The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
a fetus, when it's in the womb, that's actually a sterile environment. There have been some studies that have looked at whether there are microbes in the womb, and microbes colonizing the fetus at that point. There's some debate about this, but overall it looks like that's not a big part of the equation of microbial colonization.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So I think for many years, it was largely thought that the, while the baby was in the womb that that was a largely...an environment that was largely devoid of bacteria. And now there's starting to be some new studies that looks like maybe there are some bacteria in the amniotic fluid but it's clear that even if that pans out to be true that these are not major contributors to the initial colony that forms in the new born infant.