> There's a lot in here that's fairly well-supported, rationally and scientifically; but if I continue the list it commonly runs into "no vaccinations" and sometimes really dangerous choices, like treating potentially life-threatening complications with homeopathy instead of saying "time to call the ambulance".
It's called crank magnetism: Someone who believes one insane thing tends to believe others, as well.
The problem is that the "standard" medical childbirth has flaws that are only being addressed in a haphazard way, only in some places.
The "flat on her back" position is actually far from optimal for the mother (...it's optimal for the doctor to have a clear view; that's the reason). But it can still work; it's not a disastrous error.
There really are plenty of unneeded c-sections out there -- especially as the active doctor nears the end of his/her shift ("well, let's wrap this up!"). And a c-section is major abdominal surgery, so it poses a risk of complications that's non-negligible... but it's a quick, well-known procedure, so it's easier to deal with (for the doctors) than a prolonged labor that may require them to come running unexpectedly. And the surgery risk isn't disastrous, of course; I'm not sure the overall risk is really different from a vaginal birth. But a vaginal birth can go wrong in a wider variety of ways, so the doctors will generally prefer birth by surgery.
Breast-feeding vs. formula feeding has a lot of research around it as well; but it's still only partially understood. Breast milk contains the mother's antibodies, bacteria in it determine the baby's gut flora for the rest of its life, it changes based on various factors in the mother's life, it makes a high level of skin contact with the mother automatic (and I believe there's been research showing that's important; something about cortisol levels, and brain development?) -- things no formula can provide. To make the hospital birth seem still worse: having a c-section makes it much harder to avoid using formula (since the milk doesn't start easily without the birth trigger). BUT what kind of risk is actually involved, in using formula?
Again, if you could put numbers on this stuff, I suspect the real differences in the child's life are quite small, and very much overwhelmed as influences by life experience. Even if someone has a few more illnesses as a child... maybe this will mean they stay home with their grandmother more often, and form a powerful bond that dramatically affects their entire life.
The problem is that regular people see healthcare decisions like these as binary. Right decision vs. wrong decision. They don't really understand levels of risk, and the doctor doesn't talk in those terms either. Just "do this". Or sometimes a slightly passive-aggressive "well, it's up to you".
In those terms, the new parent-to-be sees 5-6 things in a row where the advice of the well-paid professional is the wrong thing, according to pretty reasonable logic.
It's not that hard to then convince them that maybe vaccines are also not a good thing, because the ground has been laid already. And sadly, there's lots & lots written by all kinds of people trying to convince you that vaccines are dangerous.
It kind of freaks me out, honestly, but I do see how people get there. It just takes this existing distrust (partly merited), a misunderstanding of basic statistics, and a handful of examples of autistic kids who started showing symptoms somewhere around the time of the vaccinations ('cause yeah, these things happen around the same time of life...).
It's called crank magnetism: Someone who believes one insane thing tends to believe others, as well.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/28/crank-magnetism...
> Consistency be damned, they just want to see science with egg on its face so they can prove that they are being persecuted.