[wdbbdw]

I dunno, after having had a front row seat to more than one vaginal birth I'd say that it's implausible to suggest that microbes aren't being transferred (via "vagina juice" and the proverbial "microbial organ", i.e. poop) from mother to baby. Also, having dabbled in microbial ecology in my professional life, I'd say that it's unlikely that said microbial transfer is inconsequential for the gut health of the baby. Doctors don't know everything, and I'd venture that effectively no research on the effects of a cesarian on the baby's gut health was done before the procedure became widespread.

[extipion]

> Doctors don't know everything, and I'd venture that effectively no research on the effects of a cesarian on the baby's gut health was done before the procedure became widespread.

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.

[wdbbdw]

Uh, oops, right. I hadn't read tfa.