>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?

The study was done based on a huge data set from the US of all babies who
died over a certain period.  HUGE sample size.


>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?

Yes, this is the way the analysis works.

>In fact, if you find Dr. Frederickson's
>article, could you post the reference?

Doren's research is discussed both in the McKenna and Bernshaw chapter from
my book, and in Doren's commentary from my book.  The book is
"Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives", edited by Patricia Stuart-Macadam
and myself, 1995, Aldine de Gruyter, Publishers.

Kathy Dettwyler