Sudden Infant Death. Is it caused by conventional medical drugs?

Sudden Infant Death, or Cot Death as it is more commonly known, is described on the NHS Choices website as "the sudden, unexpected and unexplained death of an apparently well baby". It says that at least 300 babies, usually under the age of 6 months, die "unexpectedly" of this syndrome every year. In most cases, a fit and healthy baby is put to bed by parents, and is found dead some hours later.

So what causes this awful tragedy? This is the conventional medical explanation, as provided by the same website.

     "No-one knows exactly what causes SIDS, but it is thought to be the result of a combination of factors. Experts believe SIDS occurs at a particular stage in a baby’s development, and that it affects babies who are vulnerable to certain environmental stresses. This vulnerability may be due to being born prematurely or to low birthweight, or other reasons not yet identified. Environmental stresses could include tobacco smoke, getting tangled in bedding, a minor illness or having a breathing obstruction. Babies who die of SIDS are thought to have problems in the way they respond to these stresses and how they regulate their heart rate, breathing and temperature".

History of SIDs

Children have always died in their infancy, no doubt for a variety of reasons. There are accounts of this in the  bible, and certainly during the middle ages.  

However, it was not until 1969 that the term 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome' was coined, and recognised as a distinct disease, and since then, a variety of reasons for cot death have been put forward by the conventional medical establishment - none of them particularly convincing.

So with no medical explanation, it is often the child's parents who have been placed under suspicion, often prosecution, and sometimes convicted and imprisoned on the basis of the 'expert' evidence given by conventional doctors. The case of Sally Clark is probably the best known of these cases, not because she lost two babies to this 'syndrome', but because she was imprisoned, released when the miscarriage of justice was recognised, but committed suicide soon afterwards.

Vaccines and Drugs that may cause SIDs

The tragedy of this SIDs case, which has been repeated too often, is that there is an explanation for the syndrome, although it is an explanation that the conventional medical establishment refuse to admit. As the Sally Clark website says.

          "The only common factor, which may or may not be relevant, is that both deaths followed shortly after vaccination. [There is research into the possibility that these vaccinations can cause death within a few days if infants have certain genetic defects.]

The DPT vaccine, given to babies usually when they are just 2-3 months old, and repeated twice more on a monthly basis, is the only known cause of SIDs, or cot death.

Yet the link between SIDs and the DPT vaccine is not world shattering news. Indeed, our doctors know it, the NHS know it, and the Big Pharma drug companies know it. The link is admitted on the package insert for each DPT vaccine, and this blog also points to more evidence linking the 'syndrome' with the DPT vaccine.

There is also evidence that other conventional pharmaceutical drugs are linked with SIDs. 

Methadone, an opiate drug, used as a painkiller, and an anti-addiction medication by conventional medicine, is also linked to SIDs.

Indeed, it is suspected that any conventional medical drugs that seeks to influence sleep, or fluid control, including antihistamines and alcohol can have a marked effect on crib death rates.

This article was first published in the E-book, "DIEs. The 'Disease-Inducing-Effects' of Drugs and Vaccines.

Child Protection and Medical 'Experts'

BBC Panorama broadcast a programme called “I want my baby back” on 13th January 2014 (see the programme by clicking here).

In essence it concerned parents who have lost, or are in danger of losing their children, arising from ‘expert’ medical evidence provided to local authority social services (the lead agency in child protection work) and the family courts. The infants and young children featured had one thing in common - all were found to have multiple broken bones which could not be explained by their parents.

Cause for concern, on the face of it, and no-one (least of all myself, as I have worked in child protection for many years) will take exception to safeguarding children from serious physical harm.

The medical authorities referred the cases to the social services, and child protection procedures were initiated. The parents did not know how the injuries occurred, and did not admit liability. Care proceeding were taken, and largely on the basis of medical evidence, many parents are losing their children, and living under the threat of any newborn child being removed in a similar fashion.

The ‘expert’ medical evidence stated in these cases that the injuries had no medical cause, and therefore, could only have been done through the abuse and mistreatment by the parents. Unfortunately, this ‘expert’ medical advice was not correct. The programme outlined that most of these children had extremely low levels of Vitamin D, and that this could, and should have been put on the agenda when considering whether the children had been abused. So who was at fault here.

• The social services who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’? 
• The family courts who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’?
• The medical ‘experts’?

Even the BBC, loyal supporters of the Conventional Medical Establishment, almost brought themselves to admit that the medical evidence was wrong, and that they should have been aware of the consequences of serious Vitamin D deficiency - one of which is rickets (a disease now apparently in the process to returning to this country).

There is certainly a similar reluctance to challenge the Conventional Medical Establishment within local authority social services departments, and within the family court. Indeed, there is a reluctance throughout society to challenge conventional medical expertise!

There is, however, no such diffidence within the Conventional Medical Establishment to claiming not only expertise, but an expertise bordering on infallibility! So if a child is found to have multiple broken bones, and the ‘expert’ medics can provide no explanation for them, the parents are blamed. There can be no other explanation as doctors know, and can explain everything, about health matters.

The word of conventional doctors seems to have become the unquestioned, unchallenged ‘law’ of the land.

Has this happened before? Do you remember ‘shaken baby syndrome’, for which several mothers were imprisoned on the almost sole basis of the evidence of conventional medical ‘experts’. And that these mothers were eventually released when the medical evidence was found to be deeply flawed.

And do you recall the issues raised by many unexplained cot deaths (otherwise known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDs)? 

The only difference with ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and SIDs is that there are medical explanations, but the explanations were not given by the conventional medical ‘experts’ involved presumably because it did not suit them to do so. In other words, SIDs has been found to be caused by the very medicine they prescribe for us!

Sudden Infant Death is known to be caused by the DPT vaccine, given routinely to all very young children.

And doctors, court experts or not, are aware (or should be aware) that the DPT vaccine does cause Sudden Infant Death.

So should these conventional medical ‘experts’ have known about the link between broken bones and Vitamin D deficiency? Should these parents have lost their babies? As the BBC Panorama programme indicated, the link between Vitamin D deficiency and Rickets has been known for over 100 years. So what this knowledge does, yet again, is to raise a vital question. 

To what extent can we trust the Conventional Medical Establishment to tell us the truth? How honest are our doctors about the dangers their drugs and vaccines cause us? And just how far will conventional medical ‘experts’ go to prevent us from knowing about the harm their medical system is doing to our health.

This is just another reason for all of us, but particularly the mainstream media, the social services, and the courts, to begin to question seriously the safety, effectiveness, and indeed the honesty of the Conventional Medical Establishment.