Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#211

Post by u801e »

Spooky23 wrote: post #168
pfannkuchen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the phrase "denying science" crept into people’s vocabulary? I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion, and usually people who say it seem to know basically nothing about actual science. If I think back before about 10 years ago I don’t think I had ever heard it before. In the past, non-technically minded people didn’t really cite “science” as a concrete reason to…

Usually people clinging to folk medicine were ignorant people due to circumstances. Now, people who live in a modern society actively pursue ignorance as they perceive it to be some sort of virtue. Many people want to aspire to home water birth, exclusively breastfeed and only used organic cotton diapers, because… Others seek cures from goop.com or gurus of various stripes because it makes them feel empowered. Look a…

> exclusively breastfeed

What's wrong with doing this before the baby is ready for solid food (around 4 months IIRC)?

> only used organic cotton diapers

What's wrong with using those types of diapers if they're better for the environment compared to a standard disposable diaper?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#212

Post by u801e »

danesparza wrote: post #102
drekipus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

Be safe. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. That number includes both hospital and home births. However studies have found home births with certified professional midwives in the US to have very low rates of maternal and infant mortality, comparable to hospital births for low-risk women.

> In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US.

How does that compare to 1920, or even 1820 when home births were the norm?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#213

Post by btilly »

jabradoodle wrote: post #208
btilly wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely did consider that. Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point? Like, say, when I was on my way to being a father? The link that I provided explains the characteristics of the umbilical cord that have been evolved to minimize the probability of problems. It really isn't a problem. Even in childbirths where people don't worry about the umbilical cord. Thi…

>Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point Pretty much the question I was asking. While I don't appreciate OPs mockery around CI/CD, what they said about the unbilical cord was accurate. I don't see where the supposed lecture on dangers you mentioned came from. The post that started this thread was mocking doctors without a proper understanding of the mechanics inv…

The supposed lecture was:

> This is just wildly ignorant, they're concerned about occlusion of bloodflow through the cord and/or the carotid artery.

And no, this is not an accurate lecture. Most of the time that particular lecture is delivered by doctors who actually know it is not an issue, but want to scare patients into being in hospital for other reasons.

As for the post that started this thread, I have a context that you don't. I recognized the circle of ideas that would have been in that natural childbirth class. And so had context for where they would come from.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#214

Post by soudiere »

croo wrote: post #206
soudiere wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squat birthing is a nice idea, but you have to look at the evidence, it's good for some things and maybe not great for other things like cesarean (RR 2.26 in this meta analysis) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121152...

> conclusion: The available evidence does not show the squatting position during childbirth to be beneficial. As there is no evidence for or against squatting, women should be able to choose the position they prefer. I would also recommend to let the soon-to-be-mother decide how she feels about squatting? You don't read evidence what's the best positure for shitting when you need to shit like hell. I promise you will…

Sure, patient (mother) gets to make decisions about what treatments they want, clinician advises them on the pros/cons of each option. Just pointing out squat birthing isn't the panacea some people paint it as.

The study wasn't about the mental well being of the mother & birthing method, I'm sure you can find some literature on that (but it's not a valid criticism of the study methods).

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#215

Post by soudiere »

btilly wrote: post #191
soudiere wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine working with this guy on a software system. Says no to established best practices across the board "no" to version control, CI/CD, vulnerability scans, patching and all the interventions. Gets one project off the ground by "following their gut", and it wasn't a disaster, concludes this is the way to go. > Doctors and nurses make a big deal about things like "the cord is wrapped around the neck" when the baby…

You are acting like an ignorant first rate asshole. As example of your ignorance is your lecture about the dangers of an umbilical cord wrapped around the neck. That is, in fact, very common and it is incredibly rare for it to lead to complications. https://unmhealth.org/stories/2022/12/nuchal-cord-managing-d... Which leads to your willful ignorance of the fact that the guy was exposed to a lot of research about prob…

I'm certainly an asshole, and drunk, but at least I can read and look up studies on pubmed.

What are you even arguing about nuchal cords? They're common and we should ignore them? Who cares that the "complications" are fetal death?

You read some papers 20 years ago? Care to share any of them?

How confident are you about your hand waving claims around sunday golf games? Have you bothered to review the clinical literature around hour of birth and outcomes? Have you considered it may be related to the hospital being better staffed & rested during the day vs at night?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#216

Post by soudiere »

jabradoodle wrote: post #198
btilly wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are acting like an ignorant first rate asshole. As example of your ignorance is your lecture about the dangers of an umbilical cord wrapped around the neck. That is, in fact, very common and it is incredibly rare for it to lead to complications. https://unmhealth.org/stories/2022/12/nuchal-cord-managing-d... Which leads to your willful ignorance of the fact that the guy was exposed to a lot of research about prob…

Did you stop to consider that perhaps the reason complications are rare from the umbilical cord wrapping around the neck, is because medical professionals are actively monitoring for it and mitigating the issue?

Of course he hasn't. Imagine talking to this guy in the delivery room. "Evolution has selected for safe child birth, nuchal cord isn't a problem".

At that point every professional in the room is thinking "How do we get this guy the fuck out of here".

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#217

Post by soudiere »

javier123454321 wrote: post #186
soudiere wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humor me, what did science actually get wrong in this article? The milk transfusions were shitty solution for lack of blood during a cholera epidemic, but the articles claims are false "In the late 19th century, milk was believed to be the perfect substitute for blood" Soothing syrup did it's job (pain), we now shy from it because of perception of risks, but no one's ever run clinical trials on small amounts of alcoh…

I don't know those exact cases, I'll grant you that. It was fairly lazy googling in my part. However, the cases that I do know of are the food pyramid recommending the vast majority of your caloric intake to be processed carbohydrates, lobotomy as a treatment for mental illness, and the case of David Reimer, who was raised as a girl following a botched circumsicion. Then there's thing like the missaligned incentives…

Dude, what common sense approaches about pregnancy do you think go against the scientific recommendations?

Please take a look at the CDC data over the last century. In 1915 infant mortality was _10_ percent. Maternal mortality was around 0.8% in 1900.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Are you seriously claiming that these things dropping an order of magnitude has anything to do with common sense, or not listening to doctors?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#218

Post by soudiere »

u801e wrote: post #212
danesparza wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be safe. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. That number includes both hospital and home births. However studies have found home births with certified professional midwives in the US to have very low rates of maternal and infant mortality, comparable to hospital births for low-risk women.

> In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. How does that compare to 1920, or even 1820 when home births were the norm?

A little over 800 per 100,000 in 1900 per CDC data. Infant mortality was 10% in 1915.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#219

Post by soudiere »

drekipus wrote: post #210
soudiere wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I linked him a paper on the error margin of these scans in another comment. The poor assumption here is the error margin at 18-19 weeks is the same at 36 weeks. Might be worth reviewing the ACOG's recommendations on post-term deliveries https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-op...

The problem isn't the single digit days. We were totally fine with this and we just put it down to "the baby will come out when they're ready" I'm saying that you need to tell that to the doctors, who raised all manner of forcible induction on the mother at N+1 days. Why is a week within margin, but the day after due date isn't?

I said read the guidelines. Casually scanning the literature on pubmed shows babies that come out after IDK 39 weeks have sometimes not great outcomes, and it gets worse as time goes on.

You say "the baby will come out when they're ready", but what would you reply to "what if the baby wants to come out stillborn?"

When do you want forcible induction to be advised by the clinician? 39 weeks + 2-3 days for you to feel comfortable about the decision? Maybe a week if you're seeing a psychologist or like astrology?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#220

Post by soudiere »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #77
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[[citation needed]] To my knowledge Caesarean Section is a last resort.

Not who you are replying to. Anecdata, but my sister-in-law had 3 children, her first was at the same hospital I was born (in the Texas Medical Center), and he was a standard birth, the last 3 were at our small region hospital. With her second child after only an hour of labor they told her they HAD to do a C-Section, and to top it off, they only gave her 2 nights to recover from what is major surgery (first night be…

> The reason for the remaining C-Section was that she "needed" a C-Section before.

Yeah she probably had a vertical incision c-section, which clinically indicates a c-section for the next birth. You can read about it, the fibers heal better from a transverse incision.

Post reply on HN