It's only the 4 in 1000 number that I am questioning, like I said I have no
doubt that not receiving breastmilk can result in death. The problem is that
people use that 4 in 1000 number frequently which does have the problems I
described earlier (ie old, narrow pop base etc) and looking at the citation
it appears to be an abstract from a conference or something, not even a full
paper. Was there ever a full paper published?  It is very little to base an
authoritative statement on. I need to get a hold of the Cunningham paper and
check out the US Health stat that you mentioned. I wonder if the
"preliminary data" ever got turned into a paper, you would think it would be
worth one.

On another subject, I would like to know the opinion of Lactnetters on the
abstract that described the lifespan, time to AIDS etc of babies breastfed
in LAC. It is an interesting dilemma and not one I have seen discussed. The
recommendation that women with HIV not breastfeed results in the speedier
death of the children born to them with HIV.


Karleen Gribble
Australia
  _ ---_|\
/             \
\_-----__/*
            o


But the 4 in 1000 estimate of infant mortality for infants
> not breastfed is only one of many references Cunningham mentions. (and I
> believe the only mathmatical model)  He mentions a study in England which
I
> quoted from in my previous confusing post that was done in the early 80's.
> He writes about preliminary data from the US National Center for Health
> Statistics in 1986 that shows a 3.7 per 1000 postperinatal mortality rate
> difference when infants are initially breastfed compared to bottlefed
> infants.(only 16 years ago versus 30 years ago)
>
> He writes about 3 different studies that show that bottlefeeding imposes a
> 4-16 fold risk of H. influenzae bactermia and meningitis in North American
> infants(years 1986, 1985, 1982)  He mentions that it has been estimated
that
> breastfeeding could prevent 100 deaths from necrotizing enterocolitis
> annually in British neonatal units (from a study by Lucas in the Lancet
> 1990).  He writes about infant botulism which we know only occurrs in
formula
> fed infants.  I read a patent that stated in California in one year and it
> was either 1997 or 1995 there was some 60 hospital admissions of infants
with
> botulism.  How many of those infants died?
>
> In reading the patents, I saw a bountiful supply of studies that show the
> benefits of human milk components.  I went into a Princeton  pdf file that
> discussed the new antibiotics and mentioned a substance called OS
> (oligiosaccharides).  They state that the OS is identical to OS found in
> mother's milk and named a company that would be using it in clinical trial
> against H.pylori.(1995) page 13 of 25
> http://www.
> wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1995/9503/950307.PDF
>

> If we do not accept Cunningham's paper and its 99 references because it is
> not current, is it because we now believe that infant formula
> has now changed and is much safer?  Or do we believe that we live in a
safer
> world from diseases?  (Even though many diseases are making strong
comebacks
> and we are worried about antibiotic resistance)Why was Cunningham's
> epidemiologic review written in the early 90's dismissed?

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html