Longevity the facts (plague, diet, cures, price)

[Mikala43]

You were previously provided data that eliminated infant mortality and still showed an increase in lifespan.

[RamenAddict]

Originally Posted by saibot

Wait, how do these two statements fit together? "Most of the time" mother and baby are fine whether they are at home OR in the hospital. They are not better off being in the hospital or not being in the hospital--they're the same.

But if there's an emergency--which, by the way, means "all of a sudden a dangerous situation that you didn't anticipate develops"--it might be too late to get to the hospital so baby can be intubated or mama can get a blood transfusion in time.

That's why women give birth in the hospital, even though "most of the time" they would be fine at home.
Because they don't want to be at home IN CASE there is an emergency.

I know there are women who roll the dice and have babies at home. "Most of the time" they are fine. But when they're not fine, the stakes are pretty high: dead or injured baby and/or dead or injured mother.

I have talked to some people who say they were interested in home birth (as a couple), but ultimately the OB decided the pregnancy was too risky and it was best to go to the hospital. If there is any level of risk, the OB/midwife will recommend a hospital birth. It is just not worth it, even if the birth ultimately ends up going without a hitch.

[Mikala43]

In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That's way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died.Sep 10, 2013

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C....0.joBJssAOtfk

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That's way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died.Sep 10, 2013

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C....0.joBJssAOtfk

Careful now - some would use those stats to come to the conclusion that giving birth is now so safe that we don't need to go to hospitals!

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

Careful now - some would use those stats to come to the conclusion that giving birth is now so safe that we don't need to go to hospitals!

I have no doubt.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

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?

You missed the whole point. Infants not dying is mostly because of modern medicine. I said that. Most people are not aware of this, and they think gains in longevity are because modern medicine keeps older people alive.

Aside from lower rates of infant mortality, we aren't living much longer. Infant mortality is built into nature, it is not a defect. But of course people don't like it, and they managed to stop it.

You won't get the point no matter how I explain it.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

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.

Re: the middle ages, pre-industry. You know clean air and water.

When we think about daily life in the Middle Ages, we cannot ignore the death rate that, compared to that of modern times, was horrendously high. This was particularly true for children, who have always been more susceptible to disease than adults. Some might be tempted to see this high rate of mortality as indicative of either an inability of parents to provide proper care for their children or a lack of interest in their welfare. As we shall see, neither supposition is supported by the facts.

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-c...nfancy-1789124

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by bobspez

All the disease you mentioned do predominantly happen to older people. So how can that be a myth?

Yes, and that is why the myth is persuasive. It takes time for the modern lifestyle, and the toxic food and water, etc., to cause these diseases. They are NOT normal diseases of aging. But they become more likely with age, because they take time to develop.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by bluedevilz

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?

I NEVER said infant mortality had anything to do with hospital births. The comment was about women dying while giving birth.

Doctors not washing their hands is very well known. That was before germ theory was proven. It was very common for doctors to transmit puerperal fever to women.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

You were previously provided data that eliminated infant mortality and still showed an increase in lifespan.

Not much. And very little since the new drugs. Partly explained by less smoking.