
I don't have access to the full texts, but here are a couple of studies suggesting such:
Hm, thanks Jugs interesting links. I would love to find out the specifics of all of these studies however, as right now it really seems like they're just tying two separate facts very loosely together. Especially the study with Hungary, the decrease of SIDS could have been caused by so many factors, not just because they started the Hib vaccine. I find it really strange that they believe vaccines could prevent SIDS, vaccines are made to prevent specific diseases so unless they have a vaccine for SIDS that we don't know about, how on earth could they prevent it? I would love to hear their theories on that.
Here is the full article directly from the AAP if anyone is interested, it also has some gems in there about cosleeping.
There has been research for quite some time now to determine if inapparent bacterial colonization may be an underlying cause of SIDS. A drop in SIDS after introducing a hib vaccination program does support that hypothesis.
Link please, that SIDS cases have dropped since the introduction of the HIB vaccine. Just want to read up on this.
My guess is that they ended up comparing babies who weren't vaccinated because they were born terminally ill, and naturally had a higher mortality rate. Because there aren't that many children who are completely unvaccinated, and autopsies are done in cases of SIDS, and would hopefully yield information about a bacterial infection, thus making the death NOT SIDS.
The recommendation to push the current vaccination schedule based on a correlation is laughable. If correlation does not equal causation for vaccine injuries, then it doesn't for SIDS deaths either.
really - same could be said for the rise in SIDS deaths related the rise in # of vaccines being given
however - breastfeeding is protective against HiB and other HI infections:
That's a new one. If you speak German, look at how the TOKEN study was a tad manipulated. http://ehgartner.blogspot.com/2011/08/die-tricks-des-robert-koch-instituts.html Interesting read.
When I have time again, I can read up more on the subject...
The population that doesn't vaccinate is small, but it includes children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical exemptions. Meaning, parents who would love to vaccinate but those kids are too sick or too fragile. It that accounted for in the study? They way these stories are presented in the news doesn't account for that population at all. It comes across as more bullying against those parents who choose not to vaccinate. "Unvaccinated" is not one lump category; it includes healthy, robust children, and some of the weakest, sickest babies. "If you would just have vaccinated, your child wouldn't have died of SIDS" is really cruel towards a mom whose baby qualified for Synagis.
"As the lead author of new guidelines on SIDS prevention just published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rachel Moon says it is unclear why vaccines seem to have this protective effect."
But do it anyway! :(
Scroll down to see some better charts
My kids are very nearly grown and they were select vaxed. Soon, they will be making their own health choices and I will no longer have control. But I don't think this article is enough to have persuaded me with little 7 pound babes back in the mid 90's to have done anything other than what I did. One vaccine a time and not all of them. No flu shots.
Yeah, I was watching the news last night (CTV) and they were saying this. At one point the woman said that vaccinating has shown a decrease in the risk of SIDS by 50% over unvaccinated babies. Umm, no. No way. Either they were mistaken or outright lying! WTH? I don't believe it, I think it's spin. I want to see the actual numbers and who exactly was included in the study. I've also heard on the news months ago that babies who are fully vaccinated have lower risk of SIDS than those that are partially vaccinated. This doesn't make any sense- I mean, isn't a fully vaccinated baby outside the age range of SIDS? Most SIDS cases are between 2-4 months, and they can't be fully vaccinated at that age anyhow. Do they say these things without any science or reference to specific studies in the hopes that the public will buy it without question and rush out to vaccinate?? One theory I've heard behind this is that vaccination challenges the immune system and thus builds a stronger immune system.
Alex 8 Gabby 6 (Homeborn!) Gideon 2.... chickens, ducks, cats and a dog
There's another thread about this over in the co-sleeping area and this is my grumpy response
I think anything the AAP says should probably be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. We will continue not to vax, BF on demand and co-sleep. As a species, it is ultimately the formula we are evolved for. I see no reason to conduct a massive experiment on my children's physical and psychological well being because the AAP, and whoever is financially backing them these days, doesn't like it.
ETA: Preventing infant death while co-sleeping is likely as easy as not being intoxicated while co-sleeping.
Mama to DS (6/07) , DD (6/09) , and DD (07/12) ..
The AAP does recommend exclusively nursing for 6 mo's though, gotta give em that! Not that it's some huge revelation, but at least they're recomending something that actually makes sense and is good for our kids!
They also have a very neutral stance on routine infant circumcision. Thank goodness.
OT, while they might say breastfeeding for the first 6 months only all pediatricians I have dealt with "order" rice cereal (it is a must, in their words) by 4 months and fruits and veggies no later than 6 months. I currently live in a non-progressive area, and before I always saw military pediatricians, and they most certainly all recommended circumcision, tried to retract at every occasion and pushed solids big time by 4 months. Methinks most AAP members don't hold up to their group's recommendations.
Funny because the study about increasing infant deaths with increasing vaxes would tend to go against that theory. The study authors even seem to conclude that SIDS deaths haven't decreased, they're just classed differently & even mention that until the routine & widespread vaccination of infants, there was no SIDS classification because it was so rare. They also mention that while SIDS deaths do occur in unvaccinated babies, they tend to occur in the winter, while SIDS deaths in vaccinated children are largely clustered around the 2 & 4 month shots. http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644.full.pdf+html
mom to all boys B: 08/01, C: 07/05 , N: 03/09 , M: 01/12 and far too many lost ones
Let's not forget the source of education for doctors while they are in medical school.
They are taught about infant nutrition by MD's who are paid consultants with the formula industry. (Ever wonder why you are told in the hospital to nurse every 2-3 hours, when in fact a newborn needs to nurse every 30-90 minutes in the first couple of days, especially the firstborn?)
They are taught about vaccines by MD's who are paid consultants with the vaccine companies.
They are taught about psych medications by MD's who are paid consultants with the pharmaceutical industry.
There is apparently no end to the conflicts of interest.