Just out of interest - when the the Lullaby Trust (the main uk SIDS charity) say "Breastfeeding Studies have consistently shown a reduced risk of SIDS in breastfed infants. Exclusive breastfeeding (i.e. those who have never fed with formula milk) is associated with the lowest risk, but breastfeeding of any duration may be beneficial for lowering the chance of SIDS compared to formula feeding alone."
... and I quote it, without changing a single word, how is that 'stat twisting'?
When we look at this we need to understand that formula does not necessarily cause SIDS. There is only a correlation.
This means that there could be something specific about the group of people who are formula feeding that makes them different from the group of people who are breast feeding.
For example (and for the sake of argument because I've been making a point of it in recent posts), if the group of formula feeders have a poorer support network than the group of breast feeders then there may be a difference. eg: potentially there may be information shared that makes one group notice a problem sooner than the other.
Or
If the reason the formula feeders are using formula is because breast feeding failed this could be to do with a higher rate of undiagnosed tongue tie or high palates (or something else) which makes breast feeding more difficult. This could also potentially affect breathing and therefore death. (I have no idea if this is true - its just an example)
Or
Babies who take dummies more easily have different shaped mouths so are less susceptible to problems relating to breathing and therefore death. (Again just a potential idea to show an example)
Just because lots of studies show something similar, equally does not necessarily show a clear pattern unless you look at exactly what they are comparing and whether it is a fair comparison.
You should be wary of anything that shows a correlation rather than a cause. That doesn't mean you shouldn't avoid something (if there is an increased risk, it might be a good idea to) however it doesn't mean that the thing you are avoiding is actually the cause (you may not be able to avoid that cause because its still there regardless of your behaviour).
The real problem here, is that unless the formula fed babies are selected at random rather than self selected because of problems breastfeeding, in a study this will create a methodology which is potentially flawed in nature.
You would assume that the NHS would look at stuff like this when they give information to the public. Unfortunately its very common that scrutiny is not properly given to studies and what they actually show is not critically examined. For example, it is very common for stats on CS and VBs to be compared with ELCS being combined with EMCS. However what matters is actually the planned method of birth; the risk of an EMCS should be included in the risks of a planned VB versus the risk of a planned ELCS because it is a potential outcome of a VB. (There are certain reasons why you might look at this differently but for the most part this is the way studies should be carried out and presented, however they are not).
It is CRUCIAL that HCPs and the NHS really do start to tackle misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data like this because it can tell a very different story and people may make different decisions based on that information. However we are a long way off that.
I hope this explanation helps a few people question studies and stats in a more critical way. Its not an easy thing to get your head around tbh. They have tested doctors on this in the past and found the number who don't understand is worryingly high.
(Bit off topic but I think the debate is getting too bogged down it X causes Y when actually we haven't a Scooby doo if that's really true by a few people).