Lesley:  I recently addressed this issue after speaking at a local SIDS
symposium.  The best summary of the research to date is in Dr. Dettwyler's
book, as she just described.  However, I believe that the SIDS group you
are referring to are using Dr. Peter Fleming's 1996 study in BMJ, which
due to its more recent publication was not reviewed in Dr. Dettwyler's
book.  For all the excruciating details of Dr. Fleming's results, please
search the archives (I would use Fleming and search posts since March of
1997).  In brief, his study found no significant overall reduced risk of
SIDS in bf babies although among bf babes there was a dose-response
relationship.

What disturbs me about all this is the willingness, indeed the eagerness,
of some people to immediately conclude that one study which does not
support the findings of previous studies effectively negates the others.
Even Dr. Fleming stated that there may have been other reasons why his
data did not detect the reduced risk and that further research is still needed.

The other thing that disturbs me is the need to be "conservative" about
promoting bf.  If this Australian SIDS group is basing their change on Dr.
Fleming's findings, they are essentially erring on the side of not
promoting something unless there is unequivocal evidence for it.  But with
bf, where is the harm in promoting it?  Why not state: "there is
conflicting evidence but, just to be safe, it's best to bf anyway?"

I was concerned that our local SIDS resource center would take the same
tack after Dr. Fleming spoke here, but to their credit, they have decided
to leave the recommendation to bf in their brochures.  Their spokesperson
said that their focus is on preventing infant mortality, not just SIDS.
BINGO!

Hope this helps, Alicia Dermer, MD, IBCLC, in Central New Jersey.