Talk:SIDS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Alfred Steinschneider

Someone should look into Dr. Alfred Steinschneider in relation to SIDS.

Delete the idiotic "Fresh Approach" Dowser external link please!!!

Suggestions

A good external link with easy-to-follow suggestions --- for new parents --- for avoiding sids: http://www.bellababy-boutique.com/n-3-SIDS%20Safety%20Tips.aspx

comments, anyone?

Rmshane 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) rmshane

Not a comment, but a question. If the useful information at this link is taken verbatim from a page by the National Institutes of Health (and it is), why not link to the NIH page instead of posting a spam link? --JFreeman ^(talk) 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with most of it, but #9 is questionable and #8 has exceptions to it. With #9, the SIDS Alliance would disagree with that because of the fact that home monitors are very useful for the purpose they are made for. First Candle (also SIDS Alliance) says that they should be used because you can't be in the same room as your child all the time. #8 is questionable because the SIDS Alliance spends lots of money researching the causes and risk factors, and thus, the products that can reduce the risk of SIDS. If it has a stamp of approval from them on the box, then use it. Such products would be like the Swaddle-Me, created by an active member of the SIDS Alliance. However, bumpers and things that claim to reduce the risk but lack the tag, should not be used unless you have a medical person who knows about SIDS to give the ok. Sculleywr 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

A good external link is [[1]] It is FSID's (Foundation for the Study of Infant Death)website. FSID is the UK's leading baby charity working to prevent sudden infant deaths, also known as cot death, and promote infant health - funding research, supporting bereaved families, providing information to the public and working with professionals to improve investigations when a baby dies. They also have a helpline for concerned parents and professionals. Tel 020 7233 2090.

---

Another good external link is [[2]] This is the Australian SIDS organisation who have been funding research, education and support since the late 1970s. SIDS rates dropped by 70% as a result of the work of this organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.172.164 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

SIDS and sex

The article states that because more boys die of SIDS, Any supposed cause of SIDS that is independent of gender (same risk for males and females) can be rejected a priori on that basis.; however, it says later in the same paragraph that boys have a corresponding general susceptibility to cerebral anoxia. If anything, this seems to imply that the specific trigger for SIDS is independent of gender. Am I missing something? Henry^Flower 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "independent of gender" means that males and females have the same risk of the purpoted cause. Since boys have a greater suceptibility to cerebral anoxia, that cause would not be independent of gender Nik42 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If any cause independent of sex can be rejected, why does every possible cause mentioned in the article other than in the sex section have nothing to do with sex? The article is contradicting itself. The sentence "Any supposed cause of SIDS that is independent of gender (same risk for males and females) can be rejected a priori on that basis" needs attributed...sounds like WP:OR. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Continual activation

I'm removing this section, whose only support is a couple of links to a website. I can't find the phrase "Continual-activation Theory" in PubMed, so I suspect this violates WP:NOR.

Continual-activation Theory of SIDS

The continual-activation theory of sudden infant death syndrome proposed by Jie Zhang hypothesizes that SIDS occurs when one of two brain mechanisms that are evolved to provide a safeguard for life to go on during sleep time, failed to activate while asleep. Zhang believes that the human brain can be divided into two subsidiary systems: the conscious brain and the non-conscious brain. In order to maintain proper brain functioning, both subsidiary systems have to be continually activated through their life times. To carry out this task, Zhang suggests that there is a continual-activation mechanism in each subsidiary system of human brain. When the level of activation in a subsidiary system descends to a given threshold, the corresponding continual-activation mechanism will be triggered to generate a pulse-like activation signal. Zhang believes that both continual-activation mechanisms have to be alternately activated during sleep. According to this theory, failure of activating either continual-activation mechanism during sleep is the root cause of SIDS. (Zhang, 2005a & 2005b).

Link to the SIDS Network

I would like to recommend that a link be added to the SIDS Network at http://sids-network.org

Thanks!

Chuck Mihalko

Executive Manager

SIDS Network, Inc.

Anonymous, unreferenced, poorly written para

However, there has been no research to prove Dr. Sprott's theories. He sells mattresses which he proclaims safe for babies, so he has a vested interest in scaring parents with his "research." The New Zealand Ministry of Health makes no mention of his claims in their SIDS prevention information. (See [8]) Globally, his theory of mattress-wrapping or buying his special mattress has been ignored.

I removed this para for a number of reasons:

• It's badly written. The para before it already begins, "However, " yet this para agrees with it - semantically nonsensical.
• It contains accusations that may be actionable [Sprott is creating a scare to increase demand for mattresses which he sells] without providing evidence.
• Its main point, that Sprott's theory has been largely refuted, is covered already by the extant preceding para.
• It adds no new information to the issue.--Oscar Bravo 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re edits of 24.10.2006: Much better, 69.255.241.189. I've cleaned it a little to make it flow better from what's gone before.--Oscar Bravo 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

older children

I belive children can die of crib death as late as the teens.

However SIDS seems to be defined (per this article) as any sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant aged one month to one year. Also cribs are used to bed down babies not teenagers. So whilst the underlying medical condition in a particular case of SIDS might also affect older children I suppose, such deaths wouldn't be classified as SIDS. --User:Deathowl 19:36, 02 January 2007 (GMT)

Yes, Because of the most likely culprits involving brain function reliability (most of which is taken care of by the time the brain stops developing in the late infancy to early toddler years) the cot death of older children is generally scrutinized much much more than of an infant, although in some states and regions, the police still try to blame suffocation for the death. The possibility of late age cot death similar to SIDS is remote. I can find no research into the topic, even with an extensive search through EPSCO (I love how being a college student grants you free access to thousands of research articles at the push of a button). Without the proper research to back it up, having a section about it would be pointless and likely misleading.

Sculleywr 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SIDS-like death in older children is rare but recognized clinically, and is referred to as "Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood" (SUDC). See http://www.sudc.org/page.asp; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010494 137.229.80.84 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Mike Harris

Studies, studies, studies

I added a whole bunch of links to studies in pubmed, but i think that the whole article needs cleaning up to use a single reference style.

Also, I added a section on the (lack of) a link between vaccination and SIDS. I figure it's probably another bogus claim, but it's good to have a place to put references to studies that actually looked into it. Perhaps this should be in a new section like "refuted causes"?

MatthewMastracci 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just finished a major re-org. May as well try to file all this stuff in a sane manner.  :) Lots of cleanup left with making the text flow as a single article instead of a mish-mash and fixing references, if anyone is interested

MatthewMastracci 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

The text said "A study published in the May 2003 issue of Pediatrics revealed that breastfeeding infants have 1/5 the rate of SIDS as formula-fed infants." While strictly true, that makes it seem as if there's a causal relationship, which is contrary to the study's finding. The study showed that the difference became statistically nonsignificant when adjusted for other environmental factors.

The next sentence in the wiki article said "Two other studies supported breastfeeding for reducing SIDS rates," citing two older (1988 & 1991) articles which aren't available online. Not having read the studies, I am not sure whether that's true or not. However, the 2003 article says "These results are consistent with most published reports and suggest that other factors associated with breastfeeding, rather than breastfeeding itself, are protective." It cites several studies on the topic, including research more current than the two studies cited in the wiki article, and suggests that is the conventional scientific view.

So, I'm adding to the first sentence to explain a bit more, and replacing the second sentence and its two citations, with text quoted from two sentences of the 2003 article. I wanted to explain why, so it's not viewed as a politically-motivated edit or something. -Agyle 15:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Respiritory Connection

It is more than likely the result of below normal oxygen levels in connection with the issues addressed in this article. A happy baby is a healthy baby! ;-)[3]

SIDS and secondhand (tobacco) smoke

The documentation supporting a link between SIDS and secondhand smoke is a presentation made by the US Surgeon General at a press conference on 27 June 2006, available here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html. However, his remarks regarding the effects of secondhand smoke are presented without any supporting documentation. Two assertions in particular, that secondhand smoke causes SIDS and that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, are practically begging to be debunked or supported, as may be appropriate. I would suggest that those editors who tend to the SIDS article look for more solid scientific evidence for a link between SIDS and secondhand smoke. I don't mean to suggest that I doubt that there is a causal relationship, in fact it sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. But all of the sources I've looked into in the last hour or so have come up short on actual documentation. (For example, the CDC's factsheet on SIDS and secondhand smoke cites the Surgeon General's report: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/Sids.htm) R0m23 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

whoops, my bad - the actual text of the report offers copious citations to (presumably) solid studies - see http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter6.pdf, pp 180-194. So the problem with the assertions regarding SIDS and secondhand smoke is that they are supported in Wikipedia by citing the Surgeon General's remarks at a press conference rather than the text of the report he is discussing. The report itself is available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/, and the section pertaining specifically to SIDS is available in the URL given above. Sorry for any confusion. R0m23 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

popular culture

I removed the popular culture section per WP:MOS which discourages trivia sections. I can't imagine anything more trivial than an assortment of random mentions of SIDS in songs, novels, and soap operas. For the record, here is the material: --Lquilter (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The novel Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk has SIDS as a central element in its story.

Musician Stephen Lynch mentions SIDS in his song Baby.

In the novel "Sloppy Firsts" by Megan McCafferty the main characters' brother died of SIDS and is a main theme of her growth.

In the British soap Emmerdale, Laurel and Ashley's baby died of SIDS.

Removed the section again. This time it only had the "Lullaby" thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SIDS is wrong

What is a sudden infant? The placement of the word "sudden" requires that it modify "infant," which is absurd. It should be "Infant Sudden Death Syndrome" instead. I guess ISDS wouldn't catch on as well, though. The soft blanket of acronym popularity smothers the baby of grammar, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe at one point it stood for "infantile", using the adjective form, with both modifying the noun "death".

Think of it more like "Sudden Infant-Death Syndrome", as the instance of Infant-Death is sudden. Mylakovich (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, and I would like to add that the addition of syndrome at the end of this is odd. When I think of syndrome, I think of some sort of condition, not an event which occurs. They don't call it a heart attack syndrome, or a stroke syndrome, do they?12.167.200.173 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, I don't see the point in arguing semantics on a Wikipedia talk page, but secondly it isn't modifying infant but rather "infant death" as a collective noun. While I appreciate someone being on the lookout for proper grammar, the 7th graders that I teach could tell you this (or at least the ones that passed the "Parts of Speech" test that we just did). As far as it being a syndrome versus an instance, I believe the logic behind that one is that we assume that there is some sort of causal relationship between this instance and some otherwise unknown syndrome. DirtySocks85 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SIDS and co-sleeping studies

The following sentence taken from the bottom of the Co-Sleeping section seems to imply that ALL research on co-sleeping indicates excess risk which is contradicted by statements regarding some of the previously mentioned studies in the section: "Research on co-sleeping indicates an excess risk with an adjusted Odds-Ratio of 2.71." In addition to this concern, It also needs to have some sort explanation for the laymen as to what is was means. As a non-scientist I am not clear what "adjusted Odds-Ratio of 2.71" means. Also it seems that statement is lacking in details which would better explain what the research paper/article was saying. Since the research article is not directly linked to and I am not in a position to easily access it myself, I am inclined to remove this sentence until it can be improved upon by adding more details as to what paper/article says in a language the average reader can understand. --Cab88 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the section on co-sleeping (that begins "From the preceding evidence ...") reads more like an advertisement or pop interpretation of one study than actual science or fact. It also seems not to follow from the preceding evidence. I'd change it myself but I don't know the facts. Maybe it's better to remove it for now. What's the (Sears, 2006) reference? --67.186.57.139 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sears, 2006 reference at the end seems to make it excessively weighted in favor of co-sleeping, while I believe that more scientific studies are now labeling it is bad. It appeals to emotion, rather than to fact. Thus, I have added an NPOV banner. -131.151.129.130 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The "sears" thing seems to be about this page on "Ask Dr. Sears". Part of the co-sleeping section was copy/pasted directly from that page too, I added a proper reference. I'm not sure about the quality of this source.

Also, some of the statements are derived from this page which is a low quality source. It needs to be replaced with reliable sources from mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope people don't mind but I was bold and removed the following part for not meeting the writing standards of Wikipedia:

coleeping and SIDS Risks: Current Status. 1999. Pediatric Grand Rounds. ...... The London Times (Sunday edition), “Bedsharing May Prevent Cot Deaths”

From the preceding evidence it seems that separate sleeping is not only unnatural, but may even be dangerous for some babies. Put new research findings together with the intuition of wise parents and you wonder whether sleep-sharing could not only make a psychological difference but also a physiological difference to babies. Each year more and more studies are confirming what savvy parents have long suspected: sharing sleep is not only safe, but also healthy for their babies. Thus, I leave it to parents to consider the following: If there were fewer cribs, would there be fewer crib deaths?

Some of it doesn't even make sense. I'm not objecting to the content itself, but it needs to be worded better. Also, co-sleeping should only be discussed in this article with respects to its benefits for SIDs, not for psychological or parenting techniques. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-writing the section, keeping only a bit of the original material. The first paragraph is not entirely necessary and seems to promote "research" discussed on a non-scientific site before a peer-reviewed paper has been published to any journals or the like. It also didn't explain what the preliminary results were but directed to the site itself. There's still a source in there that isn't very authoritative but I'll leave it for now.

If someone could, please go over my rewrite and if this resolves the dispute, can the tag be removed? Also, please help in editing this section as I don't think what I've done completely finishes it off. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the statement about the AAP's stance on cosleeping isn't sourced and their website is quite extensive so I haven't found this document. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The AAP's policy statement on co-sleeping is here (actually, it's the policy statement for everything related to SIDS, there are several sections). User 137.229.80.84 below is right is that it's not a cut and dry matter, the AAP's section on bed sharing starts saying "Bed sharing between an infant and adult(s) is a highly controversial topic". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The links between co-sleeping and SIDS are not cut and dry. There are sound epidemiological studies that show no linkage between co-sleeping and SIDS risk, specifically done in a population where co-sleeping is common. see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/108/4/923 and http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/3/990. 137.229.80.84 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Mike Harris

A little more empathy.

This entry has great potential to be a lot more respectful, much better researched, and a lot less "jokey" on a general basis. I get the impression that the people editing this article are Wikipedia junkies rather than people actively researching SIDS or personally affected by SIDS. Please even consider this wording in your first paragraph: "Typically the infant is found dead after having been put to sleep, and exhibits no signs of having suffered." (emphasis added)

After losing my first niece to SIDS, I can say that I don't appreciate the tone of this article, nor do I respect its authority. Unfortunately, it's a top result on a Google search. To the true Wikipedians out there, I apologise for not signing in for this comment, but the last thing I want is for my sister and very best friend to link this to me and have one more thing to break her heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.218.42 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Remembering that this is an encyclopaedia article, can you please cite examples of what you think is wrong with it? When you say you don't respect its authority, do you mean you think its sources are inadequate? When you say "jokey", I don't see what you mean, can you clarify? And as for the tone of the article, do you think it violates NPOV?

If you mean that the article has not sugar-coated things enough, please remember that the studies produced by scientists trying to find a way to stop SIDS are drier and less "empathetic" than this because they deal with facts. If you are grieving and looking for comfort, I recommend a support group like sidsfamilies.com. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

birth order?

I didn't see this covered, but extrapolating from the thought that a longer delivery time raises the likelyhood of SIDS and that shorter delivery times are associated with non-first-time pregnancies, are first-borns more prone to SIDS?--Younmm23 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

5 Speculated associations: SIDS and child abuse

Section could do with some edits. First sentence of second paragraph "The Royal Statistical Society issued a media release..." does not belong with "The New York Times covered...". They are not talking about the same UK cases (first paragraph). That they are in the same paragraph because of the word media is laughable. The former mentioned first sentence should be in first paragraph as it was influential to the UK cases. And the second sentence should clarify that the The New York Times article is practically a book revue and so presents the conclusions of the book's authors rather than investigates both sides in the argument. The effect of the book on prosecutions and whether it promoted possible miscarriages of justice would be a useful addition if a source can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.138.180 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

adding how mainstream science views the association to vaccination

I added a sourced sentence about how mainstream science rejects the studies associating vaccination to SIDS, but it was deleted citing WP:NPOV [4]. However, NPOV says to represent significant views that are sourced reliabily. Now, I think that we can agree that the view of mainstream science is significant, and I am reusing a source that the same editor was using (so I expect that he considers the source to be reliable!).

The sentence in question is:

, altough the association has been rejected by established medicine on the argument that the studies are based on anecdotal evidence.<ref name="coulter"/>

Notice that I was reusing the Coulter source[5], which was added by the deleting editor [6]. Notice also that the the whole point of the Coulter article is to complain about how mainstream science rejects the evidence for the association).

Saying that only that "other studies suggest", without pointing out that those other studies have been plainly rejected by mainstream science, would be non-neutral, as these are fringe views. NPOV should not be used as an excuse to remove everything negative from articles.

Comments about adding this sentence? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I guess that nuking all the fringe views also works[7], specially when they were backed only by sources from activists, and specially when the CDC source (which I didn't check at the time) clearly says that studies have concluded that vaccines are not a risk factor for SIDS, and doesn't give any prominence to any of the studies cited on the two removed sources.

Also, i replaced "some studies" with "studies", as the whole paragrah turned out to be a word-by-word quote from the CDC source, except for the word "some", which must have been added as a hook for the removed sentences. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh, it's been reverted again by the same user as "NPOV"[8], with no explanation for why the CDC source is wrong, or why fringe sources should be used to correct a source that is probably the best authority on the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

editing of speculated associations = vaccinations

"mainstream" thinking used to believe the Earth was flat.

In the spirit of truthful, rational, objective, independent thinking:

I urge you to do classic debate research and truly learn both the for/against positions for vaccinations to the point where you can effectively argue both points of view, taking into consideration in your research:

• What are the annual profits from vaccine manufacture?
• Why in the 1970s were there approximately 10 mandated vaccines and now there are over 35?
• Are vaccine manufacturers publicly traded companies which have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to continually earn profit?
• Does the pharmaceutical industry contribute money to the CDC? If so, how much?
• What would happen to the CDC should it publicly admit an association between vaccines and SIDS? How would this affect their relationship with vaccine manufacturers?
• Is the CDC biased in favor of protecting vaccine manufacturers?
  
  

There are findings within the medical and scientific community that link vaccines and SIDS, and those that don't:

Vaccination Citations and Death

• Na, "DPT Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death - Tennessee, US Dept HEW, MMWR Report, Mar 23, 1979, vol 28(11): 132.
• Arevalo, "Vaccinia Necrosum. Report on a Fatal Case", Bol Ofoc Sanit Panamer, Aug 1967, 63:106-110.
• Connolly, J H, Dick, G W, Field, CM, "A Case of Fatal Progressive Vaccinia", Brit Med Jour, 12 May 1962; 5288:1315-1317.
• Aragona, F, "Fatal Acute Adrenal Insufficiency Caused by Bilateral Apoplexy of the Adrenal Glands (WFS) following Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccination", Minerva Medicolegale, Aug 1960; 80:167-173.
• Moblus, G et al, "Pathological-Anatomical Findings in Cases of Death Following Poliomyelitis and DPT Vaccination", Dtsch Gesundheitsw, Jul 20, 1972, 27:1382-1386.
• NA, "Immunizations and Cot Deaths", Lancet, Sept 25, 1982, np.
• Goetzeler, A, "Fatal Encephalitis after Poliomyelitis Vaccination", 22 Jun 1961, Muenchen Med Wschr, 102:1419-1422.
• Fulginiti, V, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Visits to the Doctor: Chance Association or Cause and Effect?", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 7-11.
• Baraff, LJ, et al, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 5-6.
• Reynolds, E, "Fatal Outcome of a Case of Eczema Vaccinatum", Lancet, 24 Sept 1960, 2:684-686.
• Apostolov. et al, "Death of an Infant in Hyperthermia After Vaccination", J Clin Path, Mar 1961, 14:196-197.
• Bouvier-Colle, MH, "Sex-Specific Differences in Mortality After High-Titre Measles Vaccination", Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 1995; 43(1): 97.
• Stewart GT, "Deaths of infants after triple vaccine.", Lancet 1979 Aug 18;2(8138):354-355.
• Flahault A, "Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria/tetanus toxoid/pertussis/poliomyelitis immunisation.", Lancet 1988 Mar 12;1(8585):582-583.
• Larbre, F et al, "Fatal Acute Myocarditis After Smallpox Vaccination", Pediatrie, Apr-May 1966, 21:345-350.
• Mortimer EA Jr, "DTP and SIDS: when data differ", Am J Public Health 1987 Aug; 77(8):925-926.
  
  Namecharger (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

original research calling for editors to evaluate directly primary sources and make research on the subject instead of using the conclusion reached to by secondary sources, conspiracy theories about doctors and medical agencies purposefully mandating during decades stuff that kills babies in order to protect the benefits of the medical industry, using cherrypicked clinical trials instead of using reviews and staments from medical organisms which have the experience to determine the relative value of each study, trying to make predictions about what the future will bring. No, this has no place at wikipedia.

Please, cease and desist of trying to insert WP:FRINGE views at wikipedia. We are trying to build a serious encyclopedia here, and we can't let every article on a medical condition to be flooded by every fringe view on them. For the opinions against vaccination, the correct article is vaccination controversy, so go there to argue for the insertion if this info.

If you have a problem with this, then go to the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard.

P.D.: Notice that mainstream thinking on the middle ages was that earth was round, they knew it since the time of ancient greece, they just thougth that it was bigger that it really was. Only the unwashed masses thought that earth was flat. So, thinking that the earth was so big, and not knowing that America was on the middle, made them think that Cipango was just too far to reach it throught the Atlantic sea with any ship available at that time. Columbus made his own calculations, which were also wrong and led him to believe that earth was smaller than it actually is, and he thought that he could reach Cipango by sea (he couldn't have reached it). Fortunately for him, America was within reachable distance by a carabel and right on the middle of the path to Cipango. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing fringe about being in the resistance! Resistance is an essential part every mainstream needs! Objective publishing has to include both views. Of course Mainstream is to loose millions if Resistance grows, but that is not Wikipedias problem, its Wikipedias opportunity! Lets put up all contradictory statements of both fronts in the SIDS/Vaccine section or be it in the Autism/Vaccines Section too. Both fronts of researches must be heard, and it must also be made public how the Vaccine correlation deniers are usually financed! You'll see that the vaccine manufacturers are pulling strings that make these contribution more unworthy of Wikipedia than those of honest concerned parents and medical professionals that stand up against this form of corporate fascism! Togo (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at WP:UNDUE, and notice how "vaccines cause SIDS" has been totally discarted by mainstream, and how the quote by the CDC already says how some people were mislead by the timing of the vaccines. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that the sources linked above are all from the 60s, 70s and 80s? I looked at an old version of this page and it cited more recent studies

• Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, N Engl J Med, 1988
• Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-poliomyelitis vaccination status., Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1995
• The UK accelerated immunisation programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case-control study BMJ 2001

In particular, this last paper from 2001 looks like a review of the papers in the last years, and it has this paragraph saying things similar to the CDC:

The age at which infants receive their primary course of immunisation corresponds to the peak age for the incidence of the sudden infant death syndrome, promoting speculation that these two events might be related. During the past 20 years sporadic reports1–4 and some methodologically weak case-control studies5,6 showed a possible association. However, a series of studies came to the opposite conclusion,7–11 and one raised the possibility that an accelerated immunisation programme directly contributed to a reduction in these deaths.12 All these studies share the weakness that they may be biased by residual confounding.13 In particular, an infant who is showing minor symptoms may have immunisation delayed, and infants from the most deprived and geographically mobile families are least likely to be immunised. As these factors may independently influence the risk of the sudden infant death syndrome it is essential that they feature in any analysis.

P.D.: And, anyways, why are we giving so much weight to Viera Scheibner, when there were other researchers saying that they had found a link? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

P.D.D.: I posted at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Sudden_infant_death_syndrome --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.: Just so it's perfectly clear. We have a guideline about sourcing in medicine: WP:MEDRS The CDC and the BMJ are way better sources for medicine, and they are more recent. Reviews are better than isolated clinical trials. Peer-reviewed papers are better than self-published ones. We have policy WP:UNDUE and guideline WP:FRINGE. This is an article about an illness and wikipedia should offer the best current knowledge about that illness, not present outdated knowledge as fact. We have policy WP:NOTSOAPBOX which says that articles must not be used as pulpits for, for example, denouncing corporate fascism of vaccine manufacturers fighting against concerned parents and doctors (and the allegued economic interest is already covered at Vaccine_controversy#Financial_motives anyways) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

History of SIDS?

Does anyone know any history related to SIDS, such as when the phrase was coined and when the phenomenon was noticed? Was "crib death" an early term for SIDS? I'd like to see some of that added to the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

See Guntheroth WG. Crib Death: The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Third Edition, Futura Publishing Company, Armonk, NY, 1995, pp 439. This text provides an excellent survey of the history of SIDS. In particular it discusses an early study of infant SIDS-like deaths by Templeman C. [Two hundred and fifty-eight cases of suffocation of infants. Edinburgh Med J 1892; 38:322-329] that were later shown to be probably correctly called overlaying. See the related study of these death certificates reported by Williams FLR, Lang GS, Mage DT. Sudden unexpected infant deaths in Dundee, 1882-1891: Overlaying or SIDS. Scot Med J 2001;46(2):43-47. They showed that there was an approximately equal number of male and female infants dying whereas modern SIDS in Scotland has a 50% male excess as is found in virtually all modern countries with high rates and standards of forensic autopsy. Sidsmaven (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New Theory

Doesn't anybody see the strong relationship between having a fan on in the room and lower SIDS? Infants are almost always dressed in clothing which covers them competely except for their heads and hands and often in synthetic fibers which don't allow persperation to escape. Imagine being clothed in one of these. At first you would feel fine, then you would start to feel too hot then you would be very uncomfortable, then you would break out in a heat rash, which many babies have. Just opening the front wouldn't help, the pocket of humid air is still all around you. You would feel like a turkey roasting in an oven! Suppose you couldn't take it off yourself. Eventually you would die! When the autopsy was done the first thing they would do is take off all your clothing and the hot, sweaty air would escape. Babies sweat too. Their usual clothing doesn't allow the persperation to evaporate and cool them. They should outlaw infant clothing which covers the feet all in one piece. There has to be a gap between the legs and the feet and around the wrists, like all adult clothing has. Have you ever wondered why they don't sell infant-style clothing to adults? Because then we'd all realize how very, very uncomfortable it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.112.208 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's covered at Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#Air_circulation_with_fan_use. Has there been any new study? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So far there has only been one study about fan use and SIDS - and it has been pointed out to be deeply methodologically flawed. I have added this info to the article. Amaher (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Investigation

This may be a stupid question, but are all of these deaths reported to the authorities and investigated as potential infanticide? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in my (limited) experience in the ER, unless there is something that makes the doctor suspicious. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See this reference citing 1/3 of coroners in Mississippi not examining the death scene. Graham J, Hendrix S, Schwalberg R. Evaluating the SIDS diagnosis process utilized by coroners in Mississippi. J Forensic Nurs. 2009;5(2):59-63. PubMed PMID: 19538649.Sidsmaven (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Endotoxin and E. Coli Bacteria

How comes there is no mention of the Theory of Robert Reisinger who found that SIDS in other mammals seems to be caused by Entotoxemia from E. Coli?

This is really just a question. I am no expert at all and have no clue whether this is comlpletely bogus or serious scientific theory. However it seems to me that the article should at least mention it.

There is a mention of it on whale(dot)to which makes me very sceptical. But then there are scientific articles like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1461172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1357-4310(95)92343-8 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-8244(99)00067-X that seem to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.242.102 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Heading

Saying that SIDS declines to almost 0% after 1y is redundant. It is defined as death in the <1yo, so any death after 1y is not SIDS BY DEFINITION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.151.89 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Alfred Steinschneider & the Waneta Hoyt serial murder case

Why is there no mention of Dr. Steinschneider's 1972 paper making the alleged connection of apnea to SIDS that turned out to actually record the serial murder of five children from suffocation by their mother, Waneta Hoyt, who was convicted and died in prison? There isn't even a wikipedia biography of Dr. Alfred Steinschneider whose paper dominated the field for decades, only a few paragraphs about it in the article on scientific misconduct which will probably disappear now too. There is some scientific amnesia going on here. There is a BBC Horizon documentary on the case on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.68.204 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This. The absence throws the whole article into doubt. Could you have a wikipedia article about 20th Century Germany without discussing Hitler? You would assume a neo-nazi or some other malfeasant was surveilling the article to rewrite history.66.64.72.10 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

speculations

I made a major change here today - the section that was called "Speculated associations" has been renamed "Unproven hypotheses". There was a considerable amount of unsourced (and very unhelpful) material that I have removed.--Amaher (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amaher: I changed the title from 'Unproven Hypotheses" to "Other Hypotheses." No hypothesis for the cause of SIDS is proven at this time, so your change was a bit misleading. Sidsmaven (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

uncited references

i removed the following references. These were just sitting at the bottom of the page. If they are in fact direclty relevant to the subject then they can go back in but they should be properly integrated into the article as inline citations.

• Scientists believe they have found the key to cot deaths, The Times
• Large rise in infant sofa deaths in UK at BBC
• Helen Carter, Flat out: Babies sleeping on their backs reduces the risk of cot death but may flatten their heads. Should we be worried, asks Helen Carter, The Guardian, July 8, 2003
• Wendy Hansen, Study suggests serotonin plays a role in SIDS: Mice who overproduced the brain chemical showed symptoms similar to those of the infant syndrome before they died., Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2008

• "Safe Sleep for Your Baby" ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development website)
• DR. John Kattwinkel and 'Back to sleep' honored by Discovery health channel medical honors (American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP))
• Ten Reasons to Sleep Next to Your Child at Night (The Natural Child Project website)
• Phil Stevens, The Flip Side of 'Back to Sleep', The O&P Edge

"A Unifying Theory for SIDS" has appeared on-line that places in context all the important risk factors and characteristics of SIDS that are described in the sections above. It is an open access article and can be found at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijped/2009/368270.cta.html

• Heaton PA, Sage MD (1995). "Fatal smothering by a domestic cat". N Z Med J. 108 (994): 62–3. PMID 7885652. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Kearney MS, Dahl LB, Stalsberg H (1982). "Can a cat smother and kill a baby?". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 285 (6344): 777. PMC 1499543. PMID 6810995. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Cheers. --Amaher (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New theory

Hi, I stumbled upon this (french). this is a news report talking about a new theory explaining SIDS as a result of over-activity of the vagus nerve. this news piece sounds legit, however, I could not find the any scientific article supporting that claim. has any 1 else heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.111.178 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Co-sleeping and SIDS: Death by smothering is not SIDS

I think the risk factor "Co-sleeping with parents or other siblings increases the risk for accidental smothering" because I don't it think belongs on the list of risks factors for SIDS because smothering would be a known cause and SIDS generally is a diagnosis where there was is an unknown cause. I imagine that because it can be difficult to differentiate between a true case of smothering and SIDS that in many cases of a baby that dies while co-sleeping little effort may be made to specifically determine whether the cause was SIDS or smothering. While the potential risk of smothering inherent to co-sleeping (regardless of what safety guidelines one follows) is a valid concern (though highly debatable IMO), in terms of the risk of infant death in general, it's separate issues from SIDS. Since this article is about SIDS we not talk about the risks of smothering which is more appropriate for the article on co-sleeping. --Cab88 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see someone replaced the questionable statement I was referring too with a sourced statement that actually refers to SIDS not smothering which addresses by concerns. Thanks! --Cab88 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite confused, because early on co-sleeping is listed as a postnatal risk factor, yet under its own title the indication is that there is a negative correlation. I'd love to correct the former bit of misinformation but will gladly wait and see if someone has another idea. Statarius (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I know the explanation, from reading a discussion between a First Responder and a Mortician: Parents commonly smother their children by co-sleeping (I suspect there is always alcohol or sleeping medication involved), they are not prosecuted, and doctors typically put down the cause of death as SID in order to make it easier for the parents to handle. First Responder looks the other way. If this is the typical pattern around the country, then you'll end up with contradictionary evidence, where co-sleeping is an "official" risk factor according to statistics, but is in actually something which prevents SID.

Of course, this is unsourced, so I am not going to add it to the article. But perhaps this story will be a useful indicator to someone with more expertise than me who is willing to explain it in the article.

J1812 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Save this page

I am wondering what sick people are trying to vandalize this page and why there is no MOD or administrator available to finally lock this page. just fix the info and lock the sections that need no change in a long time such as THE First PARAGRAPH !!! for instance.119.155.29.176 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Viral myocarditis as a cause of SIDS

Viral myocarditis may account for >15% of cases of sudden infant death syndrome (see two thirds down the page)

You might want to include this viral myocarditis etiology in the SIDS article.

Coxsackie B3 myocarditis in 4 cases of suspected sudden infant death syndrome

Sudden, Unexpected Death Related to Viral Myocarditis

Viral Myocarditis in Children

Myocarditis and sudden infant death syndrome

Myocarditis misdiagnosed as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Drgao (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Geographic use of SIDS versus "crib death"

I'm an American and I have never heard of the term "crib death". I've always known of it as "SIDS" or Sudden infant death syndrom through newspaper articles, text books, etc. I question the veracity of the claim that SIDS isn't the more common term in the US. I think the lead should be changed.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Parenting advisers discourages co sleeping, while at the same time encourages room sharing for the benefit of the baby.<ref name="Co Sleeping" group="Co Sleeping">{{cite web|last=Syed|first=Sirajuddin|title=Co Sleeping and SIDS|url=http://co-sleeping.com/co-sleeping-and-sids-2012-11-02/|work=Co Sleeping Harms|publisher=Expert Parenting Adviser|accessdate=18 November 2012}}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosleeping (talk • contribs) 11:39, 18 November 2012

Struck Off?

The article (and source) say that Roy Meadow was "struck off." What does this mean? He can't practice medicine anymore? Or he's just not allowed to testify as an expert witness anymore? It's not clear in the source article either. To a non-UK person that term is a bit opaque -- some explanation would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.84.192 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it means "striken off" from the list of people who can legally practice medicine. (In the UK, to practice certain professions like medic or lawyer, you need to be registered with certain organisms, as regulated by British law. You could even go to jail if you practice without being registered). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary source

I just realized that the CDC WONDER online database is a WP:PRIMARY source. It consists of raw data without published analysis. Also, WONDER is being used to support conclusions that should be made by secondary sources (for example "this cannot explain the identical male fraction of 0.61 in other respiratory mortality causes (...) that also exists for all ages 1 to 14 years in the US from 1979 to 2005", which to be original research made by one editor.

I am removing this source as a primary source, and tagging or removing the supported texts. Sorry for not noticing this before. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks. We need to make sure we use review articles per WP:MEDRS. Lots are available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think using the CDC WONDER online database violates the WP:PRIMARY source policy in every case here. In particular the use in the current first sentence of the Epidemiology section, "SIDS was responsible for 0.543 deaths per 1,000 live births in the US in 2005" is acceptable. The policy says, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia,... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." This is the case with the CDC WONDER online database in this sentence. The editor who wrote that did nothing but transcribe the numbers. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

Under the heading "Prevention" is the subheading "Treatment", containing the single line:

"A double blind placebo controlled study performed in Zaire by the Jursh lab showed that intravenous maxiceitol can significantly improve quality of life for patients suffering with SIDS."

First, there is no citation to support this statement, and Google searches for keywords do not return relevant results. Second, "patients suffering with SIDS" cannot improve in their condition for obvious reasons. Therefore, I recommend this subsection be removed entirely. 67.242.34.217 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This was clearly vandalism, I have removed the section. Lineslarge (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is soo funny. There is no such thing as "maxiceitol" and how much research do think comes out of Zaire!! I think this is more of a poke in the ribs than vandalism. Maybe this article needs a section on criticism and a link to correlation and causation so a reader might be able to understand the difference. As long as the disease is of unknown cause how can there exist preventive measures? SIDS seems to be more of a political disease rather than medical.

Brain disorders - brain stem

I am trying to add a wikilink within the sentence: This position can cause the brain stem to fall; in severe cases, the brain becomes "crushed".

Is this considered brain herniation, or is it something else (in which case please explain)? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

General editing - summarizing medical articles

"Tummy time" should be called "supervised tummy time" and the Pediatrics article cited for this referred to tummy time as a way to mitigate one of the reasons caregivers may hesitate to put their infants "back to sleep", as it can lead to head flattening, medical term Plagiocephaly. The editor had referred to tummy time in the lead section as a prevention strategy for SIDS. --- Benutzer41 (talk) 14 April 2013

Plagiocephaly and Brachycephaly Connection Comment

In the Sleep Positioning subsection of the Prevention section, I provide you this quote:

Many have started to link the introduction of the Back-to-Sleep recommendation to the increased number of children suffering from Plagiocephaly and Brachycephaly. This is likely due to babies spending more time on their backs.[102] However, these theories are currently unproven.[citation needed]

This reads like a data interpretation car crash. One, the claim that "Many" have started to link plagiocephaly/brachycephaly and supine sleep in babies clearly isn't good enough. However, I was prompted to add this to the talk section regarding the assertion that "these theories are currently unproven." That little push back against (presently apocryphal) research is basically the thesis to this entire article and the literature surrounding SIDS: no theory about SIDS has been proven. No definitive causal mechanism, circumstance, or innate abnormality has been identified. If we're going to clarify that the allegedly "Many" studies suggesting X remain "currently unproven," then this nonspecific conclusion can be applied to literally every entry in the Hypotheses and Prevention headings.

Just something to chew on for perhaps a more intrepid Wiki-er than myself.

--63.146.101.45 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncertain comment in "Risk Factors - Mold"

Dear Wikipedians, reading this article I've found the following sentence that looks out of place in the paragraph related to "Mold":

" (this hypothesis has been disproven by research subsequent to Cleveland study in the 1990's; infant pulmonary hemorrhage is most closely linked to premature birth; prematurity and water-damaged homes would both coincide with poverty)http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4909a3.htm "

I can either remove it, or try to relocate/rewrite if the material is relevant. Any comments please?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "mold" as risk factor. Benutzer41 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Child abuse

I moved the comment about Child Abuse to Differential Diagnosis from Risk Factors. There is already a comment about excluding child abuse under Differential Diagnosis.

Benutzer41 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources and marginal theories

This article is marred by very uneven and inconsistent coverage of hypotheses about the etiology of SIDS. The "Hypotheses" section includes much material which does not respect the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), which calls for relying mostly on "literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Isolated articles -- even in reputable medical journals -- are not good sources. There needs to be some evidence that the hypothesis is taken seriously by the field. For that reason, I'm surprised the article is rated 'B' -- I'd have expected 'C' at best. This is unfortunate, because SIDS is of great importance and a source of anxiety to many new parents, who could use a solid summary of the state of the field. --Macrakis (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) related to Solar Activity through the Schumann Resonance mechanism.

I saw this paper in relation to something else I was researching. The main part of the conclusion of the paper http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_n5_EMR_Schumann_Resonance_SIDS_paper.pdf "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) related to Solar Activity through the Schumann Resonance mechanism" is given below: [quote]Of course, it is not the sunspots on the surface of the sun that directly cause human health effects, such as SIDS. So, how do spots on the sun cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome on earth? The sunspot number is a measure of solar activity that produces ionizing particles, alpha and beta particles, and electromagnetic radiation of X-Rays, microwaves and UV radiation. The X-Rays ionize the lowest layer of the Ionosphere, the D-Region, Brekke (1997). The D-Region has an extremely significant diurnal solar cycle, solar flare and 11-year sunspot cycle variations, Craig (1965). The height of a particular electron density in the D-Region modulates the intensity of the global Schumann Resonance signals, which have a strong diurnal cycle and are closely related to solar storms and sunspot activity, Cherry (2002, 2003a). Human brains, including infants, detect and respond to the Schumann Resonance signals, with one reaction that reduces the pineal gland output of melatonin, Cherry (2002, 2003a,b,c). This causes human health effects including SIDS as this study confirms. The analysis also confirms that the long-term changes over the solar cycle are adaptively homeostatic.[/quote]

I have been pursuing a hypothesis that large Coronal Mass Ejections appear to increase the accident rate of aircraft around the world. I had the idea that biological entities native to Earth were intercepting aircraft due to the negative effects of solar radiation particles penetrating the atmosphere during the arrival of these solar outbursts. By coincidence I have been in a conversation with someone on-line who's aunt had a mystery experience in seeing a strange 'silver orb' floating above their baby's crib, http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=247973&hl= "Floating metal ball on top of baby's crib". I suggested that rather than her deduction of a possible "alien experience" it was more likely to be a winged-cryptid entity which I've previously identified as a 'lizard-bird'. I have only now put the two together to suggest another mechanism for the Schumann Resonance signals suggested by Dr Neil Cherry in the paper referenced above. It may be the behaviour of such hypothesised mini lizard-birds which is the crucial factor. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

The 'Air circulation with fan use' interested me similarly in that I suggest that in these cases the windows are more likely to be closed at night, so preventing any hypothesised flying entity from entering the room. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

Dr Neil Cherry's paper doesn't seem to be published in any peer-reviewed journal. And it doesn't seem to be confirmed or disproved by other researchers. And it doesn't seem to have received attention in other venues.

The cryptic creature theory is original research (WP:OR), which is discouraged in wikipedia. If you want to make other people aware of your theories, you will have too find other venues. If you want to discuss the viability of your theories, then you should find a science discussion forum. Talk pages of articles are for discussing improvements to articles, not for discussing new untested theories.

Idem for closed windows in fan-related deaths. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision link?

I have seen speculation that circumcision may increase the risk of SIDS - might this be something to consider researching further and adding to the article? This is interesting given that SIDS is more likely to occur in male infants, and even the comparatively higher risk of occurring in white male infants vs other races is also suggestive, as the rate of circumcision is highest for whites in the USA. I think this warrants some further consideration, perhaps if more info becomes available in future. 105.236.67.217 (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No Sudden Infant Death Syndrome on the SIDS disambiguation page

When I typed in "SIDS" in the Wikipedia search field, it took me to the disambiguation page but not one of the four entries there listed Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Is it not there for a reason? Shouldn't it be there??? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New theory - brain stem pathologies

I'm new to wiki, so can someone please add this: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneur.2015.00220/full This sounds legit and reasonable.