Post # 32
@Mrsgurzakovic: Eating my placenta is not my thing. And I do think it’s pretty gross. However, I fail to see how it’s any more gross than swallowing a man’s *uh, ya know* or having a man’s *uh, ya know* in my mouth. (I don’t do that either btw) Just saying, there are worse things than eating placenta.
Post # 33
- Wedding: February 2014 - Silverthorne Town Pavilion
@mamadingdong: +1 I am also all about the evidence. Show me proof!
Post # 34
DX Why not just take some vitamins instead…? I’m not eating any part of my body- ever.
Post # 35
- Wedding: October 2014 - Savannah, GA
Ummmm. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that this is beneficial. Sorry, but a lot of old Chinese medicine is just superstition and there are no benefits.
Post # 36
@trueblue14: I didn’t mean to insinuate that you did. I meant to say that there is currently zero scientific evidence that eating the placenta does anything for humans, whether hormonally or pain threshold wise.
It’s different in that it’s an organ. Sperm is not an organ, and is commonly reabsorbed by the man if not ejaculated. As far as I know, generally a blowjob doesn’t include eating the penis. Not to mention that the placenta is an organ that your fetus has regularly pissed & shit in.
Edited to be a bit more precise.
Post # 37
i don’t think i could, the placenta is pretty gross looking. Thing is, it’s something that would be nigh on impossible to prove as effective or not. As pp said, just because someone has post partum depression after one baby, doesn’t mean they would after another
i remember telling my DH about it, and the look he gave me was pure disgust hahaha. he wouldnt be up for it either
Post # 38
@crayfish: +1 “Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. These are probably the same people who refuse to vaccinate their kids, lol.”
Post # 39
Just because animals eat their placentas after birth, that doesn’t mean that people should. Animals also eat their own poop….
Post # 40
@Hyperventilate: They still rate the same level of gross-ocity in my book.
Post # 41
@mamadingdong: Bit of a tangent, but a double-blind study on this subject (as with many subjects related to pregnancy and birth) is nearly impossible to design and carry out for ethical and practical reasons. Many people don’t realize how many of the things routinely done in pregnancy, labor and birth are not researched with double-blind studies and RCTs (randomized controlled trials). They have to be studied in other ways that represent lower levels of evidence (observational studies, etc.), but that’s the only way you can research a lot of things involving pregnancy and birth.
Any sort of behavioral intervention, for example, can’t be double-blinded. If you are trying to get a woman to eat a placenta as part of a study, she is going to know, and so is the person giving it to her. Same for any intervention that involves an activity (i.e. laboring in water), an intervention on the part of the physician (i.e. episiotomy), etc. – there’s simply no way to do those things so that neither the patient nor the caregiver knows whether the test treatment is being given (which is the definition of a double-blinded trial).
It *might* be possible to design a double-blinded trial with encapsulated placenta, but it would be very difficult and vulnerable to major placebo effect as a confounding factor. For ethical reasons you would have to make sure that each woman in the test group received her own encapsulated placenta and not someone elses (which could threaten but might not necessarily compromise the double-blind design – but it would definitely make the study more expensive, and cost is definitely a factor in research design that determines what and how studies get done). Also for ethical reasons, you would have to recruit your participants from among women who were already willing to consume their placentas – which means that among your control group, there is a strong chance that you would see placebo effects from women who thought/hoped/believed they were taking their placentas – and, since placebo effects do exert a real influence on mental health, that would muddy your outcomes.
It’s good to think critically and ask for evidence, but in this case “show me a double-blind study” comes across as a bit of a knee-jerk response: you’re asking for something that’s not really feasible to do – and probably not the best way to answer this research question. To get around the placebo-effect problem, an observational trial with matched groups (i.e. a group of women who choose to consume their placentas compared with a group of women who choose not to) might actually yield more useful conclusions, even though it is lower on the evidence hierarchy.
Post # 42
@KCKnd2: boooooring. Didn’t even read that threadjack. Thanks tho.
The point is SHOW ME SCIENCE and I will determine for myself.
Post # 43
@KCKnd2: +1 to everything you said.
If you read her post, you’d see that she’s actually got a really good point about the flaws associate with studies be conducted on pregnant and/or breastfeeding women. No need to be rude to someone who was trying to help you be more informed.
As for the whole eating the placenta, totally not my thing. I’m pretty sure I’m higher risk for ppd due to mMy history of depression and anxiety, but eating the organ that was responsible for filtering fetal waste isn’t something I’m willing to try.
Post # 44
@MrsPaulsBabyBallerina: show me science or I am not interested. If it isn’t possible to show me science, again I am not interested. She chose one phrase from my response and focused on that. I simply do not believe in someone’s story about how it worked for them without some facts behind it.
Post # 45
@mamadingdong: I’m not disagreeing with you that I’m doubtful of the benefits. But she has a point about how doing gold-standard double-blind, randomized controlled studies being ethically problematic involving pregnant or breastfeeding women.
Post # 46
@MrsPaulsBabyBallerina: that wasn’t the point of my original post- it was just one phrase as I stated before. The point was show me science, as I’ve stated. The point wasn’t to focus on the ethics of how to study pregnany women. Randomized perhaps would have been better. Good lord. Her posts always get super lecture-like and I am not interested in learning from her.