Baby’s First Bacteria Depend on Birth Route

Reader Comments
Back to article

It's such an interesting topic. I'm particularly interested because of the fact that I had my daughter by the "age-old" method, no drugs, no intervention. After breastfeeding for two weeks, I got mastitis, was put on antibiotics, and via the breastmilk, inadvertently passed on the antibiotics to my two week old child. I wondered why I couldn't get rid of her "nappy rash" using every method under the sun, and after multiple trips to the doctor who told me to "persist", the rash was identified by a nurse -whose house we went to for a social event- as THRUSH. We then had to put our child on a course of cortisone cream, and the rash radically disappeared. We were SO upset. Now, as a result, we're convinced that the imbalance in the gut flora from infancy has led to ezcema, which we now control through complete eradication of milk and milk-products (such as ice-cream and cream) from the diet. Yet, yoghurt is fine. As is cheese.
Why does this relate to the above topic??
Well, my sister had a C-section, has given her child antibiotics, has had her child immunised conventionally, and there are absolutely no issues with her child's health.
I think there are so many factors that contribute to a child's wellbeing. I believe that I did everything right, and therefore, I can pinpoint that antibiotics course and the subsequent cortisone as the only non-natural type of intervention my child has ever had. Yet, the anomaly exists because my sister did the total opposite - including formula feeding - and there are no apparent health issues.
I think that this study needs to be investigated further, and I agree that a much larger sample population from across multiple socio-economic demographics should be investigated. I think contributors such as inheritance need to be considered too.
I really believe that there are reasons that the body has been created to function the way that it does - across all areas. Naturopathy is vastly under-rated, and I believe that modern life has removed us from natural symbiosis with the planet, from birth to death. I also believe that it's a systemic issue - with political factors that contribute too. The midwife has been ignored for too long, the hospital systems (birthing wards) have been mechanised, risk-averse-modelled and time regulated, women are being told that they are unable to birth (for example the story below where a woman was told that her child's skull would be crushed by passing through her pelvis. - That's why the skull is soft and made up of plates that move and flex, and the pelvis has cartilage that softens so that the pelvis can widen enough to pass the baby's head through during birth.) And the list goes on.
We have so much to learn about ourselves, and the place we can learn is from time-old practices - think developing world, and indigenous cultures...

AffirmativeFeminine of NY 3:50AM February 19, 2013

''The study included nine women and their 10 newborns (including one set of twins) born at the Puerto Ayacucho Hospital in the state of Amazonas, Venezuela.'' This is not a big enough sample polulation to reach any conclusion.

Druik of FL 11:02PM May 24, 2012

So... rub the baby all over with yogurt and kefir? As the grandmother of two C-section babies whose mother could not take care of them, much less breastfeed them, due to mental illness, that's what I did with the second. There's no harm in it and possibly a lot of good. If you're interested in the subject, The Gut and Psychology Syndrome by Dr. Campbell-McBride is a must-read.

Odddlycrunchy of NY 12:07PM February 03, 2012

This probably could be solved as soon as the mother starts breastfeeding..Because it increases immunity. Now here is an article worth writing...Formula vs. Breast milk.....No respect to those who have tried and just can't breastfeed for medical reasons. But my children were c-section babies. And those who were bottle feed...in the same age group were suffering from colds, ear infections, and many many other illness more than my children...So maybe I couldnt have nature for *medical reasons but I don't feel like I didn't give my children the best that I could.
* for those who care...I have a narrow pelvis...which couldn't pass my 8llb babies. Both times the dr. said that their skull would have been crushed had I tried to have them vaginally. (they were born in two different states..with different Dr.)

Bon of NJ 8:00PM June 24, 2010

The main reason there are so many C-Sections is that Herpes is still a very real STD that many women have today. In addition, there are other good reasons for having C-Sections. Breech baby, placenta previa, preecampsia, and diaphram that refuses to dilate. I had the latter, four C-Sections, one miscarriage. It never did dilate over 3. If it is a bacterial problem, then they should find a way to fix it without continually spouting off about all the women that have C-Sections for fun. It is not fun. It does not solve problems; it creates more. When I had my surgeries, I could not drive for 6 weeks. The recovery period is much longer. It is hard enough to have a tiny baby, without recovering from surgery. I can't imagine that any doctor in their right mind would actually tell someone to have elective C-Section. They would have to be an idiot that has not been through surgery, ever.

Tamara of OR 3:04AM June 23, 2010

as usual, reading the actual journal would be a better idea than the news report on it. The PNAS article (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002601107) focuses on the heterogeneity of bacterial colonization via vaginal delivery versus the homogeneity of bacterial colonization via caesarian delivery, in other words: vaginal delivery has more varied and appropriate bacteria for the baby's health than Cesarean delivery. The significance of this finding helps connect previous studies (cited in the paper) that report that "64%-82% of reported cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin infections in newborns occured in Cesarean-delivered infants."(p. 2). How is that? because vaginal delivery results in a bacterial colonization pattern that is beneficial to the newborn given its varied and appropriate bacterial profile; conversely, Cesarean delivery results in a different bacterial profile that results in all the wrong bacteria taking foothold on a newborn's body. They they identify the major colonizers of vaginal versus Cesarean delivery and cite examples of allergies and asthma susceptibility, including studies showing the replenishment of the "missing bacteria" reducing the problem. Now, before anyone that has a C-section decides to douse their baby in yogurt, keep in mind that just like a vitamin pill is inferior to getting your vitamins from fruits or vegetables (for many reasons this comment section won't allow me to elaborate on), so too must a vaginal delivery provide the optimal bacterial profile as opposed to trying to make up for the deficiency yourself.
I recommend reading the paper to connect the important ideas such as the optimal colonization of a vaginally delivered newborn and the connection between sub-optimal colonization and common illnesses like infections and autoimmune disorders.

adrian sky of CA 1:57PM June 22, 2010

I am not a doctor, but I play one on the Internet. Anyone who thinks that thousands of God-given years (or, for atheists, billions of years of evolution) is better than 50 years of the most profitable medicine on Earth, then they are nuts. That is my official diagnosis. This study is flawed because it does not factor in the reduction in malpractice suits and missed tee times that cesarean sections saves. When this is considered along with the prettier babies that do not have their faces smashed going through the "birth canal" (such a silly term), then it is obvious to any obstetrician that c-sects are the way to go.

Louise of NY 1:53PM June 22, 2010

This statement is very problematic in that it is impossible to know that the mother or baby would have died without having the C-Section and the medical profession is notoriously bad at extrapolating statistics.
Would the world be a better place (on average) if there were no more C-sections performed? Almost indubidably.

james of TN 1:41PM June 22, 2010

Not only that is different bacteria but "Babies born vaginally were colonized predominantly by Lactobacillus, microbes that aid in milk digestion" and "The new work may improve understanding of the early immune system". There is no reason to assume on the impact but if the data in this study can be reproduced in future studies it might lead to the explanation of why c-sections should be an emergency or last resort procedure only.

Rosana of MD 1:38PM June 22, 2010