“Are the skyrocketing rates of postpartum depression among mothers—from 9.4% in 2010 to 19.3% in 2021, a relative increase of 105%—in part due to lack of sleep, because babies are constantly semi-aroused?” - i was suicidal with my first born DUE TO SLEEP DEPRIVATION as someone very sensitive to sleep. I think I’m secretly still resentful.
Bravo Ms. Fama - much impressed by this series of articles - very well written and backed by serious research. Moreover, this series confirms many facts that reverberate beyond the research question of SIDS and sleeping position. Namely:
- as far as healthcare is concerned, ordinary people - and ordinary parents - tend to automatically follow advice from their doctors.
- these doctors, for their part, tend to automatically follow advice from agencies and hallowed organizations - CDC, WHO, AMA, AAP, whatever.
- few doctors are curious enough to personally ascertain whether a long-standing medical recommendation emanating from these agencies is of irrefutably proven value to the patient in the office.
- they go with the flow: flu shots, covid shots, knee surgery, baby care, stents, mammography, colonoscopy, anticoagulants, masks, PSA tests...such a long list.
But it's clear that none of the above will change anytime soon - the caravan of automatic - but questionable - recommendations will roll on. Most patients, parents and doctors are not really focused on these issues. And the economics of the healthcare industry simply couldn't stand the shock of real change.
Thank you for these thoughts, Ted. In a perfect world, we can probably all agree that we WANT to be able to have a "chain of trust" in the field of medicine, based on research that is fully vetted. No doctor can be a specialist in every disease, and must rely on the work of his or her colleagues, past and present. Medical students can't necessarily do a deep dive into every recommendation to see whether they agree with it. Instead, solid research, real vetting by journals and referees, open data and statistical programs, replication where possible, and brutal honesty about what is known and not known should formulate the ultimate messages in the chain of trust. I also think that nuance needs to be part of the messaging. It's not necessary to oversimplify it, or have memorable slogans and acronyms--it's more important for it to be complete, accurate, and honest.
Interesting series. Thanks for doing the deep dive.
The author shows great humility, when, after sifting through all the research, and basically becoming a content expert, she admits she still doesn’t know the answer. And that is the proper answer, in the absence of high quality evidence that supine sleep prevents SIDS.
Sadly, guideline writers in general (and likewise on this issue) seem to lack that humility, and not only pretend to know when they don’t, but instead push policies despite the absence of evidence.
Kathleen, so many topics regarding contemporary childrearing call to me like sirens! Tongue-tie, co-sleeping, wake windows, sleep schedules, sleep training, etc, etc. Not to mention extreme mom-influencer ideas presented on Instagram and TikTok as "scientific," like baby-led weaning, vestibular training for infants, water-survival lessons for infants. These last things make me want to write a series called, "The Internet is Raising Your Baby (Even If Your Baby Is Not on the Internet)."
Yes! And maybe breastfeeding too… I’ve seen one heterodox internet doctor say the benefits are overhyped, often based on low quality evidence. Those posts will bring out the zealots!
Still not addressing the elephant in the room. Read this compilation by A Midwestern Doctor on the roll increased childhood vaccination plays in SIDS cases
How about a sensible discussion as to the justification for the current practice of administering hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of life? Maybe this is the wrong forum. I got a hep B vaccine when as a nurse I stuck myself with a dirty needle in the 1980's during the AIDS era. That seemed legit (I guess).
Interesting to compare the few vaccines I received as a child born in 1961 to the avalanche of shots babies born now receive until age 18 (including still experimental mRNA injections at six months of life!) Despite just a few vaccines, I'm still kicking despite permanently disabled by an utterly useless flu shot 11 years ago (the second of my life), which left me with a lovely condition called brachial plexus neuropathy AKA Parsonage Turner Syndrome. No flu shot since and gee, still kicking but miserable with 24/7 neuropathy symptoms and weakness in my dominant RUE and right hand. Thus, no mRNA shots and somehow at age 60 survived Omicron with chicken soup and walks in the sun by day 3.
So yes, it's a head scratcher as to why the first shot for newborns is for hepatitis B. While I'm at it, I do question why all humans 6 months and up now have to receive dangerous unsafe and not effective mRNA shots and dangerous, poor efficacy flu shots every year.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, Perhaps the Covid and flu shots are optional for infants and children but the CDC recommends them for this age group and many people/parents trust these medical authorities who tell their doctors what to do. I just saw a Pfizer ad where they are recommending that the new Covid and new flu shots be given at the same sitting this fall. I’m sure the experts have decided it’s perfectly safe and effective to give the two shots together, as in the old saying, kill two birds with one stone.
I do hope that they are not recommending this practice as “optional” for six month old infants and up.
That's again a bizarre pseudo-medical rant, which includes the claim that shaken baby syndrome has been proven to actually be caused by vitamin C deficiency and (you guessed it) vaccines.
It's entertaining but not to be taken seriously. Of course, I do have a very nice family I see who refuses vaccines because their father is certain that vaccines are a plot led by Bill Gates to reduce world population, so there is an audience for this.
Im impressed that you read that far into the article. However, you are misleading in your wording that the vitamin C and "shaken baby syndrome " link is simply a claim by the author. There are multiple research papers linked to support the position, which you seem to dismiss out of hand
"Note: quite a bit of evidence (e.g., this paper, this paper, this paper, this medical report, and this rapid response) has been compiled that “shaken baby syndrome” actually is a result of vitamin C deficiency compounded by vaccination. Likewise, a recent review found that the evidence diagnosing “shaken baby syndrome” rests upon is quite weak." (Links available in article)
Also, interjecting anything about Bill Gates / microchips / depopulation in the conversation seems to be a Red Herring Fallacy. I outlined in a reply to the author lower in this thread a reasonable statistical study to investigate the SIDS / vaccine connection. Do you disagree with the scientific validity of that study, and if so, why?
I saw this bullet point in the first post, however no source data is linked. Would like to see how these two things are linked, and how it was determined (or not)to be a factor
"Researchers observe that SIDS rates declined as more parents took the back-sleeping advice, but the drop is also coincidental with many other changes. For instance, over the same period, vaccinations improved, pollution decreased, more mothers breastfed, there were fewer teen births, more people stopped smoking, and baby equipment got safer. Child and infant deaths of all causes declined."
Thank you for reading, JohnM, and for your passion, which I completely understand after getting lost in this topic for six months. Post #3 is the one where I talk about vaccinations helping to reduce diseases that could contribute to SIDS or be mistaken for SIDS.
I went back to the article, but im only seeing general statement's that increase in childhood vaccine schedule coincided with decreased infant mortality. But, as you mentioned, a lot of variables were changing at this time. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Do you agree that a statistical study comparing SIDS cases to date of last vaccination (ie 2,4,6 months visits) and the vaccines given at that time, would be a good way to determine the relationship between the two? Im not aware that such a study has been done...
“Are the skyrocketing rates of postpartum depression among mothers—from 9.4% in 2010 to 19.3% in 2021, a relative increase of 105%—in part due to lack of sleep, because babies are constantly semi-aroused?” - i was suicidal with my first born DUE TO SLEEP DEPRIVATION as someone very sensitive to sleep. I think I’m secretly still resentful.
Bravo Ms. Fama - much impressed by this series of articles - very well written and backed by serious research. Moreover, this series confirms many facts that reverberate beyond the research question of SIDS and sleeping position. Namely:
- as far as healthcare is concerned, ordinary people - and ordinary parents - tend to automatically follow advice from their doctors.
- these doctors, for their part, tend to automatically follow advice from agencies and hallowed organizations - CDC, WHO, AMA, AAP, whatever.
- few doctors are curious enough to personally ascertain whether a long-standing medical recommendation emanating from these agencies is of irrefutably proven value to the patient in the office.
- they go with the flow: flu shots, covid shots, knee surgery, baby care, stents, mammography, colonoscopy, anticoagulants, masks, PSA tests...such a long list.
But it's clear that none of the above will change anytime soon - the caravan of automatic - but questionable - recommendations will roll on. Most patients, parents and doctors are not really focused on these issues. And the economics of the healthcare industry simply couldn't stand the shock of real change.
It’s not really surprising; if doctors follow the standard of care they can’t get sued.
Thank you for these thoughts, Ted. In a perfect world, we can probably all agree that we WANT to be able to have a "chain of trust" in the field of medicine, based on research that is fully vetted. No doctor can be a specialist in every disease, and must rely on the work of his or her colleagues, past and present. Medical students can't necessarily do a deep dive into every recommendation to see whether they agree with it. Instead, solid research, real vetting by journals and referees, open data and statistical programs, replication where possible, and brutal honesty about what is known and not known should formulate the ultimate messages in the chain of trust. I also think that nuance needs to be part of the messaging. It's not necessary to oversimplify it, or have memorable slogans and acronyms--it's more important for it to be complete, accurate, and honest.
Interesting series. Thanks for doing the deep dive.
The author shows great humility, when, after sifting through all the research, and basically becoming a content expert, she admits she still doesn’t know the answer. And that is the proper answer, in the absence of high quality evidence that supine sleep prevents SIDS.
Sadly, guideline writers in general (and likewise on this issue) seem to lack that humility, and not only pretend to know when they don’t, but instead push policies despite the absence of evidence.
As Dr. JMM likes to say: hubris. Pure and simple.
Thank you for this excellent series.
Thanks for publishing this. I’d love to see this author do a series on tongue ties in infants and the industry surrounding that.
Kathleen, so many topics regarding contemporary childrearing call to me like sirens! Tongue-tie, co-sleeping, wake windows, sleep schedules, sleep training, etc, etc. Not to mention extreme mom-influencer ideas presented on Instagram and TikTok as "scientific," like baby-led weaning, vestibular training for infants, water-survival lessons for infants. These last things make me want to write a series called, "The Internet is Raising Your Baby (Even If Your Baby Is Not on the Internet)."
Yes! And maybe breastfeeding too… I’ve seen one heterodox internet doctor say the benefits are overhyped, often based on low quality evidence. Those posts will bring out the zealots!
Still not addressing the elephant in the room. Read this compilation by A Midwestern Doctor on the roll increased childhood vaccination plays in SIDS cases
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/a-century-of-evidence-has-accumulated
How about a sensible discussion as to the justification for the current practice of administering hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of life? Maybe this is the wrong forum. I got a hep B vaccine when as a nurse I stuck myself with a dirty needle in the 1980's during the AIDS era. That seemed legit (I guess).
Interesting to compare the few vaccines I received as a child born in 1961 to the avalanche of shots babies born now receive until age 18 (including still experimental mRNA injections at six months of life!) Despite just a few vaccines, I'm still kicking despite permanently disabled by an utterly useless flu shot 11 years ago (the second of my life), which left me with a lovely condition called brachial plexus neuropathy AKA Parsonage Turner Syndrome. No flu shot since and gee, still kicking but miserable with 24/7 neuropathy symptoms and weakness in my dominant RUE and right hand. Thus, no mRNA shots and somehow at age 60 survived Omicron with chicken soup and walks in the sun by day 3.
So yes, it's a head scratcher as to why the first shot for newborns is for hepatitis B. While I'm at it, I do question why all humans 6 months and up now have to receive dangerous unsafe and not effective mRNA shots and dangerous, poor efficacy flu shots every year.
Oh yeah, "The Science!"
SomeChick--I don't know whether this is true of Hep B vaccines, but COVID and flu shots for infants and children are optional.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, Perhaps the Covid and flu shots are optional for infants and children but the CDC recommends them for this age group and many people/parents trust these medical authorities who tell their doctors what to do. I just saw a Pfizer ad where they are recommending that the new Covid and new flu shots be given at the same sitting this fall. I’m sure the experts have decided it’s perfectly safe and effective to give the two shots together, as in the old saying, kill two birds with one stone.
I do hope that they are not recommending this practice as “optional” for six month old infants and up.
That's again a bizarre pseudo-medical rant, which includes the claim that shaken baby syndrome has been proven to actually be caused by vitamin C deficiency and (you guessed it) vaccines.
It's entertaining but not to be taken seriously. Of course, I do have a very nice family I see who refuses vaccines because their father is certain that vaccines are a plot led by Bill Gates to reduce world population, so there is an audience for this.
Im impressed that you read that far into the article. However, you are misleading in your wording that the vitamin C and "shaken baby syndrome " link is simply a claim by the author. There are multiple research papers linked to support the position, which you seem to dismiss out of hand
"Note: quite a bit of evidence (e.g., this paper, this paper, this paper, this medical report, and this rapid response) has been compiled that “shaken baby syndrome” actually is a result of vitamin C deficiency compounded by vaccination. Likewise, a recent review found that the evidence diagnosing “shaken baby syndrome” rests upon is quite weak." (Links available in article)
Also, interjecting anything about Bill Gates / microchips / depopulation in the conversation seems to be a Red Herring Fallacy. I outlined in a reply to the author lower in this thread a reasonable statistical study to investigate the SIDS / vaccine connection. Do you disagree with the scientific validity of that study, and if so, why?
The early posts did reference the actual data. Increased adherence to childhood vaccinations is associated with decreased the rates of SIDS.
I saw this bullet point in the first post, however no source data is linked. Would like to see how these two things are linked, and how it was determined (or not)to be a factor
"Researchers observe that SIDS rates declined as more parents took the back-sleeping advice, but the drop is also coincidental with many other changes. For instance, over the same period, vaccinations improved, pollution decreased, more mothers breastfed, there were fewer teen births, more people stopped smoking, and baby equipment got safer. Child and infant deaths of all causes declined."
Thank you for reading, JohnM, and for your passion, which I completely understand after getting lost in this topic for six months. Post #3 is the one where I talk about vaccinations helping to reduce diseases that could contribute to SIDS or be mistaken for SIDS.
Thank you, I miss that the first time around.
I went back to the article, but im only seeing general statement's that increase in childhood vaccine schedule coincided with decreased infant mortality. But, as you mentioned, a lot of variables were changing at this time. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Do you agree that a statistical study comparing SIDS cases to date of last vaccination (ie 2,4,6 months visits) and the vaccines given at that time, would be a good way to determine the relationship between the two? Im not aware that such a study has been done...
For goodness sakes where is the dislike button?
Right next to your 10th safe and effective booster shot =p