An Interview with Dr. Denton Davis concerning the Accidental
Poisoning Explanation for Unexplained Infant Deaths
Q. Dr. Davis let me start by asking what Criblife 2000 is?
A. A grass roots campaign to end the unnecessary exposure of babies to
chemical compounds and mildew typically found in baby mattresses.
[back to top]
Q. Who is the sponsor?
A. I am. I have been an Emergency Room Physician for 30 years. I became aware of
the chemical/mildew danger while traveling in New Zealand. As a result, I have chosen to import
chemical free mattress covers from New Zealand. I believe protecting babies from
this combination will have a significant impact. During the past
six years over 100,000
babies have successfully slept on this product. The
money raised from the sale of covers will be invested in further research and in creating safer crib environments.
[back to top]
Q. How can any campaign bring an end to the
more than 3000 unexplained infant deaths that occur each year?
A. First let me say the new SIDS policy issued by the American Academy of
Pediatrics has me greatly concerned. This policy clearly states that SIDS is
nothing more than suffocation with a soft object unless proven
otherwise. Evidence for the fungal generation of poisonous gases exists
which suggests that there is a relationship between mattress chemicals and these
deaths. As a result, this may be the only evidence that can prove an
infant was not suffocated.
The removal of chemicals from mattresses is the ultimate answer.
[back to top]
Q. How does mildew play a role?
A. Mildew under certain conditions is able to consume chemical compounds commonly present in the materials
manufacturers use to make mattresses. In particular, chemical compounds containing phosphorus, arsenic
and antimony are dangerous because they can be converted into poisonous gases by the action of mildew.
[back to top]
Q. Have these gases been found?
A. Yes. They occur naturally in our environment and have been identified in the laboratory by Barry
Richardson, an English chemist and material preservation expert. The gas of arsenic, arsine, has been a
known killer of babies for over 100 years. The gases known as phosphine and
stibine, from phosphorus and antimony respectively, are generated spontaneously in
nature. There is no reason to believe this cannot happen in a baby's mattress.
[back to top]
Q. What did Richardson do?
A. The first thing he did was to examine 2OO mattresses upon which an infant had died
for reasons unexplained by autopsy. He
found a particular mildew in every mattress. He next demonstrated the generation
and collection of stibine gas from antimony and arsine
gas from arsenic.
[back to top]
Q. What do these gases do?
A. Each gas has neuro-toxic properties that can paralyze the cardio-respiratory systems of a baby. It only takes a tiny
amount to kill.
[back to top]
Q. Have the gases been found in victims of
Unexplained Infant Deaths?
A. Gases are not found. If a gas is the cause there may be other
evidence. Arsine has been known as a killer for more than 100 years. Arsenic is commonly found in victims, who
have been exposed to arsine. However, arsenic probably does not play a
significant role. However, antimony
has been identified in liver tissue samples taken from confirmed cases of
unexplained deaths. Antimony could
only have entered their bodies in the form of a gas, because it is one of the rarest of elements.
Phosphorus whose gas is phosphine, which is the most toxic gas of all, is a normal element
in the body, making its identification impossible, to date.
[back to top]
Q. What can the Criblife 2000 campaign do to have an impact on the
infant death rate?
A. It must encourage parents to never place their baby in any mildew infested environment that may also contain
polyvinyl chloride ( PVC ), which contains these dangerous chemical compounds.
It must also encourage manufacturers to remove these chemicals from baby products
[back to top]
Q. What does PVC have to do with the problem?
A. Phosphorus was added to PVC as a stabilizer, antimony as a fire retardant, and arsenic to prevent
the growth of mildew. No one realized at the time that there would be a possible interaction with mildew.
No one, until Richardson, had thought of investigating the content of
mattresses upon which babies have died. No
one other than Richardson apparently knew about the relationship between mildew and this particular
group of chemical compounds.
[back to top]
Q. Dr. Davis did we create
a problem in this process?
A. Yes, and no. The problem was accelerated in the 1950's with the introduction of PVC into crib
mattresses. However, it needs to be pointed out that these dangerous elements can also be found in
products that might be considered natural, such as Tea Tree bark, kapok, and unfortunately fleeces made
from sheep or lamb’s wool. The highest incidence of unexplained infant deaths occurs in
the
Maoris of New Zealand, who continue to place their babies on sheepskins,
which may be easily contaminated with mildew. Our mistake was to place these dangerous elements
in PVC and then to place PVC in the crib environment, which is subject to the accumulation of mildew.
[back to top]
Q. Have sheepskins been implicated in
infant deaths?
A. Not exactly. The Maori population in New Zealand has the highest incidence of
unexplained infant deaths in the world. Placing a
baby on a sheepskin has been their custom. . A campaign called Cot Life 2000
began several years ago in that country, which has focused on the need to remove any and all objects that
contain antimony and phosphorus from the crib, or wherever a baby sleeps. In Great Britain mattresses
are now being manufactured free from these dangerous chemical compounds.
Recently a scientist from Canada demonstrated a sheepskin, which an unexplained
death baby had been
sleeping upon, was producing the gas of antimony by fungal activity.
Unfortunately, this does not prove stibine gas killed that infant.
[back to top]
Q. What can a parent of a newborn in the United States do?
A. Parents must choose to place a polyethylene protective cover over any PVC surface, and place their baby on his or
her back, for sleep or play. Sharing the parent’s bed is more dangerous than a crib for a baby, because all
mattresses are potentially dangerous. Parent’s beds are more likely to have gas-producing mildew than a baby’s
crib. They should also remove any stuffed animals and provide good ventilation, especially during the
sleep periods and especially during the winter months. Babies should not be
exposed to cigarette smoke. Ultimately parents must
find chemical free mattresses.
[back to top]
Q. Why
is winter more dangerous?
A. Winter has always been a risk factor, which no one has been able to explain. The increased heat within
homes combined with moisture and humidity and decreased ventilation offer strong circumstantial
evidence that this gas explanation is correct. Incidentally, the infant death rate in New Zealand on
the South Island during the winter months used to double until this explanation was published. Now the death
rate has fallen by over 70% especially among the European descendant population.
[back to top]
Q. Dr. Davis, what kind of a cover should be used to protect a baby?
A. A food grade polyethylene cover containing no chemical elements
considered dangerous. A cover is available
in the United States only through the internet at www.criblife2000.com
or through Dr. D's Baby Mattress Cover.
[back to top]
Q. Are there any other covers available?
A. No. Not to my knowledge. All covers that I have investigated are made from inexpensive PVC.
[back to top]
Q. Is it difficult to install?
A. No, the Cover slips over a standard bassinet or crib mattress and seals at the open end
completely enclosing the mattress as well as any mildew or dust mites that have become established in the
mattress.
[back to top]
Q. Does the Cover prevent the production of gases?
A. No. However, if one or more gases form within the mattress they will be directed away from a baby's
nose and face, because vents have been placed on the under surface facing the floor. In addition, the thick
polyethylene material will not allow any gases to pass through that could harm a baby.
[back to top]
Q. Can the polyethylene
cover be a cause of baby over heating or suffocation?
A. No. Although there have been reports from England that polythene, as they prefer to call it, has been
implicated in several cases of accidental suffocation, the material was of the type that comes wrapped
around new mattresses, which is thin and should be removed. The cover we are
talking about is much thicker and
heavier and has never been implicated in any suffocation deaths. There is no relationship between
this cover and over heating.
[back to top]
Q. How will the Criblife 2000 Campaign work?
A. The message will reach parents through publicity that will be generated by Dr. Davis
speaking openly about the danger of mattresses, especially those that have previously been used by a
previous infant. He will point out the fact that poorer unmarried mothers have a risk of having a
baby die, which is far greater than the risk of a wealthy married mother. This fact
combined with the added risk of daycare centers should gain the
attention of the media, because this information strongly suggests that this
problem is more of a socioeconomic
and environmental problem than a medical one. In other words older mattresses
are more dangerous.
[back to top]
Q. Dr. Davis would you be willing to expand upon your last answer?
A. Of course. It would be fair to state that all doctors would agree on the fact that the risk of death in
infancy increases from the first baby to the last. It also increases with poor economic conditions. Statistics
show that the risk of having an unexplained infant death is correlated with these same factors. The fact that this is the case makes most
of the so-called risk factors unimportant in my estimation, because carbon dioxide, viruses, stomach
position and parental smoking probably does not increase with each baby. Therefore, these factors
ultimately make no sense. A strong case could be made in support of the accidental poisoning explanation
for death, because mattress re–use and bed sharing does increase the poorer the economic circumstance
might happen to be. Daycare centers also use the same sleeping surfaces for
different infants all the time.
[back to top]
Q. What will be the objective and cost of the Criblife campaign?
A. The objective will be to provide a polyethylene protective cover to as many newborns as possible. As more and
more parents participate the incidence of baby's dying should fall in the United States at a rate that is proportional
to what has happened in New Zealand. Hopefully no deaths will occur on a protected surface. To date,
there has been no deaths reported from among the first 100000
babies, who have slept on the polyethylene cover. The cost is reasonable, but no parent
has been denied a cover if they cannot afford one. Those that can afford the
cover the cost will be around $30.00.
[back to top]
Q. What about a parent who cannot afford the cost?
A. The Criblife 2000 Campaign will attempt to provide a cover to each and every baby, regardless of their
parents ability to pay. Hopefully, hospitals providing maternity services and
other organizations not in favor of babies sleeping on "dirty"
mattresses will understand the importance of this
campaign. The research component, which will accompany this project, could prove
once and for all time the risk of
using "dirty" mattresses. Mothers are currently given all
kinds of products when they leave the hospital. The addition of a cover and instructions not to place a
baby on any contaminated surface for play or sleep should be a major component of any outreach
program. Also, a nonprofit foundation is being planned, which should be attractive to those who may wish
to make a charitable contribution.
[back to top]
Q. How will the research be done?
A. Every baby will be registered who will sleep only on chemical free
polyethylene protected surfaces, during the first year of life. The control group will remain, as it is now, those babies who
will continue to sleep in the
conventional environment, because either their parents or healthcare providers
can see no danger in this practice.
[back to top]
Q. What about the existing organizations, foundations and healthcare providers?
A. So far, in spite of the medical, scientific and biochemical credentials of those who have become supportive of
the accidental poisoning explanation, few of the groups most closely involved with
unexplained deaths have expressed any interest. Instead
they have relied upon opinion of the "experts" that there is no cause that is known.
An attempt is now being made to establish a common ground-"dirty"
mattresses are dangerous.
[back to top]
Q. Why is this the case?
A. Scientific proof is not present that is currently acceptable, in spite of the fact that there statistically
should have been some deaths among the first 100,000 babies to sleep on
polyethylene protected surfaces.
The researchers that I have spoken to would have preferred to place 10,000 babies on
polyethylene protected surfaces, 10,000 on new mattresses and 10,000 on old re-used mattresses. If there was not a
difference in the death rates among these three groups the accidental poisoning explanation could be
discarded.
[back to top]
Q. But what if there was a major difference among the groups?
A. There would be scientific proof that in all likelihood that the contaminated crib mattress environments were
dangerous. Unfortunately someone would have to tell these babies parents that the death of
their baby helped prove that there was a danger in the first place.
[back to top]
Q. Is there scientific evidence that supports the back position for sleep?
A. There was none when the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended it in late 1993.
Unfortunately, the United States was reluctant to endorse this position for almost four years after it had
been recommended to parents in New Zealand and England. The results of this recommendation, which
has been a confirmed 38% reduction in SIDS deaths, has now become "scientific".
Unfortunately the scientific community has no explanation why it works for some
and not others.
[back to top]
Q. Who would oppose a campaign
to isolate a baby from chemicals and mildew, which in a worse case scenario could do no harm?
A. Possibly those individuals currently involved in research, assisting grieving parents, or
perhaps involved in the
mattress regulating and manufacturing process would be my best guess. Hopefully, this will not be the
case. Approaches have already been made to both the medical community and the many
organizations seeking to establish a common ground..
[back to top]
Q. What have you been able to do so far with existing foundations and healthcare providers?
A. So far, in spite of the medical and biochemical credentials of those who have become supportive of this
explanation, few of the groups most closely involved have expressed any interest in the,
Accidental Poisoning explanation. Fortunately, keeping babies away from
"dirty" mattresses may be gaining some momentum. The thought of an
infant sleeping in a pool of chemicals and mildew is somewhat repugnant to
everyone.
[back to top]
Q. What studies have been conducted that might prove or disprove this explanation?
A. The government of England appointed an expert panel in 1994, which voiced the opinion before,
during and after their four year investigation that this explanation could not be correct.
[back to top]
Q. Were parents given any warning about a possible danger, while the expert panel deliberated?
A. No. In spite of the media reports of Richardson’s findings no formal warning was or has been issued.
[back to top]
Q. You are not satisfied with the "expert panel’s" conclusions, are you?
A. I would be deceiving myself to accept the Limerick Report that was issued in 1998, because I have
personally investigated this story in general, and the chemists, who have made their findings
public in particular. I
believe the chemists are correct, because in the course of nine years of experiments Richardson’s
findings were not proved to be incorrect. On the contrary, each of the suspected poisonous gases
was found, by independent investigators, who had no bias to begin with. Therefore, I feel compelled
to issue a warning based on what I have learned and seen over the past five years.
[back to top]
Q. What are the implications, if Richardson is found to be correct?
A. I think Richardson’s conclusions are already correct for several reasons. First the gases have been
generated by fungal activity in various laboratories and in nature. Secondly, the fact that protecting babies
from all materials, especially PVC mattresses and mildew, has resulted in a decline in the death rate.
Lastly, the
implication that manufacturers or regulatory agencies either knew or should have known of this potential
environmental disaster, which might occur between chemical compounds and mildew cannot be
overstated. Their reluctance to acknowledge the mistake is understandable in
this day and age of litigation. I might add that based upon the policy just
issued by the American Academy of Pediatricians finding evidence of these gases
may be the only thing that will keep more parents and daycare workers from going
to jail.
