Interesting blast from the past: The Care and Feeding of Children, from 1894. Note the causes of colic (pg 21), advice not to play with a baby, lest it make them "irritable" or "nervous" (pg , worries about measles, diptheria, and scarlet fever (pg 62); and of course, emphasis on the dangers of masturbation (pg. 66). Some of the food recommendations make sense--sweets are discouraged, for example, but they also prohibit bread (pg 44) and bananas.
Aetiology
Discussing causes, origins, evolution, and implications of disease and other phenomena.
Profile
Tara C. Smith is an Associate Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. She also writes for The Panda's Thumb and previously for WIRED SCIENCE's Correlations. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith's alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.
"...a veritable expert on tawdry cosmetic procedures gone horribly awry..."--Kevin Beck
Follow Tara on Twitter
Search
Recent Posts
- Tenured and promoted!
- Waste not, want not? Poultry "feather meal" as another source of antibiotics in feed
- June's passing
- The emergence of "nodding disease"
- Great Plains Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference--Registration Open
- Holy influenza, batman!
- The human origins of "pig" Staph ST398
- Great Plains Emerging Diseases Conference
- Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies
- MRSA in pork products: does the "antibiotic-free" label make a difference?
Recent Comments
- Jo on Scarlet fever--past and present
- Jim Thomerson on Tenured and promoted!
- vhutchison on Tenured and promoted!
- Joseph Hewitt on Tenured and promoted!
- Chris Leuthold on Tenured and promoted!
- Tara C. Smith on Tenured and promoted!
- Adrian on Tenured and promoted!
- Jason Rosenhouse on Tenured and promoted!
- J-Dog on Tenured and promoted!
- Dr. O on Tenured and promoted!
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- May 2005
Infectious Disease Series
« Programming note | Main | Simple evolutionary study may predict path of Ebola outbreaks »
Raising babies: Victorian-style
Category: Historical studies of disease
Posted on: May 1, 2006 1:10 PM, by Tara C. Smith
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/5508
Comments
And I have to wonder what's the theory behind the bran bath. Sounds like something you might find today in a new-age spa.
And I was taken aback by this bit...
I though to myself, "Wow, that seems like it'd be really uncomfortable for mom." Then I realized they were talking about bottles.
Posted by: Dave S. | May 1, 2006 1:45 PM
On bran baths: I suspect the theory was that the bran absorbed substances that caused itching or discomfort. Whether the teory is correct or not, bran baths are still used as symptomatic therapy for some dermatologic conditions that produce irritation and itching (urticaria). The baths themselves are soothing and apparently provide some symptomatic relief. Bran is also the primary ingredient in some over-the-counter foot soak preparations.
Posted by: chezjake | May 1, 2006 5:51 PM
What surprised me the most was the repeated emphasis on the importance of an abdominal band to protect against rupture (possibly while crying). Was this more common for some reason at the time, or was it just a mistaken idea?
Posted by: Matt McIrvin
| May 2, 2006 9:13 AM
...Hmm, one modern book I've got mentions umbilical hernias, which cause the navel to stick out while the baby's crying, but says they heal up without intervention and specifically says they shouldn't be strapped up. Maybe that was what they were concerned about.
Posted by: Matt McIrvin
| May 2, 2006 9:15 AM