In a message dated 99-01-18 16:29:22 EST, Kathy Dettwyler wrote:

<< IF THE OVERALL RISK OF DEATH FROM SIDS IN THE FIRST YEAR IS 1/500 (ONE BABY
 OUT OF EVERY 500 BORN DIES OF SIDS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF LIFE), THEN:

 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 1 MONTH  HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/1,000
 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 2 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/2,000
 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 3 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/4,000
 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 4 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/8,000
 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 5 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/16,000
 BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 6 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/32,000
  >>

Ok, just trying to clarify this -- not to disagree but to make sure I am
getting it, as my math skills alway need struggle:

Kathy -- Not clear to me how these numbers work.   What is the relation of
"all babies" to "bf babies"?   Presumably there are varying proportions of bf
babies to artificially fed babies in different populations -- where was this
study done?

Or do you mean that if we start with a large study group of all babies, and we
divide it into 7 groups -- those will not bf at all, those who will bf
exclusively for one month, those who will bf exclusively for 2 mos, etc --  we
would see after a year that of those who DIDN:T BF AT ALL 1/500 will dies of
SIDS, whereas of those who bf exclusively for 6 months, 1/32,000 of them (or
whatever, I understand that these are sample #s) will turn out by age one to
have died of SIDS?

Either way these are great numbers but not exactly the same and I am curious
which way it slices, exactly.  In fact, if you find Dr. Frederickson's
article, could you post the reference?   I'd love to read it and I bet I'm not
the only one.   (Anyone out there have a copy they would like to photocopy for
me?   I'm happy to pay costs and send an envelope -- TIA!)

Elisheva Urbas
still trying to get educated in NYC