A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SIDS research "flawed;"clues ignored: researcher



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th 03, 09:49 PM
JG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 9th 03, 10:44 PM
Roger Schlafly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 10th 03, 05:07 AM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 10th 03, 08:11 AM
PF Riley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 10th 03, 09:35 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 10th 03, 03:01 PM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.