I refer again to the Norwegian report "Bedsharing, pacifiers, breastfeeding and SIDS - is there a correlation?" When we did our exhaustive search of the literature, we were unable to find published studies that were able to establish causality between not breastfeeding and higher risk of SIDS, or between breastfeeding and a protective effect against SIDS. No studies have ever found more SIDS in breastfed babies than in formula fed babies. But that is insufficient proof of causality. It may be the best we can do, but it is not proof. The problem with a lot of the research is that the definitions of things like 'pacifier use' or 'breastfeeding' or 'co-sleeping' are very vague, and don't even get me started about the ones that don't define SIDS clearly enough. No studies have found LESS breastfeeding with bedsharing either, but that still doesn't prove causality. If you want to see an excellent example of honest treatment of the facts while looking at them very critically, go back and read LLLI's press release on the AAP recommendations. Their stance is clear and their treatment of the evidence impeccable. Jim McKenna's article that someone posted a link to yesterday was also excellent. I didn't think Dr.Sears did quite as stringent a job with his statement though. And as far as relying on common sense goes, that is what we used when deciding that sleeping infants should be placed so that they wouldn't aspirate their own vomit, because we reasoned that unconscious adults shouldn't be placed supine, so neither should babies. Thousands of babies have died because of this nugget of common sense. Based on what we know to be true about babies, sleep, and feeding, we can reason that it would be logical if not breastfeeding 'caused' SIDS, or ifpacifier use 'reduced' breastfeeding, and we can agitate for research to be done according to designs that would actually shed light on these subjects. It's OK to admit that the evidence is full of gaps and deficiencies - that goes for the evidence the AAP is basing their recommendations on too, and I second Nancy Wight's comments about the ethnocentrism of them. It is not OK to make believe that 'our' evidence is stronger than 'their' evidence, because, in fact, it is not. That's the whole problem. Everyone is reading the same studies but we are disagreeing about how to interpret their findings and how to apply them in practice to benefit the most babies. It's past my bedtime so I'll stop now. Rachel Myr Kristiansand, Norway *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html