is that you're right, I read the first study wrong (I skimmed it and was in a hurry---I admit I quoted it wrong, consider that claim retracted).

There were 22K hits on that search that I provided. I also talked about several other studies in the same post.

The issue here is not that I cited the first study wrong. The issue is that the body of research is overwhelmingly that natural births for most women are just as safe if not safer than births with medical intervention. That was my MAIN point, and the one that is being overlooked by all of you grasping at my minor error.

I went back and edited my main post ... happy? Now discuss the main ideas I was sharing instead of getting distracted by that minor incorrect detail.

Look, I'm a journal reviewer and researcher myself. Let me promise you---you can tear down any individual study and any individual writer. The important thing is to not discredit their main point because of an incorrect claim on paragraph four of page 5 (something easily fixed). Instead of scrutinizing one minor point, researchers look across individual studies to see the truth emerging in patterns across studies. Because any individual study/claim can be broken down.

That's what I was saying in the first post---let's not duke it out over any individual study, but look for patterns across the body of research literature. When you look for patterns --- natural birth has been found to be as safe or safer. Mostly the research shows no real, significant risks in the majority of situations. So let women who are healthy birth how they want.