Gwenwick - that is the point of that table....the author is stating that the risk of morbidity and mortality is known in these developing/deprived settings and she wanted to find out how and if the differential applied to a Western setting, like the USA. Maybe you didn't read that far?
Yes I read that far - but I feel that you can't really compare a 'western' country such as the US/UK (where almost everyone has access to clean water, and the majority are literate - so KNOW how to use the formula properly) to a country where sanitation and literacy are low..........
No where in that article did I find reference to what % of those that were not breastfed that the figures related to........eg
"Representing 16% of U.S. infant mortality totals, premature birth and low birth-weight are the second leading diagnoses on death certificates of U.S. infants. "
How many of those were breastfed and how many recieved no breastmilk etc etc?
Also I believe that it's difficult to link a lot of the deaths 'squarely' on teh shoulders on whether or not they were breastfed - as with a lot of things in life, other factors will affect it - especially in America - money......if the parents can afford good medical care when their child gets sick the infant will have a higher chance of survival - regardless of method of feeding.
A parent struggling on social who can't afford decent medical care is much more likely to lose an infant to illness.
I know it says at the bottom of the article about different ethnic groups - but being rich/poor doesn't equate to colour.
If you read the information about Dr. Palmer (who wrote the article) you'll see that most of her 'lectures' and articles are based very much on the 'pro breastfeeding' 'pro attachment parenting' type debates and in my mind are therefore going to be biased in the reporting of it - ie "The DEADLY influence of Formula in America".
So not really the 'clinical' study that the original poster requested IMO