IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Breast feeding and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Tue Jan 13 01:46:52 EST 2004


The 'experiment' I proposed in my prior reply in this thread,
qoted below, is not so "easy" to do because the functionality
that needs to be accessed is, itself, topologically-distributed.
So an intervention that just varies quantities of this or that
neurochemical [which is what I was proposing, although
that was not explicitly stated] is insufficient.

It's Hilarious - I've been always going on about the =neces-
sity= of dealing with the topologically-distributed stuff, but,
here, I failed to "practice what I preach".

The experiment can still be used to Test the hypothesis I
proposed, but it's necessarily more-arduous that I realized
while posting my prior reply.

The neural topology must be addressed, and sorted-out.

If I were to do this [or any other investigation of "super-
system configuration" dynamics], I'd begin by first record-
ing in a topologically-distributed fashion. Collect data, and
look for topologically-distributed cross-correlations that
are correlated with the sort of systematic variation that
reflects a 'stepping-through' a large 'database' repetitively,
which is what's necessary if the new-memory cross-cor-
relation to old-memory hypothesis is Valid. [In general, it
is - I'm not certain only with respect to the DHEA stuff
that James brought up.]

Anyway, "TD', "TD", "TD"... It's =always= topologically-
distributed.

I Apologize for not stating things correctly the first 'time'.
[too-close to it to remember that I still have to explicitly
state that it's so.]

k. p. collins

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RLIMb.5070$q4.2448 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I cannot comment upon your hypothesis, but comment,
> in a general way, below.
>
> "James Michael Howard" <jmhoward at arkansas.net> wrote in message
> news:2qa500d12t8fjh6s4mrbrgv85jmntsbu60 at 4ax.com...
> > Breast Feeding and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome:
> > Prolactin, DHEA, Melatonin and SIDS
> >
> > Copyright 2003, James Michael Howard, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.
> >
> > This is a response to: Archives of Disease in Childhood 2004;89:22-25
> > "Comparison of evoked arousability in breast and formula fed infants"
> which I
> > sent to the journal.  Here are the "Results" and "Conclusions" from the
> article
> > and my response.  I thought the readers here may be interested.
> >
> > "Results: Arousal thresholds were not different between breast fed and
> formula
> > fed infants in QS. However, in AS breast fed infants were significantly
> more
> > arousable than formula fed infants at 2-3 months of age. There was no
> difference
> > between groups of infants when sleep period length was compared at any
> study.
> > Conclusions: Breast fed infants are more easily aroused from AS at 2-3
> months of
> > age than formula fed infants. This age coincides with the peak incidence
> of
> > SIDS."
> >
> >
> > It is my hypothesis (1985) that the sleep-consciousness cycle is
> controlled by
> > interactions of melatonin and DHEA.  (It has been demonstrated that DHEA
> is
> > involved in melatonin production and melatonin is involved in DHEA
> production.)
> > Basically, when melatonin is high, sleep occurs, when DHEA is high,
> > consciousness occurs.  As is well known, quiet sleep alternates with
> active
> > sleep.  I suggest this cycling is designed to maintain sufficient levels
> of DHEA
> > during sleep to maintain brainstem function during times of sufficiently
> low
> > DHEA that allow sleep.  When DHEA is very low, quiet sleep occurs, when
> DHEA is
> > higher, during sleep, active sleep occurs.  Prolactin is known to
> stimulate DHEA
> > production.  The cycling of quiet sleep and active sleep involves the
> reduction
> > of prolactin by melatonin with prolactin rebounding in response to
levels
> of
> > melatonin.  The first sleep is the deepest, I suggest, due to the high
> levels of
> > melatonin at this time.  As prolactin rebounds, DHEA is produced which
> begins to
> > decrease levels of melatonin as sleep progresses.  This gradual
reduction
> of
> > melatonin and increase in prolactin eventually reaches a level of DHEA
> which
> > induces consciousness and stops release of melatonin until DHEA
production
> > decreases near nighttime and begins the cycle again.  The connection
> between
> > melatonin and DHEA is prolactin.
> >
> > Breast milk contains prolactin.  I suggest prolactin occurs in breast
milk
> to
> > stimulate DHEA.  Therefore, prolactin in breast milk would activate DHEA
> > production, but not sufficient to induce arousal.  This would combine
with
> an
> > infant's DHEA to increase DHEA during active sleep.  It is my hypothesis
> that
> > sudden infant death syndrome results from insufficient DHEA during quiet
> sleep
> > to maintain brainstem function.  I suggest the evolutionary value of
> prolactin
> > in breast milk is decreased SIDS.
> > [...]
>
> If it's as you describe above - that there's a DHEA waxing
> and waining that's ongoing during sleep, that indicates that
> DHEA 'mediates' within more-fundamental dynamics, and
> is a 'tool' within a larger set of dynamics, and not the deter-
> mining thing [not the globally-integrated thing].
>
> For those who have AoK, see Ap9 - "functional multiplexing".
>
> If it's as James says, with respect to DHEA, then this is a case
> in-point.
>
> The type of dynamics James has described are correlated, in-
> general, with "ratcheting" as it is discussed in AoK, Ap5, both
> with respect to hippocampal function, but in the case that
> James has discussed, more-directly to the substantia nigra's
> "ratchet-pawling" role with respect to the basal ganglia.
>
> This's interesting to me because, if it's as James has described,
> James has presented a 'picture' of dynamics that are correlated
> to [that are in] the cross-correlation of a 'day's information-intake
> with all of pre-existing memory [in NDT: "experiential total"; AoK,
> Ap7 & 8].
>
> That is, if it's as James describes, then the dynamics he has
> discussed play a role in the setting of "supersystem configurations"
> [AoK, Ap5] through which the new-memore cross-correlation
> with old-memory occurs in a way that 'walks' "experiential
> total", hierarchically.
>
> What I've discussed, here, is relatively-easy to test through
> experimental methodologies that cross-correlate manipulations
> of the dynamics James has discussed [in animals, of course]
> with post-manipulation behavioral manifestations.
>
> The post-intervention stuff to look for will be the animals'
> manifesting behaviors that are 'mixed-up' with respect to
> the animals' prior experience [so, to be able to observe
> this 'being behaviorally 'mixed-up', the test animals' behavior
> must be archived to a robust criterion =prior= to inter-
> vention - this can be accomplished via recording video logs
> of the subjects' behaviors, say, with respect to a regime
> in which the subjects are trained in mazes of augmenting
> complexity, but which have, embedded within them, sub-
> regions that replicate elements of the less-complex mazes
> in which the animals were trained earlier. The overall goal
> is to measure cross-correlation of these old learning dyn-
> amics with the new demands of the increasingly-complex
> mazes.]
>
> If the dynamics James has discussed are as I've discussed
> in this post, when intervention occurs, the animals will
> manifest observable 'mix-ups' - they will exhibit a deficit
> with respect to long-term =integration= - they will do
> stuff that's obviously 'inappropriate' withrespect to that
> which they've been observed to have formerly learned.
>
> The experiment is 'demanding' only in that it requires
> subtle evaluation on the parts of the experimenters. That
> is, the video must be quantified rigorously to transcend
> subjective bias.
>
> [With respect to James' hypothesis, SIDS would occur as
> a result of "supersystem configuration" dynamics having
> become 'imbalanced'. For instance, back before NDT's
> stuff imploded to unity, I'd routinely work beyond the 'levels'
> of my own endurance. Then I'd collapse into 'sleep', but
> routinely awaken 'terror'-stricken, heart-pounding like it
> was going to jump out of my chest, gasping for breath -
> be-cause I'd stopped breathing, What had happened was
> that I'd crammed more info in-there than there was pre-
> viously-accumulated transmitters, and the "supersystem
> configuration" dynamics ran-into this imbalance of there
> being more work to accomplish than there were neuro-
> chemical 'tools' with which to carry it out - one 'part' of
> the dynamics was just taking care of business, but another
> 'part' of them 'ran-out-of-gas' - probably because the one
> 'part' depleted the resources of the other 'part' - so the
> overall dynamics 'failed', catastrophically. And, fortunately,
> for me, this 'imbalance' broke-through to waking-conscious-
> ness be-cause of its inherent extremely-high TD E/I.
>
> Seeing all of this tonight, while considering the stuff of James'
> post, causes me to 'wonder' about the pre-SIDS experience
> of Infants - was their experience during that 'period' overly-
> 'rich'? Had they taken-in too much information, and succumb
> to the 'imbalanced' "supersystem configuration" dynamics
> that I routinely experienced when I was pushing myself to
> integrate the information that I was cramming into the ol'
> noggin' lab?
>
> Such stuff can take the form of an Infant's Learning with
> respect to a Parent's 'frazzled', overly-'caring', etc., be-
> havior - "information overload" [As I've discussed in
> long-former posts, newborn Infants are the most-intelligent
> Beings on the face of the planet. Their Learning is proceding
> =explosively=. So, if there's too much 'environmental' info
> crammed-in-there, on top of this =normal= explosive
> learning, the infants are subjected to stuff that's analogous
> to my 'info-cramming' correlates, but, unprepared, they
> succumb.
>
> The above can be researched by evaluating pre-SIDS
> experience.
>
> [Side note: It's all so interesting. My analysis of these
> horrifying sleeping->waking consciousness transitions
> fed right back into the ongoing convergence upon the
> reification of "supersystem configuration". ["Never waste
> data!" :-]]
>
> k. p. collins
>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net