I wrote:  I'd say Dr. Doren Fredrickson's (1993) research showing a 50%
reduction in risk of SIDS for every month of exclusive breastfeeding, out to
almost no SIDS deaths after six months of exclusive breastfeeding . . . .
qualifies as "BF prevents SIDS."

>While I agree that bf is bad for SIDS and good for babies, I
>think this quote is a bit misleading. It is my impression
>that the chances of SIDS is reduced each month after birth
>whether or not baby is bf,

NO, THE RISK OF SIDS IS HIGHEST BETWEEN 2 AND 4 MONTHS.

>and there are few SIDS deaths
>after six months, whether or not baby is bf.

THE PROBLEM IS THE WORD "FEW" -- THERE ARE "FEW" SIDS DEATHS AT ANY AGE.  WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE RISK.  I DON'T HAVE FREDRICKSON'S ARTICLE IN
FRONT OF ME HERE, SO THESE NUMBERS ARE JUST FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES:

IF THE OVERALL RISK OF DEATH FROM SIDS IN THE FIRST YEAR IS 1/500 (ONE BABY
OUT OF EVERY 500 BORN DIES OF SIDS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF LIFE), THEN:

BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 1 MONTH  HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/1,000
BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 2 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/2,000
BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 3 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/4,000
BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 4 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/8,000
BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 5 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/16,000
BABIES EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 6 MONTHS HAVE AN OVERALL RISK OF 1/32,000

TO MOVE FROM 1/500 TO 1/32,000 DUE TO EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING QUALIFIES AS
"PREVENTION" IN MY BOOK.

Kathy Dettwyler