im sorry (before i even start)
i know i always muddy the waters, but im a libra, and the epitome of one, i have to weigh up the pros and cons.
and i studied research methods for 5 years and taught it for 2. i cant and will never accept its 5x safer from an article in the guardian or wherever and so ive found the full study/report and read it.
i know, im sad! 
i'll still concede that rear facing is in theory safer than front, but from what ive just read it is based on certain conditions.
briefly then.
they only looked at usa, britain and sweden.
their samples were very small (in the teens)
a lot of the fatalities were caused by extraneous reasons.
these were, seat belt not on, child seat not fitted properly, other passengers not being seat belted and the most common being- overloaded boot.
also they reported that in the usa a high number of babies actually left their seat, which didnt seem to occur in the sweden or britain seats. They concluded this was something to do with the design only using the lap belt as a restraint.
it would seem that when there are no extraneous circumstances then there are injuries in a forward facing car seat that they say they would no expect to see if they would have been in a rear facing.
they also say that they can only look at accident reports from a few years ago (3 in this case) and that cars themselves improve continously, so will not necessarily be correct to cars now.
plus i didnt look when the report was done so it could be more than 3 years.
you get my drift.
sorry if ive bored anyone, upset anyone, confused anyone!