Talk:Morning sickness

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Morning sickness.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Morning sickness received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 15 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harneet120.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logical falacies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Detoxify the embryo

"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)[reply]

As a woman that is now expecting, I'd have to support this theory that pregnancy induces some degree of detox of the mother's body. That would explain the frequent urination and also the symptoms associated with detox: heachaches, breakouts, etc. all of which I am now experiencing. I've experienced similar detox symptoms when I eliminated meat and dairy from my diet. I think it's important to note that while I respect doctors, I feel that medicine being a male-dominated industry have led to some very ridiculous claims. i.e. Sigmund Freud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.9.11 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Odors and vegetables

Is there any credibility in claims that these cause morning sickness? --Eequor 22:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)Duy Nguyen[reply]

Simple Error

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)[reply]

Pretty sure you're correct about alkalosis- I'm changing it. Shippingpetals (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other mammals

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

According to one article I saw, NVP has been selected, though it doesn't say whether humans or some earlier ancestor did the selecting - http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May00/morning.sickness.hrs.html

Peak time

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)[reply]

Generally morning sickness Starts at week 5-7 and peaks around week 12. For the lucky ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.25.30 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that morning sickness usually ends around week 12 in the introduction, yet later says 'Fetal vulnerability to toxins peaks at around 3 months, which is also the time of peak susceptibility to morning sickness' - maybe my math is off, but those numbers don't seem to match for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.241.34.67 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human reproduction

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)[reply]

Rewording

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)[reply]

Removal?

Other doctors disagree with these links and claim that the mother's sensitivity to the changes in her body is not a variable that indicates risk of miscarriage.

This seems like its trying to imply that doctors consider morning sickness nothing more than a mother's sensitivity to the changes in her body which, is ridiculous if you read the rest of the article.

their is no offical cure to morning sickness

Statistics

Could someone explain what "...affects between 50 and 95 percent of all pregnant women" actually means? --Spud Gun (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that partners of pregnant women can also experience morning sickness (not a joke, there is serious research into mimicking). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guido den Broeder, but what I was really referring to was what exactly does "..between 50 and 95 percent..." mean? --Spud Gun (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2008 Duy Nguyen (UTC)

Lack of morning sickness

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)[reply]

I have added a comment to say that a reference is required for this statement: Women who have no morning sickness are more likely to miscarry or to bear children with birth defects. This is presumably because such women are more likely to ingest substances that are toxic to the fetus. (Reference needed to back up this statement) If the statement cannot be backed up factually, I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.102.35 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the abstract for the reference on the above statement and there is no mention of "birth defects" in the study being used. This should probably be removed from the article. --98.160.180.41 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correlating Morning Sickness With Sex of Fetus

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ginger

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)[reply]

updating with new reviews

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We should use review articles per WP:MEDRS. I assume it is the 2012 paper you wish updated? [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This systematic review doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14337 may help. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference article retracted

The following reference was retracted with unknown reason. Please review the content and change the refs, Thanks!

"Practice Bulletin Summary No. 153: Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy". Obstetrics and gynecology. 126 (3): 687–8. September 2015. doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000471177.80067.19. PMID 26287781.

--- Koala0090 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]