Importantly it says "vaginal seeding" doesn't work, and that children are getting the bacteria from the mother's faeces during child birth. The Guardian delicately describes it thus: The study is...
Importantly it says "vaginal seeding" doesn't work, and that children are getting the bacteria from the mother's faeces during child birth.
The Guardian delicately describes it thus:
Previously it was thought that babies’ microbiomes might be shaped by bacteria that they swallow while in the birth canal. But the latest findings revealed that the microbiome of vaginally delivered newborns did not come from vaginal bacteria but from the mother’s gut – presumably picked up at the moment of birth.
The study is maybe useful for a population, but it's not much use for an individual mother trying to make a decision about what birth method to use. It'd be really hard for her to weigh up risks and benefits from this information.
Why not? Is it too ambiguous? To me it seems obvious that, all other aspects remaining the same, elective C-section is not ideal, based on the divergence of microbiomes and the presumption that...
but it's not much use for an individual mother trying to make a decision about what birth method to use.
Why not? Is it too ambiguous? To me it seems obvious that, all other aspects remaining the same, elective C-section is not ideal, based on the divergence of microbiomes and the presumption that evolution has optimized the benefits of vaginal birth.
It's too abstract for anyone to make a real decision. What's the risk? How do we compare that with risks of vaginal birth, especially if there are problems that are driving the choice to...
It's too abstract for anyone to make a real decision. What's the risk? How do we compare that with risks of vaginal birth, especially if there are problems that are driving the choice to c-section?
elective C-section is not ideal
Vaginal birth is strongly preferred in England. (To the point we've had some scandals about campaigning midwives causing harm by being too focused on "normal birth"). In England all other aspects aren't the same because we need to take into account the reasons the mother is having a c-section.
I was about to ask, wouldn’t it even out pretty quickly? And then I read that it does within 6-9 months. This ‘thermostat of the immune system’ idea seems highly speculative at best.
I was about to ask, wouldn’t it even out pretty quickly? And then I read that it does within 6-9 months. This ‘thermostat of the immune system’ idea seems highly speculative at best.
I mean the differences between the gut microbiomes of the C-section and vaginal babies. And I read it in the OP:
I mean the differences between the gut microbiomes of the C-section and vaginal babies. And I read it in the OP:
Babies are sterile when they are in the womb, but as soon as they are exposed to the outside world they begin taking in bacteria, which rapidly colonises the gut. By six to nine months, the differences between the two groups had levelled out.
Importantly it says "vaginal seeding" doesn't work, and that children are getting the bacteria from the mother's faeces during child birth.
The Guardian delicately describes it thus:
The study is maybe useful for a population, but it's not much use for an individual mother trying to make a decision about what birth method to use. It'd be really hard for her to weigh up risks and benefits from this information.
Why not? Is it too ambiguous? To me it seems obvious that, all other aspects remaining the same, elective C-section is not ideal, based on the divergence of microbiomes and the presumption that evolution has optimized the benefits of vaginal birth.
It's too abstract for anyone to make a real decision. What's the risk? How do we compare that with risks of vaginal birth, especially if there are problems that are driving the choice to c-section?
Vaginal birth is strongly preferred in England. (To the point we've had some scandals about campaigning midwives causing harm by being too focused on "normal birth"). In England all other aspects aren't the same because we need to take into account the reasons the mother is having a c-section.
I was about to ask, wouldn’t it even out pretty quickly? And then I read that it does within 6-9 months. This ‘thermostat of the immune system’ idea seems highly speculative at best.
What do you mean by "evening out in 6-9 months"?
And more importantly, where did you read this?
I mean the differences between the gut microbiomes of the C-section and vaginal babies. And I read it in the OP: