Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
#1
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is a very interesting phenomenon when you actually delve into the specifics. On the surface, it makes sense: children are vulnerable while young, and require care to ensure they don’t randomly die. The highest SIDS risk for children is in those under 6m of age, and pretty much completely disappears by the age of one. Pretty scary right? Imagine your baby being carried to term, born, and then ‘randomly’ dying in the night. Everyone needs to be worried about random child death! Except, what if there are some hidden factors not discussed? If we look at other medical phenomenon, say AIDS and COVID, it’s clear that there is not an equal risk of ‘randomly’ dying from COVID or AIDS across every single person. Obese, diabetic, and generally unhealthy people have a higher risk of dying from COVID (certain races too), and homosexuals are more likely to die from AIDS. That being said COVID was marketed as total death for all, no fine detail ever expressed about comparative death rates, and originally fear was spread that AIDS had an equal risk to all (some too now for Monkeypox), so what about SIDS? Does every baby have the same risk of randomly dying? No, they don’t. There are several factors at play, and SIDS (largely), like the downplaying of AIDS effect on homosexuals, is a phenomenon that really only effects certain demographics and is downplayed because of progressive reasons. Let’s have a look at who is more likely to have a child die from SIDS, what risk factors actually put your child at risk, and why SIDS is discussed in this obscure manner, instead of honestly.

First, here is some of the typical obscuring language that is used. An Australian government health website states that “By removing known risk factors and providing a safe sleeping environment, most of these deaths are preventable.”[1] So, on the basis of this sentence, it appears that SIDS is an environmental problem considering that “most” of these deaths can be prevented. That is true on the basis of in most cases, if you put a baby in the right environment, they won’t die, however is the cause of SIDS deaths environmental? Here are some of the risk factors for SIDS covered in a medical journal article: “inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight (<2499gr), premature infants, intrauterine growth delay, short interval between pregnancies and maternal substance use (tobacco, alcohol, opiates).”[2] You might notice right away that none of these risk factors involve laying a baby the wrong way, putting pillows in a cot, etc., all environmental factors. They are instead referring to more genetic and lifestyle factors. In fact, you’ll understand all you need to know about SIDS from this single line from a journal article on SIDS titled ‘Sudden Infant Death and Social Justice’ which states that “these [SIDS] deaths are most common among poor and marginalized people in wealthy countries, including U.S. Blacks, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, New Zealand Māori, Australian Aborigines, indigenous Canadians, and low‐income British people.”[3] Again, none of these factors are environmental, which is how SIDS is often discussed, that you ‘must sleep your baby the right way’ as if the sole cause of SIDS is equal, instead of it largely being localised to certain groups. In much the same way that the obfuscate homosexual AIDS rates/death with the euphemised “people who engage in homosexual sex”, thereby deflecting from demographics and centralised groups, we move into theories of causality where deaths/illness occur not from specific inability to be healthy/make healthy choices (such as putting your child to sleep correctly) but instead from more general, almost miasma like theories of health, wherein certain arrangements of reality lead to death, not that certain people arrange society in ways that cause death.

When examining SIDS there are two primary elements that should be examined to understand the ‘syndrome.’ The first, as I have briefly touched on, is that SIDS realistically is eugenic on the basis that the greatest risk lies with low genetic stock parents. We see this most clearly in the racial demographics, but other factors such as short interval between pregnancies (i.e., poor family planning, more r-selected parents, lower IQ) and substance abuse. However, just because bad parents create conditions that kill their kids doesn’t mean that good parents might not also engage in risky behaviours that also kill their kid, right? This leads to the second element of SIDS that is not discussed, which is that many of the ‘risky’ behaviours we denounce now are in many cases used by demographics with low SIDS risks. Back in the ‘Sudden Infant Death and Social Justice’ article you’ll find the following line: “In 2016, the U.S. AAP also issued guidance acknowledging similar risk factors but maintained a more authoritative, less nuanced anti‐bed sharing stance (Ball, 2017a). For instance, it advised all parents to conduct night‐time feedings in the adult bed but then to return the infant to a separate sleeping area (Task Force On Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 2016).”[3] Other articles seemingly confirm that “infant-parent co-sleeping as a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome.”[4] So it appears bed sharing, or rather that harmful environments in general cause SIDS, so presumably even intelligent, White parents could accidentally kill their kids. Except this isn’t true either. “In Japan, many parents sleep next to their baby on bamboo or straw mats, or on futons. Some parents simply room-share by putting the baby in a crib or bassinet that is kept within arm's reach of the bed. Most cultures that routinely practice cosleeping, in any form, have very rare instances of SIDS. SIDS occurrences are among the lowest in the world in Hong Kong, where cosleeping is extremely common.”[5] There is a degree of pilpul used commonly to try and again obfuscate that it is not a general, equal risk of SIDS when bed sharing but trying to offer a distinction between bed sharing and co-sleeping. One article describes co-sleeping as “sharing a sleeping surface”[6] which is apparently different to sharing the sleeping surface of a bed, since the sleeping surface was a Japanese futon. Despite common bed sharing/co-sleeping, Japanese people have a 1/20th rate of SIDS compared to blacks in America, 1/8th compared to Whites.[7] Ultimately, it is demonstrable that co-sleeping/bed sharing, in some cases, does not present with a high risks of SIDS, so it cannot ultimately be just environmental. Coupled with the fact that demographic factors such as race and IQ level are ultimately more causal (by this I mean control for environmental factors has less of an impact than control by demographic factors) it is clear that SIDS is not the type of issue that it is commonly referred to as. SIDS is instead indicative of negligence and poor parenting (some studies also indicate a certain percent of SIDS deaths are murder, but are covered up/not properly diagnosed as infanticide[8]) and not actually a devastating and random chance that your child will die.

But why does this matter? There are a few crucial reasons. First, knowing that low IQ and non-white (tautology) parents have a greater risk at having their own children die is informative, from a racist perspective, but also from a generalist perspective. More of these people (immigrants) creates a larger burden for healthcare, ensuring parents are ‘informed’, but it also creates more dead children in your country, which ostensibly most people wish to avoid. However, the most important reason that this knowledge is valuable, and should be discussed in the proper context, is that it has an overwhelming impact on new mothers when they are forced to internalize the idea that they have a risk of killing their own children. What a pernicious thought, that you cannot even sleep in the same bed as your child, without putting their life at risk. I’m sure you can already understand what social forces welcome such a burden, to pathologize a natural and healthy urge of mothers. Worse is that it is the parents at the highest risks of SIDS that will ignore their risk, through their own stupidity, but the more K-selected parents will fret most. SIDS risks are inversely correlated with the amount of worry the parent will expend on it. This ‘equalising’ rhetoric of modern health, being unable to frankly address problem demographics and factors at their root (something we saw all too plainly with COVID) means that the burden which should most heavily be felt on the lower elements of society is redistributed to the normal, better elements, so that nobody has to ever point out that it is because of your race, or low intelligence, that you are more likely to have your child die. Like distributing police equally among every demographic, instead of targeting demographics at a higher risk of crime, you are forcing innocent people, who have less to do with the problem than others, to shoulder a burden they should not, and there is no worse people to add extra psychological harm onto than new mothers, especially in this case mothers of a higher calibre than the actual people having their kids ending up dead. Again it is indicative of general social dysfunction that not only are people unwilling to discuss, as a matter of fact, what the actual dynamics of a problem are, but also that professionals engage this problem in a dishonest manner. 

Small disclaimer: I did not discuss smoking at all, however this is a genetically 'neutral' factor in that by all reports it is smoke residue from 2nd and 3rd hand smoke that have an impact on a newborn's respiratory function. This means regardless of your intelligence/race, it is an actual environmental cause. There is of course some correlation anyway between lower IQ/life outcomes and smoking habits, therefore overlapping to a certain degree, however, it is largely irrelevant to the inability for medical professionals to discuss this matter frankly, but should still be accounted as a neutral factor and not totally ignored.

References:
[1] Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) | healthdirect
[2] The factors contributing to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome - PMC (nih.gov)
[3] Sudden infant death and social justice: A syndemics approach - PMC (nih.gov)
[4] An 8 year study of risk factors for SIDS: bed‐sharing versus non‐bed‐sharing - PMC (nih.gov)
[5] Cosleeping Around The World - The Natural Child Project
[6] Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infancy deaths in Japan - PMC (nih.gov)
[7] Infant Mortality | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC & https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0233253
[8] Ten Percent of SIDS Cases are Murder — or are They? - PMC (nih.gov)
#2
It probably starts from even before birth: atrocious lifestyles result in small defects in a child that stack up. Let's say a nerve is slightly jumpy, a little screwed you know, because momma did crack or whatever (who knows what miasma of nigger behaviors caused it) but controls the heart - since babies are very fragile, but also extremely rapidly developing entities - there's gonna be a lot of activity. Some random signal comes - oh no it made the heart do a double take and the baby fuckin dies (as a matter of fact these "microflaws" probably cause even adults to, much rarer, but still drop dead for seemingly no reason)
#3
Good write up. A darker theory I’ve heard is that some mothers accidentally/even purposefully suffocate their babies to get them to stop crying. Maybe they hold the baby a little too tight for a little too long late at night when they JUST WANT TO SLEEP and the baby won’t just BE QUIET - and he’s dead. When you consider the intelligence/psychopathy of minorities this seems pretty likely. No one would ever suspect a mother.
#4
That is the thing, a certain percent are certainly murder, because it is so easy to get away with. Put a heavy blanket on your kid, and the autopsy is going to show the same results as if it "naturally" accidentally was covered by a blanket and suffocated. Considering the videos you see of how certain races treat their kids, it's no surprise that negligence leads to such high rates of death. But on the inverse, you just simply have to realise a lot of the 'risky' stuff they tell you avoid is kind of a meme, since plenty of people do it and their kids don't die. As Svevlad said too, a certain percent do also just naturally die from being weaker. Again it is likely that those genetic flaws may be clustered towards the type of genetic refuse that have higher rates of SIDS.
#5
I recon that we will see an uptick of “SIDS” cases due to Roe. V Wade.
#6
I see you didn't mention vaccination in this post.

A study of SIDS and Vaccination with numbers from VAERS show that from 1990-2019, 78.3% of SIDS occured within 7 days post-vaccination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255173/

Another study I just found trying to find the above study also showed some association between the administration of vaccines and SIDS.
https://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedi..._of.5.aspx

While I haven't looked deep into the subject, such numbers are rather worrying in my eyes.
#7
(06-27-2022, 12:13 PM)Alfred Carlson Wrote: I see you didn't mention vaccination in this post.

A study of SIDS and Vaccination with numbers from VAERS show that from 1990-2019, 78.3% of SIDS occured within 7 days post-vaccination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255173/

Another study I just found trying to find the above study also showed some association between the administration of vaccines and SIDS.
https://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedi..._of.5.aspx

While I haven't looked deep into the subject, such numbers are rather worrying in my eyes.

I don't have enough knowledge about this specific possibility to make a good enough comment I fear. My initial thoughts though are that it both is reasonable, but also probably not the entire story. A few reasons why:

As with any vaccination, they key metric to use to examine possible side-effects and negative consequences comes from the number needed to treat (NNT) of number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of the specific vaccination. 1 NNT means that for every one vaccination, you immediately help one person. A 100 NNT means you need to vaccinate 100 people, to help one person. As such, with a 100 NNT, 99% of people are receiving uncessary medical care (with potential risk) just to ensure broad coverage and to help one person. DDepending on the severity of potential side effects, and mass vaccination campaigns for children, it is likely that there are a number of children who receive an unescessary vaccine, and some of those who are unnecessarily vaccinated with have bad outcome, and some of those will die. The NNT for the COVID vaccines, for adults, was 150-300+ from what I remember. For children, the NNT is infinite, since basically no kids died of COVID, so what is the vaccine preventing? Vaccinate tens of millions of kids to prevent ~10 deaths? That's nuts. You can check out the NNT for the normal flu vaccine for adults at [1], and you'll immediately see it's not 1, so a lot of people get unnecessary vaccinations. I did look up the childhood (<18) flu vaccination NNT once, and IIRC it was at least over 100, so basically useless. As I said, I don't know enough about NNTs and negative outcomes of other childhood vaccines, so can't say what possible link there is, but the very fact that we have a mass vaccination campaign, that most vaccinations do not have a 1 NNT, and there is enough biological diversity in human populations makes it certain that it's likely some children do have these negstive outcomes, resulting in death, that just get recorded as SIDS. 

Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths. 

So while on the one hand I think it is likely that vaccination plays a role, as mass vaccination campaigns with ineffective (untargeted) vaccines are causing immune responses in a lot of people, for no benefit, even if it were random there would still be some unintended deaths. But at the same time, the fact that we see higher SIDS rates in the less vaccinated populations gives cause to believe that it is not solely vaccinations causing this. Also worth mentioning is that vaccines, and vaccination schedules, vary across the world, so it would be interesting to see global data on this front and whether there are any interesting trends. 

Regarding the studies you linked, I think it makes sense when understanding that vaccination will cause an immune response, meaning a more fragile child, the question is then what mechanism causes the death after this. Is it, that the child being more upset (due to small fever, aches) is held more often, causing accidental suffocation? Is it, if I imagine in the case of blacks, that sick babies are just neglected and crucial signs not seen, leading to unnecessary deaths? It's definitely worrying that SIDS correlated so closely with vaccine administrations, again making the regime of mass vaccinations when unneeded complicit, but we still require understanding what exaclty is it that causes SIDS post vaccination and whether it differs. One interesting element I'd like to see if there are studies on is whether there is any correlation between C-sections and SIDS. Natural born children, when passing through the vaginal canal, pick up bacteria living there, which they consume upon birthing, and it helps develop their gut biome. A C-section baby doesn't consume this bacteria, leading to a worse gut biome, and it's becoming more and more clear gut biome health is absolutely vital to general health. Maybe c-section babies have a worse immune response, higher SIDS, I don't know, just a loose thought I'd love to try and quantify when I get a chance. 

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/
#8
(06-27-2022, 05:00 PM)Brucean Wrote: I don't have enough knowledge about this specific possibility to make a good enough comment I fear. My initial thoughts though are that it both is reasonable, but also probably not the entire story. A few reasons why:

As with any vaccination, they key metric to use to examine possible side-effects and negative consequences comes from the number needed to treat (NNT) of number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of the specific vaccination. 1 NNT means that for every one vaccination, you immediately help one person. A 100 NNT means you need to vaccinate 100 people, to help one person. As such, with a 100 NNT, 99% of people are receiving uncessary medical care (with potential risk) just to ensure broad coverage and to help one person. DDepending on the severity of potential side effects, and mass vaccination campaigns for children, it is likely that there are a number of children who receive an unescessary vaccine, and some of those who are unnecessarily vaccinated with have bad outcome, and some of those will die. The NNT for the COVID vaccines, for adults, was 150-300+ from what I remember. For children, the NNT is infinite, since basically no kids died of COVID, so what is the vaccine preventing? Vaccinate tens of millions of kids to prevent ~10 deaths? That's nuts. You can check out the NNT for the normal flu vaccine for adults at [1], and you'll immediately see it's not 1, so a lot of people get unnecessary vaccinations. I did look up the childhood (<18) flu vaccination NNT once, and IIRC it was at least over 100, so basically useless. As I said, I don't know enough about NNTs and negative outcomes of other childhood vaccines, so can't say what possible link there is, but the very fact that we have a mass vaccination campaign, that most vaccinations do not have a 1 NNT, and there is enough biological diversity in human populations makes it certain that it's likely some children do have these negstive outcomes, resulting in death, that just get recorded as SIDS. 

Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths. 

So while on the one hand I think it is likely that vaccination plays a role, as mass vaccination campaigns with ineffective (untargeted) vaccines are causing immune responses in a lot of people, for no benefit, even if it were random there would still be some unintended deaths. But at the same time, the fact that we see higher SIDS rates in the less vaccinated populations gives cause to believe that it is not solely vaccinations causing this. Also worth mentioning is that vaccines, and vaccination schedules, vary across the world, so it would be interesting to see global data on this front and whether there are any interesting trends. 

Regarding the studies you linked, I think it makes sense when understanding that vaccination will cause an immune response, meaning a more fragile child, the question is then what mechanism causes the death after this. Is it, that the child being more upset (due to small fever, aches) is held more often, causing accidental suffocation? Is it, if I imagine in the case of blacks, that sick babies are just neglected and crucial signs not seen, leading to unnecessary deaths? It's definitely worrying that SIDS correlated so closely with vaccine administrations, again making the regime of mass vaccinations when unneeded complicit, but we still require understanding what exaclty is it that causes SIDS post vaccination and whether it differs. One interesting element I'd like to see if there are studies on is whether there is any correlation between C-sections and SIDS. Natural born children, when passing through the vaginal canal, pick up bacteria living there, which they consume upon birthing, and it helps develop their gut biome. A C-section baby doesn't consume this bacteria, leading to a worse gut biome, and it's becoming more and more clear gut biome health is absolutely vital to general health. Maybe c-section babies have a worse immune response, higher SIDS, I don't know, just a loose thought I'd love to try and quantify when I get a chance. 

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/

I am not against vaccination in general, I haven't seen any reasonable or real refutation about them working.
However, I can see newly born children reacting badly to vaccines and suffering side-effects which can kill them but not older children or adults. It can also be that different races of children react differently to the same vaccines due to their genetics.
Another thing that would have to be studied is the SIDS rate of babies not getting vaccinated with those that do get vaccinated early on.

I haven't looked into the data and studies on this either. I never really considered SIDS much, except for when I saw the first study I linked several months back and remembered when seeing this thread.
#9
Isn't SIDS concentrated among certain darker peoples mainly? As was pointed out here by Brucean

Quote:Now, on the other hand, one factor that blows a hole in this theory is that Black Americans have a SIDS rate about 2.25x the White American population. Black Americans also have lower vaccination rates across the board, children and adults, so if SIDS was caused by vaccinations, we should see a higher correlation with races since race is a proxy for vaccination rate in this case. One way to check could be to examine SIDS rate by income group, especially if controlled by race, to see if there are any anomalies, but judging by the SIDS risk factors (young mothers being one high risk factor) it seems less likely that high income blacks would have higher SIDS deaths.

I think a better way to phrase it would be that babies die of NIGS from the usual suspects; rolling over onto the baby because you do not put them into a crib, not paying attention to the baby as it rolls over onto its face and suffocates itself ingloriously, quite literally shaking the baby to sleep and the medical examiner not catching that it is not a shaken baby but a NIGS case. I'm not going to assume that it is all just the mothers neglect (because only the cruelest of mothers will be willing to murder their children) but it is probably the same sub-90 IQ behavior that infects every other aspect of the darkies lives. The poor diet and poverty, the lack of learning and the eventual death by a cardiac event from guzzling down endless amounts of fat and sugar.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)