#sudden infant death syndrome
Not only is it not random, but it’s not anyone’s fault. For decades, parents have been given contradictory advice about how to prevent SIDS, leaving them to feel guilty when their baby dies despite their best efforts. But if we know it’s caused by a chemical deficiency, that means it’s not your fault, and there’s not anything you should or could have done differently.
Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib were a few of the most important preventative steps. So, when SIDS still occurred, parents were left with immense guilt, wondering if they could have prevented their baby’s death.
Dr. Carmel Harrington, the lead researcher for the study, was one of these parents. Her son unexpectedly and suddenly died as an infant 29 years ago. (…) Harrington explained what she was told about the cause of her child’s death.
“Nobody could tell me. They just said it’s a tragedy. But it was a tragedy that didn’t sit well with my scientific brain.”
Since then, she’s worked to find the cause of SIDS, both for herself and for the medical community as a whole. She went on to explain why this discovery is so important for parents whose babies suffered from SIDS.
"These families can now live with the knowledge that this was not their fault,” she said.
(…) As the cause is now known, researchers can turn their attention to a solution. In the next few years, those in the medical community who have studied SIDS will likely work on a screening test to identify babies who are at risk for SIDS and hopefully prevent it altogether.
Holy shit. This is brand-new news, guys–the linked article was published May 11, and the scholarly paper came out earlier this week. (Appears to be open access at this time.)
The next thing, according to the article, is to develop a screening test to identify at-risk infants at birth–that’s expected to take several years, unfortunately, but it’ll make a huge difference, both to parents who will know to take every precaution (and, hopefully, some new ones that can be discovered now that this is known), and to ones who will learn that they can relax a bit about their child’s sleep position. It’ll also be of some help to parents who lose a baby to this, because they won’t have to deal with the extra burden of being suspected of having caused it.
Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib were a few of the most important preventative steps. So, when SIDS still occurred, parents were left with immense guilt, wondering if they could have prevented their baby’s death.
Dr. Carmel Harrington, the lead researcher for the study, was one of these parents. Her son unexpectedly and suddenly died as an infant 29 years ago. (…) Harrington explained what she was told about the cause of her child’s death.
“Nobody could tell me. They just said it’s a tragedy. But it was a tragedy that didn’t sit well with my scientific brain.”
Since then, she’s worked to find the cause of SIDS, both for herself and for the medical community as a whole. She went on to explain why this discovery is so important for parents whose babies suffered from SIDS.
"These families can now live with the knowledge that this was not their fault,” she said.
(…) As the cause is now known, researchers can turn their attention to a solution. In the next few years, those in the medical community who have studied SIDS will likely work on a screening test to identify babies who are at risk for SIDS and hopefully prevent it altogether.
Article Published: May 11, 2022
Finally, some helpful and healthy news. Now, how to cure.
Sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, usually happens when infants die in their sleep without any particular reason. Researchers in Australia say they’ve found why infants die from SIDS.
In the latest study, researchers found that infants who died from SIDS had lower levels of an enzyme known as Butyrylcholinesterase (BChE). This enzyme is thought by scientists to help regulate pathways in the brain which drive a person’s breathing, confirming what scientists had originally hypothesized.
Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib were a few of the most important preventative steps. So, when SIDS still occurred, parents were left with immense guilt, wondering if they could have prevented their baby’s death.
Dr. Carmel Harrington, the lead researcher for the study, was one of these parents. Her son unexpectedly and suddenly died as an infant 29 years ago. (…) Harrington explained what she was told about the cause of her child’s death.
“Nobody could tell me. They just said it’s a tragedy. But it was a tragedy that didn’t sit well with my scientific brain.”
Since then, she’s worked to find the cause of SIDS, both for herself and for the medical community as a whole. She went on to explain why this discovery is so important for parents whose babies suffered from SIDS.
"These families can now live with the knowledge that this was not their fault,” she said.
(…) As the cause is now known, researchers can turn their attention to a solution. In the next few years, those in the medical community who have studied SIDS will likely work on a screening test to identify babies who are at risk for SIDS and hopefully prevent it altogether.
A couple extra details from somebody who works in genetics–there are genetic conditions that can produce SIDS-like results, if the mutations are harmful enough. I don’t know off the top of my head if those act through the same mechanism as this was found in this paper–insufficient activity of an enzyme called butyrylcholinesterase (BChE).
However, this paper’s findings are very important. They show that when BChE doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, SIDS can happen. They were able to measure this from blood samples taken within 2-3 days of birth. That’s also big, because not all conditions are detectable in blood tests, but this one is. They were using an experimental test to do this, so as they say in the article, it’s not available as a screening test yet.
And lastly, they don’t yet have a treatment regimen. They have a target now, and experimental trials can begin, likely starting in lab animals. But it’s going to take a few years before a treatment is available for general use.
Overall this is a big accomplishment, and hopefully it will soon yield results that can lead to its inclusion in newborn screening test panels.
Yeah, sorry, we still don’t actually know 100% what causes SIDS. The enzyme found is a potential (!) biomarker, which can indicate a vulnerability but in no way definitively proves that this is the singular cause for SIDS. There are several limitations to the study, including the samples being approx. 2 years old, and more importantly, that we don’t know how many people who are healthy/don’t die of SIDS have this abnormality. This is a cool finding and definitely one that will be the basis of a lot of important research in the future, but it’s overblown and inaccurate to claim that we have finally found the singular cause of SIDS. More importantly, I see people claiming that now we can stop telling people only to let their babies sleep on their backs, without toys, etc. These are well-established recommendations whose implementation caused a notable decline in SIDS cases worldwide. Please don’t put the cart in front of the horse with this one.
Not only is it not random, but it’s not anyone’s fault. For decades, parents have been given contradictory advice about how to prevent SIDS, leaving them to feel guilty when their baby dies despite their best efforts. But if we know it’s caused by a chemical deficiency, that means it’s not your fault, and there’s not anything you should or could have done differently.
Hey uh…..I hope y'all realize how antisemitic First Kill is….
I’m only on episode three and so far they’ve appropriated the Lillith mythology and fucking call the vampire matriarchy the “Malkia”, which is Hebrew for Queendom. Yeah. It’s that bad.
Who knew Summer 2022 was going to be the Summer Tumblr would reignite antisemitic vampire stories. First Dracula Daily, and now this.
I don’t care how gay the show is. This is fucking disgusting and the antisemitism isn’t even subtle.
Oh oops almost forgot…in this godforsaken show, they’ve made vampirism matrilineal. Rabbinically, Judaism is matrilineal.
I honestly don’t know why no one else is talking about how disgustingly antisemitic this show is.
Alright so antisemites in the notes keep being like “B-but Lilith isn’t exclusively Jewish” and other nonsense.
First of all, she is.
The mythology of Lilith was created as an explanation for SIDS and other cases of infant mortality.
In Jewish mythology, Lilith is the leader of a species of night spirits called the Lilim. (The word Lilim stems from the word Lyla, which means “night”). The Lilim were said to be evil spirits that would enter people’s homes at night and kill their babies suddenly and without any explanation. This was how grieving parents would cope with the tragedy of losing their infant, by blaming it on evil spirits.
The mythology of Lilith and the Lilim has nothing to do with vampirism. The closest creature from another culture that might be called analogous to Lilith is La Llorona from Mexican folklore, not any female vampire creature.
It was only until non-Jewish people came and appropriated her begining in the 19th century that *they* wrongfully associated her with demons and vampirism.
Lilith and the Lilim were the product of grief stricken parents attempting to make sense of their loss. They have nothing to do with vampirism. So appropriating them for a vampire story is just pure antisemitism and a misunderstanding of Jewish culture.
