# Stuff and Things > COVID & VACCINES >  REMOVED FROM HIS WIFE GIVING BIRTH

## QuaseMarco

*WTF! MAN PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM HIS WIFE GIVING BIRTH...

BECAUSE HE WON'T HAVE PCR TEST*


https://www.bitchute.com/video/9xcXeycNlGpr/

----------

12icer (11-17-2021),teeceetx (11-17-2021)

----------


## teeceetx

The Police State has arrived in America.

This shit is thoroughly despicable and must stop NOW!

----------

12icer (11-17-2021),MisterVeritis (11-17-2021),QuaseMarco (11-17-2021)

----------


## 12icer

He had one problem, he was white, they were another thing.

----------


## Old Tex

Nope I can't get behind this subject strongly. You see I have 2 kids & was OUTSIDE the delivery room both times. My reasoning was simple. I'm paying the doctor to deliver my kids NOT to do CPR on me. 

Argument: Child birth is a beautiful, natural thing that the husband should be a part of. BULLSHIT!!!!!

----------

nonsqtr (11-17-2021),potlatch (11-17-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> *WTF! MAN PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM HIS WIFE GIVING BIRTH...
> 
> BECAUSE HE WON'T HAVE PCR TEST*
> 
> 
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/9xcXeycNlGpr/


I guess he believed your fear porn about covid tests being poison.  Are you proud of this? He had options.  Taking his wife to that hospital was only one of them . That hospital has an obligation - if not a legal requirement- to protect everyone there. He wanted the hospital services. The hospital was providing them for his wife. But the nutter wanted more.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Nope I can't get behind this subject strongly. You see I have 2 kids & was OUTSIDE the delivery room both times. My reasoning was simple. I'm paying the doctor to deliver my kids NOT to do CPR on me. 
> 
> Argument: Child birth is a beautiful, natural thing that the husband should be a part of. BULLSHIT!!!!!


Ditto here. Two kids outside the delivery room.  :Thumbsup: 

If you act on it the instant it occurs, there are advantages.

Possibly big significant ones in the years to come.

----------


## Old Tex

> Ditto here. Two kids outside the delivery room. 
> If you act on it the instant it occurs, there are advantages.
> Possibly big significant ones in the years to come.


I just figured that I was there when they were made & then I had to put up with my ex for 9 month afterward & that was enough. (wink)

----------


## Wildrose

> *WTF! MAN PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM HIS WIFE GIVING BIRTH...
> 
> BECAUSE HE WON'T HAVE PCR TEST*
> 
> 
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/9xcXeycNlGpr/


The guy is way the hell out of line.  The Hospital is perfectly within it's rights to have every showing a   clean covid test.

----------


## Wildrose

> I guess he believed your fear porn about covid tests being poison.  Are you proud of this? He had options.  Taking his wife to that hospital was only one of them . That hospital has an obligation - if not a legal requirement- to protect everyone there. He wanted the hospital services. The hospital was providing them for his wife. But the nutter wanted more.


Any hospital not requiring a clean test and/or proof of vaccination would be irresponsible as hell.

They have all their patients to protect along with their entire staff.

Failing to do so would be gross negligence in any lawsuit filed over Hospital Acquired Infection and/or death.

That's just bare minimum Risk Management.

----------


## crayons

> Any hospital not requiring a clean test and/or proof of vaccination would be irresponsible as hell.
> 
> They have all their patients to protect along with their entire staff.
> 
> Failing to do so would be gross negligence in any lawsuit filed over Hospital Acquired Infection and/or death.
> 
> That's just bare minimum Risk Management.


My Wife always brought on board 'one of our own family's Midwives' that she felt the most comfortable with, for every one of 
our children.

----------


## Wildrose

> My Wife always brought on board 'one of our own family's Midwives' that she felt the most comfortable with, for every one of 
> our children.


And?  What does that have to do with this subject?

A midwife would have been tossed under the same circumstances as this guy.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> I guess he believed your fear porn about covid tests being poison.  Are you proud of this? He had options.  Taking his wife to that hospital was only one of them . That hospital has an obligation - if not a legal requirement- to protect everyone there. He wanted the hospital services. The hospital was providing them for his wife. But the nutter wanted more.


You're always on the wrong side. Nazista. The hospital could have provided him with PPE.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Any hospital not requiring a clean test and/or proof of vaccination would be irresponsible as hell.
> 
> They have all their patients to protect along with their entire staff.
> 
> Failing to do so would be gross negligence in any lawsuit filed over Hospital Acquired Infection and/or death.
> 
> That's just bare minimum Risk Management.


No. Hospitals require masks. Period. 

Only health care workers are required to have vaccines and prove negative status. 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Do hospitals require proof of TB testing and Flu vaccine to allow the average person to come into the hospital. No, they don't. 

Again, with the "gross negligence" BS.

----------

QuaseMarco (11-18-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> No. Hospitals require masks. Period. 
> 
> Only health care workers are required to have vaccines and prove negative status. 
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Do hospitals require proof of TB testing and Flu vaccine to allow the average person to come into the hospital. No, they don't. 
> 
> Again, with the "gross negligence" BS.


So now we are back to believing that masks prevent transmission  of covid? Interesting.

----------


## WhoKnows

> So now we are back to believing that masks prevent transmission  of covid? Interesting.


Where did I say that? 

This is hospital protocol. In the dozen or so hospitals in my area.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

It's clear the guy in the buttshit video was just there to comfort his wife.  :Thumbsup20: 

What a good husband and father he is!

----------


## Wildrose

> No. Hospitals require masks. Period. 
> 
> Only health care workers are required to have vaccines and prove negative status. 
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Do hospitals require proof of TB testing and Flu vaccine to allow the average person to come into the hospital. No, they don't. 
> 
> Again, with the "gross negligence" BS.


Covid is none of those other diseases.

A Hospital has ever right to set it's own requirements as for masking, testing, and vaccinations of people who enter their doors.

We're in the middle of a 2 year ongoing Covid Pandemic and a declared national emergency over this virus.

You're free to visit hospitals that don't require tests and they are free to require them if they want, it's just good risk management policy which will protect them in lawsuits because they can show they took every reasonable measure to reduce or eliminate the spread of Covid.

----------


## Wildrose

> It's clear the guy in the buttshit video was just there to comfort his wife. 
> 
> What a good husband and father he is!


Shitty deal for sure but of course he had to play to the camera for added effect.

----------


## Wildrose

> You're always on the wrong side. Nazista. The hospital could have provided him with PPE.


PPE isn't a negative test.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Covid is none of those other diseases.
> 
> A Hospital has ever right to set it's own requirements as for masking, testing, and vaccinations of people who enter their doors.
> 
> We're in the middle of a 2 year ongoing Covid Pandemic and a declared national emergency over this virus.
> 
> You're free to visit hospitals that don't require tests and they are free to require them if they want, it's just good risk management policy which will protect them in lawsuits because they can show they took every reasonable measure to reduce or eliminate the spread of Covid.


You made a blanket statement which is inaccurate. 

The pandemic is over and has been for some time. The last time you said this pandemic was ongoing, you posted a definition of what a pandemic is. When I challenged you about why we don't consider Influenza an ongoing pandemic based on that definition, you spewed nonsense about my not being a doctor, or whatever. 

There is no pandemic, and please show me where a hospital has a right do to this. They are required to follow OSHA guidelines.

----------


## WhoKnows

> PPE isn't a negative test.


A positive PCR possibly isn't a positive test either...

----------


## Wildrose

> A positive PCR possibly isn't a positive test either...


By making a simple adjustment in the number of cycles and getting the lab monkeys to perform them properly the tests are now 95-98% accurate.

You know this because I already provided the documentation on this for you twice.

You want tests to fail positive if they are going to fail at all.

False negatives have very serious consequences.

If you fail a PCR test the protocol is to repeat that test and if still positive confirm it with another type of test.  Again, you know this because I've already provided it to you.

----------


## WhoKnows

> By making a simple adjustment in the number of cycles and getting the lab monkeys to perform them properly the tests are now 95-98% accurate.
> 
> *You know this because I already provided the documentation on this for you twice.
> *
> You want tests to fail positive if they are going to fail at all.
> 
> False negatives have very serious consequences.
> 
> If you fail a PCR test the protocol is to repeat that test and if still positive confirm it with another type of test.  Again, you know this because I've already provided it to you.


Bold mine. The "documentation" you provided was crap and only good because you said so. Not good enough. 

Now that you brought it up, what is the percentage of "false negatives" for the COVID PCR test? 

What does "fail a PCR test" mean?

----------


## Wildrose

> Bold mine. The "documentation" you provided was crap and only good because you said so. Not good enough. 
> 
> Now that you brought it up, what is the percentage of "false negatives" for the COVID PCR test? 
> 
> What does "fail a PCR test" mean?


Once again, show where it is faulty.
You "fail" when you come up positive for Covid.  Anyone even tangentially associated with the medical professions would undertand that.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Once again, show where it is faulty.
> You "fail" when you come up positive for Covid.  Anyone even tangentially associated with the medical professions would undertand that.


Once again, what information did you provide and please copy and paste to it? You "provide" so much BS, it's hard to keep track. And I'm not filtering through all that crap again, while you smile smugly at your keyboard. Please provide a link to the post/thread/information you say you "provided" so I can look at the specifics. If not, there is no use continuing this conversation with you.

----------


## Wildrose

> Once again, what information did you provide and please copy and paste to it? You "provide" so much BS, it's hard to keep track. And I'm not filtering through all that crap again, while you smile smugly at your keyboard. Please provide a link to the post/thread/information you say you "provided" so I can look at the specifics. If not, there is no use continuing this conversation with you.


You know damned well what we're talking about and I'm not playing fetch for you again.

----------


## WhoKnows

> You know damned well what we're talking about and I'm not playing fetch for you again.


I hardly ever know what you're talking about. Going to provide a link or not?

----------


## Wildrose

> I hardly ever know what you're talking about. Going to provide a link or not?


Troll elsewhere, we're done.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Troll elsewhere, we're done.


LOL, just another example of you not backing up what you claim when asked. Thanks for confirming. And yes, we're done. I'm not going to follow you down the "thread ban" rabbit hole any longer.

----------


## crayons

> And?  What does that have to do with this subject?
> 
> A midwife would have been tossed under the same circumstances as this guy.


 we stay away from hospital's [SIZE]

----------


## crayons

> we stay away from hospital's [SIZE]


 2nd try >>> I'm tryin to figure out this sites low volume/small font code [SIZE

----------


## Wildrose

> we stay away from hospital's [SIZE]


So how is that relevant to this topic?

----------


## crayons

> So how is that relevant to this topic?



If one has a trusted 'midwife', than one can Avoid all the above mentioned 
corporate hospital nonsense

----------


## Wildrose

> If one has a trusted 'midwife', than one can Avoid all the above mentioned 
> corporate hospital nonsense


True as long as it's a low risk pregnancy.

----------


## crayons

> True as long as it's a low risk pregnancy.


[SIZE=1]everything in life is a 'risk'

----------


## Wildrose

> [SIZE=1]everything in life is a 'risk'


I'm aware of this.  There's a difference in the risks associated with child berth between low, medium, and high risk pregnancies.

----------


## crayons

> I'm aware of this.  There's a difference in the risks associated with child berth between low, medium, and high risk pregnancies.


It's all about Faith in Jesus and all the Church folk who show up and help Celebrate a Newborn Baby.

IE: We Pray against tornadoes and killer storms 'round here and the Lord Immediately Vaporizes All of it and Clears His Sky.
It happens over and over > and we say > Thank Ya Jesus n' Praise The Lord

----------


## Wildrose

> It's all about Faith in Jesus and all the Church folk who show up and help Celebrate a Newborn Baby.
> 
> IE: We Pray against tornadoes and killer storms 'round here and the Lord Immediately Vaporizes All of it and Clears His Sky.
> It happens over and over > and we say > Thank Ya Jesus n' Praise The Lord


Jesus doesn't worry about our corporeal lives, he's concerned with eternity.

Untold numbers of at home births proved fatal for the mother and/or the baby while people prayed "religiously" for the health of both.

God also granted us the wisdom to recognize that in high risk birth situation the safest place for mom and baby is a hospital.

Breach births also pose an immediate threat to the life and health of both mother and baby along with a constricted cord and placenta previa which can result in the deaths of both.

All the praying in the world won't save them in those situations unless there's a doc on hand that can do an immediate operation.

----------


## crayons

> Jesus doesn't worry about our corporeal lives, he's concerned with eternity.
> 
> Untold numbers of at home births proved fatal for the mother and/or the baby while people prayed "religiously" for the health of both.
> 
> God also granted us the wisdom to recognize that in high risk birth situation the safest place for mom and baby is a hospital.
> 
> Breach births also pose an immediate threat to the life and health of both mother and baby along with a constricted cord and placenta previa which can result in the deaths of both.
> 
> All the praying in the world won't save them in those situations unless there's a doc on hand that can do an immediate operation.


((laughin))) let me tell ya somethin 'sweetie' >>> We got some ol' gals around here that can deliver a calf upside down, backwards
or whatever it takes >>> They're better at it than me >>> And they, and our own special 'midwife' make Child-Birthing look EZ

----------


## Wildrose

> ((laughin))) let me tell ya somethin 'sweetie' >>> We got some ol' gals around here that can deliver a calf upside down, backwards
> or whatever it takes >>> They're better at it than me >>> And they, and our own special 'midwife' make Child-Birthing look EZ


I'm not your sweetie so cut that shit out.


Anyone dumb enough to choose to have a baby at home with a high risk pregnancy is risking her life and the life of the child unnecessarily.

----------


## crayons

> I'm not your sweetie so cut that shit out.
> 
> 
> Anyone dumb enough to choose to have a baby at home with a high risk pregnancy is risking her life and the life of the child unnecessarily.


Well 'sunshine' maybe I should get my wife as well as a few others on here ta school ya on how to make things go 'smooth as butter'
& she & they could teach ya before n' after beauty tricks. They could school you all about how ta look nice, pretty n' young ((smilin)))
Hey > I've seen n' heard it all. >>> Thank Jesus and Praise the Lord ;>)

----------


## Wildrose

> Well 'sunshine' maybe I should get my wife as well as a few others on here ta school ya on how to make things go 'smooth as butter'
> & she & they could teach ya before n' after beauty tricks. They could school you all about how ta look nice, pretty n' young ((smilin)))
> Hey > I've seen n' heard it all. >>> Thank Jesus and Praise the Lord ;>)


Since you seem to be a slow learner I'm going to put this in terms you might be able to understand.

I'm not your fucking sweetie, cut that shit out.

----------


## crayons

> Since you seem to be a slow learner I'm going to put this in terms you might be able to understand.
> 
> I'm not your fucking sweetie, cut that shit out.


Don't try ta exalt yerself 'sunshine', I'm gently clippin yer wings since you've dished out so much doo-doo 'round he`re

----------

WhoKnows (11-19-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Jesus doesn't worry about our corporeal lives, he's concerned with eternity.
> 
> *Untold numbers of at home births proved fatal for the mother and/or the baby while people prayed "religiously" for the health of both.*
> 
> God also granted us the wisdom to recognize that in high risk birth situation the safest place for mom and baby is a hospital.
> 
> Breach births also pose an immediate threat to the life and health of both mother and baby along with a constricted cord and placenta previa which can result in the deaths of both.
> 
> All the praying in the world won't save them in those situations unless there's a doc on hand that can do an immediate operation.


Bold mine. How many? Source?

----------


## Trinnity

> Don't try ta exalt yerself 'sunshine', I'm gently clippin yer wings since you've dished out so much doo-doo 'round he`re


You've called him "sunshine" a bunch of times on several threads. At this point it's harassment. *PLEASE STOP*. 
 @crayons

----------


## tlmjl

> You've called him "sunshine" a bunch of times on several threads. At this point it's harassment. *PLEASE STOP*. 
>  @crayons


calling someone "sunshine" is harassment?  Maybe its in the way you look at it....kinda like is the glass half full or half empty.

Have seen much worse than that said....no mention of rebuke.   :Thinking:

----------

Rutabaga (11-19-2021)

----------


## Common

> So how is that relevant to this topic?


He was stating that he knew he made an error in his last post and was trying to figure out what he did wrong...thats all

----------


## Common

> calling someone "sunshine" is harassment?  Maybe its in the way you look at it....kinda like is the glass half full or half empty.
> 
> Have seen much worse than that said....no mention of rebuke.


Timj the world itself to you might not be offensive..but you are calling someone outside their name some dont mind many do and a rule that you dont call someone outside their nickname...thats what trinnity was referring too..

          Easy just stop calling him sunshine and alls well that ends well  :Smile:

----------


## crayons

> You've called him "sunshine" a bunch of times on several threads. At this point it's harassment. *PLEASE STOP*. 
>  @crayons


>>> Noted

----------


## tlmjl

> Timj the world itself to you might not be offensive..but you are calling someone outside their name some dont mind many do and a rule that you dont call someone outside their nickname...thats what trinnity was referring too..
> 
>           Easy just stop calling him sunshine and alls well that ends well



Agree to a certain point, but you have been here longer than me and have seen probably more than me.  I think about the times I have read in a thread, or myself putting something in a thread, and the inference made is very ambiguous.  You have seen it, I have read it.....just hate to see nit picking....I can only imagine how a mod has to or make a decision on how someone is addressed.

I have called many a student sunshine and it was not in a derogatory mode.  Yes....the OP was probably trying to get under somebodies skin.  But really.....SUNSHINE?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Agree to a certain point, but you have been here longer than me and have seen probably more than me.  I think about the times I have read in a thread, or myself putting something in a thread, and the inference made is very ambiguous.  You have seen it, I have read it.....just hate to see nit picking....I can only imagine how a mod has to or make a decision on how someone is addressed.
> 
> I have called many a student sunshine and it was not in a derogatory mode.  Yes....the OP was probably trying to get under somebodies skin.  But really.....SUNSHINE?


Once a culture of reporting posts is tolerated, the entire forum turns into reporting and revenge reporting and revenge for revenge reporting etc. But the powers that be can choose what they want their forum to be.

----------

tlmjl (11-19-2021)

----------


## tlmjl

> Once a culture of reporting posts is tolerated, the entire forum turns into reporting and revenge reporting and revenge for revenge reporting etc. But the powers that be can choose what they want their forum to be.


agree....if one choses not to like it....they can start their own forum.

----------


## crayons

> Agree to a certain point, but you have been here longer than me and have seen probably more than me.  I think about the times I have read in a thread, or myself putting something in a thread, and the inference made is very ambiguous.  You have seen it, I have read it.....just hate to see nit picking....I can only imagine how a mod has to or make a decision on how someone is addressed.
> 
> I have called many a student sunshine and it was not in a derogatory mode.  Yes....the OP was probably trying to get under somebodies skin.  But really.....SUNSHINE?


My girls call each other 'sunshine' all the time (in a good way) But they also know when I call them 'sunshine'
it means knock it off...And my wife calls me 'sunshine' in the morning, but it's in a loving, endearing way. 

>>> So, I know, " it's confusing ". <<<

Anyhow we had beautiful 'sunshine' today.

----------


## Wildrose

> Bold mine. How many? Source?


No actual physician would question that statement.

Even in the modern era there's a significant increase in deaths with at home births vs hospital births.

https://nursejournal.org/resources/a...spital-births/

When at home births were the norm birthing mortality was dramatically higher.

If you are a doc as you claim, you knew that.

----------


## WhoKnows

> No actual physician would question that statement.
> 
> Even in the modern era there's a significant increase in deaths with at home births vs hospital births.
> 
> https://nursejournal.org/resources/a...spital-births/
> 
> When at home births were the norm birthing mortality was dramatically higher.
> 
> If you are a doc as you claim, you knew that.


I'm sorry, but who are you that I can't question your sources? 

You say something and provide information without a source, I'm going to ask you for the source of your information. 

Anyone worth their salt as a scientist would require that to happen. 

Stop with the Ad Hominem attacks and just provide what you're asked for. If you can. 

Thank you for the article. I will review it.

----------


## WhoKnows

> No actual physician would question that statement.
> 
> Even in the modern era there's a significant increase in deaths with at home births vs hospital births.
> 
> https://nursejournal.org/resources/a...spital-births/
> 
> When at home births were the norm birthing mortality was dramatically higher.
> 
> If you are a doc as you claim, you knew that.


From the article YOU cited: *The majority of research into home births versus hospital births have found no differences in deaths, Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.

*https://nursejournal.org/resources/a...spital-births/

You may want to stop being so aloof, and actually read what you post, before making a complete ass of yourself.

----------


## Wildrose

> From the article YOU cited: *The majority of research into home births versus hospital births have found no differences in deaths, Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.
> 
> *https://nursejournal.org/resources/a...spital-births/
> 
> You may want to stop being so aloof, and actually read what you post, before making a complete ass of yourself.


I did.




> The study shows, on average, the rate of infant death from 2010-2017 was four times higher for planned home births vs. hospital births.


You must have skipped that part.

Must have skipped this as well.



> Data indicates that women who are moderate or high risk have better outcomes in a hospital. Low-risk women have similar rates of adverse outcomes as those who give birth in a hospital.

----------


## WhoKnows

> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have skipped that part.


No I didn't. Your article contradicts itself. So which information is better? The part you cited, or the part I did? 

I would take into consideration my data is better, because it mentions "the majority of research". You present one article, with one conclusion, which may or may not be statistically significant. 

Also let's break this down. Mortality rates of births:

Hospital Births with Mid-wife: 0.04%
Planned Home births: 0.14%

In the article, it mentions p-values, but doesn't say whether the data is statistically significant. Why not?

Should I assume because you're not a doctor, a scientist or statistician, I shouldn't be surprised by your erroneous conclusion that just happens to align with your ideas?

----------

phoenyx (11-19-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> No I didn't. Your article contradicts itself. So which information is better? The part you cited, or the part I did? 
> 
> I would take into consideration my data is better, because it mentions "the majority of research". You present one article, with one conclusion, which may or may not be statistically significant. 
> 
> Also let's break this down. Mortality rates of births:
> 
> Hospital Births with Mid-wife: 0.04%
> Planned Home births: 0.14%
> 
> ...


There is no contradiction, you simply misrepresented what was stated by selectively clipping one sentence.




> *Neonatal Seizures*The neonatal period is the most vulnerable, especially within the first week of life. Sudden, abnormal, and excessive electrical activity in the brain occurring during the first 28 days are neonatal seizures. They may be the result of deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching tissues, intracranial hemorrhage or infection, metabolic disturbances, or drug withdrawal.
> 
> The majority of research into home births versus hospital births have found no differences in deaths, Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Some, though, have found a higher rate of neonatal seizures (without evidence that the researchers separated between low- and high-risk women).


They actually cite what is known and allow the reader to make their own choice.

----------


## Wildrose

> No I didn't. Your article contradicts itself. So which information is better? The part you cited, or the part I did? 
> 
> I would take into consideration my data is better, because it mentions "the majority of research". You present one article, with one conclusion, which may or may not be statistically significant. 
> 
> Also let's break this down. Mortality rates of births:
> 
> Hospital Births with Mid-wife: 0.04%
> Planned Home births: 0.14%
> 
> ...


Also let's break this down. Mortality rates of births:




> Hospital Births with Mid-wife: 0.04%
> Planned Home births: 0.14%



I've never claimed to be a doc or a statistician but I can see that a 3.5x increase in mortality is significant.

----------


## WhoKnows

> There is no contradiction, you simply misrepresented what was stated by selectively clipping one sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> They actually cite what is known and allow the reader to make their own choice.


LOL, you also selected a clip to make a your point, which the article refutes. Nice try.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Also let's break this down. Mortality rates of births:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed to be a doc or a statistician but I can see that a 3.5x increase in mortality is significant.


Well, statisticians look at numbers to be "statistically significant". And since the article doesn't speak to that, and should, your conclusion is non scientific. And otherwise just an uneducated opinion.

----------


## Wildrose

> Well, statisticians look at numbers to be "statistically significant". And since the article doesn't speak to that, and should, your conclusion is non scientific. And otherwise just an uneducated opinion.


There's nothing non scientific in taking note that a 3.5x increase in mortality in at home births is "statistically significant".

What is the acceptable number of dead babies and mothers who could have survived if they'd been at the hospital when the birth emergency occurred?

----------


## phoenyx

> There's nothing non scientific in taking note that a 3.5x increase in mortality in at home births is "statistically significant".
> 
> What is the acceptable number of dead babies and mothers who could have survived if they'd been at the hospital when the birth emergency occurred?


You would have benefitted from reading a bit more. The study you mention doesn't differentiate between types of pregnant women. Right after the study you mention, your article mentions another that does. From the article:

**
*Why Choose a Home Birth?*

Intervention, such as a cesarean section, is less likely in low-risk women during a planned at-home birth. However, there is a need to better identify who qualifies for home births versus hospital births. Generally, low-risk women are much better candidates for home birth.
According to a study that analyzed birth outcomes, there was a 41% increase in home births from 2004 to 2010. Researchers found low-risk women had higher rates of vaginal birth without intervention. There was also no increase in adverse outcomes for low-risk women.
For instance, the cesarean rate was remarkably low in the group  5.2% versus the national average of 31%. Low-risk women include those who:
Do not have medical diseases or conditions that may influence the birth outcomeDo not have a past history of serious complications in pregnancyHave a single baby in the head-down positionSpontaneously go into labor at term
Data indicates that women who are moderate or high risk have better outcomes in a hospital. Low-risk women have similar rates of adverse outcomes as those who give birth in a hospital.
**


Clearly, the article is missing a bit of information- "Low-risk women include those who:" should have had something after it. Despite this oversight, the above quote makes it clear that at home births can be fine for women who are in the low risk category.

----------


## Wildrose

> You would have benefitted from reading a bit more. The study you mention doesn't differentiate between types of pregnant women. Right after the study you mention, your article mentions another that does. From the article:
> 
> **
> *Why Choose a Home Birth?*
> 
> Intervention, such as a cesarean section, is less likely in low-risk women during a planned at-home birth. However, there is a need to better identify who qualifies for home births versus hospital births. Generally, low-risk women are much better candidates for home birth.
> According to a study that analyzed birth outcomes, there was a 41% increase in home births from 2004 to 2010. Researchers found low-risk women had higher rates of vaginal birth without intervention. There was also no increase in adverse outcomes for low-risk women.
> For instance, the cesarean rate was remarkably low in the group — 5.2% versus the national average of 31%. Low-risk women include those who:
> Do not have medical diseases or conditions that may influence the birth outcomeDo not have a past history of serious complications in pregnancyHave a single baby in the head-down positionSpontaneously go into labor at term
> ...


I didn't skip anything.  They are discussing low rates of problems with low risk pregnancies.  That isn't an issue nor did I attempt to make it one.

My point all along is that with high risk pregnancies it's a bad choice which is supported by the data.

Home birth: Know the pros and cons - Mayo Clinic 

If you have a birthing emergency where head first deliver isn't possible, baby with a cord wrapped around it's neck, placenta previa or any of a number of birthing emergencies and there's not a doc on hand and the ability to surgically intervene the baby, the mother, or both are at extreme risk with a birth outside of a hospital.

----------


## Rutabaga

covid=money.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You would have benefitted from reading a bit more. The study you mention doesn't differentiate between types of pregnant women. Right after the study you mention, your article mentions another that does. From the article:
> 
> **
> *Why Choose a Home Birth?*
> 
> Intervention, such as a cesarean section, is less likely in low-risk women during a planned at-home birth. However, there is a need to better identify who qualifies for home births versus hospital births. Generally, low-risk women are much better candidates for home birth.
> ...



Well, you failed to mention it in the post I was responding to at any rate.





> They are discussing low rates of problems with low risk pregnancies.  That isn't an issue nor did I attempt to make it one.



It -is- an issue though. It suggests that at home pregnancies can be fine so long as the women having them are in the low risk group.




> My point all along is that with high risk pregnancies it's a bad choice which is supported by the data.



On that point, we appear to agree.

----------


## Wildrose

> Well, you failed to mention it in the post I was responding to at any rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It -is- an issue though. It suggests that at home pregnancies can be fine so long as the women having them are in the low risk group.
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't fail to mention anything, nobody said there were serious problems with low risk pregnancies and at home births, certainly not myself.

Birthing emergencies can however easily happen with any low risk pregnancy and when they do, the odds of both mother and baby surviving are low.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Well, you failed to mention it in the post I was responding to at any rate.
> It -is- an issue though. It suggests that at home pregnancies can be fine so long as the women having them are in the low risk group.
> 
> On that point, we appear to agree.
> 
> 
> ...



How about we settle on you just not mentioning the part of the article I was referencing?'





> Birthing emergencies can however easily happen with any low risk pregnancy and when they do, the odds of both mother and baby surviving are low.


It would seem that other factors tend to cancel out this effect. Otherwise, even low risk pregnancies would be shown to have more problems with at home births. Your article mentions the following:

**
Researchers found low-risk women had higher rates of vaginal birth without intervention. There was also no increase in adverse outcomes for low-risk women.
For instance, the cesarean rate was remarkably low in the group  5.2% versus the national average of 31%.
**

I decided to click on one of the links in that statement and found an article from Midwives Alliance. This is what they had to say on this:

**
*New Studies Confirm Safety of Home Birth With Midwives in the U.S.*






by Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN, Executive Director, Midwives Alliance of North America


In todays peer-reviewed _Journal of Midwifery & Womens Health_ (JMWH), a landmark study** confirms that among low-risk women, planned home births result in low rates of interventions without an increase in adverse outcomes for mothers and babies.
This study, which examines nearly 17,000 courses of midwife-led care, is the largest analysis of planned home birth in the U.S. ever published.
The results of this study, and those of its companion article about the development of the MANA Stats registry, confirm the safety and overwhelmingly positive health benefits for low-risk mothers and babies who choose to birth at home with a midwife. At every step of the way, midwives are providing excellent care. This study enables families, providers and policymakers to have a transparent look at the risks and benefits of planned home birth as well as the health benefits of normal physiologic birth.


Of particular note is a cesarean rate of 5.2%, a remarkably low rate when compared to the U.S. national average of 31% for full-term pregnancies. When we consider the well-known health consequences of a cesarean -- not to mention the exponentially higher costs -- this study brings a fresh reminder of the benefits of midwife-led care outside of our overburdened hospital system.
Home birth mothers had much lower rates of interventions in labor. While some interventions are necessary for the safety and health of the mother or baby, many are overused, are lacking scientific evidence of benefit, and even carry their own risks. Cautious and judicious use of intervention results in healthier outcomes and easier recovery, and this is an area in which midwives excel. Women who planned a home birth had fewer episiotomies, pitocin for labor augmentation, and epidurals.
**

Full article:
https://mana.org/blog/new-studies-co...ives-in-the-us

----------


## Wildrose

> How about we settle on you just not mentioning the part of the article I was referencing?'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that other factors tend to cancel out this effect. Otherwise, even low risk pregnancies would be shown to have more problems with at home births. Your article mentions the following:
> 
> **
> Researchers found low-risk women had higher rates of vaginal birth without intervention. There was also no increase in adverse outcomes for low-risk women.
> ...


I don't reference everything in an article when it's not something I have an issue with.

The reason for more C-Sections even with low risk births in hospitals is simple, liability.  I know that from first hand sources, quite a few OB/GYN's including my brother.

Obstetrics is the single highest of all specialties for malpractice suits which is why so many doc's refuse to deliver a baby at all if it can be avoided.

If a doc chooses not to perform the C-Section even in a normal birth and ANYTHING can be blamed on a failure to do so they will get sued, maybe even years later.

That's why OB/GYN's have the highest costs of malpractice insurance as well as Hospital OB Departments.

When a small hospital on who's board I sat for several years finally made the choice to close Labor and Delivery it dropped our insurance costs by half a million dollars.

----------


## phoenyx

> I don't reference everything in an article when it's not something I have an issue with.



Makes sense. Do you see why I referenced it though?




> The reason for more C-Sections even with low risk births in hospitals is simple, liability.  I know that from first hand sources, quite a few OB/GYN's including my brother.
> 
> Obstetrics is the single highest of all specialties for malpractice suits which is why so many doc's refuse to deliver a baby at all if it can be avoided.
> If a doc chooses not to perform the C-Section even in a normal birth and ANYTHING can be blamed on a failure to do so they will get sued, maybe even years later.
> 
> That's why OB/GYN's have the highest costs of malpractice insurance as well as Hospital OB Departments.
> When a small hospital on who's board I sat for several years finally made the choice to close Labor and Delivery it dropped our insurance costs by half a million dollars.


Now that I find to be very interesting. Thanks.

----------


## Wildrose

> Makes sense. Do you see why I referenced it though?
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I find to be very interesting. Thanks.


Yes, because you erred.  I was addressing one particular set of circumstances and only one.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



No, I was referencing it because I believed it brought up an important point.

----------


## crayons

Women who are comfortable with home pregnancies keep themselves in excellent physical shape.
Nutrition, rest, Prayer/Faith, good help, common horse sense and a good midwife are key to any successful delivery.

Now if one is a fat, sedentary doped up pregnant lush? I can't address the subject

----------

phoenyx (11-20-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> No, I was referencing it because I believed it brought up an important point.


It brought something up that was never in contention.

----------


## Wildrose

> Women who are comfortable with home pregnancies keep themselves in excellent physical shape.
> Nutrition, rest, Prayer/Faith, good help, common horse sense and a good midwife are key to any successful delivery.
> 
> Now if one is a fat, sedentary doped up pregnant lush? I can't address the subject


None of which prevents birthing emergencies such as "placenta Previa" or umbilical cord strangulation.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> No, I was referencing it because I believed it brought up an important point.
> 
> 
> 
> It brought something up that was never in contention.


What you had quoted suggested to me that at home pregnancies were basically just a bad idea. What I brought up suggested that it depends on whether the pregnant woman in question is in a low risk group.

----------


## Wildrose

> What you had quoted suggested to me that at home pregnancies were basically just a bad idea. What I brought up suggested that it depends on whether the pregnant woman in question is in a low risk group.


I never said that nor did the source material I provided on the subject.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> What you had quoted suggested to me that at home pregnancies were basically just a bad idea. What I brought up suggested that it depends on whether the pregnant woman in question is in a low risk group.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that [snip]


I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying that your original quote suggested this to me. Which is why I found the quote I referenced to be so important.

----------


## Wildrose

> I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying that your original quote suggested this to me. Which is why I found the quote I referenced to be so important.


Read the source material, not just the quote.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying that your original quote suggested this to me. Which is why I found the quote I referenced to be so important.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the source material, not just the quote.


I did, in the end.

----------


## Wildrose

> I did, in the end.


What you did in the end is where you should have started.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I did, in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> What you did in the end is where you should have started.



Not possible. The issue wasn't with what the article said. The issue was what I thought you believed. Once you agreed with what the article said, it become clear that what I believed you believed was mistaken.

----------


## Wildrose

> Not possible. The issue wasn't with what the article said. The issue was what I thought you believed. Once you agreed with what the article said, it become clear that what I believed you believed was mistaken.


Yet you didn't actually read the article until the end as you admitted.




> I did, in the end.


Which IS where you should have started.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Not possible. The issue wasn't with what the article said. The issue was what I thought you believed. Once you agreed with what the article said, it become clear that what I believed you believed was mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you didn't actually read the article until the end as you admitted.


I had read part of it. I read more of it later. The issue here, however, wasn't actually the article at all. The issue was what I thought -you- believed. Initially, I thought you believed that at home births were just more dangerous, period. Later, I realized that you didn't believe that. That had nothing to do with the article, but my theory on what you yourself believed.

----------


## Wildrose

> I had read part of it. I read more of it later. The issue here, however, wasn't actually the article at all. The issue was what I thought -you- believed. Initially, I thought you believed that at home births were just more dangerous, period. Later, I realized that you didn't believe that. That had nothing to do with the article, but my theory on what you yourself believed.


You aren't qualified to read minds, particularly not mine.

Stick to what I say, not what you imagine.

----------


## Wildrose

> I had read part of it. I read more of it later. The issue here, however, wasn't actually the article at all. The issue was what I thought -you- believed. Initially, I thought you believed that at home births were just more dangerous, period. Later, I realized that you didn't believe that. That had nothing to do with the article, but my theory on what you yourself believed.


Even in low risk pregnancies birthing emergencies can occur and again, without a doc on hand to perform an emergency surgical intervention the chances of both mother and child are greatly reduced, to near zero.

Why risk it if you don't have to?  How many lives need to be thrown away unnecessarily?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I had read part of it. I read more of it later. The issue here, however, wasn't actually the article at all. The issue was what I thought -you- believed. Initially, I thought you believed that at home births were just more dangerous, period. Later, I realized that you didn't believe that. That had nothing to do with the article, but my theory on what you yourself believed.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't qualified to read minds, particularly not mine.
> 
> Stick to what I say, not what you imagine.


The problem with what people say is that it frequently leaves much to the imagination. So we tend to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with theories. Those theories aren't always right. Fortunately, we can test those theories and see what the truth really is.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I had read part of it. I read more of it later. The issue here, however, wasn't actually the article at all. The issue was what I thought -you- believed. Initially, I thought you believed that at home births were just more dangerous, period. Later, I realized that you didn't believe that. That had nothing to do with the article, but my theory on what you yourself believed.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in low risk pregnancies birthing emergencies can occur and again, without a doc on hand to perform an emergency surgical intervention the chances of both mother and child are greatly reduced, to near zero.
> 
> Why risk it if you don't have to?  How many lives need to be thrown away unnecessarily?


As mentioned in your article, the risk of death for low risk women was around the same in hospitals as it was outside of them, suggesting that any risks of emergency surgical interventions being needed were balanced out by other factors.

----------


## Wildrose

> The problem with what people say is that it frequently leaves much to the imagination. So we tend to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with theories. Those theories aren't always right. Fortunately, we can test those theories and see what the truth really is.


Or you could just read the facts and stop thinking you're a mind reader.

Take me at my word, you aren't qualified to read my mind.

----------


## Wildrose

> As mentioned in your article, the risk of death for low risk women was around the same in hospitals as it was outside of them, suggesting that any risks of emergency surgical interventions being needed were balanced out by other factors.


"About the same".

If there's a birthing emergency outside of the hospital the odds take a nosedive for mother, baby, or both.

Why risk their lives if you don't have to?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> The problem with what people say is that it frequently leaves much to the imagination. So we tend to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with theories. Those theories aren't always right. Fortunately, we can test those theories and see what the truth really is.
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could just read the facts and stop thinking you're a mind reader.


The problem here is that, like you say, I can't read your mind. Which means the only way to find out what you believe is for you to reveal it.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As mentioned in your article, the risk of death for low risk women was around the same in hospitals as it was outside of them, suggesting that any risks of emergency surgical interventions being needed were balanced out by other factors.
> 
> 
> 
> "About the same".
> 
> ...


As mentioned in my last post, it would seem that there are other areas where being in a hospital would put low risk women more at risk. Otherwise, I doubt that the risk would be about the same.

----------


## Wildrose

> The problem here is that, like you say, I can't read your mind. Which means the only way to find out what you believe is for you to reveal it.


Then ask me a straight up question to start with or as I said, read the damned article.

----------


## Wildrose

> As mentioned in my last post, it would seem that there are other areas where being in a hospital would put_ low risk women more at risk_. Otherwise, I doubt that the risk would be about the same.


What areas?  How do they reduce the odds of survival for mother and child?

Do hospital acquired infections and medical mistakes kill more women and babies in hospitals than at home births?

I was pretty specific all through this discussion, "High Risk Pregnancies" and birthing emergencies that can happen no matter how well prepared and healthy the mother is.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> The problem here is that, like you say, I can't read your mind. Which means the only way to find out what you believe is for you to reveal it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then ask me a straight up question to start with or as I said, read the damned article.


As I said previously, reading the part of the article that I quoted earlier would have changed nothing, as the issue was with what I believed you believed. As to asking you what you believed would have been one way to get you to reveal the truth, my method still obtained the same results.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As mentioned in my last post, it would seem that there are other areas where being in a hospital would put low risk women more at risk. Otherwise, I doubt that the risk would be about the same.
> 
> 
> 
> What areas?  How do they reduce the odds of survival for mother and child?
> 
> Do hospital acquired infections and medical mistakes kill more women and babies in hospitals than at home births?


Perhaps, at least for low risk women. I don't really know. I'm just trying to square the fact that low risk women apparently have around equal risk if they have their pregnancy in a hospital as if they have them at home. If there are some advantages for low risk women to have them at a hospital, and yet the risk factor of having them at home are still around the same, it strongly suggests there are -other- factors that make it safer for low risk women to have them at home.

----------


## Wildrose

> As I said previously, reading the part of the article that I quoted earlier would have changed nothing, as the issue was with what I believed you believed. As to asking you what you believed would have been one way to get you to reveal the truth, my method still obtained the same results.


I didn't say, "Part of the article" did I?

If you'd actually read the full article and the discussion none of that would be an issue and you wouldn't have derailed the entire thread making it about you rather than the subject of the thread.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As I said previously, reading the part of the article that I quoted earlier would have changed nothing, as the issue was with what I believed you believed. As to asking you what you believed would have been one way to get you to reveal the truth, my method still obtained the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say, "Part of the article" did I?
> If you'd actually read the full article and the discussion none of that would be an issue [snip]


No, reading the full article wouldn't have resolved the issue. The issue was with what I thought you yourself believed. The only way to resolve that was to find out what you truly believed.

----------


## Wildrose

> No, reading the full article wouldn't have resolved the issue. The issue was with what I thought you yourself believed. The only way to resolve that was to find out what you truly believed.


Which takes us back to the same place again.  You're not a mind reader, don't assume, if you want to know where I'm coming from just ask.


It's not about feelings it's about the facts.

----------


## Wildrose

> Perhaps, at least for low risk women. I don't really know. I'm just trying to square the fact that low risk women apparently have around equal risk if they have their pregnancy in a hospital as if they have them at home. If there are some advantages for low risk women to have them at a hospital, and yet the risk factor of having them at home are still around the same, it strongly suggests there are -other- factors that make it safer for low risk women to have them at home.


And once again, "About".  How many unnecessary deaths among women who chose at home births rather than in hospital birthing?

One out of a hundred?  Thousand? Hundred thousand?

It wouldn't even be an if they made that choice for themselves when it didn't also threaten the lives of the babies.

As a rule I will always choose the safest method of delivery for the baby period.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> No, reading the full article wouldn't have resolved the issue. The issue was with what I thought you yourself believed. The only way to resolve that was to find out what you truly believed.
> 
> 
> 
> Which takes us back to the same place again.  You're not a mind reader, don't assume, if you want to know where I'm coming from just ask.


I'd be surprised if anyone didn't assume things now and again. The world is filled with various unknowns and asking questions is not always the best approach. One way or another though, an intelligent person seeks to verify whether their assumptions are correct, and I did end up doing this.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Perhaps, at least for low risk women. I don't really know. I'm just trying to square the fact that low risk women apparently have around equal risk if they have their pregnancy in a hospital as if they have them at home. If there are some advantages for low risk women to have them at a hospital, and yet the risk factor of having them at home are still around the same, it strongly suggests there are -other- factors that make it safer for low risk women to have them at home.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, "About".  How many unnecessary deaths among women who chose at home births rather than in hospital birthing?


How many unnecessary deaths among low risk women who chose to have births in a hospital rather than at home? If the death count is about the same, it suggests that there may well be some factors that make having a baby at a hospital more risky than having one at home, just as there are factors the other way around.

----------


## Wildrose

> How many unnecessary deaths among low risk women who chose to have births in a hospital rather than at home? If the death count is about the same, it suggests that there may well be some factors that make having a baby at a hospital more risky than having one at home, just as there are factors the other way around.


You failed again to answer the question posed.

----------


## phoenyx

> You failed again to answer the question posed.


So did you. Why is that?

----------


## Wildrose

> So did you. Why is that?


No, I didn't but I'm not chasing your red herrings either.

Give me a straight answer to the question I posed and we can go from there.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


This game has gotten rather old. I think the reason you didn't answer my question is the same reason I didn't answer yours. We don't know the answers.

----------


## Wildrose

> This game has gotten rather old. I think the reason you didn't answer my question is the same reason I didn't answer yours. We don't know the answers.


I've answered all your questions.  When you start answering mine we can go back to having a conversation instead of playing rhetorical doge ball.

----------


## phoenyx

> I've answered all your questions.


Clearly you haven't.

----------


## Wildrose

> Clearly you haven't.


Clearly this is pointless and I'm not going to help you derail another thread any further.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Clearly this is pointless and I'm not going to help you derail another thread any further.


He's derailing the thread because you aren't his questions? LOL...wow...

----------


## phoenyx

> He's derailing the thread because you aren't his questions? LOL...wow...


You know how he is :-p. Well, hopefully he'll tone it down on the insults. If I managed to get him to curb them a bit, I'll consider my efforts worthwhile.

----------

WhoKnows (11-22-2021)

----------

