Humanity Organics

This writer made a huge mistake in my interpretation of the Scripps Howard report on bad coroner reporting about SIDS.  Back in October Lee Bowman and Thomas Howard reveled in their investigative findings that mistakes are being made in the reporting of SIDS deaths.  They reported that the details about SIDS are muddied due to a lack of standardized coroner reports.  Funny thing is, as the months roll on their original story is changing into something a little nutty, something that shows a more sinister plan.  Anti-co-sleeping for sure!

 I originally was excited to see that some clarification might be brought to this mystery killer.  Everyone knows that there are dangerous ways to do anything, including infant sleep.  My excitement has turned to dismay as a connected string of misleading stories are released and an obvious pattern is developing.  It’s a pattern that shows where the “angelic” motivation of the Scripps Howard News disservice might come from.  Who does a year long investigation about how unsafe sleeping practices are killing children and does not provide available info about how to then do it safely?  What was the purpose of the investigation?  The answer,It’s the egotistical flexing of bought and paid for American media tools.  The entire Scripps Howard News service “saving babies” section serves to line the pockets of SIDS organizations and crib manufacturers (Cribs for kids campaign).  These organizations have focus meetings that say…“What can we do about keeping business up?” It is a good business practice to do. I can understand the crib company’s purpose.   But, what IS good business to a SIDS organization?  For their own moral focus, I hope that putting themselves out of business would be their only motivational purpose.  My stupid American sheepeople guess is that if SIDS were solved, they would be out of business. That is why they have expanded their focus to all infant death, or just “other sleeping deaths”.  What is a Syndrome based organization doing expanding into a crib distribution service?   The answer, why staying in business of course.  They have messed up with this “investigative” report however.  It will expose the other side of the coin.  Even if they do not want to report about it, the data will still be there.  The more they “standardize” infant deaths, the more infant deaths will be found with no cause for death in a safety approved crib…then what?

It’s interesting that sometimes exposing one thing winds up exposing many other parts of a problem.  Scientists love this stuff as a good study always finds something.  The theory is worked on to prove, or disprove itself, even if it’s not what you originally looked for.  By studying something to a point you wind up proving or disproving your theory.  It’s a win-win scenario.  You always wind up with results.  That is why science is so fun, it always has answers.  Science can however fall into the hands of people who wish to use the results for their own purpose.  So, in focusing on where children are dieing in their sleep you should get the empirical advantage of seeing everything.  Why does the Scripps Howard News disservice only focus on one type of problem with the corners’ report?  My biggest question is…”after you are done showing America where children die accidentally, are you going show us where children die of SIDS?”  It would be the natural progression of their work…. 

1. Reveal that SIDS reporting is flawed.
2. Call for standardization to help clarify the deaths.
3. Re-investigate for results.

The Scripps Howard News disservice does this instead….

1.   Reveal that SIDS reporting is flawed.

2.   Loosely link co-sleeping to the ambiguous data.

3.   Declare that a crib is the safest place for a child.

They could have at least made it a little less obvious.  The sad thing is they don’t need to, the whole thing is being gobbled up and regurgitated by people who know how to parent your children better than you do.  

Where did you say SIDS was happening?  After a 9 month investigation into SIDS deaths there must be some solid SIDS findings?  How come after all that scrutiny you are not reporting about the actual numbers of properly diagnosed SIDS deaths found in a crib?   Money and motivation are the reasons.  Follow the money trail, as that is how a “news service” makes money, by serving it’s motivators who happen to be the people who don’t want you to hear about ANY crib deaths.

Examples of this sort of “tobacco science” gives scary things vague names to remove the burn…lets call MERCURY something like uh, thimerosal, and lets call crib death something like, uh SIDS.  Everyone knows not to put mercury in their system, but they might not think twice about something nice like “thimerosal”.   They are trying to confuse and water down SIDS. 

Call it accidental suffocation, and show us the accident.  Tell us about SIDS in your SIDS investigation.  Where are all accurate SIDS deaths found?  I have personally asked that very question to people who know the answer.  They don’t answer the question, ever.  Accidental suffocations are real, and thanks to our friends Lee and Thomas, we sort of know where they happen.  How come a SIDS investigation is so focused on finding stuff that is not SIDS? 

Well,

   Free Range Studios has done it again.   A beautifully timed and developed story about how we consume.  The simple layout keeps the focus on what is real and does not inflate fear with distracting graphics, just the truth.   Many times Free Range keeps their stories rooted in food issues.  This one steps up into the whole picture of consumerism.  Please watch and share with your friends.

Hi Laura,

   I have been following the issues related to SIDS for some time now.  The Scripps Howard investigative report could be a huge step in the right direction. The report found tons of flawed data on infant death.  During a story, which was writen by Lee Bowman himself, about the investigative report (11/9)  you were quoted laying out incorrect data surrounding infant deaths.  My view of the report makes me think that professionals should hold their words until more study is done.  If anything, that is the basis of what was reveled by Mr. Bowman and Mr. Hargrove, the data is flawed.

   I guess this is why I’m writing you.  As a representative of a SIDS organization you are continuing to report flawed data to the public.  Many news stories incorrectly report the link between SIDS and bed-sharing.  Aren’t there 2 things going on?  Accidental suffocation, and unexplained deaths.  With all the past data under scrutiny, wouldn’t it seem logical to keep the reporting of infant death basic and clear?  You stated that 90 percent of SIDS is related to co-sleeping. 

   I myself have felt for a long time that solitary sleep was the real danger.  Basically from it’s isolated and low sensory environment, and partially that when a parent is not supervising a separated kid, accidental stuff happens.  Wouldn’t it benefit SIDS advocates to truthfully look at what might be causing SIDS instead of looking at suffocation?  I understand “First Candle” is encompassing all infant deaths now, but that does not mean they should do so incorrectly.  It really seems that professionals are serving their own personal convictions about where a child should sleep and not viewing child deaths impartially as accidental, or SIDS.  I feel that regular, purposeful bed-sharing distractions are being played out to the public in a conscious effort to delay and cover up the dangerous nature of isolated/separate sleep.  Is there not a way to allow both types their time to show their effectiveness?  Cribs have had free reign to strangle, suffocate, implore helplessness, and harbor SIDS without question for generations now.  Why would an organization, who declares to be looking for answers to infant death, not respect scientific evidence that safe bed-sharing can be made safe for a child?

your words…

“We know from our counseling efforts that co-sleeping happens with about 90 percent of all sudden infant deaths,” said Laura Reno, public affairs director for First Candle, headquartered in Baltimore.

some evidence that you ignored…

this one has been around for some time

PEDIATRICS Vol. 105 No. 4 April 2000, pp. 915-920

Straight forward impartial recommendations

I guess I have 3 main questions…

Do you feel that SIDS and accidental suffocation are the same thing?

Where are properly reported SIDS deaths found most commonly?

And, are media outlets confusing SIDS and accidental suffocation purposefully, or in ignorance?

Thanks,

Hugh

 I will post her response to these questions, if she does.

My question is, how come the articles that are for co-sleeping sound like they are written by someone with a brain, and the ones against co-sleeping sound like a handful of broken teeth?

Yeah Dr. McKenna.

The noose is tightening around SIDS and unexplained deaths with the Howard Scripps news article being run by different publications. This will reduce the ambiguity of infant death. This so even if co-sleeping and bed-sharing get more scrutiny no one will be able to ignore that accidental asphyxiations have simple preventions.

And the others…

Baby lotion and um, SIDS officials say bed-sharing is unsafe. Again, why are SIDS advocates yakking about the adult bed when SIDS deaths are found in cribs?

This poor child somehow crawled onto the couch by himself? Who knows, but the writer is sure to confuse all the other info. “He was sleeping on couch”- Good writing Bill Cary.

This article goes on to say how risky bed-sharing really is…

“It’s one of the biggest risks you can take,” Allen said. “There have been cases - two or three over the past couple of years - of the parent rolling over on the baby and smothering them”.

Read carefully.

They ARE only young once, and their childhood will be over before you know it.

Co-sleeping will not damage them emotionally in any way, it will serve their non-verbal emotional needs. Where would your newborn child sleep if you and your family were on a desert island?

Co-sleeping is, in no uncertain scientific terms, statistically safer than separate sleep. If no drugs, alcohol, excessive obesity, or bad judgment exist in your bed-sharing situation then your chances of a problem go to zero. There are basic, easy for everyone to follow and understand, bed-sharing rules at http://safebedsharing.org. Do not let any one convince you that while sleeping next to them you will make the same basic mistakes other people have. Many co-sleeping deaths have easy preventions to them, while separate sleeping situations have “mystery” killers like SIDS. In the most recommended and “perfect” separate sleep environment often times SIDS deaths do occur, and you were following the rules. Children are not abducted from the adult bed, and they stand a much better chance in the event of a house fire or other natural disaster.

A child that breastfeeds as long as possible will receive no less than this world’s most perfect, non-replicable, food for their growing systems. Breastfeeding is easier for your wife when she co-sleeps, making her self-actualize and complete her biological motherly needs. The bonding is unbelievable. There is significant scientific data that shows breastfeeding can reduce the chance of breast cancer. You will see the benefit of supporting your wife’s breastfeeding decision when your children become smarter than you.

AND,

In a world where a Father spends a ton of time away from the family, getting an extra 8 hours of time, daily, with your children will make you happier when they have grown and gone. The time adds up and no child ever turns around and complains that they were co-slept with.

SIDS is a mystery killer with devastating results every time. In a misinformation campaign SIDS officials are allowing their cause to be weakened. Popular media sources are being used in an effort to muddy the already dark waters of tragic SIDS fatalities. It is being regularly reported that SIDS deaths are being caused by irresponsible co-sleeping parents.
This is a huge purposeful mistake because by default, a SIDS death can’t occur next to a parent, a required element of co-sleeping. In a case of SIDS the parent is absolved of responsibility during the “rule-out” phase of the diagnosis of SIDS. It has to be an unattended death. How can something that requires a parent to be present, be pointed at for cause of death in a syndrome that requires complete nonattendance? It seems SIDS can’t happen in a co-sleeping mishap. Co-sleeping deaths do occur, and are caused by parents, or objects. Positional asphyxiation is something that can occur in a co-sleeping situation gone wrong. A parent gets wasted, is obese, or does not know what they are doing, there is the situation and the risk goes up. Those accidental causes however, are not shrouded in mystery like SIDS. SIDS and co-sleeping can’t occur at the same time, that we do know. People are afraid to say it because it changes the idea about how children gain autonomy in our culture.  THOMAS HARGROVE and LEE BOWMAN just finished an excellent study into the inconsistencies related to the reporting of SIDS.
Do a Google news search with the keywords “co-sleeping” and “SIDS”, and you will see the mess. SIDS deaths do occur all the time, as do co-sleeping deaths. Neither is on the rise in terms of occurrence, just focus. This focus on co-sleeping, which is not culprit of SIDS, will weaken and delay the opportunity to find real solutions to this tragic killer. It will prolong the time that children sleep away from their parents, and expire for unknown causes. And, as for the media…please continue to provide poor people who want cribs, cribs. They are not listening to co-sleeping warnings and are only doing it because you haven’t given them a crib yet. Co-sleeping is safer than solitary sleep as there is no mystery killer there, just room and healthy food for a child that will grow quicker than you expected.

We’re happy to add a blog to our site and hope you visit often. We’ll be talking about co-sleeping, breastfeeding and more.