Why a Satisfactory Solution to the Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome Has Not Been Achieved
The problem arises because the definition of the sudden
infant death syndrome (SIDS) is too limited in its scope. It is usually
accepted that it means the sudden, unexpected death of an infant who was either
apparently well or suffering from a ‘trivial’ illness which normally would not
be expected to cause death and autopsy findings failed to provide a satisfactory
explanation for death. However, one could become involved in all sorts of
discussions and augments concerning fine details of many cases. While a
recognition of these fine details is important the definition as outlined above
is a practical starting point.
Some aspects have been intensely studied during recent
years. They are:
Abnormal biochemical, bacterial, viral, immunological,
microscopic (including electron microscope findings) and almost every aspect of
modern medical technology.
In other words, the more we look for fine abnormalities
the more we find. Unfortunately, apart
from a few factors such as the recognition of the dangers of cigarette smoking,
nothing had been found that dramatically reduces the incidence of the syndrome.
Most authorities will admit that the syndrome is a ‘garbage can’ where almost
anything can lead up to it and almost any abnormality can be found if one cares
to look carefully enough. It is
necessary, of course, to bear in mind the fact that whatever the findings are
they are insufficient to satisfactorily explain the death according to accepted
medical standards.
Over thirty years ago I was able to make a series of
observations that permitted me to finally understand the syndrome and not just
reduce its incidence but to reduce the infant mortality rate overall in a
dramatic fashion.
In the area under may control there was an extraordinarily
high incidence of the syndrome and a high infant death rate overall both
amongst Aboriginal and Caucasian infants. Many deaths could be attributed to
the SIDS syndrome as defined above. Other infants were apparently well or had an
apparently trivial illness, became suddenly shocked or unconscious, often
proceeded by an irritable or apprehensive state, and died. Autopsies failed to
explain why.
When I sought assistance from other general practitioners,
specialists and government departments I was told:
That nobody else had such a problem
That I was obviously doing something wrong
That I was not suited to practice medicine in such an area
That I should see a psychiatrist because I was ‘over concerned’.
The fact was that all doctors had this problem. In some
areas it was worse than it was in mine. Many doctors, for reasons that I still
cannot explain, really thought that they did not have the problem inspite of
records studied by me later that revealed that they had it in a big way. Other doctors,
specialists and government departments deliberately lied to me. I cannot, to
this day explain why but it was so. It is important to recognise this because
in many ways authorities have not changed. They still lie, cheat and
misrepresent when some most serious and obvious medical problems are considered.
Eventually I found that provided I could treat an infant
early enough I could reverse the unexplained shock or unconscious stage by
administering vitamin C in big doses, intramuscularly or intravenously. The
method of administration and the dose given depended on the severity of the
clinical state. It was a dramatic breakthrough. The statistics demonstrate
clearly how I was able to reduce the infant death rate during the period from December
1967 to November 1975 when I left the area.
With such a result one would expect other doctors to sit
up and take notice. I was shocked to find that the reverse occurred. Doctors
and authorities (and later SIDS organisations) not only ignored my work but became
extremely hostile. Several times I was able to demonstrate to colleagues the
dramatic reversal of the shock or unconscious stage. They remained hostile.
This hostility reached an extreme state one time when
twins were admitted to the hospital in a desperately neglected, malnourished
and dehydrated state. I lived next door to the hospital. There were three phone
lines between my place and the hospital. The twins were admitted (from memory) about
10.00pm at night. Nobody informed me about their admission. I saw them when I
did routine rounds next day at 10.00am. When I stated that I was going to
resuscitate them by administering intravenous fluids the nurses tried to talk
me out of doing this. When I insisted that I would they all walked out, leaving
me alone to find the instruments and equipment and resuscitate them. They did
survive.
What makes otherwise sane people do something like this? I
can only assume that there was a large degree of hostility because of jealousy
- something gets into individuals and changes their entire psychology. They
become twisted in such a way that normal human responses are impossible. It is necessary
for me to stress this event so that others can understand why it is that my
work has been ignored.
But worse was to come. I observed that in some
circumstances, particularly when infants had even a mild illness that sudden
collapse (shock or unconsciousness or sudden death) could occur after the
routine administration of a vaccine of any type. Immediately authorities rushed
to deny that such a thing happens or if it does it is so rare that it can be ignored
because of the overpowering benefit of the vaccines to others.
Now I am not going to state here that vaccines should not
be administered - that is too complex a topic for simple consideration. But I
am going to say that serious reactions to vaccines, particularly the crude form
of whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine that is used in Australia, are far more
common than authorities would have us believe. More important this gives us an important
clue that leads to an understanding of the SIDS.
Any stress, any infection, any vaccine can in susceptible
infants lead to the SIDS. Any of these factors can lead to sudden
unconsciousness or sudden shock. The SIDS is not a clearly defined condition.
It must be considered as a multifactorial end to a complex picture. It is more
likely to hit an infant with poor immune responses. Vitamin C can and does play
a critical role. There is no doubt that smoking and other forms of pollution
are important factors. Proper breast feeding provides a considerable degree of protection.
Except in rare cases there should be no need for any baby to die in a manner
that ends with a death certificate labelled ‘SIDS’. As far as I am concerned
the problem is 90% solved. If other doctors prefer to think otherwise we will
continue to see many more unnecessary deaths. Most research projects now in
progress only cloud the issue without solving it.
CAFMR Newsletter - Spring 1996 - Campaign Against Fraudulent
Medical
Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone
+61
(0)2-4758-6822. www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
The above article may be downloaded, copied, printed or
otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement
is required when this is done.
Dr Archie Kalokerinos took his medical degree from Sydney
University in 1951 and then spent six years in England. On his return to
Australia he was appointed Medical Superintendent of Collarenebri Hospital
where he served until 1975.
He is a Life Fellow of the Royal Society for Health, a
Fellow of the International Academy of Preventive Medicine, Fellow of the
Australasian College of Biomedical Scientists, Fellow of the Hong Kong Medical Technology
Association, and a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences. He is also the Honorary Medical Advisor for
Aboriginal Health. In 1978 Dr Kalokerinos was awarded the A.M.M. (Australian
Medal of Merit) for ‘outstanding scientific research’.
He has authored and co-authored books with profound
orthomolecular medicine implications entitled Every Second Child (1974) and
Vitamin C: Nature’s Miraculous Healing Missile (1993), as well as writing many
scientific papers. Currently he is semi-retired, living in Tamworth, New South
Wales.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.