Prevent Cot Death FAQ
If you have questions in addition to those
answered here, please contact us by email at
What is cot death?
How can a parent prevent cot death?
How reliable is this research?
What does Dr Sprott say about orthodox cot death
prevention advice?
Why don't orthodox cot death researchers tell
parents to wrap
babies' mattresses?
What about the theory that cot death has a number
of causes (the so-called "multifactorial" theory)?
So what is the explanation for the rising rate
of cot death from one sibling to the next?
What about the claim that vaccination causes
cot death?
Could the wrapping of the mattress in polyethylene
cause a baby to sweat or overheat?
How can I learn more about the ‘Campaign
to Prevent Cot Death’?
What is cot death?
Cot death is the most common cause of death among infants
1 month to 1 year of age. Ninety percent of all cot deaths
occur among babies under 6 months of age. In most cases of
cot death, the baby has been put down to sleep in his/her
cot and later found lifeless, with no sign of illness or physical
struggle.
How can
a parent prevent cot death?
Many parents may be unaware of a 100% successful cot death
prevention campaign which a New Zealand scientist, Dr Jim
Sprott, has been running in New Zealand for eight years.
Dr Sprott states with certainty that the
cause of cot death has been discovered: it is caused by very
toxic nerve gases which can be generated from mattresses and
certain other bedding used in babies' cots. These toxic nerve
gases are generated when compounds of phosphorus, arsenic
and/or antimony in the bedding combine with household fungus
which commonly grows in bedding.
These gases (which are all anticholinesterase
agents), when inhaled by a baby or absorbed through the baby’s
skin in a lethal dose, shut down the baby’s central
nervous system, stopping breathing and then heart function.
Thus the cause of cot death is not medical – it is the
result of environmental poisoning. The baby can be fatally
poisoned without waking and without physical struggle.
The solution is to prevent exposure of
babies to the gases by wrapping mattresses in accordance with
a specified protocol and ensuring that bedding used on top
of the wrapped mattresses is not capable of the gas generation
concerned.
Since late 1994 mattress wrapping has been
publicized nationwide in New Zealand, and during that time
an estimated 120,000 babies have slept on wrapped mattresses.
Prior to the commencement of mattress-wrapping, New Zealand
had the highest cot death rate in the world (2.1 deaths per
1000 live births). Following the adoption of mattress-wrapping
the New Zealand cot death rate has fallen by 52% - and there
has been no reported cot death among those babies who have
slept on correctly wrapped mattresses. Among the ethnic group
most likely to wrap babies' mattresses (New Zealand Europeans)
the cot death rate has fallen by around 75%.
These major reductions in New Zealand cot
death rates cannot be attributed to orthodox cot death prevention
advice (e.g. face-up sleeping). There has been no material
change in that advice in New Zealand since 1992.
Orthodox research organizations dispute
Dr Sprott’s and Mr Richardson’s findings) –
however, no research has disproved the toxic gas theory for
cot death. In actual fact, the toxic gas theory explains every
risk factor which is known to be associated with cot death.
A considerable amount of research relating
to the toxic gas theory has been published in peer-reviewed
medical and other scientific journals. In fact, mattress-wrapping
for cot death prevention is supported by wider research than
supported the introduction of various items of orthodox advice
(including face-up sleeping).
According to Dr Sprott (who has a PhD in
chemistry and is expert in the gas generation concerned),
every step in the toxic gas theory for cot death has been
proved. And the eight-year New Zealand experience provides
practical proof that mattress-wrapping prevents cot death.
Some orthodox cot death researchers say
that cot death rates in various countries have fallen without
the introduction of mattress-wrapping – and they have.
But there is a crucial difference: many babies have died of
cot death where parents followed orthodox cot death prevention
advice; but there has been no reported cot death on mattresses
wrapped in accordance with the mattress-wrapping protocol.
Unlike orthodox advice, mattress-wrapping
has a 100% success record in cot death prevention.
How reliable
is this research?
In 2002 a German environmental medicine practitioner, Dr Hannes
Kapuste, published the statistical results of the New Zealand
mattress-wrapping campaign: "Giftige Gase im Kinderbett"
("Toxic Gases in Infants' Beds”), Zeitschrift fuer
Umweltmedizin (2002, No. 44) 18-20.
The "p" factor for the mattress-wrapping
intervention was calculated by Dr Kapuste (in collaboration
with the University of Munich) as being:
p = less than 1.9 x 10(exp minus 22)
It is usual in medical circles to regard
a "p" of less than 0.01 as sound proof of a scientific
proposition; and if the "p" is less than 0.001,
that is regarded as virtually certain proof.
1.9 x 10(exp minus 22) (the "p"
factor for mattress-wrapping) can be written as: 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,19
Put another way, the statistical proof
that mattress-wrapping prevents cot death is one billion times
the level of proof which medical researchers generally regard
as constituting certain proof of a scientific proposition.
Not surprisingly, therefore, Dr Kapuste descoted the toxic
gas theory for cot death and mattress wrapping for cot death
prevention as having "overwhelming reliability".
What does
Dr Sprott say about orthodox cot death prevention advice?
1) Don't smoke around your baby.
Recent history refutes any suggestion that
smoking causes cot death, says Dr Sprott. Smoking was very
common in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, but cot death was
virtually non-existent. Smoking is prevalent in present-day
Russia and Japan, but the cot death rates are low. No cause-and-effect
relationship between smoking and cot death has been established
– they are socio-economic parallels. Put another way,
smoking is more common among poorer people, and so is cot
death. But it does not follow that smoking is therefore a
cot death risk factor.
2) Don't bedshare with your baby if you
also smoke or smoked during pregnancy.
Misleading advice, says Dr Sprott. The
risk posed by bedsharing does not arise from smoking –
it arises from the mattress. Adults' mattresses very frequently
contain the same chemical and fungi as babies' mattresses,
and therefore they can generate the same toxic gas/es. (For
physiological reasons adults are not put at risk by this gas
generation in mattresses.)
3) Sleep your baby with feet to the foot
of the cot.
According to Dr Sprott, this practice affords
no protection whatsoever against cot death. Any area on an
unwrapped mattress where a baby sleeps is a potential source
of toxic gas, since that is the area which becomes warm and
moist (promoting the fungal activity which can cause gas generation).
4) Sleep your baby face up.
Face-up sleeping is a partial preventive
against cot death. This is because the gases which cause cot
death are more dense than air. They diffuse away towards the
floor, and therefore a baby sleeping face up is less likely
to inhale them.
Why don't
orthodox cot death researchers tell parents to wrap babies'
mattresses?
Dr Sprott suggests a variety of possible reasons:
cot death research has been a source of
funding for medical researchers. In various countries, including
the U.S., it continues to be so (although not in New Zealand,
where research funding has nearly ground to a halt as people
have become aware that mattress-wrapping is easy, inexpensive
and 100% successful in preventing cot death).
The toxic gas theory has been publicized
since 1989 (first in Britain), but it has been vigorously
denied by researchers and organizations responsible for advising
parents. In the intervening period, many thousands of babies
have died of cot death. But the New Zealand experience shows
that those deaths were avoidable – and that raises the
prospect of legal liability for babies' deaths.
In his book, The Cot Death Cover-Up? (Penguin
Books, NZ, 1996), Dr. Sprott relates a history of denial on
the part of orthodox cot death researchers and the medical
community, and their failure to accept or inform parents of
the simple explanation for the cause of cot death. His book
is available through our on-line order form.
What about
the theory that cot death has a number of causes (the so-called
"multifactorial" theory)?
Clearly wrong, says Dr Sprott. At this point he draws attention
to a highly significant piece of information about cot death:
the cot death risk rises from the first baby in a family to
the second, and rises again from the second baby to the third,
and so on. Babies of solo parents have a very high cot death
rate.
Dr Sprott explains that the rising rate
of cot death from one sibling to the next destroys every medical
and physiological theory for the cause of cot death.
* For example, some researchers think cot
death is caused by babies re-breathing their exhaled carbon
dioxide. However, all babies exhale a similar amount of CO2,
regardless of whether they are first, second or later babies.
Therefore, the rising rate of cot death from one sibling to
the next refutes the CO2 theory.
* Some researchers think cot death is related
to the size of babies' airways. However, for this theory to
be valid would require second babies' airways to be smaller
than those of first babies; and third babies' airways to be
smaller than those of second babies; and so on. Clearly, therefore,
the airways theory is wrong, because the size of babies' airways
is not related to birth order.
So what
is the explanation for the rising rate of cot death from one
sibling to the next?
C ot death is caused by gases generated in mattresses - and
many parents re-use mattresses from one baby to the next.
If a mattress contains any of the chemicals concerned and
fungi have become established in the mattress during previous
use by another baby, generation of toxic gas commences sooner
and in greater volume when the mattress is re-used.
This accounts for the rising rate of cot
death from one sibling to the next. It also accounts for the
very high cot death rate among babies of solo parents, who
for economic reasons are more likely to sleep their babies
on previously used mattresses which they have acquired secondhand.
What about
the claim that vaccination causes cot death?
Vaccination is not the cause of cot death – however,
various studies demonstrate that vaccination is a cot death
risk factor. The way in which vaccination increases the risk
of cot death is as follows:
Any circumstance which reduces the efficiency
of a baby's immune system, or which causes the baby to have
a higher than normal body temperature, will make the baby
more likely to succumb to the gaseous poisoning which causes
cot death. If the temperature in a baby’s cot increases
by 3C (say from 37C to 40C), the rate of gas generation increases
by 10 to 20 times.
Since, therefore, vaccination can adversely
affect the immune system (temporarily) and increase body temperature
(due to the minor infection caused by the vaccine), it can
make a baby more susceptible to the cause of cot death.
However, if the baby's mattress is correctly
wrapped for cot death prevention and the correct bedding used,
there is no risk of cot death associated with vaccination,
since the wrapping prevents exposure to the gas/es concerned.
Therefore, the fact that a baby sleeping on a correctly wrapped
mattress has been recently vaccinated becomes irrelevant as
regards cot death. The baby may experience the common physical
symptoms following vaccination, but cot death will not ensue.
An Australian researcher, Dr Viera Scheibner,
has stated that half of all cot deaths are caused by vaccination.
However, this assertion is clearly refuted by cot death epidemiology
in New Zealand, the USA and Japan. For example:
(a) The supposed link between cot death
and vaccination is refuted by Dr Scheibner herself when she
states that the USA is the nation most committed to vaccination.
In that case, why does the USA not have a very high cot death
rate? In 1994 the US cot death rate was only half that of
New Zealand; yet both countries had a high vaccination rate.
EXPLANATION: Unlike in the USA, the vast
majority of New Zealand cot mattresses are fabric-covered
and babies often sleep on sheepskins (allowing exposure to
toxic gas/es).
(b) There are wide disparities between
the cot death rates of the three major ethnic groups in New
Zealand. The groups which vaccinate the least (Maori and Pacific
Island) have the highest cot death rates. The Maori cot death
rate is around ten times higher than the European cot death
rate; yet the Europeans have a far higher vaccination rate.
If Dr Scheibner were correct, the reverse would be the situation.
EXPLANATION: Many European parents wrap
their babies' mattresses and so prevent exposure to toxic
gas/es. Therefore, the fact that these babies have been vaccinated
does not make them more susceptible to the gaseous poisoning
which causes cot death, since they are not exposed to the
gas/es in the first place.
(c) Dr Scheibner states that the vaccination
policy in Japan (where babies are vaccinated at a later age
than in other countries) is the reason for the historically
low cot death rate in that country. How then does she account
for the fact that the vaccination policy in Japan has not
changed but the cot death rate in Japan is now rising?
EXPLANATION: Japanese parents are moving
from using traditional Japanese cotton futons (which cannot
generate the toxic gases concerned) towards using western-style
mattresses. Therefore, it stands to reason that the cot death
rate is rising irrespective of the fact that the vaccination
policy has not changed.
(d) Dr Scheibner's conclusions are, therefore,
disproved by the Japanese experience and by a comparison of
cot death and vaccination rates between countries.
(e) The fact that vaccinated Australian
babies were found to have died of cot death on the same day
following vaccination as vaccinated US babies died of cot
death does not advance Dr Scheibner's argument that vaccination
causes cot death.
EXPLANATION: The rise in body temperature
which occurs after vaccination peaks on a particular day following
vaccination (a fact which has been known for decades). So
vaccinated babies sleeping on unwrapped mattresses are most
susceptible to cot death on the same day following vaccination.
As a matter of scientific logic, Dr Scheibner
cannot say that vaccination causes half of all cot deaths.
What her research shows is that half of all cot death babies
have been recently vaccinated.
In summary, to explain the correlation
between vaccination and cot death:
1. Overheating increases the risk of cot
death on unwrapped mattresses (by increasing gas generation).
2. Vaccination often causes babies to have
a slight fever (a reaction to the infection caused by vaccination).
That fever results in an increase in body temperature, resulting
in increased temperature in the baby’s cot, and therefore
increased gas generation.
3. Thus there is an increased cot death
risk following vaccination if a baby is sleeping on an unwrapped
mattress (and is therefore exposed to the gas/es which cause
cot death).
4. However, if a baby is sleeping on a
correctly wrapped mattress, and is thereby protected from
exposure to any gas/es being generated in bedding, vaccination
will not result in the conditions which cause cot death. There
may still be a temporary increase in temperature in the cot
(due to increased body temperature), but the baby will not
be exposed to the toxic gas/es which cause cot death.
5. Therefore, a recently vaccinated baby
will not die of cot death if it is sleeping on a correctly
wrapped mattress; but recent vaccination increases the risk
of cot death on an unwrapped mattress (as a result of overheating).
Could the wrapping
of the mattress in polyethylene cause a baby to sweat or overheat?
If sweating/overheating occurs on a wrapped mattress, it is
not caused by the polyethylene wrap. As a matter of thermodynamics,
the layer of polyethylene used to wrap a mattress is so thin
in relation to the thickness of the mattress that it has no
measurable effect on the rate of heat transfer from the baby
to the mattress itself. Put another way, the overheating is
not caused by the polyethylene wrap.
If sweating/overheating occurs on a wrapped
mattress, it is the result of too much overbedding or too
much clothing on the baby or overheating of the baby’s
room.
Babies have a GREATER capacity than adults
to retain their body heat, and LESS capacity than adults to
cool themselves down. Therefore babies should be lightly dressed
for sleep, and their required bedding is less than an adult
requires to keep warm.
When sleeping in their cots:
(a) Babies should sleep in loose baby gowns
or pajamas;
(b) They should not sleep in any item of
clothing which encloses their feet (such as a jumpsuit or
socks) or which encloses their hands;
(c) They should not wear bonnets or helmets,
since much of their body heat loss (which is essential) occurs
via the head.
In respect of bedding used on top of a
baby:
(a) Babies should use no more than two
pure wool or pure cotton overblankets;
(b) In a centrally-heated home, one pure
wool or pure cotton overblanket may be sufficient.
The overnight temperature in a baby's room
should not exceed 17-18 degrees Celsius.
How can I learn
more about the ‘Campaign to Prevent cot Death’?
Email questions to
Read Dr. Sprott’s book ‘The
Cot Death Cover-Up?’. This book is available for purchase
using our secure on-line order form
|
