I am doubtful you really believe that, and it's an untasteful joke.
Where I got the term from is a friend of mine is part of a Facebook support group for women who have particularly unproductive breasts and are tired of being told to risk starving their babies by adopting a breastfeeding-only policy or face moral recriminations.
Think long hair, sundresses, sandals, cracked wheat bread, flax seed extract, colonic cleanses, healing crystals, etc.
The story, though, might validate this particular practice.
While every topic deserves to be questioned and not dismissed, some have been argued to death already, and I would feel ok with not getting into an argument about the merit of vaccines for a while.
But there are scientifically validated treatments and then there's folk medicine of unknown safety and effectiveness, and putting gauze swabbed with vagina juice in your baby's mouth sounds a lot like the latter.
You’d venture wrong. The initial studies demonstrating flora differences date well over 20 years. It was in fact probably a pop science article in some mass media outlet poorly citing one of those papers that got the ball rolling for this seeding practice in the first place.
And did you bother to read the TfA? As mentioned there is no evidence that the biome is influenced by vaginal flora. So there is absolutely no new support for the value of vaginal seeding.
Doctors may not know everything, but many of us know what we don’t know which is why we don’t recommend seeding. There is no evidence that it works nor that it does any good. This new study only further supports this hypothesis.
But I would dismiss any non-conventional medical theory from non-educated (in medical field) people, even if it proves to be correct in the future. When the research and appropriate studies are done (and they prove the initial hypothesis), I will gladly switch my opinion.
A lot of people are optimistic for the future and there's some useful research available currently such as helping identify certain issues, but it's not yet a serious clinical option being pushed anywhere as far as changing or influencing the biome.
So we're not allowed to use labels to draw attention to the fact that the majority of people who believe in  and spread information about things like spirituality, crystals, anti-vax, anti-gmo, etc are women?
Often times x-ist tropes are rooted in reality. Dancing around these associations doesn't do anyone any actual good beyond cheap virtue signaling.
My middle daughter got the chicken pox vaccine right before we went on vacation to Chicago.
When we got to Chicago, she got the chicken pox actually from the vaccine. I was there for work and wife and daughter were supposed to be fiddling about the city while I worked during the day building the salesforce office.
Instead, they were holed up in the hotel room with calamine lotion and bath stuff to make Madeline comfortable. Since she had the chicken pox, they were only supposed to stay a week in Chicago with me, but had to stay the whole two weeks I was there as she couldn’t fly with the pox....
So when my youngest was due for all her vaccines, they wanted to give all 6 to her at one time.
And as the kids feel really lethargic and crappy for several days after, I made the doctor split the vaccines into only two at a time and made three different visits over two weeks instead of six vaccines in one visit and it was a much better experience for Coraline.
Tossing three coins doesn't increase the odds of any one of them being heads, surely enough. But tossing them at the same time as a single combined trial, instead of just one coin, does increase the odds of at least one heads showing up from 50 to 87.5%.
Of course, you're going to have all those vaccines anyway and so the odds are the same overall for those administrations. Just like it doesn't matter whether we toss three coins at the same time, or weeks apart; the odds are 87.5% we will see a head.
But grandparent has a point about a situation like getting multiple vaccines before travel, where you're making it more likely that side effect will occur during that specific inconvenient time.
When a vaccine is administered, the probability of some reaction follows some kind of curve that initially rises, and then drops off. If two weeks have passed and no reaction has occurred, then the probability has already fallen off to a long tail that is next to zero.
With me so far?
So now if several vaccines are started at the same time, the "payload" parts of respective curves are superimposed now. If any effects occur, they will almost certainly occur within the next few days or couple of weeks of the administration. And that is the same period for all vaccines in the bunch.
It's almost unimaginable that synchronized start does not create a clustering effect of the probability of adverse effects.
However, in most cases that clustering probably desirable. If the adverse effects are boxed to within the same week for all vaccines, then people will experience less overall "down time" like fewer days off work or school.
Thus, don't have three vaccines just before going on a dream vacation booked months in advance. In fact, maybe don't have any vaccines at all (other than something related to the vacation destination!)
Aside from my daughter getting the chicken pox from the vaccine which is extremely rare, as a parent you observe your child’s reaction to every dr visit and vaccine (ideally) and if you know and can see that these have such put your child into an uncomfortable state or lethargy, then mellow the fuck out.
The doctors don’t give a crap abt how your child feels after they leave their office.... but you as a parent must.
Also, source: my brother is one of the top doctors in the nation. Head of the entire VA for Alaska, commander of the 10th medical wing for the USAF, for personal flight doctor to the joint chiefs of staff at the pentagon. He agrees with me, so armchair all you want.... but I know what the fuck I am talking about.
Your argument is that your kids feel crappy after they're vaccinated... so you get them vaccinated in 3 different stages. No matter what your brother says, the research appears to demonstrate that you're not improving your kid's experience; in fact, it seems like, if the parent comment is right, what you're really doing is maximizing the number of days they'll be uncomfortable, if they happen to have adverse reactions to more than one of the vaccines.
The thing we seem to know from the research is that simultaneous vaccination doesn't tax the immune system in such a way that a reaction to any one vaccine is more likely. Vaccinate all at once, or in 6 separate appointments: the number of reactions will be the same.
I paid fucking attention,
So, the one daughter whom had all of her vaccines at once was the only one of the three who had an adverse was one of three...
The other two daughters who had shit split up were not adversely affected
So literally A/B testing my kids.
And to top it off, did you see my comment abt my brother being one of the top doctors in the nation,here is him (and yes I’m going to call you Patrick again just for fun)
This is my brother
I hav more med creeds if that’s not enough for you
I have a 2nd cousin that is a fantastic doctor. I also happen to be a doctor, like a bunch of others around here. Not to insult your brother in any way, but I’ve never heard of him until now.
Also looking on Scopus, while he may be doing great things in the service of the VA, he does not seem to be a researcher.
Edit: also why do you think making a generalization shitting on “the doctors” that “don’t give a crap” to just follow up with an appeal to your brother “the doctor” strengthens what you’re saying in any way? I can assure you most pediatricians do give a crap (appealing to my own years of working with many), and if yours doesn’t I encourage you to find a new one.
Spread across millions, sure, an outlier family, but truth.
How many kids do you literally have? Have you taken three different toddlers to get vaccines and observed how miserable they feel over the next week?
Well I have and I don’t give a shut abt those fucking “studies” because I have three humans I have raised and watched how their persons react to many inoculations at one time,
Fuck those “studies”
And recall my brother is one of the top doctors in the nation, and he agrees with me.
I have 2 kids.
I really don't care what your brother thinks? Sorry.
I'm good with vaccines, but we shouldn't be dismissing the parental perspective. Also, studied side effects probably don't include things like increased agitation, crankiness, lethargy, as side-effects. These things make life miserable for parents for a few days so yeah, parents are going to notice. Of course some parents are going to blame the vaccine when the kid just happened to get a cold at the same time too, but people get the message of "trust your instincts" and then see their kid get sick, and it is the parent that is ultimately responsible for the child's well being and also the one that will be blamed if the child is having a bad day or year.
So yeah, some amount of working with parents would be a good thing.
> I made the doctor split the vaccines into only two at a time and made three different visits over two weeks instead of six vaccines in one visit and it was a much better experience for Coraline.
Of course it was a better experience. Your second didn’t contract chicken pox.
Anecdotally, they don't really have big differences regarding allergies or autoimmune disorders. Although growing up I always complained one stunk up the bathroom worse than the other.
When a normal vaginal delivery is possible (ie first twin cephalic) generally the second will follow.
My partner (obgyn Resident ) says she has had 2 twin births where the first was vaginal and the second Caesar, out of roughly a couple hundred
J. Neu and J. Rushing, “Cesarean Versus Vaginal Delivery: Long-Term Infant Outcomes and the Hygiene Hypothesis,” Clinics in Perinatology 38, no. 2 (2011): 321–331.
Here is one thing that came up after googling: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/science/q-a-twins-and-all...
> In other studies, asthma, which is often tied to allergies, showed up in both identical twins only 20 percent of the time.
He may be able to get allergy shots to help treat allergies.
Anecdotally, I am Norwegian genetically, and it has been said that the scandanavians are the group that developed the gut biome to be able to eat cheese/dairy - and I eat a TON of cheese each year (and I suffer no ill affects (I’m super lean and tall and skinny))
Whereas one of my exes was Asian and would get IBS whenever she ate cheese.
Why would one need to "develop" a gut biome to eat cheese/dairy? Have you ever heard of breast-feeding? Yes, you may be surprised to hear that even Asians can breast feed.
What you seem to be thinking about is lactose intolerance, which is not due to a gut biome issue but due to genetic or environmental factor causing a deficiency of lactase, a protein, after infancy. Lactase persistence is not common in many ethnic groups.
There is evidence that a biome habituated to certain strains of lactobacillus can allow those that would otherwise be intolerant to become tolerant, but that has nothing to do with the cause of lactose intolerance.
> Whereas one of my exes was Asian and would get IBS whenever she ate cheese.
IBS is a functional digestive pain syndrome. It has nothing to do with lactose intolerance. For someone epeening about their medical knowledge, you seem to know very little to back it up.
adult lactase persistence in ancient skeletons in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, southern France and elsewhere.
Lactose intolerance is an issue involving lack of endogenous proteins, not the gut biome.
Asians, all humans, except for rare cases can digest lactose in infancy.
IBS is a functional gut pain/dysfunction syndrome. Those with lactose intolerance don't get IBS when they eat cheese.
There is still a percentage of non-European population that can consume lactose into adulthood, and not break it down without any external symptoms.
Lactose tolerance is estimated at 30-45 percent.. So it's a substantial non-European population. The intolerance is heavily skewed toward East and South Asia -- though a lot of South Asians consume milk and paneer.
Let's say this is my area of expertise. I am informing you that lactose intolerance is due to a deficiency in the enzyme lactase, a typically endogenously (by your bodies' cells) produced enzyme. It is therefore not a component of the gut biome. The proteins in your body can affect the gut microbiome, just as the micro and macro structure of your organs can, but they are not part of the biome.
Lactase is present in all normal human infants, since all healthy human babies are capable of digesting breast milk. Lactase expression starts trailing off in toddler-hood. Some populations apparently developed a mutation that causes lactase to persist. One group are northern European/Scandinavians. But there are also other groups such as certain Africans and Meds/Middle Easterners that have lactase persistence (Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people have a long history of consuming sheep and goat milk). The interesting thing is that there are multiple, independent mutations.
The cause for lactase persistence has a number of hypothesis, such as the consumption hypothesis. But these are speculation.
There is no cure for lactase deficiency. The most common "treatment" is oral enzyme replacement. This is known as Lactaid and Lactrase. Lactrase seems to work better for symptoms in most people, but response is variable.
You seem to be posting a lot of pretty hostile posts to this thread.
Still good to see studies around this get passed around. You never know if you'll have to go through an emergency caesarean and being prepared is best.
Is this about new findings? Or just a regurgitated set of findings to get into the press? The article isn't clear as far as I can see.
And in other cases it is a way to make life easier for medical staff?
Here in Panama, babies are disproportionately born through C-section in privately run hospitals.
Update: While I can't cite any stats for Panama, there is an article  that says
"The rates can be even higher in private clinics. For example, in Brazil, 80-90 percent of births in private clinics are now C-sections, compared with about 30-40 percent of births in public hospitals."
Any decent longitudinal studies of C-section babies from elective sections removing the health based ones?
I'd love to see a randomized control trial for this. To do it ethically, the trial could be designed like the CRASH trials. In those trials, doctors received patients with head injury and administered a placebo or corticosteroids. Since it was unclear whether corticosteroids helped or hurt, it was ethical for doctors to randomize patients. For births, only situations where it's 50/50 between a c-section and vaginal birth would qualify. Perhaps it's too small a subset to be workable or perhaps it's never 50/50, but that type of trial would provide much stronger evidence for this intriguing idea.
On a personal note, I was a c-section baby and seem OK!
That is your illusion.
The new bit of this story is that the vaginal canal isn't adding anything to the microflora of the baby, and that the source is in fact fecal matter from the mother during birth.
Note that you can significantly alter your gut microbiome simply by changes to your diet.
Right now the link between the microbiome and allergies is tenuous at best.
Whether it makes a difference really depends on the individual. Personally I think it's better to get the gut bacteria that you can from your mother near the time of birth, but that's me.
I’m certainly not arguing there is no impact of the microbiome on disease, but right now the data is far to early to say anything conclusively.
The article seems to say the answer is yes:
...scientists think that the initial exposure to bacteria at the moment of birth could be a “thermostat” moment for the immune system, defining its sensitivity and which strains of bacteria trigger a response.
There are other sources of protein, and many vegetables that go very well with a low carb diet.
You have a bit of a misunderstanding here - a baby does not have a microbiome in the womb - it is a sterile environment
"The first, and most important, contribution to the genesis of the microbiome is vertical transmission of maternal microbiota. Colonization of mucosa in the digestive, respiratory, urogenital tracts, as well as the skin begins at, or perhaps even before, the time of birth when a newborn is exposed to a mother’s microbiota. It was previously thought that the in utero environment was largely sterile and that a fetus was not colonized with bacteria until the time of birth. Recent studies suggest the presence of a microbiome within the placenta as well as fetal meconium, suggesting that the colonization process begins well before delivery. "
And my point is that the "most important, contribution to the genesis of the microbiome" probably gets hit with the antibiotics given for C-section.
The paper you link however is not at all convincing.
A better paper here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.0112...
Does a better job of explaining things. Interestingly the species isolated are highly homogenous - https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/454989/fmicb-10-0...
Most samples had only a single species isolated from meconium; Controlling for sources of contamination it looks like out of the sample of 43 there were several that would meet the classification of a sterile environment.
So, I was wrong; but so are you
Having a single dose of abx in an adult doesn’t kill everything; the intent of a pre-surgical dose of abx is because evidence shows it significantly reduces post op infections; and the antibiotic used is active primarily against gram positives (cephazolin 1-2g) whereas Pelomonas puraquae is a gram negative anerobic rod and more than likely not going to be touched, even if the MIC is reached (and my experience of obstetric theatres is the antibiotic usually (80% of the time) goes in only minutes before skin incision.
So; a couple of things:
- presuming no contamination in the study, the primary coloniser of neonates appears to be a gm -ve rod
- antibiotics given for caesars are active against gm +ves /aerobes
So while there may be a mechanism, it’s not highly plausible in light of the other known mechanisms affecting Caesar births vs natural (ie bacterial microbiome pickup during traversal of the birth canal) about which there is significant evidence regarding immune priming
It's a cliche that the kids from the rich side of town, who didn't put dirt in their mouths growing up, are the ones who get mono in college. Farm kids are healthiest; our immune systems need regular work they can manage.
This is true but not necessarily for the reasons you think. Epstein-Barr is largely harmless in younger children, showing up largely as a common cold. It's not that the "farm kids" didn't get infected; it's just that they were infected long before they got to college.
(And to preempt a common question: No, we shouldn't proactively expose kids to Epstein-Barr when they're young. While they wouldn't get mono, Epstein-Barr has other long term effects; for example, it has been implicated as a trigger for autoimmune disorders.)
I paid for my HPV vaccine out of pocket while the money was good, with the risk of it being completely ineffective at my ripe old age of 26
Not here to debate probabilities, but it is interesting how the possibility is controversial to some
Why can't we just buy some farm dirt in pill form?
Clinical trial showed no impact at all on the disease.
Coronado used porcine (pig) hookworm eggs that’s can’t complete a reproductive cycle in humans.
Ask yourself, why are you missing this context or being intentionally obtuse? you aren’t smarter or deemed as smarter for pointing out the obvious that other transmission methods are possible, everyone already knows that and is still enjoying these euphemisms because of their relatable conscious decision to give head. Curious what the thought process was here
Even if they're not from the same ethnic group?
This is by far the most hilarious comment I've seen on HN!