This is a well-articulated but incomplete story about a proof-of-principle study suggesting that when babies born by C-section are swabbed with their mother’s vaginal fluids, they have a microbiome more closely approximating those of their vaginally-born peers up to a month after birth. The article does a nice job of explaining the science and placing the evidence in context, but we think that it missed the mark on the potential harms of the intervention. This is a significant omission.
Emerging research suggests that the types and patterns of natural bacteria growing on our bodies are important for healthy immune, digestive, and metabolic systems. Babies born by C-section do not have the benefit of being colonized by the natural bacteria in their mothers’ vaginal tracts, so an alternative method for inoculating babies with these bacteria (and an inexpensive, easy-to-implement one, at that) may even the playing field for C-section babies.
The article does not discuss the costs associated with inoculation. However, it’s implied that vaginal microbial transfer is very inexpensive (it only requires a piece of gauze, saline, and a sterile bottle – all standard hospital supplies) so we won’t ding the story for this omission. With that being said, there is a tacit assumption in the article that the transfer of bacteria from the mother’s vaginal fluids to the newborn is always in the best interest of the newborn. Clearly this is not the case as we will articulate later. If there is a risk of the transfer of less than desirable bacteria, it is reasonable to assume that bacterial screening of vaginal secretions might be undertaken (which would add cost). The transfer of pathogens to the newborn inducing infection would also have a cost. While it is beyond the scope of this report, we think that thinking about the potential downsides of a new intervention is in order.
The article does a nice job of detailing the potential benefits of the microbial transfer and the results seen in the study, while giving the caveat that longer follow up studies are needed to understand the implications of various microbiome make-ups. But to be fair, the results are from a total of 4 newborns, hardly a number on which to base any strong conclusions.
The story says that thus far the procedure “has proved entirely safe,” but we’re talking about only four babies here! The article assumes that all the bacteria in the mother’s vaginal secretions are “friendly.” This is clearly not the case in all patients. Significant infections can be transmitted to the newborn from bacteria resident in the mothers vaginal secretions from less than friendly bacteria including Chlamydia, Listeria and group B Strep to name a few. Suggesting that the procedure is not recommended but then pointing out that Dr. Brubaker had the procedure done for her newborn supports the notion that this is a harmless procedure — a potentially dangerous message.
The story describes the study as small and proof-of-principle, although it arguably should have made more out of the fact that only four babies underwent the swabbing procedure. That’s a very small number. Nevertheless, we think the story injects enough caution to earn a Satisfactory rating. We liked that it spelled out the next phase of study to provide readers with a realistic sense of the scientific process.
This article appropriately addresses the issue of increasing C-section use in U.S. and its potential repercussions.
The article quotes several outside sources with the comments of Drs. Gilbert and Khoruts.
We’ll rate this as Not Applicable. There is an outstanding hypothesis that colonization of the newborn with ‘friendly” bacteria from the mother’s vaginal secretions confers some advantages. This study merely test the ability to colonize a newborn delivered by cesarean delivery artificially. There aren’t really any alternatives to discuss here.
The article mentions that this is not widely used among medical professionals but that women are sometimes doing it on their own or “arranging” to have it done. Given the potential risks of colonizing a newborn with less than friendly bacteria, we think that the story’s suggestion (and implicit encouragement) for women to do this on their own are unfortunate. The study was intended to determine if newborns could be colonized artificially and not to study the effects in later life.
The article places this concept in proper context.
The article clearly goes beyond the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.