Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When was it so easy to die in childbirth? Mostly when women started having babies in hospitals, delivered by doctors who didn't wash their hands. Then germs were discovered, doctors started washing their hands, and childbirth death rates went down.
There is no simple way to compare now to then. When are you comparing now to? Not very much is known about the distant past, and different times and places were very different.
Compare modern America so a filthy poverty stricken city in the early industrial era, and we look great. We don't look so great when compared to times and places that had clean air and water and plentiful food.
It is not nearly as simple as they want you to think. And our society is very unhealthy, if you look at it realistically.
Yes, increased infant mortality must have started exactly when you claim. After all, lying on a dirt floor in a cave or mud hut being assisted by someone who never saw a bar of soap, washed their hands or took a shower in their entire life was a much cleaner and safer environment.
Yes, increased infant mortality must have started exactly when you claim. After all, lying on a dirt floor in a cave or mud hut being assisted by someone who never saw a bar of soap, washed their hands or took a shower in their entire life was a much cleaner and safer environment.
He is saying that it is ONLY infant mortality, not maternal mortality, because I guess you know it is totally fine when women get ripped open when having a baby to be having him/her on a dirt floor or cave with no sanitation. That absolutely would never cause any problems because it’s natural. No woman would bleed to death, die of infection, die of some other complication that is less likely to happen now.
We have known of some elements of modern medicine for more than 200 years. The smallpox vaccine was developed before 1800. Now smallpox is mostly gone. How many lives has it saved? How many lives has the polio vaccine saved?
Mammals on earth have been having babies for millions of years. Your cat has kittens and most of the time she is ok and does not need surgery or drugs.
Women today have babies at home with midwives, and most of the time they are fine. You are better off not being in the hospital, unless it's an emergency. That's what modern medicine is good for -- emergencies.
I read a lot of things. Nothing prevents you from doing that.
Sure....my question is exactly WHAT do you read. You say we "all" believe certain things. I'm quite sure you don't know what we "all" believe or what we "all" think. I don't believe everything I hear or everything I read. Nothing I've read here is particularly convincing.
We're not all ignorant about the fact that many of our longevity gains comes from infants and children not dying so young. For some reason you seem to think that ISN'T due to modern medicine. That modern medicine shouldn't get credit for much of anything. So what gets the credit? We all pay attention to stupid doctors, right...and despite that, we're living longer?
What exactly is your point? You spit out your usual diatribe...so what? What am I supposed to do?
Nothing prevents anyone from fact checking. But you have to read more than WebMD or Mayo Clinic.
Eh...I need more facts and not so many general statements that you then get all wishy washy on and back pedal. Say something SPECIFIC and then give your sources.
Mammals on earth have been having babies for millions of years. Your cat has kittens and most of the time she is ok and does not need surgery or drugs.
Women today have babies at home with midwives, and most of the time they are fine. You are better off not being in the hospital, unless it's an emergency. That's what modern medicine is good for -- emergencies.
What we are trying to tell you is that emergencies are NOT UNCOMMON during childbirth. 3-5% breech and 5% preeclampsia is a large percentage of women when you take into account that many women have more than one child. Those are certainly not the only reasons why you might need to have a medical delivery. Pregnancies for women with advanced maternal age, for instance... Those were common in the past as well because there was no artificial birth control. I think my grandparents were typically one of five children, and that was just the children who successfully made it through childbirth and young childhood. I know one grandparent had a sister who died at a very young age due to scarlet fever. So at the turn of the century, we are talking a lot of people who had 3, 4, 5 kids who survived and probably more that did not survive. Even now, the rate of miscarriage is high.
I can only speak for myself. Totally hale and hearty and active at 68. Had always been skeptical of doctors and medications and resisted being on any permanent meds, figuring exercise and eating wholesome food would do the trick. Heart failure at 69. My GP called for an ambulance when she saw my ekg and later said she was amazed I survived. Lymphoma at 69, would not have survived without chemo and 5 daily meds for my heart. Currently on watch and wait with leukemia, at some point may need chemo to continue to live, if my heart or something else like pneumonia or infection or a stroke doesn't kill me first. In any of those events I'll be seeking medical help if I have the opportunity to do so.
The idea that healthy lifestyle is superior to medical intervention is only relevant to healthy people. When you are hooked up to tubes and monitors and oxygen, getting the last rites, you thank God for medicine. Everytime you go into a hospital for treatment you are risking your life. But if my GP hadn't made some fast calculations and put me in a hospital when she did I wouldn't be writing this post. Does it work for everyone, no it doesn't. But if you need an edge it can give it to you. What you are advocating is irrelevant when you need medical care, chest pumps to remove fluid from your lungs, drugs to keep your heart pumping, chemo to knock out your cancer before it kills you, to stay alive. To think medical care doesn't keep some people stay alive that need it, is believing a fiction over a fact. To believe that lifestyle and nutrition works for everyone is another fiction. Anyway no one is forced to choose either path or not choose both if they desire.
All the disease you mentioned do predominantly happen to older people. So how can that be a myth? Cancer and heart disease have killed more people than any other cause for as long as I and my parents have been alive. And nearly everyone was in their 50's and 60's when they died. And all but one of those that did live into their 80's and 90's ate junkfood and didn't exercise. They just had a good constitution. There is no formula for that.
Statistics on longevity only matter to statisticians. They are not relevant to individuals. They don't predict how long anyone will live. You only know that after they die. I know that your theories have worked for you thus far. But it doesn't mean they will work for everyone reading your posts.
There's no way to roll back time and have the same person live two different lifestyles and see which lifestyle is best. No way to know if each of us had lived each other's lifestyles, if the results would have been any different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I am NOT saying that modern medicine never saves lives. I AM saying that it is NOT responsible for a great increase in longevity between earlier times and now (except for decreasing infant mortality). I AM saying that our society is NOT very healthy, and if we live past age 40 now, it is not because of medical interventions.
There is a myth that we only survive to old age because of modern medicine, and it is not true. And that myth says that diabetes, cancer, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, etc., are a NORMAL result of aging. That is NOT true.
Because of these myths, people have too much faith in modern medicine. It can save your life in certain emergency situations, but most people never need their life saved that way. I am NOT saying modern medicine is worthless. I AM saying it is only good for certain things, and it is not as all-powerful as you might think.
I read a lot of things. Nothing prevents you from doing that.
Then change the title to “ Longevity my opinion “. Because that’s all it is with the same tired anti medicine refrain..
The usual repeated statin nonsense....
The same erroneous claims about lifespan and the relative significance of infant mortality that have been refuted over and over and over with actual Facts.....
With none of your screed supported with any “facts” despite the title of this thread
I read a lot of things. Nothing prevents you from doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Mammals on earth have been having babies for millions of years. Your cat has kittens and most of the time she is ok and does not need surgery or drugs.
Women today have babies at home with midwives, and most of the time they are fine. You are better off not being in the hospital, unless it's an emergency. That's what modern medicine is good for -- emergencies.
Most of the time they are fine!!!
Most of the time is good enough for you???
Guess what....when an emergency happens during a home birth by definition it is unexpected and by the time medical help arrives baby, mother or both can be dead
But I guess that’s ok in your worldview since “ most of the time” everyone is ok
When was it so easy to die in childbirth? Mostly when women started having babies in hospitals, delivered by doctors who didn't wash their hands. Then germs were discovered, doctors started washing their hands, and childbirth death rates went down.
There is no simple way to compare now to then. When are you comparing now to? Not very much is known about the distant past, and different times and places were very different.
Compare modern America so a filthy poverty stricken city in the early industrial era, and we look great. We don't look so great when compared to times and places that had clean air and water and plentiful food.
It is not nearly as simple as they want you to think. And our society is very unhealthy, if you look at it realistically.
Wow....completely fabricated
1. Provide evidence that infant mortality in childbirth spiked during early hospital eras. You won’t be able to
2. Provide evidence that “ doctors not washing hands” was responsible for most deaths during childbirth. Oh I’ll just tell you post partum sepsis accounted for about 8% of infant deaths
3. Assuming your nonsense about hand washing were even true how many hands were washed during those home births? Another tidbit. Don’t know if you have ever delivered a child or been present at a birth...I’ve been present at more than a few....unless it’s caesarean it’s hardly a sterile process
4. Seeing as you attribute increased longevity almost solely to reduced infant mortality Your proposed “spike” in infant mortality during this early hospital era should surely be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in lifespan. Surely you can document this decline right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
