This Twitter thread goes into some details of why you shouldn't take this claim too seriously: https://twitter.com/ColdOneder/status/1524941362411479043

(Actual picking apart the study starts down on tweet 9: https://twitter.com/ColdOneder/status/1524941380849639428 )

Tough subject and its hard to just drop the child 'has a brain defect'. Anybody want to speculate about the slippery slope of how the anti-choice movement can make passing on bad genes a crime?

I have a genetic condition (Cystic Fibrosis) and in the biggest CF group on Facebook, if you mention the possibility of having children that could carry on the gene, many in there get very militant about it.

N=67, Control=10 :/

Sorry: for each of the 67 there are 10 controls.

„ Results for each of 67 sudden unexpected deaths classified by the coroner (aged 1 week-104 weeks) = Cases, were compared to 10 date of birth - and gender-matched surviving controls (Controls), with five cases reclassified to meet criteria for SIDS, including the criterion of age 3 weeks to 1 year.“

Could it also be that infants are pumped with 30+ vaccines at this time? Of which we have no longitudinal studies on safety of this procedure. (not antivaccine, anti-stupid-processes)

I got all those vaccines myself and the article (i dont see) mentions vaccines at all. So, despite your claim, you seem to be concerned about vaccines. This article is a reprint, BTW. I read this story days ago somewhere else too.

edit to add ... SIDs been around before vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31239970/