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

I just made two posts trying to be really helpful, can you comment on them or are they so scientific that I need to contact Dr. Sprott ?

BTW - did you know that this year he is 80 ? Hell of a guy.

I took exception to the claim that infant death was rare before the Second World War because from what I understand life used to be pretty grim in Victorian England for little babies.

I also pointed out that the Midwifery site had looked at the claims you made and dismissed them as being, ahem, wrong.

As I'm being so helpful, could you maybe reply ?

and Tamum hit you hard with the scientific facts - read them please

So you've been campaigning for 10 years and still have no knowledge of your subject that you could share with us? You'd still give us 'wrong answers' after 10 years?

I haven't hit you hard with what I "believe", and nor have I got cross. I quite admire your persistance, actually. I did go off and look at your links as you instructed, and I had a look at the articles Dr. Sprott cited in support of his work, and without exception they say he is wrong. And those are the ones he cites, not just ones I happen to have found. As I said, if you come on here and post all this you have to expect to be challenged. Your first post asked us to "tell me what you think". And I have. In spades. So have many people, so you have got what you wanted, no?

I'm trying to be really helpful here.

In your post at 5:21 your link is badly presented and the link is unreachable because of the underscores.

Allow me to present a link here

It contains one line that shows a blatant disregard for statistical accuracy:

Why didn't we hear about cot death before the early 1950's?

Because until the 1950's it was quite rare, and in any event the deaths had been put down to other causes, such as respiratory failure.
However, a steady increase in unexplained infant deaths had been noticed in Europe and North America in the early 1950's and was first described as a medical phenomenon by Dr A M Barrett in 1953. He estimated that unexplained infant deaths at that stage were three to four times what they had been a few years earlier.
The term cot death was coined to describe the sudden unexpected death of an apparently healthy baby while asleep.
By the end of the 1960's the consensus of scientific medical opinion was that this casualty rate was a new phenomenon, and in 1969 US Paediatrician Dr J B Beckwith suggested the term SIDS to describe the phenomenon.
Cot Death was rare prior to the 1950's because the use in mattresses of harmful materials containing phosphorous, arsenic and antimony had not really started. It was post war technology which prompted the common use of phosphorous compounds as plasticers and for other purposes, and (in some countries) arsenic as a preservative and antimony as a fire retardant.In addition, prior to the 1950s people used soap for baby laundry (detergents had not reached the domestic market), wheras they now use detergents and fabric softeners. These detergent substances contain organically bound nitrogen, which provides a food source for the fungus. Also some detergents contain phosphorus compounds which provide a source for the generation of phosphine.

(extract from Jim Sprott's book)

"Before World War II, unexplained infant deaths were unusual."

Do you honestly, seriously believe infant deaths were rare before the Second World War ? Or rarer than today ?

(I'd gladly be corrected on this should I have my facts wrong).

PS - Thanks Gwenick.

You could cut and paste for England, nannyoakley.

Sadly, it's total rubbish.

Because in time gone by more babies died when they were very young, not less.

Maybe you want to re-read what you pasted ?

Any prettyplease, could you comment on why that Midwifery site investigated and then dismissed your claims ?

That was pretty weird, huh ?

gosh nannyoakley either you're a bit dim or you believe we are

I haven't got babies so I don't need a mattress thankyou.

Twiglet, I don't think any of you are dim at all - but I find it hard to answer some of the questions yo ask because they need proper scientific answers. It isn't easy to come onto a website and try and explain the ins and outs of such a scientific matter. When I first heard about mattresses and mattress wrapping from the Cook report programme's back in 1994 - I did not know what to think myself- I contacted the Cook report and the scientists and met with many other parents who wanted to know if this could be the cause of cot death. We took a petition to Downing street - wrote to MP's etc and read all the information we could find.

I have continued to campaign because I have seen the success of the Cot Life campaign and how it is reducing cot death in New Zealand and because I hear from many people, including midwives and doctors etc who want more information on mattress wrapping - there are midwives who have bought and used the covers in hospitals in UK.

I don't wish to argue and I don't want to scare anyone - I just want to debate this in a proper manner.

I cannot answer scientific questions - only point to links or ask that you contact the expert, Dr Sprott. If someone told me something about cerebral palsy - I'd go to the source of the information and ask as many questions as possible before making any decisions about what I thought.

But Nannyoakley, if you can't answer any questions, exactly what kind of a debate are you hoping for?

SNAFU, I said I can't answer scientific questions, only give directions to the person who can. Why can't you understand this?

I am getting a bit sick of this now. Why, why, why would I need to ask Dr Sprott? I don't need to, there are many, many papers out there showing that he is wrong. How could he possibly convince me? Either he doesn't understand the papers he thinks support him, or he is setting out to mislead people. Neither is a particularly attractive possibility.

We have all provided many links and much evidence that this theory is wrong, and yet you keep asking us to read more. Have you read any of ours? Have you read the excellent summary from FSID ?

Don't just address Twiglett. That's not fair. I mean, I know it was her birthday yesterday, but I'm entitled to have my points answered too.

My point was surely not complicated enough to warrant e-mailing an 80 year old man in the middle of the night ?

So, you want to debate ? The way it works is like this:

One person makes a point

Another comments on it citing what they think is valid / invalid.

The first person then responds to this comment with arguments to defend or refute it.

It's quite fun.

So you said (if I may paraphrase) "cot death is a new phenomena due to chemicals in mattresses post 1950"

and I said "that' rubbish, society has sadly had babies dieing when very young since time began"

and you said something about chemicals again.

You see, that's not how debates go.

What you need to do is say either "Yes, sadly cot deaths have been around forever," or "no, cot deaths were a new thing that only happened after 1950"

You see, then we can debate.

Sorry tamum, I did not realise you are with the fsid, yes I have read the report you refer to "PVC mattresses and cot death: further discussion". But then I went on to read this "Critique of the 1998 UK Limerick Report" www.cotlife2000.com/limerick.htm

What are you getting sick of, what have I done? I thought we were having a debate?

I am getting a bit sick of this now. Why, why, why would I need to ask Dr Sprott? I don't need to, there are many, many papers out there showing that he is wrong. How could he possibly convince me? Either he doesn't understand the papers he thinks support him, or he is setting out to mislead people. Neither is a particularly attractive possibility.

We have all provided many links and much evidence that this theory is wrong, and yet you keep asking us to read more. Have you read any of ours? Have you read the excellent summary from FSID ?

Er, I do understand it very well. That's precisely why I'm asking what kind of debate you are expecting when, by your own admission, all you're going to do is refer our questions to someone else? Why can't you understand that?

We're not having a debate. You're cutting and pasting, that's all.

nannyoakley! You're citing the same stuff (cotlife incidentally) over and over! You are going around in circles!

I really don't think you're assimilating what's being put to you here! I know you're being bombarded but take your time. We have all the time in the world.

I don't think Tamum is with FSID, she just pointed you in that direction...

Tamum is a plumber

What, FSID's plumber, Twiglett ?

Who's Sid?

If you see Sid, tell him

What, to before the 50s ?

Those were the days... no poll tax, no cot death, no MN.

I'm not with FSID. Why on earth would you think I was? I'm not a plumber either Twiglett you minx

What I'm sick of is this. I'm sick of making the same points over and over again, and constantly getting referred back to Dr Sprott. Hub2Dee has made a number of valid points. You never answer anyone's objections, just say how hurt you are.

Sorry Dr Tamum .. I was being norty

Message withdrawn