Nutmeg is poisonous in high doses and can lead to hallucinations, seizures, and other complications.

I can see from your comment you want to better understand queer people and feel that supporting them as equals is the right thing to do. Your lack of insight into the historical and ongoing persecution your in-group has had toward this minority is a issue and will limit your ability to support queer people at this time.

Christianity as a whole has spent literally centuries persecuting sexual minorities and reinforcing the belief that people who are not cisgendered and heteronormative are living inherently sinful lives and are morally bankrupt people who should be ostracized from society or worse. People have been imprisoned, castrated, and murdered by state and state-like actors because of Christianity’s beliefs. People have spent their lives hiding who they love because they would literally be beaten by their neighbors, had their careers ruined, or run out of town if it came to light they were homosexual.

Has this gotten better in recent years? Mostly

Does this mean people who are Christian inherently hold this belief or are themselves bad people? No.

But your lack of introspection and/or knowledge of the historical context for which queer people have distrust of Christians as a whole is evidence that you don’t really understand the problem.

Your comment that you feel like you’re being looked down upon by people is also interesting. Many people now look back upon the centuries by which Christians sought to impose their belief system on others often through state-imposed violence, and how some groups continue to do so, as barbaric and directly confrontational to modern concepts of freedom and liberty. But Christianity is still the most populous religion in the world, and conservative Christian ideals are seeing large political victories in many western counties over the last 1-2 decades, often directly at the expense of the rights of women and minorities. This argues that you really aren’t the persecuted minority that is sometimes brought up in modern propaganda such as the laughable concept of the “War on Christmas”.

If you want to support queer people, I think that’s great. If your idea of support is “I don’t care what they do as long as it’s not forced on me” you should recognize the historical irony in this statement as Christianity has spent literal millennia forcing its ideals on others and continues to attempt to do so. I would encourage you to reflect on your beliefs, if you truly accept queer people as legitimate equals, and obtain some historical perspective on this issue.

US Physician here. The efforts I place into keeping a patient with capacity in the hospital vary directly to the concern I have about their pathology. There is a very real subset of people who have capacity, i.e. have the mental faculties about them that I cannot legally or ethically place them under a medical hold for treatment, who clearly do not comprehend the gravity of their situation or the likelihood they will die if they leave. I have unfortunately seen a number of patients who require significant amounts of supplemental oxygen, IV medications to support their blood pressure, life-threatening infections requiring IV antibiotics, etc, who for whatever reason decide they don’t want to be in the hospital anymore. Discontinuation of this life support puts their life at near-immediate risk, but the folks that are usually trying to leave in these situations are angry, distrusting of the medical system, and very goal-oriented on what they want to leave the hospital for (food because they’re NPO, illicit substance use, smoking, care for their dog, etc) to the point that they’re capable of saying “yeah yeah I can die whatever fucker, unhook me and let me leave.” These patients deserve for me to sit down with them and try and have a conversation about what we can do to keep them in the hospital because I’m worried they physically won’t make it through the hospital doors before they lose consciousness.

There are also people who have capacity, want to leave for whatever reason, and aren’t literally gonna die in 5 minutes. They get papers and a pat on the back as they walk out the door.

All of this hinges on a patient’s decision making capacity, and the reason every single time you want to leave the hospital against medical advice (AMA) you have to talk to one of the treating doctors is they have to determine if you have capacity at the time you’re making that decision. To be allowed to leave the hospital AMA you have to be able to demonstrate that you can understand why you’re in the hospital, the risks of leaving the hospital AMA, and hold consistent and logical (not necessarily rational) positions on decisions/priorities. If you can’t do any one of those things, you by definition don’t have medical decision making capacity, and I am not only legally allowed to, but I’m ethically obligated to keep you in the hospital to be treated until either a surrogate decision maker with capacity can be identified OR you have return of your capacity after your illness improves and we have this conversation again.

The Sly Cooper Trilogy +/- Thieves in Time

This is incorrect. You just can’t switch manufacturers easily if you’re stable on one. But that’s not a brand vs generic thing, that’s an any manufacturer to any-other manufacturer thing. Same with warfarin, narrow-therapeutic index antiepileptics, etc.

No idea unfortunately, but definitely not to release pressure. You don’t get air in your brain, it’s all fluid. Outside of the hospital, all the drains drain to somewhere internal, usually the abdominal cavity

Am doctor. Outside of very rare and specific causes of headache, no this wouldn’t fix anything, just put you at risk for infections.

Am a doctor, this wasn’t actually a migraine and is not how migraines happen. Shunts are placed for elevated intracranial pressure, which can occur for a number of reasons, and do cause headaches. But it’s a very uncommon cause of headaches and a shunt will not fix your actual migraines or tension headaches.

Not OP but loss of the Pi results in loss of network connectivity. A headache if you’re home and never doing anything time-critical on the network. A disaster if you or anyone else is dependent on the network for anything time-sensitive (virtual doctors appointment, work call, etc), or you’re away from home and unable to directly VPN to your router to reconfigure DNS settings.

Statistically? Cancer or heart disease.

It’s not that we don’t use mode, there are definitely times mode is used. It’s just that mean (and median as well) contain a lot more useful information about distributions that we often care about. For a normal distribution mean, median, and mode should all be identical. So why do we use mean? Because mathematically, the mean is what underpins the formula for the normal distribution, not median or mode, and when you’re talking about doing math with normal distributions mean is the thing to talk about (along with standard deviation).

We use median a lot too, you probably just don’t hear it called median very often. The median is useful in non-normal distributions, and it defines the 50th percentile, so along with the 25%-ile and 75%-ile you’ve got your quartile distributions. We use these all the time to talk about grades in schools, or when we talk about home prices distributions in a given area, or salaries within a given field.

We use mode too, again just by a different name most of the time. Any time you’ve asked “what’s the most common blank” you’re basically asking for a mode. When we talk about “average” income in a country, we’re usually actually talking about median or mode. Favorite animal? Answered as a mode.

You have to use the right statistical tool for your question: unfortunately English doesn’t do a good job of conveying this without math jargon.

I’m sorry you’re getting downvotes. I’m betting the bulk are because you’re in c/askscience saying you don’t have any evidence to support your question, but that’s kinda the whole reason to ask a question. You weren’t speculating in a top level comment so I think it’s rude to be downvoting. As far as I can tell you’re asking genuine questions which is kinda the whole point of this community. Fuck the haters, ask questions when you’re curious!

It’s awesome that you’re already setting some stuff up. Feel free to DM me if you’ve got any questions!

I’m putting in my rank list for EM right now. Some people certainly have some…peculiar…ideas about health and healthcare.

But most animals don’t leave it intact. They chew through it shortly after birth. You can’t really have a tissue that is sturdy enough to survive tension during fetal development and vaginal delivery that then instantly falls apart, so it has to be manually severed after delivery. The vast majority of mammals don’t let it stay attached for long at all, because their offspring are pretty mobile immediately after birth. From my reading of some of the random websites that recommend this, apparently it was based on the observations of a single species of higher ape (a chimp I think) that doesn’t sever the umbilical cord quickly. But when we have been severing cords as a species for generations and the vast majority of other mammals sever the cord with their teeth, I think the evolutionary biology evidence points towards severing the cord quickly.

Now evolutionary biology isn’t a solid basis for medical practice, but we don’t really have much scientific data at all to base this on at this point. There have been reports of increased rates of serious infections from the practice, which has face validity with the fact that you’re leaving a devascularized piece of tissue attached to the vascular system of neonate with an immature immune system. Outside of infection, there has been some case reports of polycythemia (excessively high red blood cell count) and jaundice in these infants. This makes sense physiologically. While attached to the placenta there is a greater intravascular volume available to the infant, which is the entire basis behind delayed cord cutting. It stands to reason that continuing to allow that extra blood volume to enter the infant would result in polycythemia and jaundice.

I’m not intimately familiar with the foundational literature by which the standard DCC cutoffs of 1 minutes or cessation of umbilical pulsatility were founded upon. There could be a very real argument for saying, should the time be 2 minutes? 5 minutes instead of 1? Or should we at least study it if it hasn’t been already?

In summary, we have a piece of dead/dying tissue attached to a physiologically stressed neonate with an immature immune system. Leaving it attached for days is in contradiction to the vast majority of other mammalian labor behaviors, is inconsistent with the majority of human’s labor history, and has a clear pathological mechanism by which the commonly reported complications can be easily explained. Without some legitimate evidence to actually support benefits or disprove the risks, I think this practice should be discouraged by healthcare professionals.

Well they don’t eat it to get it off of the baby. While I’m not a vet or a zoologist, my understanding is they eat it for the nutrients as well as to help remove the scent, and newborn animals are easy prey and targeted by predators.

Doesn’t actually belong to the baby, it’s a hybrid organ that contains DNA and tissue that comes from both the mother and the fetus.

I personally wouldn’t recommend it, I’ve seen babies die miserable deaths of sepsis and it’s heartbreaking. But I’m not going into pediatrics or OBGYN so thankfully this isn’t gonna be a discussion I have to have.

To somewhat play devil’s advocate, what’s wrong with a minute? What benefit are you expecting from leaving it on longer?

The long and the short is Delayed Cord Clamping is really the only thing we have data for, and that’s what we should do without evidence something else is better.

This is an alternative birth method called “lotus birth” or more formally “umbilical non-severance” in which babies are left tethered to the delivered placenta until their cord desiccates and detaches from their body on its own, usually in 3-10 days, while applying salt to the placenta to increase the speed at which it dries. It will eventually fall off, however, after its delivery the placenta is no longer being supplied with the oxygenated blood it needs to survive, and becomes necrotic (dead). This can act as an easy entry point for infectious organisms to enter the neonate, and can result in life-threatening infections. Neither the American College of Obstetrics or the American Academy of Pediatrics have explicit guidance statements as to whether this should be recommended against. AAP has published that there have been multiple case reports of severe infections with various bacteria secondary to this practice.

This should not be confused/conflated with Delayed Cord Clamping, which is waiting 30-60 seconds after the baby’s delivery for some of the residual fetal blood in the placenta to be delivered to the baby’s circulation to prevent anemia. This has good evidence for benefit to the baby, is recommended by ACOG, and is basically standard of care in the US.

Source: ACOG and AAP publications, also I’m a 4th year medical student that has completed OBGYN rotations