Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

COT DEATH

270 replies

nannyoakley · 18/04/2005 21:31

I'd be interested knowing what anyone thinks about cot death being in the news so much and what your thoughts are on cot death. Most parents are left confused by what to do and we hear from people all the time wanting to know what is going on - why there are so many cot death parents being released from prison, why they were ever in prison in the beginning. The main gist of our campaign is to make sure our news about mattress wrapping for cot death prevention reaches the public, and give parents an informed choice, we believe it should be the parents who decide what they want to do - and believe me, we hear from people every day wanting to know about the Cot Life campaign.

Please ask questions / tell me what you think about what you are hearing in the news and reading on the internet, your thoughts are valuable to me and I think this is a serious issue that needs public debate.

Hope you can help.
Many thanks
Julee

OP posts:
nannyoakley · 19/04/2005 20:27

Research which confirms and supports the toxic gas theory for cot death

Publication of the toxic gas theory:
The toxic gas theory for cot death was published by British scientist Barry Richardson in 1994: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary cause, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204

Publication of proof of the gas generation involved:

The fungal generation of extremely toxic nerve gases from compounds of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony has been demonstrated many times over the last century. Recent confirmations are:
Toxic gas generation from plastic mattresses and sudden infant death syndrome, Lancet 1995;346:1516-20
Confirmation of the Biomethylation of Antimony Compounds, Applied Organometallic Chemistry 1997; Vol. 11, 471-483

Publication of proof of the presence of fungal growth in babies' mattresses:

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary cause, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204
Final Report of the Expert Group to Investigate Cot Death Theories: Toxic Gas Hypothesis (Limerick Report), May 1998

Publication of proof of the presence of the elements phosphorus, arsenic and antimony in babies' bedding:
Analyses of bedding reported by Jim Sprott in The Cot Death Cover-up? (Penguin, 1996)

Publication of proof of the generation of highly toxic gases from compounds of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony in babies' mattresses and other bedding:
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a possible primary cause, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1994;34(3):199-204
Microbial studies of sheepskin bedding, W R Cullen, Sixth SIDS International Conference, Auckland, February 2000

Publication of proof that the re-use of mattresses increases the risk of cot death (a corollary of the toxic gas theory):
Case-control study of sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland, 1992-5, British Medical Journal 1997;314:1516-20

Proof that the risk of cot death rises from first to second babies; and from second to third babies; and from third to fourth and later babies; and that babies of solo parents are at higher risk again (a corollary of the fact that re-use of mattresses increases the risk of cot death):
Analysis of official British statistics

The finding of the rising risk of cot death from one sibling to the next refutes every proposition that cot death has a medical cause. The more times an unwrapped mattress is used from one baby to the next, the greater is the risk of cot death.

This accounts for the higher cot death rate among poorer families, who are more likely to sleep their babies on previously used mattresses.

If a mattress contains any of the elements phosphorus, arsenic or antimony, and if certain household fungi have become established in the mattress during prior use, any generation of toxic gas commences sooner and in greater volume.

Publication of proof that later babies in a family are more at risk of cot death than first babies (a corollary of the fact that re-use of mattresses increases the risk of cot death):
Risk factors of sudden infant death in Chinese babies, American Journal of Epidemiology 1997;144:1070-73

Publication of proof that face-up sleeping reduces the risk of cot death:
All studies which show that face-up sleeping reduces the risk of cot death support the toxic gas theory. Face-up sleeping reduces the risk because the gases concerned are more dense than air; they diffuse away from a baby's mattress towards the floor, so a baby sleeping face-up is less likely to ingest them.

Publication of proof that cot death babies show physiological effects of gaseous poisoning:
Decreased Kainate Receptor Binding in the Arcuate Nucleus of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology 1997;56:1253-61: proof that cot death babies have neurochemical deficits consistent with poisoning by nerve gases

Publication of proof that the cot death risk varies with mattress type:
New Zealand Cot Death Study (1987-1990)

Publication of proof that the cot death risk in Britain is less on PVC-covered mattresses:
CESDI study (Britain), reported in Lancet 1995;345:720

Any part of a baby's mattress which contains the chemicals phosphorus, arsenic and/or antimony is capable of the gas generation which causes cot death.

If, therefore, a mattress is covered with a gas-impermeable diaphragm which does not contain those chemicals, the risk of cot death is eliminated.

Accordingly, following removal of those chemicals from British plastic-covered mattresses from 1989 onwards, the risk of cot death in Britain is less on PVC-covered mattresses (which are very frequently used in Britain).

Thus the finding by the CESDI study that babies are less at risk on PVC-covered mattresses supports the toxic gas theory for cot death.

Book regarding the toxic gas theory for cot death
Jim Sprott, The Cot Death Cover-up? (Penguin, 1996).

Practical proof of the fact that mattress-wrapping prevents cot death:
Mattress-wrapping for cot death prevention (to prevent exposure of babies to gases generated in mattresses) has been publicised in New Zealand since late 1994.
Mattress-wrapping is the only new item of cot death prevention advice publicised in New Zealand since 1992.
It is known from sales figures for BabeSafe cot mattress covers that tens of thousands of New Zealand parents have wrapped their babies' mattresses in accordance with the Cot Life 2000 specifications.
From 1994 to 1999 the New Zealand nationwide cot death rate fell by 48% and the Pakeha (European) rate by an estimated 70%.
The Ministry of Health has confirmed that mattress-wrapping is more prevalent among the Pakeha (European) community than among other ethnic groups.
There has been no reported cot death on any mattress wrapped in accordance with the Cot Life 2000 specifications.

OP posts:
tamum · 19/04/2005 20:49

Oh for God's sake. I'm not posting on here again, you're clearly not remotely interested in reading anyone's posts unless they hurt your feelings. Those papers you pasted I have already dealt with- they do not support Sprott's theories, they show that they are wrong. You are completely utterly mistaken and too deluded to see it. I wasn't sure before that you were just out to make money before but now I am.

NomDePlume · 19/04/2005 20:50

and so it goes on.....

and on.......

and on.......

and on......

marthamoo · 19/04/2005 20:56

Oh let her have the last word and maybe she'll go away.

motherinferior · 19/04/2005 20:58

I want Tamum to have the last word!

Toothache · 19/04/2005 21:00

Can I have the last word???

tamum · 19/04/2005 21:00

Why thank you. OK then.

BOO

Toothache · 19/04/2005 21:01

mutter grumble... I wanted the last word...

tamum · 19/04/2005 21:02

Oh OK then...

Toothache · 19/04/2005 21:13

TA Tamum!!

Okay... the pressure is on.... I think the last word should be...

...gin

tiffini · 19/04/2005 21:16

If a child of mine died of cot death, i too would want to talk about the subject, i cant imagine how it must feel and i dont think time would be a great healer for the death of your own child.
Im'e sure nannyoakley is just looking for answers as to why she lost her child and does not mean to offend anyone.
i think if people cant respect her feeling, then they should'nt post.
some of you are just taking the piss. How very very cruel.

JanH · 19/04/2005 21:19
Pruni · 19/04/2005 21:23

Message withdrawn

Twiglett · 19/04/2005 21:25

she is not looking for answers

she is looking to scare people into believing that they need to buy her products

Twiglett · 19/04/2005 21:26

Tamum - oh tamum time for the last word

Gwenick · 19/04/2005 21:30

No I'M going to have the last word

tamum · 19/04/2005 21:34

Mah hah hah

Toothache · 19/04/2005 21:34

creeps back in<

If she's only trying to sell products and had absolutely NO other motivation.... why does she keep posting when she is clearly been told by many and Mumsnetter to feck off? Most chancers just post and run... not try to defend themselves. Sorry still not convinced this is about making money. There MUST be some truth in her story about losing her ds.

creeps back out<

BTW the last word was gin.

oatcake · 19/04/2005 21:47

not interested in the last word toothache, but just wanted to point out that the most recent research nannyoakley cited was 5 years old... and most of it was 10-11 years old.

But this is secondary to tamum saying that if we read the research cited, it would say that nannyoakley's theories are disproved not substantiated...

Sorry toothache, say gin again... not another word from me... good night.

Toothache · 19/04/2005 21:49

mutter grumble again...pesky posters<

Good night

GIN

nannyoakley · 19/04/2005 22:21

I don't like the thought of harmful chemicals near children and that is why I do what I do.
I don't know how else to reach out to people and thought that it was a good idea to try and start a conversation on MN and look where that got me -it feels as if I am back in a classroom in here!

I am not hurt or put off by anything that has been said on here - I know the truth and I know for a fact that I make NO money from cot death - I provide a free service to the public - they want the covers and I send their orders for them.
There are many other places where the public can buy Babesafe Safety Mattress Covers.

I am an ordinary person, a mum - a wife - a grandmother - I am 42 years old- I live in a council house and have no money to speak of.

You carry on laughing and have your fun... that is not what I came here for. One day soon you will know the truth about cot death. I only hope someone finds the information I have posted useful.

OP posts:
hub2dee · 19/04/2005 22:30

Google and yahoobots trawl MN's archives and postings. They index all the little words we write.

The more links back to, ahem, certain Web sites, the more likely they are to come up when people innocently search for information in a given area.

By cut and pasting the same old stuff, nannyoakley is securing more traffic to cotlife2000. More traffic means more people with mis-information and more people willing to buy a BabeSafe mattress cover.

They have apparently sold over 200,000 of these (not sure if this is is NZ alone or worldwide, and not sure you can believe their numbers). At about £10 a pop, that is a £2 million pound business.

I'd spam you lot for a chunk of that.

(Well, actually I wouldn't because I have rather high morals, but allow me some dramatic flounceation).

nannyoakley · 19/04/2005 22:40

Say what you like hub2dee but I am not making any money from cot death. FYI I have been investigated by inland revenue, the fraud squad and other parties who were quite satisfied that I was / or am not making any money from cot death and the sales of Babesafe covers.

You seem determined to prove that I am making money from cot death - you are quite welcome to come to my house any time you'd like to see that I live a very simple life.

7-10 Babies a week are dying needlessly and there has not been one reported cot death on a mattress wrapped to Cot Life specifications - all cot deaths have been recorded since mattress wrapping began and the evidence is that babies who have died have all died on unwrapped mattresses.

I only hope some people will find this information useful.

OP posts:
hub2dee · 19/04/2005 22:59

Hey, they must have been mighty suspicious. Probably for no good reason I bet, huh, nannyoakley ?

Actually, I am not sure you make money from babesafe mattress covers, but let's all agree someone does - because the last time I checked it was really hard to make money disappear, you know, anti-matter and all that.

Infact maybe that was why you were investigated ?

If I was in Plymouth I would love to come and say hi. I'm sure it would be a fruitful discussion. Perhaps all the people that you contact on the NCT boards or the yahoo cot death bereavement boards could also come along ? (If there's enough space).

I really liked that bit you just posted now. May I quote you ?

"there has not been one reported cot death on a mattress wrapped to Cot Life specifications - all cot deaths have been recorded since mattress wrapping began and the evidence is that babies who have died have all died on unwrapped mattresses."

Because that just shows how in touch you are with the complexities of modern science. I know Relativity Theory is a bit beyond me, but just because no baby has died on a wrapped mattress DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. What it does is show an interesting correlation which warrants further investigation.

But wait.... that's what everyone did when they heard about Dr. Sprott or Barry's work.... they investigated it, and sadly they found it rather lacking in credibility.

Oh dear, I suppose that means you'll just have to carry on cut and pasting. Lucky that these days computer keyboards are so reliable. They just carry on and on and on.

JulieF · 19/04/2005 23:07

Toothache - we were told by head bods in the NCT that Julee was genuine in her desires and she was not actually making money but that didn't get around the fact that she was spamming vulnerable parents with scaremongering information that did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Julee, I'm not sure if you realise this but most NCT volunteers are just normal parents and one of the email lists you were spamming contained just as many non members as it was a "virtual" coffee morning group.

You also had to be banned from the association of radical midwives list becasue of your bombardments.

I am sorry but regardless of anyones circumstances or genuine desires I can not support theories which are scientifically not up to scratch.