Babies Are Getting Brain Bleeds—Are Vaccine Fears to Blame?

[jeff47]

43. Science has said...

What has science said about babies born too close together? As far as I know, there is no recommendation from doctors to space out pregnancies.

That it doesn't matter physically, unless the mother is older. If the mom is older, the kids should be 2 years apart or longer.

Mentally is an entirely different issue, and will vary from kid to kid. An "easy" first kid isn't going to be driving the parents crazy, and thus having a second kid close in age works just fine. And that mental situation can have an effect on the kid's behavior, since we are teaching children how to behave.

Working with children, I have often seen the later children to have problems such as severe eyesight deformities, learning disabilities, and sometimes behavior problems. Over and over.

Statistics don't back up what your opinion. We tend to find patterns in our lives, even when the patterns aren't really there. That's why science uses statistics instead of "It seems like there are problems".

I have heard doctors complain that the fad to "lose the baby weight" like a celebrity is causing breastfeeding mothers to produce deficient, dangerously low-fat milk that is causing failure to thrive in some instances.

And that isn't science. "lose the baby weight" is woo. If you look at the stats, we should actually be trying to be about 10-20 lbs "overweight" - people in that group live longest.

We still do not recommend women have children after a certain age, but other than that, there are very few guidelines.

That's because we evolved in a far more harsh environment. So we evolved for women to be able to handle a lot during their pregnancies. Not perfect - dying in childbirth was somewhat common until the modern era. But pregnancy just works the vast majority of the time. If it was a fragile process, we wouldn't be here. Our species would have died out.

The trouble is, if we rely wholly on "science" for our health, forgetting that we are organisms that have basic requirements, we are missing the big picture.

And we know those basic requirements due to..........? Hey, we know those thanks to science!

New discoveries are being made all the time, meaning we are far from knowing everything. And then there is the profit motivation, where less-expensive proscriptions and the ability of the individual to be proactive in their health are discouraged and called "woo".

Those new discoveries are woo when there's no independent studies to back them up.

And no, those evil corporations are not preventing study of the amazing new discovery. You don't need a corporation's permission to study your amazing new discovery. A company refusing to sell you their drug doesn't mean you can't compare your own study to a placebo. But it's a fantastic line to push when you want to sell woo.

And no, the idea that life expectancy has gone up is a myth and has been disproven often.

The myth is that cave people only lived to their 20s. That was caused by the high infant mortality. Life expectancy from adulthood does not show nearly as dramatic an increase, but it still shows an increase.

Here's life expectancy information from the 1850s to today for the United States.

An example of the myth is newborn's life expectancy in 1850 was 38, while today it's 76. That massive 38 year difference is mostly do to childhood mortality. Which is why a better measurement is life expectancy from adulthood.

In 1850, a 20-year-old white male lived to about 60. Today, a 20-year-old white male lives to about 77. 17 years is not a myth.

Science has made some remarkable discoveries, but saying extreme modern interventions is the only thing keeping people alive is, well, woo.

Yes, cancer treatments, open heart surgery and transplants are woo.