Have The Causes of SIDS (Crib Death) Been Found?

By Jane Sheppard

Parents Denied Crucial Findings

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. These four words can incite a considerable amount of terror in a parent of an infant. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib or cot death, is the number one cause of death for infants from one month to one year of age. 90% of all SIDS deaths are in babies under six months old. Ongoing SIDS research occasionally leads to discoveries of risk factors associated with these deaths, but after almost 50 years, researchers say they still do not know how or why it happens. The prevailing official viewpoint on SIDS is that the cause is unknown (SIDS Alliance 2001).

Read more …

Vitamin C and crib death risk:
By Jim Sprott

1.    Australian research has shown that a diet which is very high in vitamin C reduces crib death risk.
2.    The reason for the reduced risk is as follows:
When the toxic gases which cause crib death (phosphines, arsines and stibines) are inhaled, they pass into the bloodstream and are converted into the corresponding ionic form of the gases.  In the case of phosphine, for example, the phosphine molecule converts to the phosphonium ion.  All of these ions are alkaline in reaction.  If the baby has a high proportion of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in his/her bloodstream, this will tend to make the blood slightly more acidic and absorb the alkaline ion in the form of the corresponding ascorbate salt.  The ascorbate salt de-activates the toxic gas.
3.    Ingesting large quantities of vitamin C does not eliminate crib death risk – it reduces the risk.

Why a Satisfactory Solution to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Has Not Been Achieved

by Dr Archie Kalokerinos

The problem arises because the definition of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is too limited in its scope. It is usually accepted that it means the sudden, unexpected death of an infant who was either apparently well or suffering from a ‘trivial’ illness which normally would not be expected to cause death and autopsy findings failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for death. However, one could become involved in all sorts of discussions and augments concerning fine details of many cases. While a recognition of these fine details is important the definition as outlined above is a practical starting point.

Some aspects have been intensely studied during recent years. They are:

  1. So called ‘risk factors’
  2. Abnormal biochemical, bacterial, viral, immunological, microscopic (including electron microscope findings) and almost every aspect of modern medical technology.

In other words, the more we look for fine abnormalities the more we find. Unfortunately, apart from a few factors such as the recognition of the dangers of cigarette smoking, nothing had been found that dramatically reduces the incidence of the syndrome. Most authorities will admit that the syndrome is a ‘garbage can’ where almost anything can lead up to it and almost any abnormality can be found if one cares to look carefully enough. It is necessary, of course, to bear in mind the fact that whatever the findings are they are insufficient to satisfactorily explain the death according to accepted medical standards.

Read more …

Fans Lower Risk of Sudden Baby Death 

Fans Lower Risk of Sudden Baby Death Posted by: … air lowered the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in a study of nearly 500 babies. … SIDS is the sudden death of an otherwise healthy infant that can’t be attributed to any other cause.

Breastfeeding Reduces Risk of SIDS 

Breastfeeding Reduces Risk of SIDS Posted by: … who breastfeed lower the chances that their baby might die of sudden infantdeath syndrome, also kn … Exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month cut the risk of SIDS in half.

Dr. Jim Sprott ( identified the mechanism of cot death (SIDS, crib death) in his book “THE COT DEATH COVER-UP?” (Penguin Books, New Zealand 1996; Britain 1997)

Please be aware that I am advocating that you think for yourself, rather than accept what is at present in fashion. These change often. Mothers throughout time have slept us where we sleep the best, as ‘littlies’.


We all want the best for our children, and act accordingly.
We are all concerned that we know little about that which MAY impact upon us.
We are all raised to believe in ‘experts’ – as they apparently know more than we do.
We all now ‘know’ it is dangerous to sleep babies on their tummies.

Going back twenty years, midwives were trained to sleep newborns on their bellies, as the SIDS rates in Japan, (where they slept babies in the position they did not startle in, and had much deeper sleep) were negligible.

What the midwives were not told was that Japan had postponed all vaccinations until the babies had a more mature immune system – at TWO YEARS of age. When Japan began baby vaccinations again, their SIDS rates became the same as those of the rest of the Western world.

A decade ago, we started hearing that babies were only ‘safe’ if slept on their sides or backs.
Now, in this time’s reality, we are to only sleep them on their backs.

But how do we KNOW this?
We have been told.

If you look up Google ‘tummy sleeping and its effects of on the newborn’ you will NOT find the results of one man’s investigations, research, results, book, website and product that makes sleeping in any position SAFE 100% for all babies. The first 150 entries all say no known cause of SIDS and the same advice – back sleeping – all to the exclusion of the actual answer and the REASON why SIDS occurs.

If you look at the site posted by the Association of SIDS and Infant Mortality Program, you will see that they state that “back sleeping does not eliminate SIDS”.

They also state that “no causal relationship has been determined by studies which have suggested an association between tummy sleeping position and SIDS risk”.

Why is there such a ‘to do’ about something that is not ”proven” (Back to Sleep) – just a theory – and yet something that is (see below) has a deafening silence around it?

If you then go to you will see all you need to; then also be as puzzled as I am, as to why this crucial piece of information is not just common knowledge, but essential parental know-how. You may find Dr Jim Sprott’s book “The Cot Death Cover up?” This makes very damning reading of the whole medical and baby factory establishment.

Stated briefly, Dr Jim Sprott, a biochemist, discovered in the 1990s’ that the out-gassing of apparently ‘safe’ fire retardants in baby mattresses, acting with common environmental fungi in cahoots with the warmth generated by baby, (especially if over heated, or in winter), created a noxious gas which rendered baby unable to breathe, hence killing him/her.

This was a very useful piece of sleuthing on the part of someone who was trained to look for answers. Cot death is thus an environmental, not a ‘medical/health’ issue.


Dr Sprott makes a clear case for wrapping baby mattress IN A SAFE COVERING – as outlined in his site, or by contacting him directly. He also walks the reader through why this is a modern phenomenon – with the advent of highly chemicalized fabric/baby/bottle cleansers – there is a massive toxic soup our babies are exposed to, weakening their systems.

No doubt other factors come in – if baby has less Vitamin C in its system – parents smoking, mum not breastfeeding, and having little spare Vitamin C to cover baby’s needs, and vaccination which puts a HUGE strain on the available Vitamin C in baby’s body this will predispose baby to vulnerability.

Also having a baby with a sub clinical vertebral malpositioning because of the standard birthing practice of wrenching baby’s head around to ‘assist’ shoulder and body birthing, will probably skew likelihood of SIDS. The neck misalignment can then lessen the normal neurological messages getting through/blunt baby’s awareness to be actioned in time.

Thus, to ‘make sure’ baby is as well as possible, taking a little Vitamin C often every day, when lactating, and adding a LITTLE powdered Vitamin C to formulae, especially around vaccination, (if you choose to do this), and checking out baby at the local osteopath or chiropractor, are very sensible preventative health measures.


  1. BABY SLEEPS – everyone is happy.
    Nature gives us clues if we are prepared to get out of our prior knowing and listen.We all know that babies startle when they are newborn. Eventually this settles, but in the meantime, [and to an extent, dependent upon how much shock baby has to also contend with, from the ‘safe’ birthing practices (see further articles, especially what the blue line across the bridge of baby’s nose means)], baby wakes up and sleeps less well, in response to common stimuli.This can really distress both baby and mum, who needs to sleep herself. All of us in past generations experimented until we found what worked – and all of us were probably slept on our bellies, as this is what does. Few newborns refuse to be settled in this position. It has the advantage of allowing baby something to do on awakening – explore being in his/her body.
    Gross muscle groups need wiring into action, and tummy position gives maximum chance to play. It is very entertaining trying to get one’s head up, and look about. It is very challenging trying to move towards . . . .It’s the beginning of frustration management – and learning that with effort one CAN . . . .Babies are able to get on with their lives if we let them. They are not supposed to be passive.Babies NEED to crawl, and for a long time.
    Baby then has a cranium free to develop as nature intended, and to expand outwards in the usual rounded baby shape. The pressure of the maturing cortex thus does not mould into other areas.Baby is NOT meant to have a flat head. Baby does not need fancy head shapers, just a few visits to a cranial chiropractor or osteopath, and to be slept in the SAFE tummy position.