COT DEATH

[nannyoakley]

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

Hi, nannyoakley, you may want to correct this error:

On this Website you say your son died on August 5th 1984.

Whereas on this one you say it was the 7th May 1984 (Web site doesn't render nicely on Mac, MNers). - thank goodness the link back to your Geocities mis-information site is still OK though. Phew.

Finally, on this site here you say the date was 8th May 1984.

You really ought to correct those errors. I'd have thought it pretty hard to get the date my baby died wrong. But then, as Twiglett suggested, maybe I'm dim.

I cannot correct the errors on those websites as I don't administer them. The first date is wrong because you have to add 08/05/1984 but being as this is not a UK Site I think you have to add the numbers another way around. I don't know why / how the other sites mixed up the date - human error I guess.

But what would you care about my baby - seems you care enough to go finding my sad little messages to him. So Now my baby didn't die according to you - you really are a pathetic little woman - feel free to keep trolling the web and hey, I forgive you for being so sad.

Hi, nannyoakley, you may want to correct this error:

On this Website you say your son died on August 5th 1984.

Whereas on this one you say it was the 7th May 1984 (Web site doesn't render nicely on Mac, MNers). - thank goodness the link back to your Geocities mis-information site is still OK though. Phew.

Finally, on this site here you say the date was 8th May 1984.

You really ought to correct those errors. I'd have thought it pretty hard to get the date my baby died wrong. But then, as Twiglett suggested, maybe I'm dim.

ooh- it's like Grounhog day. I'm sure I keep reading the same pastings from nannyoakley over and over again.

I would welcome a proper debate about this but can you not see Nanny Oakley - you're not responding to anyone's questions. It is natural and healthy that people should question research and statements they are presented with. I think it is unhealthy if you have taken the Cotlife research on board without questioning it yourself.

Some further points and some question I'd like to make.

"I don't like the thought of harmful chemicals near children and that is why I do what I do."

What do you do Nanny Oakley? As far as we can deduce - you sell matress covers. For that reason we have every right to be suspicious of your theories about SIDS.

Why don't you support FSIDs?

Why don't you take notice of the latest research produced on SIDS?

Why don't you campaign against matress manufacturers in countries which still produce matresses containing the 3 'aledgedly' harmful chemicals?

Why are you endorsing these matress covers to British parents when British matresses do not contain these 3 chemicals cited?

What else do you do to campaign for research into cot death?

As for SIDS being rarely heard of before the 1950s - there are two possible reasons for this.

1. The term Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was coinded in 1954. Any death of an infant occuring before then surely would have been recorded under a different cause. That means there would be no records to check, prior to 1954, to establish the numbers of babies dying of SIDS.

2. Wasn't it smetime in the 1960s when 'experts' began to advice

Can you point us to the research which shows that no NZ baby has died of cotdeath, in the past 8 years, if their matress was wrapped?

ooh- it's like Grounhog day. I'm sure I keep reading the same pastings from nannyoakley over and over again.

I would welcome a proper debate about this but can you not see Nanny Oakley - you're not responding to anyone's questions. It is natural and healthy that people should question research and statements they are presented with. I think it is unhealthy if you have taken the Cotlife research on board without questioning it yourself.

Some further points and some question I'd like to make.

"I don't like the thought of harmful chemicals near children and that is why I do what I do."

What do you do Nanny Oakley? As far as we can deduce - you sell matress covers. For that reason we have every right to be suspicious of your theories about SIDS.

Why don't you support FSIDs?

Why don't you take notice of the latest research produced on SIDS?

Why don't you campaign against matress manufacturers in countries which still produce matresses containing the 3 'aledgedly' harmful chemicals?

Why are you endorsing these matress covers to British parents when British matresses do not contain these 3 chemicals cited?

What else do you do to campaign for research into cot death?

Can you point us to the research which shows that no NZ baby has died of cotdeath, in the past 8 years, if their matress was wrapped?

As for SIDS being rarely heard of before the 1950s - there are two possible reasons for this.

1. The term Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was coinded in 1954. Any death of an infant occuring before then surely would have been recorded under a different cause. That means there would be no records to check, prior to 1954, to establish the numbers of babies dying of SIDS.

2. Wasn't it smetime in the 1960s when 'experts' began to advise parents to put their babies to sleep on their stomachs?

Sorry for double post

ooo just one little thing

"you really are a pathetic little woman - "

That should be pathetic little 'man' if that's what you want to call him.

hub2dee - I had not wanted to get involved in this debate but feel I have no choice. Hub2dee your posting regarding the date of Nanny Oakley's death of her son was quite shocking. My immediate thought was that it had been misquoted as it often is in the newspapers, for you to cut and paste that and to imply that she is lying about the death of her own son is appalling behaviour. Take a step back and reflect on some of your comments, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Hello notmyself,

I am sorry you found my post appalling.

If you read the whole thread, and the previous one a few months ago, you will see there had been some considerable confusion as to whether the poster was real or not real, had suffered cot death or not, with one child or two. Perhaps you consider that irrelevant and that all posters should be given the benefit of the doubt, which is a fair point.

The problem is, that nannyoakley appears to have no interest in genuinely debating the topic. There's no engendering the issues of tummy up / face down, there's no debate about the risk factors of smoking / alcohol use, there's no 'anyone else in the same boat', there's no links to 'ordinary' sources of advice - the sort you might get pointed at by your GP. Just endless cut and pasting with directions back to Dr. Sprott and his unsupported theories.

Now, I will be the first to say that there might be something in her approach. Science is fluid, it is constrained by time and the extent of our knowledge at the given moment, it is not the 'be all and end all,' and it could well be that in x years to come we'll all be mattress-wrapping like mad because many studies will have shown there's something in it. Until then, though, it is better for parents suffering bereavement, or for parents nurturing very young babies to receive 'best practice', validated, up-to-date info - which they can choose to ignore if they want.

Now with vaccinations, there are arguments (and evidence) for both sides. One could argue the jury is still out. Mattress wrapping sadly does not have any credible evidence to support it AT ALL. By nannyoakley's own admission and research, mattress wrapping is not needed on mattresses used in the UK less than 16 years old, but she still continues to spam yahoo cot death bereavement, and NCT parenting boards, and now MN (and many dozens of others) with her mis-information.

It's enough to make someone like me very suspicious (whether rightly or wrongly).

However, I am man enough to admit I may have overstepped the mark, and I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I think you'll find the balance of my posts have been exceptionally patient and useful - both on this and all other topics on MN.

TBH, I remain more ashamed of nannyoakley's postings than my own.

Hello Hub2dee. Thanks for your response, I apologise for being overly harsh in my comments, in RL I like to think that I am a little more considerate and tolerant of other people's opinions but on here it can be too easy to jump in feet first and say what you really think. TBH it was not just your posting that I was upset with there were a few. I can understand why everyone is suspicious Nanny Oakley should have been more upfront in her original posting, however she has suffered a tragic loss and I do feel that she genuinely believes that mattress wrapping is beneficial. Anyway, enough said, I don't want to prolong this thread unnecessarily.

dont have time to read all of the threads on this BUT, as we all know medical "research" and "science" changes dramatically and constantly. As was the case with babies sleeping on tummies, now they are to sleep on their back. Cot death in itself, is not a "disease" it is the death of a child due to unknown causes and many causes have been attributed to cot death. I dont see why you are all being so harsh on this woman. Maybe its out of fear, or thinking that you know all of the answers. We dont know the answers though, and some babies will die today and every day from "cot death" or SIDS. One very interesting theory i read was that babies systems are so immature that they just "forget" to breathe. The reflex to keep on breathing is not mature in babies and they just dont take another breath. Dont know if this is bunkum but if baby is sick or otherwise compromised it could be the reflex is compromised too. WE just dont know and for the parents who have lived the unbelievable nightmare of this happening I am sure they must search their whole lives for an answer.

What i find interesting is that the "scary" issues on mumsnet, like cot death, vaccination debates and the like are met with a lot of hostility. Fair enough we dont want to talk about them, but is that the "royal" we? I like to talk about these issues and I am sure plenty of other moms do too.

And so it continues. This is NOT one of MN's finest hours.... I really hope that this woman didn't los her child coz if this is the treatment she gets then I too am APPALLED.

excellent post hub2dee

Brilliant post, hub2dee.

mamadadawahwah - if you did have time to read all the posts (and the other thread nannyoakley started) you might see why she has had a "harsh" response. She is determined to disregard other, proven and successful, methods of avoiding cot death in favour of a single, unsupported, unproven and unscientific theory.

I don't understand your last paragraph

We are talking about these issues - that's what the 262 posts on this thread are about. If somoone's way of tackling a "scary" issue is to evangelically crusade an unproven theory then, yes, I do believe they will be met by hostility. I for one think it would be unresponsible and unrealistic to have read nannyoakley's posts and respond with "Gosh, that's interesting. I'll just take that as gospel then."

I'm sure she'll be back to start another "hostile debate" some time soon...

Also, there WILL be parents reading this thread and I cant imagine they wouldnt be very upset at the spleen venting.

Apart from the Cot death debate do you lot think it's okay that she is questioned about the death of her baby boy????? Just think for one second that it's true, that she a bit fanatical coz she's grieving.... No matter what she's saying she doesn't deserve to be accused of lying about that!

had to laugh - just did a google search as i am trying to buy a mattress for dd's bed and a line came up "Dr Sporott commended for excellent research on mattress-wrapping". an article no doubt written by NO.

to be fair though, Toothache, unfortunately, there have been a couple of really sick trolls on mumsnet the last few months, claiming that they are dying or their child has died and I know of at least 2 that were discredited. many people have been understandably very upset to have been 'taken in' by people like this. No-one wants mumsnetters to be automatically cynical whenever something as tragic as this is posted about but I think maybe some people can be forgiven if they're a little hard-faced about this, esp given NO's history for spamming bereaved parents on other forums. A number of posters are suffering very distressing bereavements at the moment and are receiving very helpful support from mumsnetters; i think hub2dee's post was valid though.

Nannyoakley aka Julee has lost a child and I am sure that she is genuinely trying to help.

However thatdoes not mean we have to agree with her methods.

She is not interested in infomred debate or even giving parents informed choice. I can understand that those who have not had dealings with her before either feel that she may not be genuine or on the other camp that she has been unfairly treated.

I have immense sympathy for Julee but I can't just sit here and let scaremongering mis-information be posted.