Talk:Morning sickness

message: I have seen this observation many times: that women who do not suffer morning sickness are more likely to miscarry. From there, it's easy to conclude that being wretchedly ill is good for a pregnant woman. The problem is, only well established pregnancies have any of the side-effects of pregnancy, and we all know that fresh vegetables are good for you under all other circumstances. Using this "post hoc ergo propter hoc" formulation, you could also argue that women who do not develop rounded bellies are more likely to miscarry (if they haven't already!) or that the cessation of menstruation must serve an evolutionary function since it's another symptom of a successful pregnancy. Nausea is probably an unfortunate side-effect of pregnancy, not an indicator that one woman is more successfully pregnant than another. Birth contol pills made me quite sick; I felt wonderful throughout my pregnancies, and my ability to consume fresh vegetables has had no ill effect on my children.
Nausea in the morning, incidentally, is often a sign of migraine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.94.76 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, your entire rant is OP and not reflected in the science of medicine. You are incorrect on a scientific basis on nearly every point you state, even including migraines being heralded by nausea in the morning. For an equally OP statement, I and my wife were never nauseous in the morning before we had a migraine. Ever. My wife also suffered from morning, noon and night sickness, as in she was incessantly sick that our physicians were concerned. She was never ill with birth control pills at all, other than more frequent migraines that caused her to abandon the birth control pills.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical falacies

message: "The body's effort to detoxify thoroughly for the health of the developing embryo. This is supported by evidence that the liver and kidneys become more active than usual at the start of a pregnancy."
This is unreferenced, and reads like an alternative medicine pamphlet - added a request for verification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratznium (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Detox is a nonsense term invented by marketers in pseudoscience. There is no detoxification of an embryo. There IS a significant aversion to odors and foods on what appears to be a protein based basis. Don't mistake a significant change in diet with hormonal changes in pregnancy. They're TOTALLY different things. Frequent urination is due to compaction of the urinary bladder, due to a uterus full of vascular tissue and a fetus, it's largely absent in the first trimester. The latter numeric poster mentioned ONE single thing that is valid and correct from a medical standpoint, the existence of male dominated medicine. That is slowly changing and the "female hysterical complaint" mentality is fading rapidly. One should also note that Freud was from a century ago and largely debunked a quarter century and more ago (depending on the theory) AND was not a medical professional. Indeed, the practice at the time for a female hysterical complaint was clitoral masturbation of the female patient. Freud considered a clitoral orgasm an immature and improper orgasm and a sign of disease.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Detoxify the embryo

message: Is there any credibility in claims that these cause morning sickness?  --Eequor 22:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, odors can causes morning sickness, and i should also note that the article seems to exclude morning sickness to only pregnant women, which is not true --thenetblob
But... if you're not pregnant it's simply called "nausea"... isn't it? I mean, I'm nauseas right now (because of going on the pill, so it's even the same cause) and I'm not pregnant, are you trying to say I have "morning sickness"? I'm confused. Kuronue 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My theory is that the stomach of a pregnant woman is already upset when odors make it worse. I was looking at wikification and I see some rather serious treatments under the latin name. BTW, diluting jinjer with cabbage juice makes a lot of sense to me. The stuff is nearly tasteless when it's fresh, but it gains strength in flavour from jinjer in about three hours. Um...and to answer your question, since "the pill" is designed to mimic hormones during pregnancy, yes, what you hav is about the same thing.BrewJay (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odors and vegetables

message: Estrogen levels do not increase up to a hundredfold, but progesterone levels can.
Additional error-
 "In extreme cases,vomiting may be severe enough to cause dehydration,weight loss,acidosis and hypokalemia"
Please correct me if I am wrong but in severe vomiting would there not be an alkalosis? Sonicsouts (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Error

message: Do other mammals (say, primates) get NVP? If not... what, we selected for this? 86.42.149.134 07:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other mammals 

message: Is it true that morning sickness peaks week 5-7?  I don't have the citation but week 7-9 is more likely.
i didnt puke till week 11, but that's original research, aint it?  :) 76.217.121.84 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak time 

message: I propose removing this article from :Category:Human reproduction.  I have proposed narrowing the scope of that category at Category talk:Human reproduction.  Please comment on the category talk page. Lyrl    Talk     C   15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Human reproduction 

message: This sentence: "Foraging people are at an unusually high risk of ingesting plant toxins, due to wild plants being a substantially larger part of their diet than civilized people's" seems a little un-politically correct.  The connotation of "civilized people" is throwing up red flags for me, as using that phrasing essentially implies that hunter-gatherers are savages.  Though the terminology is accurate, I suppose, perhaps a better word choice is in order to help with the connotation issues.
CrashCart9 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: I reverted changes by Breezy724, who added a link to a commercial web page from a company that sells quack remedies.UVA Astronomer (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of morning sickness 

message: Is there any scientific evidence to prove a common old wives' tale, that a higher degree of morning sickness
is most common with a girl baby?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.101.101 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a tale told by the ignorant. There is no hint of evidence that science could verify to that effect.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correlating Morning Sickness With Sex of Fetus 

message: I removed the how-to instructions for ginger tea and added a note about safety concerns. I added a second journal reference about ginger safety and added a journal article and two patient education web resources recommending ginger (Mayo Clinic and U. of Md.). I hope this justifies my removing the "medical citation needed" tag. Kjtobo (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ginger

message: Hi, 
Over the next few weeks I plan to update this article with the newest Cochrane reviews. I'm new to Wiki so please feel free to offer advice/help. Thanks Dogboxer (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like to see citations to Gideon Koren removed.  Koren's articles rarely reflect original research on this topic, and contain, for lack of a better term, "concern-troll" headlines, e.g., "Is ondansetron safe for use during pregnancy?" (2012) and "Scary Science: Ondansetron Safety in Pregnancy" (2014) (both excerpted), and conclusions like "The spontaneous reporting system of WHO confirms that this potentially life threatening complication is more common than what the peer review literature may suggest" (2014).  Koren's recommendations regarding FDA guidance doesn't account for the latest research, simply because the FDA lags the latest research.  Sadly, this means that the path of least liability doesn't maximize the benefit to mother and child.  The following are a sampling of relevant citations for this topic:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26196894 (Fejzo, 2015), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198265 (Oliveiria http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23751910 (Fejzo 2013), and http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1211035 (Pasternak, et al., 2013).
Zipf (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use review articles per WP:MEDRS. I assume it is the 2012 paper you wish updated?  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

text: This systematic review doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14337 may help. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  updating with new reviews 

message: The following reference was retracted with unknown reason. Please review the content and change the refs, Thanks!
--- Koala0090 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference article retracted