Well perhaps you could try reading the paper and drawing from the author’s words about their intentions? It’s very clear. 1) a significant problem for humans i

Well perhaps you could try reading the paper and drawing from the author’s words about their intentions? It’s very clear. 1) a significant problem for humans is the placenta doesn’t grow enough which makes the babies not get enough nutrients 2) this specific genus of gut bacteria is supposed to become common in pregnant women And mice 3) they took pregnant mice that were specifically lacking this bacteria and tested if reintroducing it would have positive effects, and it did. 4) a couple direct quotes > Additionally, our approach could potentially align with supplementation studies in pregnant women, as we started the experiments after pregnancy was confirmed. > Our results have potential translational implications, as around 14% of pregnant women use probiotics during pregnancy in European countries like the Netherlands [ 62 ]. However, the utilization of probiotics in clinical and nutritional contexts, particularly during pregnancy, remains a topic of continual debate. Thus, to comprehensively understand their influence on the developing offspring, it is essential to define the mechanisms supporting their beneficial effects. Biomed academia is a shitshow but your effort here seems particularly bad faith and lame