From Hilary Butler  in New Zealand..

"Butler" <butler@watchdog.net.nz>
 
A Possible simple explanation?  Yes, simplistic in the extreme.  Lets look
at this another way.  Yes, in this country Dr Sprott can say that of all
the children who sleep on matresses ocvered with PCV, there have been no
deaths.  But he doesn't count babies who at home sleep on these
mattressses, but who, say, die in their carseats, or in pushchairs, or in
their parent's arms.  I'll go into that later.
 
Unlike viruses, chemicals such as phosphine, stibine and tulene are toxic
across the board.  Anyone coming on contact with them will have side
effects.  that's why many similar compounds are used in warfare.  You hit,
all die.    If you give arsenic to 100 people, 100 people will die.   Same
with these gases. 
 
When our children were born, all babies slept on their stomach.  They were
born at the height of use of these mattresses, and even so in this country,
a maximum of 4 per 1000 babies died of cot death.  That means that 996
face-sleeping chemical breathing babies did not.  And no, we didn't have
huge numbers of ADHD, Add,  autistic brain-damaged children.  How many of
these ADHD, ADD autistic children slept on their backs, on covered
mattresses, "escaping" SIDS, to be hit by VACCINES! 
 
The back to sleep campaign, reduced that death rate to 1 in a thousand.
And some might say, that's because they didn't have their faces in gases.
But its not nice and simple like that.
 
20 years ago, the research was quite conclusive about breast-fed babies.
They didn't usually die of SIDS.  There are records of some "breastfed"
babies dying, but if you look at them, those babies also received
supplementary formula bottles.  Anyone who has read my paper will know that
one formula bottle will create an alkaline environment, and also raises the
babies basal temperature by over 1 degree for nearly two weeks.  One bottle
of formule wreaks such intestinal havoc that it puts these babies bacterial
flora into a completely different catagory to totally breastfed babies.
 
  A breastfed baby has an acid ph in the gut, and its basal temperature is
lower and the bacterial flora is totally different  Bottlefed baby have
alkaline guts, 1,000 ties more E.Coli and different bacterial balance, no
breastmiolk immune sysetm and a higher body temperature.  Bottle fed babies
also sleep much longer, and are typically "zonked" after a bottle.  Put
this together with sleeping on the stomach.  Stomach sleeping babies get
much hotter than back-sleeping babies because there is less skin area
exposed for heat exchange.
 
The one thing in babies, which can and does respond dramatically to heat,
is E.Coli.  The outer coating is toxic, but normally trapped by the liver
and dealt with.  Humans are excquisitiely sensitive to this endotoxin, and
the group of babies that have the highest jumbers (one thousand times more
actually) are bottlefed babies.  E.Coli replicates in heat and alkaline
conditions.  It is a heat-loving putrefactive bacteria which thrives on
formula and in heat - the hotter, the better.  And as all you post reading
people will know, breast-milk not only keeps e.coli at bay, and has
compounds which fight it, breastmilk switches on and educates the immune
system of the gut, which is the key barrier between the envirnment and the
body.  A bottlefed baby is not only way behind the 8-ball, it is hotter,
has one thousand times the number of E.COli than breast-fed babies, and is
'deprived of the maternally supplied defences against E.Coli.  And even so,
most of these babies do not die of cot death.
 
What it comes down to in the final analysis is that it requires an event,
of which there are many - usually stress, a virus or bacteria - but mainly
vaccines, to put the liver under such strain that it can no longer cope
with the E.coli, the endotxin goes through into the bloodstream -and these
babies go into endotoxic shock, and die.  Read my paper.  It's all there.
 
And this can be proven, because most SIDS babies have the proof in their
blood-stream that these babies were struggling to contain it.  The blood of
babies in hospital for non-sids reason, did not have these compounds in them.
 
So my comments are as follows.  Though most of us in our ignorance, did
sleep our babies on these mattresses, and most of us have normal children
who are not phosphine etc mentally defective or dead, I don't think anyone
should support the use of mattresses which are potentially toxic.  But
toxins do not usually search out ONLY those with inherent immunological
weaknesses.  The damage of toxins are that they are universally effective
on everyone.  That's why they are used in warfare - they are not
discriminitive.  SIDS is, and always has been.
 
I would really like every single mattress in the world to be covered,
because then we would see that it is not as simple as that.  Just as one
side of the argument conceals their data, I do not accept that 200 babies
in this country are alive - and that there have been no deaths.  As I have
said to Dr Sprott himself, I have had to deal with parents whose babies
died after vaccines, after sleeping on covered mattresses.  The death
certificate said SIDS.  But he says these babies are not SIDS.  They are as
a result of vaccines.  So the garbage goes both ways.
 
But I do know this.  I have never seen a SIDS death in a healthy breastfed
baby, unvaccinated, who has slept on anything from here to Timbuctoo.  Over
the 19 years in IAS, we have never seen one.
 
So why can back sleeping help?  Research done here shows that some mothers,
frankly, are stupid, and over-clothe their babies even in summer.  The fact
is that babies can cope with being cold a lot better than being hot.  The
situation is now compounded by the fact that mothers clothe their babies in
man-made fibre, which is naturally heat creating, cannot breathe, and
therefore is not baby-friendly.  How many even think about that??? At least
babies slept on their backs have the full face and hands exposed to air,
and if they are not over-clothed, even more than that.  And how many
blankets do some mothers use?  Fill in Mt Everest there!!  Ever seen the
huge bungle of swaddling, and the tiny head amongst it all?  What are these
mothers thinking?  But even worse in this country, some mothers are so
stupid that they keep the air in these babies rooms hot with heaters in the
winter.  And these are the very mothers who are most likely to bottle-feed.
 They are creating the conditions necessary for physiological distress.
 
So now there is a big drive to get mothers to take the wrappings, and
clothes off....
 
By all means, cover the mattress.  Better still, don't be stupid enough to
use one that even has these compounds in it.  But the reality is that even
so, most babies slept face down on so-called "toxic" mattresses, didn't die.
 
If you want to prevent SIDS, the one thing you must do is breastfeed with
absolutely no bottles of formula "to top up" -as mothers say.   Ridiculous!"
 Never never never give formula.  And anyone who has a baby and smokes, is
looking for trouble, not just respiratory wise for the baby, but because
smoking stuffs up the immune system by 20% and alters the composition of
breastmilk, as does the pill, and as do other drugs.
 
In other words, it comes back to how we are designed, and supposed to
function.  Anything man's wisdom has to offer in the form of artificial or
toxic substances, is going to add to the risk factors.  Better yet, sort
out all your nutritional deficiencies before you even get pregnant.  Sort
your ideas about life and health out. 
 
But remember, simple doesn't always stack up.
 
Hilary