Caesarean delivery can alter DNA

Researchers at Karolinska Institutet believe they have discovered the DNA mutations that explain why children delivered by planned Caesarean are at a higher risk for immunological diseases such as asthma, cancer and diabetes.

The genetic makeup of white blood cells looks different in children delivered via Caesarean compared to that of children born normally, reports Svenska Dagbladet newspaper (SvD). An explanation for the different DNA sequences might be that those delivered via Caesarean experience greater stress than babies delivered naturally. While stress builds up gradually during normal birth, the nervous systems of babies delivered via Caesarean are exposed to sudden stress. At the same time, some DNA genes are turned off while others are switched on.

Article

www.thelocal.se...

Something very interesting for those of you planning to have a caesarean

I find that hard to believe or I am unable to make sense of the article. First, a persons DNA has already been established prior to birth, and delivered C-section wouldn't afffect DNA. A C-section takes very little time once it has commenced as opposed to sometimes 12 hours of labor or even more, to the point some babies are born with pointed heads due to being in the birth canal for so long and then pulled out by forceps. I just can not see how any means of birth would mutate DNA.

Seems to me that being removed in minutes through a incision would inflict far less stress than being squeezed through a tiny opening for the better part of a day. Somehow I don't think that a newborn prefers the latter.

That's not even the most objectionable part to this "study", if you can call it that. First you have to prove that spontaneous DNA mutation due to stress is even possible. Then you have to prove that the DNA of these newborns has indeed mutated at all by taking DNA samples before and after birth. They're only looking at DNA after birth... maybe I'm missing something but how can claim anything has mutated without having a control?

The article doesn't even mention who was involved, just third hand information from a newspaper.