Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: clanSkeen <sgian AT planetc.com>
To: <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Our shameful infant mortality rate


> > ***Ah, but James, you DO trot out the fat rant about absolutely
everything
> > that has anything however slight to do with health.
>
> That's right, I do.  Because fat has something to do with just about every
> health problem there is .....even in the cases that it is not a  direct
> factor, it is none the less an indicator of bad diet, lack of exercise,
and
> the overuse of prescription drugs which weaken and exascerbate even the
> maladies that the person had no hand in bringing about.

***None responsive.  NONE of the top 3 causes of infant deaths in the U.S.
relates to weight of the mother or the child.
>
> > ***And that has what to do with INFANT mortality?
>
> That you even have to ask the question points to the nature and severity
of
> the problem.  The poorer the overall health and strength of the woman, the
> more dangerous the birth for both mother and child.  Just as an
observation
> here, I've attended the births of a good number of children and never in
> even one case was there a strong woman of  healthy weight who had the
least
> problem in birth and the resulting children with top APGAR scores.   ALL
the
> women I have known, ALL, who had a child die or died themselves in
> childbirth were grossly overweight with the accompanying bad nutrition and
> weakness one would expect to find.
>
> Although no demographic of which I am aware is venturing a causal
> relationship, many have none the less observed that the rise in obesity
> parallels the rise in infant mortality both in time and location.
>
> Obesity is well recognized as a significant contributor to deaths from
> cancer, cardio-vascular disease, and accident.  Why would we expect
neonatal
> deaths to be any different?  Children born to healthy women are healthier
> than children born to obese women.
>
> But once again see how quickly you are ready to dismiss obesity as a
> contributing factor to a rising health problem.  That's why it needs to be
> brought up.

***Yup, cause, once again your rant is non-responsive.   Infant mortality
was the subject, not live birth rates.  Infant mortal is the first year.
MURDER is the 3rd leading cause.

URI is the second leading cause.  URI is most prevalent in the infants of
women who smoke or who live in smoking households.

SIDS is the number one cause of death in infants.  There are no patterns as
to types of families, race, socioeconomic level or birthweight of the infant
or the weight of the mother.

So, just where does your obsession with weight fall in to this list?

And it certainly does not apply in your state.  In fact, certain of the
leading causes of infant mortality and mother/child mortality are more to do
with skinny women!
>
> I've read the construct of several of these comparisons.  When any of them
> use test scores that were normed on different populations (which is what
> they all must do, since there is no commonly normed test used by the
> states), they are just guessing and speculating.   The 21 factors are so
> subject to interpretation you can come to any conclusion you like and it
> would be just as valid.
>
***And once again this is not responsive.  One more time.  ALL rankings are
NOT on per capita spending, nor on per capita income, nor on total dollars
spent per student.  Not even the NEA's.

The FACT remains that not all rankings are on spending.  YOU might not like
how they do the ranking.  YOU might not like their factors.  YOU may
disagree as to their validity.  Doesn't change the FACT that not all are
based on spending.

Lynda