What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
79 Comments
- Lefts, on 06/29/2009, -2/+29It's not actually the DNA itself that is being changed, but rather certain epigenetic mechanisms. It's not, as the title would lead you to believe, an actual mutation or anything like that.
And then the article says that after a week, it returns to normal.
So what the *****. This article is the most useless piece of trash ever. It means absolutely nothing, except *perhaps* there may be some other epigenetic changes from C-sections, but since they only found something that goes away after a week, what the hell is the use of this garbage? - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+26"you're acting awfully dignified for someone who was once shoved head-first through another person's vagina" -XKCD
- chadsexingtime, on 06/29/2009, -2/+25"vaginal delivery" is also how I prefer to send my package
- nbx909, on 06/29/2009, -1/+21The only difference I can really see is exposure to vaginal microorganisms.
- nealdd, on 06/29/2009, -2/+20OfNumbers
It's a good possibility the baby might of lived and the mother died.
We are saving more mothers, not babies in C-Section - - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -3/+17That is not entirely true. Doctors are generally more willing to perform a c-section now then a normal birth. Look at the rates of c-sections in most hospitals, they are on average around 50%. That is saying that basically half of the population either shouldn't exist or that half of pregnant women cannot give natural birth. Another odd statistic is that most c-sections happen in the around the times of the shift changes.
I only remember this as I got stuck talking to a doola for several hours once. It worked out in our favor though as we employed her to aid in the birth of our daughter. It sucked as insurance would not cover the birthing center so we just kicked all the nurses and doctors out and worked it out on our own in the L&D. Everything she said came true but I guess with 40 plus years of experience and a couple thousand home births delivered she might know what she was talking about. - Lefts, on 06/29/2009, -2/+13Gladly, cJw. And keep in mind, this is from as far back as 2002, and since, C-section rates have still risen.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/07/health/he- ...
"But safety, cost, convenience and malpractice concerns have sent the rates [of vaginal birth] plunging, not increasing."
"Both hospital administrators and doctors say it's too costly and inconvenient for a doctor to sit with a patient in labor (which may last many hours)."
""There really isn't any incentive for the physician to do VBACs," said Dr. Roger K. Freeman, an obstetrician at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center and chairman of the obstetricians task force on VBAC. "It's more time-consuming, more worry. And they don't get paid any more for it.""
"Clinton's doctors were blunt in denying her VBAC attempt. "One doctor said he wouldn't be willing to wait during my labor. The other doctor said even if he was [available], the chance of having the rest of the team there isn't very good," she said."
Also, some women ask to have C-sections, and doctors may be happy to oblige.
Are you happy now? Good. Now kindly go ***** yourself. - MotoFly, on 06/29/2009, -2/+13"Three to five days after birth, the levels had dropped in infants delivered by Caesarean section so that there were no longer significant differences between the two groups"
So it's basically absolutely nothing to worry about.
Besides the article doesn't seem to explain how the DNA of the infant is changed. - cal0140, on 06/29/2009, -1/+11@ffingers
Although OfNumbers sounded cold and heartless, he was simply saying that c-sections help us in cases where babies/mothers would have died in the past.
Read it again - at no point did he say that c-sections were a bad thing and that we should stop them because it subverts natural selection. You're the one who read it wrong and took it personally. - sgvprelude, on 06/29/2009, -5/+14Spelling "defects" with a Z....
I rest my case. - creepermclurker, on 06/29/2009, -0/+8Really, duder. You need to take a break and regroup.
- bunk3rk1ng, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7So I'm a mutant? Sweet!
- PowderedToasty, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7What are you getting upset about? natural selection isn't a thing with consciousness, so no matter how nice someone is, saying they wouldn't have made it without modern medicine, and therefore would have been taken out by natural selection, isn't an insult. He didn't even say it was a good thing that some people don't make it, he just said that now thanks to modern medicine a lot of people who wouldn't have made it naturally now have a chance.
- chicagojack, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9Hmmmm....maybe it has something to do with the majic box
- avalanche123, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7They are just afraid of you
- Lefts, on 06/29/2009, -2/+8Contrary to popular belief, not all circumstances behind C-sections can contribute to natural selection.
Most of the time, some doctor just wants to go home early instead of wait on some woman he doesn't know go in labor for hours on end. - Kinneas12, on 06/29/2009, -4/+9This seems hard to believe.
- beatle42, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Short term, but formative, so it can have long lasting impact.
- cal0140, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5This is the result of a study, not end-all-be-all scientific fact. Refuting it with wikipedia links made me laugh.
- boheme, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6I can understand where skipping the birth process might cause some aspect of the child's immune system to not activate correctly, but that is not the same as changing the DNA.
- aforsberg, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5So getting shoved headfirst through a vagina is that much better for your health? brb, testing this theory.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5Not to mention the whole birthing process is run by mostly dudes who have no actual experience in the matter, I like the Service Coordinator at the car dealership but I would rather ask a mechanic to check my brakes. . . .
Doulas for the wise. . . - Punisher2K, on 06/29/2009, -4/+8Couldnt be that kids with problems are typically delivered C-section could it? ***** science.
- Porbeagle, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5You can't change DNA like that. Horrible title.
- nutmac, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4Now I know why my son is a well mannered Democrat instead of bigot Republican that I am.
- evaburrito, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3I'd like to know if this these were emergency c-sections or planned c-sections. I'm curious if woman & baby not going into labor has anything to do with it.
- SineCurve, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3True, you are not changing the DNA code per se, but the mechanisms governing the of function of genes. Considering that epigenetic changes are what makes your, say, brain cells different from your skin cells (they have exactly the same DNA), I'd say epigenetic changes could have some profound effects.
- OfNumbers, on 06/29/2009, -31/+34Natural selection. If the baby can't come out of the mother on it's own, it would have otherwise killed the mother and ended their genetic line. With the advancements of medicine, we can now prolong the lives of people that would have otherwise never been able to exist.
- SineCurve, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3The thing is, infants delivered by c-section have been shown to be statistically at higher risk for diabetes, lymphoma and other immune system-related disorders, but scientists haven't been able to find a concrete reason for this. The researchers observed a widespread, but admittedly short-lived change in the regulation of genes immediately after birth, so maybe this is affecting the immune system somehow.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4the doctors do it to save time on their part, mostly not needed.
- s0nicfreak, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3"My wife gave birth to my son a little over 9 months ago and she had a condition in which he couldn't have been born naturally without possible killing my wife and son."
Ok so doesn't that PROVE HIS POINT EXACTLY?! - s0nicfreak, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2And for all you know that could be important to babies.
- h0dges, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2This reminds me of this story from a [long] while back:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2477 - zip000, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2There have been too many ALLCAPS Billy Mays comments today - I totally expected an "ACT NOW" or "WHILE SUPPLIES LAST" in there somewhere.
- SineCurve, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Dude, you forgot the /s :)
- MistrBrownstone, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2@ffingers: Talk about being blinded by your own emotions. There is even a hint of irony to your post, I can see how someone else might interpret it as implying that your child was more entitled to life than the "welfare babies" based on social status and education level of the parents.
- klui, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Actually there was an article that said microbes in the vagina help stimulate a newborn's resistance to bacteria.
My question: Is a vaginal delivery as beneficial if the mother is GBS (group B strep) positive and have been given antibiotics before delivery? - SineCurve, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2They all were planned, elective c-sections. You're right, I'd love to see if this happens after emergency c-sections, where the woman is already in labor.
- Bense, on 06/29/2009, -9/+11I WAS AN ELEVEN POUND BABY BORN THROUGH A CAESERIAN AND NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY SAY THAT I HAVE ANY DEFECTZ
- crypticcipher, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3Man, I hate having to say this about every study commented on in the media but here goes... Correlation is not causation.
There is so much speculation in the article that it doesn't really conclude anything worthwhile other than there are differences in the DNA of T-cell for a few days after C-section birth as opposed to natural birth. To extrapolate this out to a lifetime is to make an unfounded jump in reasoning. I'm not saying the conclusions are entirely fallacious, but there is no real evidence here. The study was limited only to newborns and did not span the lives of the individuals so concluding that future health issues are due to cesarean section is like claiming acid rain is caused by butterflies. - zaprowsdower, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Aw. On the plus side, as I wasn't born of woman I can still kill Macbeth.
- sbedrick123, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1This seems a little ridiculous to me. Did they account for the people who had bad immune systems beforehand? Did they take any other variables into account besides the way the baby was born?
- Animan351, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Guess I should have read it more thoroughly. Missed that. still left to wonder what the difference could be other than stress on the baby.
- Interactive33, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1C-sections are essential part of child birth for many - some are deciding to have them for non-medical reasons. I am not convinced that such DNA changes are made because of C-section alone. It states that after 3-5 days the changes return to normal levels.
http://www.iahealth.net/to-have-c-section-or-not-t ... - AEnkryption, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1KILL IT WITH FIRE!!
- ryan10230, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1This could be related to the hygiene hypothesis, with the babies not being exposed to bacteria in the vaginal canal.
- ptsuk, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Billy is that you?
- snagglefoof, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Please excuse my premature reply.
- beetrixi, on 06/29/2009, -2/+3Buried for wasting my time with n0n-information.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is