On 2015 Nov 02, David Mage commented:

This is an interesting article about SIDS and possible CNS involvement but the author seems to ignore two mandatory requirements for any such explanation: The first requirement is to account for SIDS unique left-censored 4-parameter lognormal age distribution that shows there is no ʺcritical age of vulnerability in SIDS" because the same equation fits all the SIDS age data from birth to well beyond one year. Schwartz (PMID: 3549041) correctly stated ʺAny viable hypothesis must account for its characteristic age distribution;" The second requirement is to account for the 50% excess male fraction of SIDS. It is not clear why the author now in 2015 fails to even mention male gender as a risk factor for SIDS as he correctly wrote in his 2008 EMBO Report (PMID: 18246101) that ʺ61% of SIDS cases occur in males," and he should have cited PMID: 5129415 that concluded ʺthe general disadvantage of males has long been recognized. The biologic differences must originate in the genetic differences between the sexes and those genetic differences are the consequence of disparity in the number of X-chromosomes." In addition U.S. linked birth and death certificate data (wonder.cdc.gov) show that the rate of ICD-10 R95 SIDS increases with live birth order, but infant deaths from CNS causes (ICD-10 P91.6 Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy of newborn) do not, and furthermore, the ages of these CNS deaths are not lognormally distributed and they do not have the same 50% male excess as SIDS.

On 2015 Nov 02, David Mage commented:

This is an interesting article about SIDS and possible CNS involvement but the author seems to ignore two mandatory requirements for any such explanation: The first requirement is to account for SIDS unique left-censored 4-parameter lognormal age distribution that shows there is no ʺcritical age of vulnerability in SIDS" because the same equation fits all the SIDS age data from birth to well beyond one year. Schwartz (PMID: 3549041) correctly stated ʺAny viable hypothesis must account for its characteristic age distribution;" The second requirement is to account for the 50% excess male fraction of SIDS. It is not clear why the author now in 2015 fails to even mention male gender as a risk factor for SIDS as he correctly wrote in his 2008 EMBO Report (PMID: 18246101) that ʺ61% of SIDS cases occur in males," and he should have cited PMID: 5129415 that concluded ʺthe general disadvantage of males has long been recognized. The biologic differences must originate in the genetic differences between the sexes and those genetic differences are the consequence of disparity in the number of X-chromosomes." In addition U.S. linked birth and death certificate data (wonder.cdc.gov) show that the rate of ICD-10 R95 SIDS increases with live birth order, but infant deaths from CNS causes (ICD-10 P91.6 Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy of newborn) do not, and furthermore, the ages of these CNS deaths are not lognormally distributed and they do not have the same 50% male excess as SIDS.