If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
www.reutershealth,com; Health eLine, 12/9/03
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher Last Updated: 2003-12-09 11:29:50 -0400 (Reuters Health) By Megan Rauscher NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An Australian researcher, writing in the latest issue of the Archives of Disease of Childhood, contends that the decreasing rate of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is more likely the result of natural variation than the heavily promoted change in sleeping position. Dr. Paul N. Goldwater from The Women's and Children's Hospital in North Adelaide also wonders why the major pathological clues to the cause of SIDS have not been adequately investigated. "It has puzzled me for many years as to why the pathological findings in cases of SIDS have not been the guiding stimulus for directions of research," Goldwater told Reuters Health. "There have been too many assumptions that have become dogma and are now set in concrete," he continued. That SIDS is the result of an episode of oxygen deprivation has gained such popularity that it is considered to be fact. "The problem is that there is little, if any, scientific data to support this idea." "Why do mainstream researchers see the apparent success of the back-to-sleep campaign as a major victory?" Dr. Goldwater asks. "Clearly, if we care to look at the rates of SIDS in 1970, these are the same as the low rates of today. Many babies were sleeping prone in 1970, yet SIDS was relatively uncommon." In the 1980s and early 1990s SIDS incidence rose considerably. "It is not possible to attribute this rise to changes in sleeping behavior," he said. "It is much more plausible that the rise was related to a changing epidemiology of an infectious agent or agents, i.e. natural variation," Dr. Goldwater said. From the start, research on SIDS has been "flawed," Dr. Goldwater writes, and "major clues provided by pathological findings have largely been overlooked." An example is liquid, unclotted blood within the heart, "a common, if not constant finding in SIDS," according to Dr. Goldwater. Another is very small hemorrhaging in the chest cavity, again, an almost universal finding in SIDS babies. Heavy, fluid-laden, congested organs -- most notably the thymus, lungs, liver, and brain -- is another neglected area of SIDS research, Dr. Goldwater writes. The contribution of inflammation of the throat and bronchial area, bacterial toxins, viral infections, and tobacco smoke exposure also need to be researched more thoroughly. In a commentary, Dr. P. S. Blair from the Institute of Child Health in Bristol, England, writes: "if the enigma of SIDS is to be solved, the pathologists need to work closer with the epidemiologists and the funding organizations need to educate the public on why the pathologists play such a pivotal role in trying to understand why our babies sometimes die." SOURCE: Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2003. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
"Why do mainstream researchers see the apparent success of the
back-to-sleep campaign as a major victory?" Dr. Goldwater asks. "Clearly, if we care to look at the rates of SIDS in 1970, these are the same as the low rates of today. Many babies were sleeping prone in 1970, yet SIDS was relatively uncommon." Good question. I think that prone sleeping is superior. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ... "Why do mainstream researchers see the apparent success of the back-to-sleep campaign as a major victory?" Dr. Goldwater asks. "Clearly, if we care to look at the rates of SIDS in 1970, these are the same as the low rates of today. Many babies were sleeping prone in 1970, yet SIDS was relatively uncommon." Good question. I think that prone sleeping is superior. Better reporting and diagnosis, perhaps. Jeff |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:44:22 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote: "Why do mainstream researchers see the apparent success of the back-to-sleep campaign as a major victory?" Dr. Goldwater asks. "Clearly, if we care to look at the rates of SIDS in 1970, these are the same as the low rates of today. Many babies were sleeping prone in 1970, yet SIDS was relatively uncommon." Good question. I think that prone sleeping is superior. Since you're an idiot, though, what you think is largely irrelevant. PF |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
since when did they ever care about the truth, especially when they
are the villians mostly with vaccines and the fact they wont use non-drug med like vitamin C "We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue. There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Archie Kalokerinos M.D. http://www.whale.to/m/quotes24.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher
"john" wrote in message m... since when did they ever care about the truth, especially when they are the villians mostly with vaccines and the fact they wont use non-drug med like vitamin C Since they started to care for patients. But the fact is that physicians always try to help their patients adopt a healthy diet, including one rich in fruits and vegetables that provide a well balanced diet, including plenty of vitamin C. But the fact is that unless one is malnourished to begin with, there are no studies to show that vitamin C supplementation does anything to help people. See, the difference between real physicians and quacks like chiropractors and naturopaths is that real physicians will ask, "does this really work?" and do studies to determine if something really is working. That way, the practice of medicine improves. Chiropractors usually study ways to bring in more patients. And naturopaths don't have a clue. Jeff Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Research: Negative effects of spanking | Chris | General | 14 | June 8th 04 07:01 AM |
peer reviewed research on co-sleeping (it's more dangerous than cot-sleeping) | Joshua Levy | General | 1 | December 10th 03 06:27 AM |
Cosleeping SIDS risk--study | Herself | General | 0 | December 5th 03 11:00 AM |
Letter to APA 5/03 dubunking BS ADHD | SickofCrazyBS | Kids Health | 0 | November 25th 03 06:48 AM |