Chris Betzold wrote "I researched this stat.  It comes originally from a
research article writtenin the 70's based upon Great Britians mortality rates
at that time.  DR.Rogan ( I e-mailed him, he is at the  United States
Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences and is the one who first published
this stat inhis article, which looked at PCB'S in breastmilk) believes that
they cameupon this number by adding up all the causes of death
potentiallyattributable to formula-feeding.  Great Britians mortality rate is
generallybelow ours.  The number was published in the US in Cunningham's
epidemiologicreview of the 80's.  (sorry don't have the exact reference at
home here)."

Yes Kathy D. the study I quoted is not from the 4 in 1000 from the
risk-benefit anyalsis.  I did not write my post well on this subject and
didn't mean to confuse the issue.  Cunningham's epidemiologic review states
the 4 per 1000 mortality rate and references it to Rogan's study Cancer from
PCB's in breast milk? a risk benefit analysis. [Abstract No. 612] Pediatr Res
1989; 25:105A

What I was trying to say but so obviously failed at was that Cunningham's
epidemiologic review has  99 references to various studies.  Alot of those
references connect infant mortality to breastfeeding in developed countries.

Karleen Gribble, your reasoning about not using this reference is
understandable.  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

I'm pretty sure they are writing about genetically engineered human
lactoferrin cause I saw the patent in regard to its use against H. pylori.

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? Could it possibly
be because the pharmaceutical industry and its sidekicks--the infant formula
industry borrowed many of the studies?  I can tell from the patents that the
basis for patenting human milk components comes out of the human milk
research done in the 80's.  We have accepted that it is logical to want to
improve formula and therefore it is acceptable for infant formula companies
to know more about human milk than the breastfeeding advocates.  But this
belief is backfiring on us because we have lost a wealth of information and
have come to believe the steady stream of disinformation about breastfeeding
that is in our media. It sure looks to me from where I'm standing that the
social marketing of infant formula in the US has worked really well.
Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC

             ***********************************************
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