dairy_queen:

"So, can you explain to me why the Farm's c-section rate is so absurdly low compared to the national average?"

I already did explain it, but I'll explain it again. Babies died who would otherwise have lived if delivered by C-section. As I said before, it is easy to have a low C-section rate if you don't care if a few babies die.

"All these issues have been addressed in this study."

No, they were not as the National Center for Health and Clinical Excellence pointed out. The fact is that according to the CDC, the neonatal death rate for white babies in the year 1980, the index year, was 7.4/1000. That includes all gestational ages (including extreme prematurity) and all medical complications and all pregnancy complications. Even so, it is LOWER than the Farm. The neonatal death rate for low risk white women at term is significantly less since the vast majority of deaths in the hospital are caused by prematurity.

There was absolutely no need to use the NFS sample and perform all sorts of mathematical operations on it when we already know that the neonatal death rate at that time was lower than at the Farm. It is just an effort to obscure the fact that the neonatal death rate at the Farm was unacceptably high.

"And your insinuation that white women are automatically low-risk smacks of racism"

And the fact that you did not know that race is a risk factor for neonatal mortality just shows (AGAIN) that you don't know what you are talking about. Indeed, in 1980, the neonatal death rate for Black women was 14.3/1000.

"you have had friends whose babies were born medicated and were just as alert and strong as the ones who weren't? It's strange that no one will answer me on this one."

One of the most important differences between people who understand science and those who don't is that people who understand science recognize that subjective experience is often wrong and only objective measurement will tell us the truth. People thought that the earth was flat because it seemed flat to them. People thought that the sun revolved around the earth because it seemed to them that it did. They were wrong.

Similarly, it seems to you that babies of women who have received medication are different. You're wrong (AGAIN). First of all, your experience is incredibly limited. How many neonates have you examined? Five? Ten? Fifty? Certainly you have not examined and tested hundreds or thousands of babies, and that is what is necessary to reach conclusions on this topic. Second, this has been studied quite extensively, and there is no objective evidence of any differences.

"It's really bizarre that pregnant women who to try to eat a good diet and avoid alcohol and OTC medications are perfectly willing to subject their babies and their immature livers to drugs at birth, and call that "doing what's best." I don't understand that mindset at all."

That's surprising. Homebirth advocates are willing to expose their babies to a known increased risk of preventable DEATH and that doesn't seem to bother them. Here's what I'd like to know. How can we take seriously your professions of concern for theoretical, or unproven, or made up "risks" cause by medicated childbirth, when you don't seem to care about the increased risk of preventable DEATH at homebirth?

"it's also important to be educated so that you don't subject your child to unnecessary interventions."

It's also important to be educated so you don't withhold life saving treatment from your child because you believe made up propaganda. YOU need to do some serious reading, studying and learning. Thusfar, all you have done is spout someone else's made up claims and made up a new claim of your own. You don't appear to know anything about the basics of childbirth, the inherent risks of neonatal and maternal mortality, or basic statistics. You are not in a position to evaluate what you read; you just believe it if it appeals to you.