The answer is yes and we must, simply because it is extremely unfortunate that the majority of the scientific community in this country has relied upon erroneous reports from England that the Sprott/Richardson explanation for SIDS was disproved.

Before identifying what must take place it is wise to examine in more detail the evidence. It is important to try to understand the significance of what has been reported and why so little information has reached parents in the United States. The first step will be to examine the reports that have reached the American research community.

The Turner Committee and Limerick Commission Reports, which have been released by the Health Ministry in England, have been cited in editorials in medical journals. Editorials it must be pointed out are only the opinions of the authors.

Therefore an editorial may in fact be untrue. It is clear that neither of these reports disproved the fact that mildew can generate gases. This would have required changing nature and history. Therefore, it is of critical importance for the research community in the United States to ignore editorial opinions.

As an example and as a matter of record, an editorial appeared in an American Journal of Pediatrics after the American Academy of Pediatrics agreed to adopt the recommendation from New Zealand
and England that babies be placed on their backs for sleep.

The author of this editorial, who was a former President of the same academy, stated that acting upon and instituting the back position for sleep in the United States would actually increase the death rate from SIDS. Thank goodness the American Academy of Pediatrics ignored the opinion of a most prominent member and proceeded to officially adopt the back position.

However, it would be fair to say that many pediatricians and other healthcare workers read that editorial and as a consequence may have delayed promoting the academy's recommendation. History now shows that that particular editorial opinion has turned out to be entirely incorrect.

The actual evidence that has emerged from investigations into the
Sprott/Richardson explanation suggests that although the first government sponsored group in England to study the possibility of mildew chemical gas production in baby mattresses could not duplicate Richardson's original work, there were several profound recommendations. These were neither reported nor contained in any editorial.

The first report recommended the removal of the chemicals in question from baby mattresses. This Turner Committee Report, as it was called, also recommended that children be tested country wide for antimony.

These recommendations are unusual unless of course the committee remained concerned about a danger in spite of the fact that they had not successfully demonstrated Richardson's gas. The authors of the editorials that followed and members of the Health Ministry of England, for reasons known only to them, had apparently ignored these two recommendations.

They had instead chosen to emphasize their own conclusion, which was that Richardson had been proven wrong. The chairman of that committee, Professor Paul Turner was one of the first people to state that this conclusion was untrue. In fact, he also noted that another of his committee's recommendation had been ignored which was that further research would be necessary.

As a result, American researchers, who had relied on this editorial
comment, have simply ignored that there might be any possibility that Richardson had discovered new and important information.

Nevertheless the fact remained that poisonous gases are naturally generated from fungal activity. To deny that this can happen in a crib mattress is inconsistent with history and also rather foolish.

While little or no attention has been paid to the gas explanation for SIDS on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans Barry Richardson, who demonstrated the gas of antimony coming from cot death mattresses he examined has continued to stand firm.

He has steadfastly pointed to his own scientific credentials and to the flaws in studies that have been attempted to duplicate his work.

Richardson has pointed to the fact that research, which has been conducted by the British government to disprove his work, has in fact substantiated his findings.

It is also important to note that a recently completed study failed to find the gas of antimony, but no mention was made of the fact that compounds of antimony were removed from baby mattress in the early 1990's.

Meanwhile, Dr. Sprott as noted earlier had successfully waged a
single-handed battle with his own country's medical and cot death
establishments in New Zealand. He pointed to his own results.

He has argued that based upon the statistical evidence that had been collected since the introduction of his cover chemical compounds must be removed from baby mattresses. Some well-meaning non-partisan observer might agree that there has already been a control group of SIDS deaths similar to those babies who died from SIDS while sleeping on their tummies after the back position was recommended.

It deserves to be mentioned that at the Sixth International SIDS Conference in February 2000, Dr. Sprott was invited to speak about his results. It now appears that his words at that meeting and his accomplishments have not outwardly convinced many of his critics.

Ironically, at the same conference, Dr. William Cullen, a scientist from Canada presented evidence that a sheepskin he had examined that was slept upon by a baby, who died from crib death in New Zealand, contained both antimony and a fungus.

The fungus Cullen found was new and he reported that it is closely related to the original fungus found by Richardson in all 200 SIDS mattresses studied in England in 1989, except for the fact that the new fungus was even more efficient in producing stibine gas from antimony.

Any person who is interested in trying to understand more about the Sprott/Richardson side of this controversy should take a close look at the native New Zealand Maori population in light of the Cullen discovery just mentioned.

Most people appreciate the fact that New Zealand is a beautiful country that is known for, among other things, sheep. However, the volcanic nature of this country provides soil that contains antimony. Consequently grass will contain antimony.

As a consequence sheep fleeces contain antimony. Most people are not aware of the fact that the Maori population continues to have one of the highest, if not the highest rate of SIDS in the World. Sheepskins become excellent hosts for the growth of mildew.

The Maoris have used sheepskins for their babies to sleep on as part of their culture. In spite of the fact that their death rate from SIDS is now 12-15 times higher than their Caucasian counter parts, the removal of sheepskins from a Maori baby's environment has been met with strong opposition and resistance. This has been due in large part to the failure of the Health Ministry to take a leading role.

The gas explanation for SIDS will in all likelihood be proven once and for all when and if Dr. Sprott is successful in replacing all sheepskins with chemical free covers and mattresses. If the Maori death rate decreases 74% as it has among the Caucasian population since the introduction of the Sprott cover there will be few doubters left.

It also deserves to be noted that the evidence of a link between mattresses and SIDS is strongly supported by several additional important scientific facts.

The first fact is that a second or a third baby in the same family has a risk of SIDS that is two to three times greater than the first child does. There is also a greater likelihood that a second or later child in the same family will sleep on a used mattress. This increased death rate associated with the re-use of baby mattresses was clearly demonstrated by a study conducted by the Scottish Cot Death Trust.

Secondly, the fact that the incidence of having a SIDS baby in the United States is three times greater in African-Americans has recently been acknowledged and is also significant, because lower economic circumstances appear to be related to the re-use of older baby mattresses.

It is reasonable, as a consequence, to conclude that socioeconomic circumstances are related to SIDS. This makes many of the so-called multi-factors irrelevant. However, few, if any scientific studies, except as noted above have paid any attention to the age of a mattress upon which a baby died.

Thirdly, recent evidence of a shift in the incidence of SIDS to daycare centers is very alarming but also predictable, because it is a well-known fact that mattress re-use in this particular setting is a common practice.

It is also a fact that babies are oftentimes allowed to sleep near the floor in playpens or on mats. If gases form that are heavier than air they will accumulate near or on the floor especially if ventilation is poor. The gas of antimony is more than twice the density of air.

Although critics of a SIDS link to older mattresses and a gas, view the growing incidence of daycare SIDS as "worrisome;" no warning about the possible danger is likely to be forthcoming. This will be the case unless everyone can somehow agree that frequently used mattresses are by definition "dirty" and as a result deserve to be covered or replaced with a material other than PVC.

Next, the risk of "bed-sharing" has been widely publicized, most recently by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). The risk of a baby dying from SIDS is three times greater in a family or parents' bed. Once again the mattress is the only plausible reason this should happen.

Lastly, the Limerick Commission itself concluded that there was evidence that the gas of antimony could be generated by fungal activity in mattresses, but it went on to conclude that it was extremely unlikely for this to take place in a baby's mattress.

This finding and fact can not be lightly dismissed. It is extremely unfortunate that this part of the Limerick Report has been largely ignored. This represents another reason why American researchers should not refuse to take a closer look at mattress chemicals and mildew.

These facts are also the reasons the American media, which has usually relied upon the medical establishment, must have a change in policy and report this story with or without this approval. It would be fair to state the media is already aware of some of these facts. It would also be fair to say that some members of the media have actually covered the story, but so far have been encouraged not to release it.

There is little doubt that this controversy is growing and will not go away. The fact that it has already received wide spread medical and media attention in other countries including New Zealand and Great Britain, is evidence that it is already well established in the United States.

This author for one has placed the SIDS gas explanation information on the Internet at www.criblife2000.com and has been completing a book on the same subject in conjunction with Dr. T. J. Sprott with the help of Mr. Barry Richardson.

At the very least mothers deserve to receive information from both sides of this potential danger coming from mattresses in general and baby mattresses in particular. Even if the risk is remote that a baby is in danger sleeping on a PVC mattress contaminated with mildew, this possibility deserves everyone's attention.

It is far better to be safe than sorry.

This information is especially important in light of recent movies, which have been based upon cover-ups in the tobacco and water industries. A good case might be made from the evidence that is now available, which is apparently being ignored that there is an ongoing attempt being made to suppress the story.

Recommendations

As a medical doctor I have investigated the issues and facts embedded in this story. I have gone from the position of a critic and skeptic of the "accidental poisoning explanation" for SIDS to the opposite extreme.

I have taken the position and have already gone on record that at present there is enough circumstantial and actual evidence to support the existence of link between SIDS and mattress chemicals and mildew that something must be done to protect babies as soon as possible.

In order to help facilitate a change, I am purposely revising my personal strategy in attempting to do something about the problem. My immediate objective will be to form strategic alliances with others interested in the health and safety of babies by establishing a common ground that everyone can agree upon.

The ground that seems to be acceptable is simple-no baby deserves to be placed in an environment containing chemical compounds, mildew and dust mites. The majority of existing mattresses are manufactured from PVC that has stitching, ticking and in many cases PVC foam.

Therefore, I believe that the single best solution is to have chemical free baby mattresses manufactured inexpensively that will not support the growth of mildew.

In the meantime, a thick polyethylene cover placed over all existing mattresses should be agreeable to all concerned parties. Although it has been suggested that all babies deserve a new mattress, this remains potentially dangerous due to the presence of chemical compounds. For this effort to be successful it will require the cooperation of all doctors, midwives, nurses and hospitals providing maternity services.

In addition agencies that currently help new mothers through their pregnancies and assist with nursery furnishings must become involved, because many inner city mothers are now receiving donated used mattresses. Organizations currently involved with SIDS victim's parents and research, as well as organizations promoting child safety should also become involved.

While a campaign to cover mattresses is taking place manufacturers and government agencies should quietly remove phosphorus, antimony and arsenic from baby mattresses and products. Alternatives to PVC mattresses and the current chemical compounds used as fire retardants and anti-fungal agents must be explored.

During this transition period some babies will probably continue to die from SIDS, but the incidence should decline. If the decrease in the SIDS rate is similar to what happened with the "Back to Sleep" campaign, all parties would welcome that outcome.

No change in the SIDS rate would become a strong case against the explanation that mildew and chemicals play the most significant role in SIDS. Although, this would not be an expected outcome in light of Dr. Sprott's six year 100% success in New Zealand and elsewhere it is a possibility. Of course all mattresses must be properly covered with the same polyethylene material and instructions used by Dr. Sprott.

The goal of a campaign to isolate babies from mattress chemicals and mildew would be to protect babies, as well as parents. It is reasonable to predict one outcome will be that babies will do better in a more sanitary environment.

Simply isolating babies from the accumulation of household dust mites may reduce the incidence of asthma. Another scientific point that deserves to be made is simple- more than fifty per cent of babies by the age of 5 months will roll onto their tummies during sleep.

Parents and caregivers cannot and should not be held responsible if a baby over this age is found face down on any mattress. The stomach position is a more natural position for sleep.

I believe that anyone who has read this article, regardless of his or her previous beliefs, will sleep more comfortably knowing babies sleeping on protected mattresses, who may roll on to their tummies, will continue to sleep isolated from chemicals and mildew.

The fact remains that suspicion and guilt go hand in hand with SIDS. If a baby is found face down regardless of the fact that a parent or caregiver is certain that the baby was placed on his or her back there will be doubts. A simple cover may be all that is necessary. The Sprott polyethylene cover developed and tested for six years in New Zealand should become the standard cover during this period.

If parents cannot afford to buy a cover it must be provided free of charge. The combination of a chemical free environment that will not support the growth of mildew or the accumulation of dust mites must become an immediate goal of all parties in the same way that infant car seats have become the standard.

No baby should be allowed to go home from the hospital without a Sprott polyethylene cover with installation instructions or a mattress that is chemical free.

In conclusion, I believe everyone can agree that previously used
mattresses are by definition "dirty." They can no longer be considered safe for a baby to sleep upon in a bassinet, crib or parents' bed. This must become the "common ground" that everyone concerned with infant safety and mortality must rally around. In order to avoid FDA imposed regulations that would outlaw the Sprott cover; this cover must be introduced nation-wide as a prophylactic measure until more scientific research can be conducted.

This can be accomplished best by removing the SIDS prevention claim that has been attached to this product. Although I personally know that a correlation between "dirty" mattresses and SIDS exists, I will refrain from making this claim. However, I will continue to insist that no group or parent ignore the information provided above.

A polyethylene cover manufactured and applied to a mattress according to Dr. T. James Sprott's recommendations must become the standard.

In addition, I must also recommend that while newborn babies are being protected, antimony testing should begin for all children.

Both hair and urine samples must be tested at regular intervals. The reasoning behind this latter recommendation is also simple-antimony as noted earlier has properties that are similar to lead. Everyone, I am certain has heard about the sources and consequences of lead toxicity in babies. Protecting babies from chemical compounds, especially antimony, during the crib years may prove to have health and psychological benefits not yet appreciated.

The Babesafe Cover was developed by a New Zealand chemist, named Jim Sprott. (The details can be found at www.criblife2000.com). Dr. Sprott certifies that there is no phosphorus, arsenic or antimony contained in his polyethylene material.

This cover was manufactured in New Zealand, in order to provide parents with a safe cover to place over both bassinet and crib mattresses, made from PVC, which might also contain mildew. The Babesafe cover was designed to completely enclose a babyís mattress.

Once it has been properly installed you will notice there are holes for ventilation, which have been placed only on the surface, which faces the floor. Under no circumstances should these vents become covered by tape or bedding.

Since 1995, over 35,000 babies have sleep on the Babesafe cover, in New Zealand and elsewhere, without a single reported case of SIDS.

The cover, while serving as a protective barrier, can do no harm. It will not cause suffocation or overheating. This product can be easily cleaned with soap and water. Strong chemicals should never be used in the crib environment.

It should not be removed until your baby is out of the crib, because the long-term exposure danger, especially to antimony is unknown. After the cover is applied a firm fitting pure cotton blanket and sheet should be placed over the protected mattress.

The cost for each cover, either bassinet or crib size is $29.95 each plus $5.00 for shipping. Currently both credit cards and checks can be accepted. Checks should be made payable to Dr. DíS Babysafe Cover and sent to the above address. A secure on-line terminal can be found at www.criblife2000.com Upon receipt of your email order a cover will be sent out immediately.

Complete satisfaction is guaranteed or prompt refund will be made.

The Infant Survival Guide by Lendon Smith, MD and Joseph Hattersley, MA - CLICK HERE to view on Amazon.com.

How You Can Help Support The Web Site Development:

One of the ways that you can help support this web site is that you can now purchase books through Amazon.com by clicking through on my web site. I obtain a tiny percentage of the sale and that will help support my ability to provide high quality content at no charge to you. However this will only work if you click on the link above. It does not work if you go directly to Amazon. I am only recommending books that I would purchase for my own home library. Also, there is no obligation to purchase the book by clicking on the link above. You can go and look at some of the book reviews to see what others thought of them.