I found this website while searching to see if there have been any studies checking for a correlation between the rise in autism and the Back to Sleep campaign — and I can’t believe there apparently haven’t been any!

My “Eureka” moment came after reading an article (Washington Post, Health section, 5/8/12) about how SIDS has been greatly reduced in the past couple of decades since Back to Sleep was introduced in 1992 — and realizing that’s precisely when autism rates have increased so drastically. The article glossed over possible developmental delays due to back sleeping (but only in motor skills) and didn’t mention autism at all, but SOMETHING new, different and widespread has to be responsible for the autism epidemic in the U.S., and I think Back to Sleep is highly suspect! And hasn’t autism increased even more sharply since 2000, when the article says the guidelines were changed from side- or back sleeping to ONLY back?

I was originally thinking more along the lines that the body/head position itself may be harmful to developing brains. Newborns sleep most of the time, and that’s a LOT of time flat on their backs for tiny babies! That position has always seemed unnatural to me, and certainly was never the norm until the 1990′s and 2000′s. After reading more here, I realize that the fact that the baby is prevented from ever getting good, deep, prolonged sleep, is also a very negative result that could prevent the brain from developing properly.

WHY hasn’t this been studied? I would hate to think that the government and the American Academy of Pediatrics just don’t want to admit they may have caused major harm by one of their recommendations — but . . . . . . . .

Apneas occur in all positions. Some have most apneas supine, others more when prone, others mixed. Infants should be monitored with a respiratory monitor for sleep apnea from the day of birth through at least the first two years of life. If apneas appear, they must to be prevented with PAP.

Prevention of repeated bouts of hypoxemia from sleep apnea will prevent SIDS, ADD/ADHD, autism, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dyslexia, and other behavioral and learning disorders.

I sincerely hope that pediatricians will start to consider all of this, rather than blindly following the p/c practice of scaring new mothers into thinking that, if they let their baby sleep on their tummy, it could result in SIDS. The recent reduction in the rate of such deaths is attributable to many other things than sleeping position, and a generation of babies has been adversely affected by this practice.
I understand that there is no credible research indicating that back-sleeping babies are less vulnerable to SIDS, or that tummy-sleeping babies are more vulnerable. So why has this continued?

7 October 2008
MEDIA RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION
NEW RESEARCH CONFIRMS TOXIC GAS THEORY FOR COT DEATH (SIDS)

New US research confirms the toxic gas theory for the cause of cot death, stated New Zealand cot death prevention expert Dr Jim Sprott OBE today.

Research published in the October 2008 issue of Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine (1) found that having a fan on during sleep was associated with a 72% decreased risk of cot death among babies, as compared with sleeping without a fan in operation. The reduction in risk was greatest for babies sleeping in warm rooms (temperature above 21 degrees Celsius); and fan use also decreased cot death risk among babies who slept on their stomachs or sides.

“These findings are very strong confirmation of the toxic gas theory for cot death”, stated Dr Sprott. “An operating fan dissipates gases generated in the baby’s sleeping environment. In particular, the highly toxic gas phosphine (generated from phosphorus, which is very common in bedding) is likely to remain around a baby in the cot owing to the density of this gas, so it is no surprise that research has found that fan use greatly reduces cot death risk.

“The finding that fan use reduces the risk even more in warmer rooms is also consistent with the toxic gas theory for cot death”, stated Dr Sprott. “If a baby’s bedding is capable of toxic gas generation, overheating in the cot greatly increases the likelihood of fungal generation of the gases in question.”

“Crucially, the fact that fan use greatly reduces cot death risk among babies sleeping face-down or on their sides demonstrates that the partial protective effect of face-up sleeping against cot death is not related to any medical condition or physical defect in the baby. So once again we have further demonstration that cot death does not have a medical or physiological cause.

“Face-up sleeping reduces cot death risk because the toxic gases which cause cot death are all more dense than air. They diffuse away from a baby’s face, and therefore a baby sleeping face-up is less likely to ingest them.”

The researchers’ suggestion that fan use may reduce cot death risk by preventing a baby from re-breathing exhaled carbon dioxide is already disproved, stated Dr Sprott. “Longstanding epidemiology demonstrates that cot death is not caused by babies re-breathing exhaled air in the cot.”

Dr Sprott called on the New Zealand Ministry of Health to immediately endorse mattress-wrapping for cot death prevention.

Since 1995 a mattress-wrapping protocol for cot death prevention has been publicised nationwide in New Zealand. On the basis of three studies into the incidence of mattress-wrapping (2), it is calculated that at least 170,000 New Zealand babies have slept on “wrapped mattresses”. There has been no reported cot death among those babies.

Since the commencement of mattress-wrapping the New Zealand cot death rate has fallen by 68%; and the cot death rate of the population group most likely to wrap babies’ mattresses (European/Paheka) has fallen by around 85%. (3)

Notes:
1. Coleman-Phox, K, et al, “Use of a fan during sleep and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome”, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162: 963-968.
2. NZ Med J 2000; 113: 8-10; NZ Med J 2000; 113: 326-327; Eur J Pediatrics 2008; 167(2): 251-252 (Short Report).
3. Source of statistics: New Zealand Ministry of Health.

Found this online: Do you know if this is accurate; may be the solution to our autism/back to sleep issue. also questioning if new zealand’s rate of autism matches the u.s.

Media release issued by:
T J Sprott OBE MSc PhD FNZIC
Consulting chemist & forensic scientist
10 Combes Road
Remuera
Auckland 1050
NEW ZEALAND
Phone/fax: +64-9-5231150
e-mail: sprott@iconz.co.nz
Content copyright 2009-2011. Averysagenotion. All rights reserved.
Web Hosting Companies

Absolutely! Whether it’s lack of quality or quantity of sleep, it can negatively affect a child’s brain development.

There was a study that stated that if a child does not get enough sleep in the first 3 years of life, the child will have more risk of having ADHD when he was 6, even if he got enough sleep from ages 3 to 6. If lack of sufficient sleep can effect the risk of getting ADHD, couldn’t it also effect the risk of having autism?

I also have a small part-time private practice. Everyone of my ADHD and autism referrals gets an inquiry about sleep. Did you hear about the treatment of premies having apnea using vanilla extract (inhaled) rather than caffeine? That was cited in an issue of “Pediatrics” (April 1997 if memory serves).