E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Rachel Rettner
MyHealthNewsDaily
A baby's risk of dying while he sleeps is reduced when he is vaccinated, breast-fed and has no "bumpers" lining the sides of his crib.
Those are the new recommendations pediatricians made today (Oct. 18) to promote safe sleep for babies and decrease the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), also called crib death.
"Our goal is to ultimately eliminate these deaths completely," said Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrician at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., who worked on the new guidelines.
The new recommendations join longer-held advice, such as keeping all loose bedding — including pillows and blankets — out of the crib and avoiding "bed-sharing," in which an infant sleeps in the same bed as a parent or another child.
"There needs to be more education for health care providers and trainees on how to prevent suffocation deaths and to reduce SIDS and other sleep-related infant deaths," Moon said.
The recommendations were part of a new official policy on SIDS prevention from the American Academy of Pediatrics, released here today at the group's annual meeting.
In 1992, the AAP recommended all babies should be placed on their backs, rather than their tummies, while they sleep. The public health campaign, known as "Back to Sleep," has reduced the incidence of SIDS by 50 percent since its inception, according to the AAP. SIDS now accounts for about 2,300 deaths a year, according to the CDC. However, sleep-related deaths from other causes, including suffocation and choking, have increased.
To further reduce these deaths, the AAP is updating its safe sleep guidelines for children 1 year old and younger.
Infants should be breast-fed, when possible, and immunized with all their shots, the new guidelines say, because studies have shown both reduce the risk of SIDS.
The ideal baby bed consists solely of a firm crib mattress covered by a fitted sheet, according to the AAP. There should be no gaps between the mattress and the crib.
While items such as stuffed toys, blankets and bumper pads may make a crib look "cute," these things can be dangerous in an infant's crib, Moon said.
Bumper pads pose a risk of suffocation (if the baby rolls up against the pad and doesn't roll away), and strangulation (if the baby gets tangled in the bumper pad ties.)
"There is no reason to have bumpers," Moon said. "They don’t prevent serious injury," she said. Infants don't have enough muscle strength or motor ability to fling themselves against the sides of their cribs with enough force to cause injuries, she said.
Any soft objects or bedding that isn't tightly tucked in beneath the mattress also present risks of suffocation and entrapment, Moon said
More advice
Other recommendations from the AAP include:
- Always place your baby on his or her back for every sleep time.
- The baby should sleep in the same room as the parents, but not in the same bed (room-sharing without bed-sharing). This arrangement reduces the risk of SIDS by 50 percent, research shows.
- Infants should not be fed on couches or in armchairs when there is a high risk that the parent will fall asleep.
- Mothers should not smoke before or after pregnancy, as smoking is a major risk factor for SIDS.
- Offer a pacifier at nap time and bedtime. Researchers aren't sure why, but using a pacifier is linked with a reduced risk of SIDS, even if the pacifier falls out of the baby's mouth during sleep.
- Avoid covering the infant's head or allowing him to overheat.
- Do not use home monitors or commercial devices marketed to reduce the risk of SIDS (there is no evidence such devices are safe, or that they reduce SIDS).
- While awake, infants should spend some supervised time on their stomachs. This "tummy time" avoids putting constant pressure on the back of the skull. It also strengthens the baby's neck muscles, which reduces the risk of head deformities that can occur when the baby's head lies on one spot for too long.
More from MyHealthNewsDaily
Leave a Comment:
Really? This is new? I have been hearing about not having bumpers in the crib for at least 5 years.
vaccination reduces SIDS? Ha Ha. Is that supposed to be like a political "rider"? Are they just trying to slip that in without anyone noticing. Is that how subconscious suggestion works? I'd like to see that study
If anyone has read the Vaccine injury website they would see lots of reports of vaccination followed immediately by death in the crib.
http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php
Robert: If you look at the actual Vaccine injury site (http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index) you'll notice the warning that none of the listed adverse reactions are definitively connected to the vaccines. But you like to gloss over facts, don't you Robert?
Still waiting for an answer on whether or not you think there is value in preventing 450,000 measles cases in the U.S. every year.
Facts matter not to these idiots like Bob. They're more interested in conspiracy theories and cover ups, "so called scientists" and fancy book learnin', well that's for those intellectual types that have it ALL wrong. Don't you know that stupid, ignorant and head-in-the-sand-dummerds have it right? Facts, science, actual living proof, book-smarts, none of this works on the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-evolution, "jesus-built-my-hot-rod" god-squad crowd. The only saving grace is that, eventually, stupid is fatal and evolution will weed them out in the gene-pool filter.....just takes time and patience, lots and lots of patience.
It's not a "warning", whatever. It's called a disclaimer.
Do you have the study that says vaccines lower SIDS? I'd like to take a detailed look at that and see how fast I can spot the flaws.
There would be 100% value if vaccines worked in a vaccum. But vaccines don't work in a vaccum.
@Tired, nice factless rant. Tell us how you really feel.
Robert: "It's not a "warning", whatever. It's called a disclaimer."
Call it what you want, the message has the same meaning: There is no definite scientific evidence linking those adverse reactions to the vaccinations. Instead of addressing the message's simple meaning, you chose to play a semantics game.
"Do you have the study that says vaccines lower SIDS? I'd like to take a detailed look at that and see how fast I can spot the flaws."
Two things:
1) I wasn't commenting on the validity/strengths of the study cited in this story. I haven't read the study in question. I was solely pointing out the gross admission you made when you directed people to look at the vaccine adverse reaction reporting site and the number of deaths listed. (Also you didn't point people to the actual site, you pointed them to an anti-vaccine propaganda site.)
2) So you assume that the study has flaws without actually looking at the study? Is that because you already assume vaccines cause SIDS? For someone, who admonishes others on here for not being scientific, I think you should take a dose of your own medicine here, Robert.
"There would be 100% value if vaccines worked in a vaccum. But vaccines don't work in a vaccum."
Look, Robert, it's simple: The decade before the measles vaccine was licensed, about 500,000 people got the measles every year. Now, with the vaccine, about 50 or so people get the disease. So obviously the vaccines do work.
The vaccine adverse reaction reporting system, which you directed people to examine, cites about 33,000 reported adverse reactions in 2010 for the MMR and MMRV vaccines. Now, of course, not all of those reactions were caused by the vaccines. And most of the reported reactions didn't end in death. So there is the context we're talking about. Now that I've taken the vaccines out of the vacuum, I'll ask my super straightforward question again: Is it worth preventing at least 450,000 measles cases every year? Yes or no?
Bleh wrong word: "I was solely pointing out the gross OMISSION you made when you directed people to look at the vaccine adverse reaction reporting site and the number of deaths listed."
Gee Robert, are you going to skip that T-dap vaccine when you get older than 60, since you apparently know better than everyone else. Good luck living through Whooping caugh in your older ages.
whatever2002 - there hasn't been more than 100 cases of measles in the US in decades according to NIH, where did you get the number 450,000???
Gramma: Try reading my post again: "The decade before the measles vaccine was licensed, about 500,000 people got the measles every year. Now, with the vaccine, about 50 or so people get the disease."
In the 50s, no vaccine: about 500,000 cases every year.
Now, with vaccine: about 50 every year.
Also I made a math error on the number of adverse reactions reported in 2010 for measles vaccines. There were actually about 3,300 adverse reactions, not 33,000.
Robert - YOU ARE AN IDIOT and I hope people like you get thrown in prison when others die due to NOT having vaccines administered based upon your drivel. The viruses that used to run rampant on this planet killing countless millions around the world are all but extinct in this country BECAUSE vaccines obviously work! Assuming you have children (hopefully you don't) is it your intent that they DIE of measles or polio or wait! How about Smallpox? There's a winner of a virus. Just about the right reproductive rate to wipe out entire populations of unvaccinated humans. BECAUSE of vaccines we don't even have to immunize against smalpox in this country because vaccines irradicated it! Vaccines 1 - Crackpots 0.
Your pure and unadulterated / embarassing ignorance did not miracle away the virus!
Don't bother responding to me because I'm done here and won't be reading it. "Don't bother arguing with an idiot! They'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience..."
You stupid hick dumb@$$.
Go ahead mod - do your worst to my account... I just can't fathom the stupidity of some people... (It's not freedom of speech - these people are going to get other people killed one of these days if they haven't already...)
Talk about a sheep that is told what to do and told what to think. I guess you're just trained that way. Since you don't like to think for yourself how about answer this question. Next time you better come with some facts cause I'll tear your little factless sheep philosophy apart.
Infectious disease mortality rapidly dropped BEFORE vaccines came into use. How many of those "preventable" deaths would you attribute to the vaccine? Hint: it's a logic question.
measles? are you serious. Are you going to try and scare me with the chickenpox virus next?
Here's another tidbit: Over 90% of polio infections are subclinical. There are certain risk factors that cause it to develop more seriously. YOu should look those up. You should also look up Cutter Labs Incident. It's when the Governement along with the pharmaceutical companies FU$#d up and gave 120,000 people live polio viruses. If you look up those numbers I'll show you something real interesting that your little sheep brain cannot comprehend.
It's not a game. Vaccine can kill and permanently injure susceptible people. That's a fact. I believe people should be given full informed consent of this real danger. They also should be given the true context of the absolute neccessity of each vaccine. Most people do not need vaccines. This is also a fact. If you care to argue because you emotionally feel different about it I'd be happy to go over each disease with statistics to PROVE what I just said.
Could you please point out the propaganda that you read on the data site or are you just personally biased against the web address. There was no propaganda on the link I gave you.
I'm pretty certain that it was NOT an RCT. It was most likely some sort of observational study which inherently has limitations. Conclusions drawn may therefore be based on flaws. The answer is yes.
Actually the CDC estimated that there were approximately 3-4 million cases Now you may be thinking "great it worked even better than I thought." What it confirms is that measles was such a known part of childhood, was considered mild to moderate, with complications being rare that only ~85-90% of parents/doctors didn't even report it. They weren't scared.
And most measles cases don't end in death. Actually it rarely ends in death. Rarely.
With full informed consent, that should be up to the individual persons or parents and each disease should be considered independently .Pharmaceutical influenced governmental ideology of one size fits all medicine should not be making those types of decisions.
Robert: "Vaccine can kill and permanently injure susceptible people."
That happens in extremely rare situations. Antibiotics kill and permanently injure susceptible people. But, wait, you don't like those either. Hey guess what also kills and permanently injures people? Cars. So do you drive a car? Or buy things transported by automobiles? I think I know the answer to that.
Nothing in life is 100% safe. The risks of vaccines are available for everyone--no one is hiding them. So people are informed about these risks. I know you think the safety studies aren't complete and don't tell the full story. But until you have scientific evidence that vaccines cause more harm than the CDC and medical groups report, any rational person should ignore you.
Yes measles was very common before the vaccine. Almost everyone got it by the time they reached 15. So it obviously wasn't a plague wiping out swarths of people at a clip.
But it did injure some people, leaving them brain damaged. So if you worry about vaccines because they cause harm in a small sub population, you should be equally worried about measles.
Finally, there are a lot of technologies we use today that don't remove something that killed us in big numbers, but something that lowered our quality of life. Measles was a nuisance--and sometimes a down right threat--so we worked to get rid of it. If you are against preventing 450,000 or more cases of measles every year with few side effects, then you are a fool. Plain and simple.
You can call me a sheep for thinking that. But those are crystal clear facts.
What do all of your examples above have in common? The government doesn't mandate that every citizen do them and excuse the corporation from liability.
This makes no sense. You say that the risks are available yet you concede that the data is incomplete. Would you care to elaborate on this contradiction. also could you please point to me the accurate safety data instead of just claiming it's rare. And since you say VAERS is unscientific what objective scientific resource could you point concerned parents to?
And then you just go into the vague rhetorical "benefits outweigh the risks". REally? to whom? for whom. If someone dies from a vaccine did the benefits outweigh the risk for them too?
This is a logical fallacy. This is like me saying that if you against killing Billions of dangerous mosquitoes with DDT then you are a fool. And that you are for mosquito borne disease that kills. You are not considering all other logical options and consequences.
I didn't call you a sheep. i called Mr. nationalguard a sheep.
It is also not correct to attribute the drop in measles cases to vaccination. When one looks at the segment of a line graph charting measles cases that is truncated to show only the cases from when vaccines were introduced to present, it APPEARS to be the case, however if one looks at the complete timeline, measles and almost every single condition for which vaccines are produced declined over time to be nearly insignificant by the time a vaccine was introduced. On the other hand, chronic auto immune conditions plot in the reverse - increasing exponentially over time SINCE the introduction of vaccines.
Robert: "You say that the risks are available yet you concede that the data is incomplete."
I don't say the data are complete. You do. I think the safety studies on vaccines are adequate.
"And since you say VAERS is unscientific what objective scientific resource could you point concerned parents to?"
The piles of scientific studies on vaccine safety--including the IOM report from this summer. I'd point them to the CDC website. I know you think those sources are biased, but to a rational person those are appropriate.
"And then you just go into the vague rhetorical "benefits outweigh the risks". REally? to whom? for whom. If someone dies from a vaccine did the benefits outweigh the risk for them too?"
People die from vaccines only in the most rare cases. I'll ask the simple question again: Is it worth driving a car, since some people die in car accidents? If you don't get vaccines because some people die from them, do you also avoid driving? Actually answer that simple question, don't weasel out of it this time.
"This is a logical fallacy. This is like me saying that if you against killing Billions of dangerous mosquitoes with DDT then you are a fool. And that you are for mosquito borne disease that kills. You are not considering all other logical options and consequences."
I gave you the context: the 3,300 adverse reactions reported for measles vaccines.
"The piles of scientific studies on vaccine safety--including the IOM report from this summer. I'd point them to the CDC website. I know you think those sources are biased, but to a rational person those are appropriate."
The Institute of Medicine is in bed with the FDA, who is in bed with manufacturers.
I asked a few individuals at the IOM about a warning and evaluation they had made regarding novel infant formula ingredients. Here were my specific questions-
What does your statement," unknown biological triggering effects on cellular pathways" really translate in to since these effects may be exerted on a developing infant? Are these novel ingredients safe if there is a potential for unknown effects during neurodevelopment? Isn't this an experiment on infant health?
Their response-
We were not asked to evaluate or determine the safety of these infant formula ingredients. We merely developed a system that would be helpful to do so.
So I guess their 246 page report titled,"Evaluating the safety of new infant formula ingredients", actually didn't evaluate or determine anything involved with infant formula ingredients.
So when the IOM issues a report, and you choose to use it as scientific evidence, think about what I have just posted. The sooner you realize the magnitude of the corruption at these government agencies, the sooner you will be able to understand what it represents.
Just speaking from experience.
So as in the example above, we can see that the IOM protects the FDA who in return protects the manufacturers. I have several real life examples of corruption and deception from these individuals that you claim are unbiased. Would you like to hear about them? They prove beyond a doubt that infants are put in harm's way, and it has become standard practice to provide protection towards those responsible.
Anywhere big money exchanges hands, greed and corruption flourishes. You can't separate the two. Its the nature of the beast. Its how our federal agencies operate.
Mike: Stop it. I have left you alone. Do the same. Stop harassing me or I will report you.
How is posting information harassment? Do you own this discussion? Report me to who, for what? For posting?
This article implicates breast feeding as a preventive means to reduce the incidence if SIDS. I post about unknown triggering effects of infant formula ingredients and a discussion I have had with individuals @ the IOM. If you don't like what I post, simply ignore it. Don't threaten to report me. Again, this is a public chat forum. It doesn't say whatever2002's chat forum.
Mike: You directly quoted me. You were responding to my post, trying to instigate debate again. I asked you to leave me alone, you said you would. Now you're trying to start a debate again. If you were just trying to post information, why did you pick a thread with me in it?
You know exactly what you're doing. Will you leave me alone: yes or no?
You were talking to Robert and he is my friend here on Newsvine. You stated that the IOM had safety info. I am merely trying to show how corrupt the IOM is.
Whatever, its a public chat forum. I'll post to whatever I want. I got an idea. Change your name to whomever2011. In that case, I'll post to whomever I want. Dig?
Mike: You said you would leave me alone. Then you responded directly to one of my posts.
Will you leave me alone: yes or no?
Your post was obviously directed at me and not some general dissemination of info. You quoted from my post (which I posted over a month ago) and ended your post with this:
"So when the IOM issues a report, and you choose to use it as scientific evidence, think about what I have just posted. The sooner you realize the magnitude of the corruption at these government agencies, the sooner you will be able to understand what it represents."
I refuse to debate this debating issue with you.
Leave me alone? Thicken your skin a bit, its a public chat forum. Stop commenting on sites and you won't have anything to cry about. Big baby-Leave me alone-waahhh! I called a waaaahmbulance for you.
Mike: The whole point is simple--you said you would leave me alone. Now you are not. That is childish and harassing behavior and I will report it if you do not stop.
The post you responded to was over a month old. Robert and I had stopped discussing it. (In fact, Robert and I have agreed to stop debating on these forums, because we realize no good will come from further debate.)
I will ask you one last time: Will you leave me alone--yes or no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
Just sent this email to Newsvine:
The user Mike Pescatore is harassing me.
We started discussing autism and vaccines back in August or so. Our debates have been heated, for sure.
Last week, I decided that I didn't want to debate him any more because the discussion only went in circles and devolved into personal attacks. To stop the debate, I said I'd stop responding to his posts and he agreed to leave me alone.
Those posts are post numbers 6.14 through 6.23 on this thread:
http://health.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/10/8742475-tens-of-thousands-of-tots-die-from-flu-each-year?commentId=59984717#c59984717
For the last week, I haven't responded to any of his posts. Today, Mike Pescatore directly responded to one of my posts dated almost a month ago. His post quoted mine and spoke directly to me. When I asked him to leave me alone, as he previously agreed, he refused and insulted me.
Those posts are post numbers 2.17 through 2.27 on this thread:
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/18/8380384-new-sids-guidelines-no-bumpers-in-the-crib?last=1321983678&threadId=3248522&commentId=60161020#c60161020
I know that in my arguments with Mike Pescatore, I haven't always behaved rationally and responsibly. But his seeking me out after he said he'd leave me alone and I explicitly said I didn't want to debate anymore is harassment, in my mind.
Thank you for your time.
Mike Pescatore, quit harassing people. You are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
whatever,
darn it! I was waiting for a response from mike on another post and now he's banned. shoot. Anyway, i've followed your posts, and you are one of the few rational, educated people on here who actually understands science, and doesn't just pretend to. You get your facts from reliable sources, not biased websites. You've made coherent, well thought out arguments that have been rebutted with nonsense and word games.
Youll never get a straight answer from robert, I predict. You and I, and I suspect even robert know that more people are helped by vaccines then harmed, but his mind goes where it wants, not where the evidence is
Your predictions are wrong. I use facts to back up my statements. If I give an opinion, it's my opinion. If whatever gives his opinion. It's his opinion.
hey whatever, i'll give you props for that. i though cassivella was going to be the one to send the email after our "episode" with him a while back.
Look out Robert. The pro-vaccine lynch mob are out in full force. Be careful when expressing your opinions, it appears that some can dish it out but can't take it.
some people cant take the heat i guess mike...you raised a question and he freaked out...ive seen him do it before on here and you always handle it well...the ban is unfair!!
ive read mike's posts and theyre always supported with links to papers and he has a theory he can support...more than i can say for the pro shots folks...looking forward to the end of your ban, mike
You know what I noticed about the pro-vaccine mob? They are usually the first to comment on how the anti-vaccine crowd will soon join in with their opinion. They are the first to call others whom question the safety of vaccines conspiracy theorists or crack pots. Give a little back and as you can see, they ask to place bans on those whom disagree with their beliefs. Take a good look and see if these same people called others names and made remarks that would warrant themselves as being banned.
Did I miss something? If you can't tolerate others' differences of opinion, don't post comments on a public chat forum. Don't ridicule others and then ask for them to be banned.
Oh yeah, I seen where dbhelix also gave props to Cassivella for calling Mike an unfit parent. He cares for a son with autism. He also said using his son's picture as an avatar was creepy. Where is the ban on these two individuals?
Biff is right...just go through mike's posts and youll see how others have treated him...he justs wants to discuss his thoughts on important issues and people insult him left and right...its prejudice to ban him and not the others...they also didnt act according to the civility code!
Biff is obviously Mike. Not foolin' anyone.
I am not Mike. Just supporting his comments.
That's because I'm Mike, donkey!! Going to go tattle?
Be careful mfoed, it has happened before.
I know. Thanks for supporting me.
Cassivella just insulted me on another thread. I doubt he'll get disciplined. I guess when you mock others' disabled children you just need to be pro vaccine and it's acceptable. Go see for yourself...see the double standard.
Did dbhelix give props as well? He told Mike that his son's picture was creepy as an avatar. He basically applauded Cassivella for calling he and his wife unfit parents. Who does that to a stranger trying to care for a disabled child? Then they ban Mike? I have to post the comments that were made.
so does that mean that he gets free reign to keep calling people morons, idiots, and Asperger's cases whenever someone challenges his views of the universe?
is he the only one that gets to go by that double standard? or can we all join in?
whatever constantly called me moron and a crank and a fool. go check out my posts. Cassivella insulted my children. So you already have joined in. The problem is only I get punished. Wonder why that is?
That's par for the course for Skeptic and skeptic wannabes. Penquin uses "moron" and "idiot" in 2 out of every 3 posts.
Somehow they don't see calling names like "crank" inappropiate because in their culture and world view it IS appropriate. They see themselves as the gatekeepers of all public medical knowledge. Therefore, to them, anyone who threatens the public deserves harsh insults, putdowns, and ad hominem attacks. Its noble therefore justified.
But they're the ones to cry to the moderators. Kind of hypocrites, huh?
Where is whatever and penguin anyways? Maybe they're ashamed for being such two-faced.
Hey guys, did you miss me?
"Hey guys, did you miss me?"
Says the guy who creates two other accounts to continue to harass people after his first one has been suspended.
Pretty immature.
Can you do that? I would think that they would recognize your IP address and not allow you to do so. But you are probably whatever2002's alter ego and know more about it than I do.
Really, Mike? You just spent the last week posting as Biff and mfoed. You continued to harass other people. You exhibit the maturity of an 8-year-old boy. Grow up, man.
I deleted my whatever2002 account last week and will now delete this one. I'd rather find another place to discuss ideas and news, a place that doesn't tolerate immature little fools like you. These forums need to be better policed so that people like you can't run around harassing others.
Goodbye, Mike. I hope for your family's sake that you grow up to be a man someday.
Really? Talk about being paranoid. Did Biff and Mfoed stalk you and call you names? It appears that you can't get along with others. Good riddance.
"The baby should sleep in the same room as the parents, but not in the same bed (room-sharing without bed-sharing). This arrangement reduces the risk of SIDS by 50 percent, research shows."
Good luck un-spoiling that habit
No problem once they get to be about 13 or so.
It has also been shown that it is good for the baby to sleep with a parent: Postulated physiological benefits of close contact between infants and care givers include improved cardiorespiratory stability and oxygenation, fewer episodes of crying, better thermoregulation, an increased prevalence and duration of breast feeding, and enhanced milk production.
That lasted all of 1 night in our house with our first child, then it was off to their room and it has been 100% successful since then. Crying wasn't a big issue, sleeping through the night at 12+ hours before 12 weeks (9 weeks with our second), breast feeding was fine, my wife's production was through the roof....1200 ounces in the freezer currently with our second child who is now at 6 months. She BF our first for a full year and aiming to the same with our second. Not a proponent of any form of co-sleeping or room sharing unless you don't have enough rooms in your home to do otherwise. Our experiences, with both children, seem to refute most of the benefits of sharing any room and close contact was never compromised in the process, so have to respectfully disagree. Plus, any room sharing only leads greater risk of difficulties breaking that bad habit later on down the road as they get older.
I was listening to this report on NPR as I travelled from one place to another yesterday evening. The thought that crossed this 66 year old mind was, 'Gee, I wonder that any of us lived past infancy.' I guess next the powers that be will suggest just suspending the child from the ceiling so nothing (except the suspension device) touches them. My son went into his own room at about 6 weeks of age--he slept better and so did we.
During the phase where they are beginning to learn how to sit and stand it seems like the hard side of a crib is threat for a concussion.
So is a child using the bumper as leverage, stepping on it and having a head injury by falling out of the crib.
Wow. You better just strap that kid down so they can't move then there's no threat of hitting the side of the crib, rolling over into a pillow, or any of those bad things!
I have a 5 month old and I use a bumper for her, and not just a breathable one but a nice pillowed one. Why? Because after three times of walking into her room to find her horizontal in her crib with her arms sticking straight out of the slats and her leg sticking out of another, as well as a few nights of hearing her smack her head against the crib because she moves so much, I figure she's better off with some padding. She sleeps much better now, and so do I.
Moreover, SIDS is undefinable and is just like it's name suggests: sudden. What they are preventing with the back to sleep and this whole no-bumper crusade is suffocation.
Heaven forbid you should even have your kid sitting in any room near a wall, cifey.
Had you read the article thoroughly, you would have remembered that at their age, they don't have the muscle power to......ahhhhh "throw" themselves against that dangerous side of the crib.
Emanuelle, I'm sorry, but you are greatly misinformed. Death by suffocation falls under SIDS. SIDS is not an undefinable "thing" nor is it exactly "sudden". (Like the baby suddenly just died.) Your 5 month old is just past the age of when SIDS is the most dangerous, but you're still not out of the woods. I'm sure that you're fine with bumpers. But keep in mind, as the article stated, bumpers don't help. My 11 month old never had bumpers and she learned really quick how to sleep without hitting her head or getting her arms stuck.
Any risk of hitting their head as they learn to stand up won't be mitigated by any crib bumper, as they typically hit their head on the top rail, especially if they already standing up. Most of the crib bumpers are quite a bit lower anyway, especially once they are big enough to start standing and the mattress has been lowered......
Actually, I think you are greatly misinformed as SIDS is defined as:
"Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the unexpected, sudden death of a child under age 1 in which an autopsy does not show an explainable cause of death."
Suffocation would be found in an autopsy.
Not necessarily, LS. Sorry.
There are safe ways to bedshare. Sleeping with an infant is the bio norm and still practiced, safely, around the world by many, many cultures.
Yes, if you drink, take some meds, smoke, are very overweight or find it necessary to sleep in a sea of pillows and fluffy blankets, bedsharing may not be for you. But there simple ways to do it quite safely and the benefits to the baby & mother's sleep, and most importantly the breastfeeding relationship, are important.
What I have always loved is that they can tell you all these things that "prevent" SIDS but they have at no point been able to identify what actually causes SIDS. All of these recommendations so far have been based on minute statistical observations. So "Back-to-Sleep" reduced the cases of SIDS 50%. So your child has just as high (50/50) a chance of dying from SIDS no matter how they sleep. They have yet to reveal what connection any of these recommendations have with reducing SIDS mostly because they really have no idea what-so-ever as to what even causes it. So to me it means that they are simply just guessing.
Wait, what?
Do you understand what "reduced the cases of SIDS by 50%" means? ... no, it does not mean your child has just as high of a chance no matter how they sleep. It means this (note I give these numbers as an example, not as the actual amount of cases-per-1000):
In a group of 1000, 10 infants die of SIDS. They sleep every which'a way.
In another group of 1000 living in identical circumstances, 5 infants die of SIDS. They sleep only on their backs.
Therefore, having infants sleep on their backs reduces SIDS cases by 50%.
How, oh how did we ever survive childhood growing up with drop side cribs, another child sleeping in the crib, blankets and pillows, and my GOD! The things we ate and the places we played! We should have been facing a 99% fatality rate back in the 50s!
Yes, I guess we baby boomers were just lucky enough to survive and bankrupt social security.
Wow! I guess I'm lucky to be alive (and so are my kids).
Either you are lucky or just fortunate that the overall rate of SIDS is small (about 0.57 per 1000 live births).
It is such a tragedy though, that most people want to reduce that rate even further by eliminating all of these other risks too.
Ohhhh, puhlezzzzeee, pediatrics! I was a baby in the 60's...I had a drop-side crib, rode on my parent's lap and slept on my stomach. (still do)
When my oldest son was born, there were recommendations and warnings and this and that. Some I listened to, most I did not. By the time my second child came along, 8 years later, there were different recommendations and warnings.
What it comes down to is no one knows what causes SIDS. It's tragic and heartbreaking.
My babies were breastfed, vaccinated AND had crib bumpers. Use common sense.
OH, and they slept on their tummies...gracious me oh my!
my 6 month old has slept on his stomach from a 8 weeks because he had reflux and would vomit in his sleep and choke if left on his back, also i could never get him to sleep for more that 20 mins on his back unless he was swaddled and its hot wear i live. he felt safer to place him on his stomach, anyway when the learn to roll over the roll on to their stomachs when the sleep.
my 6 month old has slept on his stomach from a 8 weeks because he had reflux and would vomit in his sleep and choke if left on his back, also i could never get him to sleep for more that 20 mins on his back unless he was swaddled and its hot wear i live. he felt safer to place him on his stomach, anyway when the learn to roll over the roll on to their stomachs when the sleep.
There is nothing wrong with educating new parents and grandparents to prevent SIDS. So many out there still have thier babies in unsafe locations because it's 'cute'. If these measures help prevent 1 death of an infant then they are good guidelines to follow. They don't know exactly what causes SIDS in general but my baby care class the instructor's personal opinon and experience lead her to believe it's more of a perfect storm when multiple factors combine can cause SIDS.
I guess the next thing will be to package them in foam at birth so they can make it to school age.
IvanMiami,
I don't think you are reading that correctly. Putting a baby on its back does not leave the chances of SIDS at 50/50, it means that if all the children who likely would have died of SIDS were put to sleep on their backs, only 50% of them actually would die of SIDS. Or put another way, if all children are put to bed on their backs, then the number of SIDS deaths decrease by 50%.
Also, SIDS can be caused by numerous things, the easy one is suffocation, that is why the recommendation of sleeping on the back and no loose bedding. Infants are not very strong so can easily get themselves into a position where they can suffocate without the strenght or coordination to get out of the position. Some SIDS deaths are unexplained, those are the ones we can't prevent yet.
It's surprising so many people think information like this is so ridiculous. I don't know if I believe it or not because I am not a doctor and so much is unknown about SIDS, but I certainly followed the recommendations to help prevent SIDS when my son was a baby (he is 3 now), as long as it was practical for us. He did have a bumper because his arms and legs kept getting stuck in the slats, but I originally started without one because I knew they were not recommended. He slept in a sleep sack until he was about a year and then went to warm, footed pajamas in the winter so he never had a blanket the first two+ years of his life...it just wasn't necessary because he slept great without one (still is a great sleeper and now sleeps in a toddler bed with a sheet and comforter just fine). He slept on his back because again, he was a good sleeper and we never had any issues with him sleeping on his back. Certainly, if he had issues with vomiting, he would have slept on his stomach. His room also has a ceiling fan, so we turned that on every night (we live in Texas, so it's almost a given anyway, but we also did it as a preventative measure for SIDS). We weren't obsessed about SIDS, but we took whatever advice we could that was not impractical for us or our son. Maybe these things helped or maybe they did nothing to prevent SIDS, but why would we NOT take the advice it was so easy to follow?
I put my son in a car seat, our pool has a gated fence around it, he will wear a helmet when he rides his bike as long as I can get away with it...these are just common sense things that my parents didn't do, but I am quite sure they would have if what was available today was available 40 years ago. I do the things recommended to me by my doctor because he went to medical school and I didn't. I just use common sense and if there is even a REMOTE chance something can prevent a tragedy to anyone I love, especially my child, I am going to do it, so long as it does not hurt anyone. Plus, most of these things are easy changes to make, so why would you NOT do them? I am a child of the 70's and yes, things are much different now, but I appreciate how far we have come. Frankly, knowing what we know now, I would be scared if we still let our kids ride around laying in the back window of the car going 55 down the freeway like we did when we were kids. :-)
I don't get the level of animosity toward these recommendations. I really don't. It's not like the experts are suggesting you relocate your home Borneo, stap bacon to your head and dance like a chicken (or whatever else absolutely crazy scenarios others more creative than I can come up with). These are simply changes that may very well save one child out of 2000, or one out of every 20000. Whatever the number, don't you want to at least try to do whatever you can to make sure your child isn't that one? Sure, statistically, your baby is likely to survive if the sleep in the sock drawer on their stomach -- doesn't mean the sock drawer is the best place or you should be personally insulted because someone else thought their kid would be better in a crib. You've just got to love folk wisdom! The "well that's how I did it and how my mother did it, ad nauseum, so it must be the best way."
Put another way, sleeping on a child's stomach is not a death sentence -- if it were, no one would do it. But it might be a contributing factor in one out 2000 children dying before age 1. Why not, now that we know, embrace this new information to reduce the risk of the unlikely even more? Or is your child not worth that little effort, just in case?
Well said...I couldn't agree more!
Tiredofbothsides- No infant that is 12 weeks and 9 weeks and breast fed should be sleeping 12+ hours without being fed! You should have been waking them up to eat.. Breast milk is good for baby because it is EASILY DIGESTABLE! Hence... they need to eat more! Unbelievable! Didn't your docter or lacation person tell you this????!!!
people never cease to amaze me.
Anyone here old enough to remember car beds?
Really?? "when a baby is vaccinated"? Give me a freakin break. Since when is there a SIDS vaccine. Wake up.
Yes YOU survived. A lot of babies and children died unnecessarily. As such they aren't around today to give you a counter-argument. You surviving is what's called anecdotal and it's not evidence. People still die in car accidents too but a lot less die now thanks to safety improvements and mandatory seat belt wearing.
Sorry to be cranky but I really hate -the oh but I made it okay argument.
I FLATLY REFUSE TO SEND OR HAVE MY CHILDREN IN PUBLIC WITHOUT BEING PROPORELY VACCINATED!! Its bad enough that once our children are exposed to other people (as we all are) that they could end up with ANYTHING transmittable (viruses, colds, flu, etc.) but we as parents/guardians of our babies dont take the first and most important step of vaccinating them from any possible diseases and/or infections is very irresponsible on our part and yes we should be blamed if our babies contract something that could have been prevented and/or treated. Everything has a risk-factor, you have to weigh the pros n cons about everything on the regular, anyway....
Cribs are awful, get a Mama-San bamboo hyperbolic dish chair, on it's own bamboo support. It is elevated sufficiently to handle baby, low enough to prevent trauma if baby falls. However the curve keeps baby in the center for the first few months, and the baby placed on its back cannot turn over due to the curve. Later put the whole thing on the floor so when the baby moves to the outside the chair tips, baby can crawl out on the floor. At two years or even less, babies are ready for little beds of their own, where they can enter and exit at will. The Mama-San is then your favorite living room chair again.
Babies should not be in private rooms separated from the household. That's when they die. They must hear voices or feel bodies near them or they may suffer from abandonment syndrome, where they feel unwanted and sink into infant despair. Cribs are awful little prisons, where untold numbers of babies have died.
Vaccines don't have anything to do with SIDS. SIDS is not a cause of death or an illness, it's a category used when no cause of death can be determined. If a child died of a vaccine-related illness, that illness or complications related to that illness would be listed as cause of death. That's just vaccine propaganda snuck into what should be a completely unrelated issue. There are studies that indicate SIDS deaths peak after a dtap vaccination so the opposite may actually be true. As for bed-sharing, several studies actually say that bed-sharing REDUCES the risk of SIDS significantly, because babies can mirror their mother's breathing and a mother sleeping with her child will notice immediately if the baby stops breathing. This new list pushes an agenda and is going to do nothing to prevent cases of SIDS.
"The piles of scientific studies on vaccine safety--including the IOM report from this summer. I'd point them to the CDC website. I know you think those sources are biased, but to a rational person those are appropriate."
The Institute of Medicine is in bed with the FDA, who is in bed with manufacturers.
I asked a few individuals at the IOM about a warning and evaluation they had made regarding novel infant formula ingredients. Here were my specific questions-"
What does your statement," unknown biological triggering effects on cellular pathways" really translate in to since these effects may be exerted on a developing infant? Are these novel ingredients safe if there is a potential for unknown effects during neurodevelopment? Isn't this an experiment on infant health?
Their response-
We were not asked to evaluate or determine the safety of these infant formula ingredients. We merely developed a system that would be helpful to do so.
So I guess their 246 page report titled,"Evaluating the safety of new infant formula ingredients", actually didn't evaluate or determine anything involved with infant formula ingredients.
So when the IOM issues a report, and you choose to use it as scientific evidence, think about what I have just posted. The sooner you realize the magnitude of the corruption at these government agencies, the sooner you will be able to understand what it represents.
Just speaking from experience."
How is that harassment towards whatever2002? It appears that Mike was giving up some personal experiences with the IOM. I personally would like to hear more.
Thanks Biff. you're ok.
Yeah Biff, you're ok. So are you Mike!
Hey thanks Mfoed, so are you.
ugh. dissociative personality disorder at its worst.
Probably a genetic defect.
I think I figured out what the db in dbhelix represents. Very fitting.
maybe you should lay off the infant formula mike.
wait, wait, i forgot the courts threw that correlation out. twice. my bad.
Yes, and allowed a pro-se the opportunity to refile again. Have you ever filed a Federal suit against a multi-billion$ company and acted as your own attorney? No, You haven't. The chances of a favorable judgement in a personal liability torts case are slim at best for a professional litigation attorney. I survived twice. So let that roll around in that brain of yours for awhile.
DBhelix, I have been up against corporate monsters that are very powerful. I survived to take a few more swings. At least I have the guts to take a stand against experimenting on infant health. But that's not you. Probably unmarried and no children of your own. I doubt very much that you have ever fought such a battle for not only your child , but for other children as well. So make light of what I have done. It only shows your lack of compassion for those that deal with handicapped children and those whom go above and beyond to ensure other children are safe from harm. But it is expected from someone whom applauds ridiculing parents with disabled children. Grow up.
and it appears i've hit a nerve. i'll take the opportunity to be the grown up.
so okey dokey, mike. i leave you alone, you leave me alone, and the both of us can seethe silently over each other's comments from here on out. i won't provoke you and i expect the same courtesy in return.
consider this a cease fire.
quite frankly, i'm just bored with our interactions. i'm tired of childish quips across discussion boards from you and dishing them out from my end in return. i'll be the first to say i'm a heartless bastard because, well, i am.
i've noticed that we'll probably not form an amicable consensus on much, if anything. therefore i see no value in further discussions from this point forward.
It's unfortunate.