SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Probiotics labelled 'quite useless' (AMP link)
A group of scientists in Israel claim foods that are packed with good bacteria - called probiotics - are almost useless.
[...] The team at the Weizmann Institute of Science made their own probiotic cocktail using 11 common good bacteria including strains of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria. It was given to 25 healthy volunteers for a month. They were then sedated and samples were surgically taken from multiple places in the stomach and small and large intestines.
The researchers were looking to see where bacteria successfully colonised and whether they led to any changes in the activity of the gut. The results in the journal Cell [open, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.041], showed in half of cases the good bacteria went in the mouth and straight out the other end. In the rest, they lingered briefly before being crowded out by our existing microbes.
[...] The research group also looked at the impact of probiotics after a course of antibiotics, which wipe out both good and bad bacteria. Their trial on 46 people, also in the journal Cell [open, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.047], showed it led to delays in the normal healthy bacteria re-establishing themselves.
Dr Elinav added: "Contrary to the current dogma that probiotics are harmless and benefit everyone, these results reveal a new potential adverse side effect of probiotic use with antibiotics that might even bring long-term consequences."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Friday September 07 2018, @08:00AM (28 children)
What ever would possess someone to go through with this?
I'm all for the advancement of science... but if you're waving sharp implements around inside my stomach, it had better be for a really, really good reason.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Friday September 07 2018, @08:07AM (21 children)
Shading in details of our understanding of the microbiome and how it affects human health seems fairly worthwhile to me.
(Score: 3, Funny) by anubi on Friday September 07 2018, @08:20AM (11 children)
If anything, do it during colonoscopies.
Everytime you mess around with this kind of thing, you take a huge risk that something doesn't come out right. ( pun intended )
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 07 2018, @01:47PM (10 children)
Food for thought:
Colonoscopies (as practiced in the US) not only carry the risks of general anesthesia, but also the risk of bowel perforation which, once breached, has a high mortality rate.
In the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" sense, I am only two steps removed from someone who died from a routine colonoscopy.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Friday September 07 2018, @05:54PM (9 children)
If by "general anesthesia" you mean "making unconscious", most colonoscopies don't involve that. Of the sample of 10 or so that I am aware of (me and various friends/relatives), none involved more than a sedative, leaving the patient conscious to watch the video journey. 2 didn't involve any sedation at all. Yeah, that's a bit uncomfortable, it's not something you'd do for fun, but not very high on the pain scale.
Risk of bowel perforation is 0.05% so while it is indeed serious. it's also uncommon. The overall death rate (due to all causes, including perforation) for colonoscopies is 0.003%. (Of course, if you are in that 0.003%, it's a big deal to you.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 07 2018, @08:00PM (3 children)
0.05% = 1/2000 not a really great statistic, particularly if they're recommending it every 5 years starting at age 50, by age 75 you're at 1/400 total odds for perforation (pretty much guaranteed to be unpleasant) and 1/6667 for death. Better than working in roofing (1 death per 3333 years of labor), but not something I'd just sign off on as "routine, no worries." Note: there are methods such as DNA testing which can pre-screen for risks like bowel cancer, reducing the need for colonoscopies, if your physician is so inclined.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday September 08 2018, @04:35PM (2 children)
Went to a presentation by a colon cancer researcher; he was working with a local family that had a 100% incidence, starting at age 20 (they were to the point of doing preemptive colonectomies at age 14) -- at this point they had four generations to work with. From the guy's data, it looked to me like the primary gene is an incomplete dominant. -- He was asked about eating fibre, and responded to the effect that "We're starting to think eating fibre may actually be part of the problem." (Well, d'oh; fibre is an irritant. Irritated tissue is more prone to tumor development.)
As to the nominal topic, there's been a probiotic craze with pets too, and turns out it often causes intractable diarrhea.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 08 2018, @06:02PM (1 child)
The DNA test I'm referring to is used on stool samples - differentiates presence of cancerous lesions from potentially harmless observations like minor bleeding.
Probiotics for pets is just preying on the susceptible market. If you have a cat, let them hunt - that's the probiotics they're evolved for. Our cat has slowed down on her "gifts" she leaves by the door since she turned 12, but still seems remarkably healthy on a diet of mixed wet/dry store food plus whatever she catches for her own entertainment.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday September 08 2018, @07:16PM
Oh, that. Hadn't heard anything about an actual DNA test yet so thought you were referring to something new, but was reminded of the pedigree data, so out of my brain it came. :)
Yeah, most of the petfood market has become a giant scam. And the markup is insane, sometimes 5x or more by the time it hits the retail shelf. (Speaking as one who used to manufacture dog food, back when small lots were still doable, and who has seen the distributor docs for one of the extreme markup brands of little nutritional merit.)
My cats eat dry dog food and whatever they can catch, live to be ancient (up to 18 years) and lack major issues; also, notably, they keep all their teeth. So, yeah.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:00AM (4 children)
I had a colonoscopy scheduled at 1pm. At that time, they put a breathing mask on me. Then I looked up at the clock and it was 1:30. I was pissed. Why hadn't they started yet?
They were of course finished, after knocking my ass out in a matter of seconds.
Everyone I know has been knocked out. At least they have some stuff you add to Gatorade now instead of drinking a gallon of that nasty chalky shit.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday September 08 2018, @02:32AM (2 children)
I hated that "Phospho-Soda".
The only use I could figure for Phospho-Soda is if they would control it so that its pH was held really tight, so I could use it for calibration of my soil tester. With that concentration of ionic salts, it should take quite a bit of contamination before it changes pH.. ( aka "pH Calibration Buffer Solution"). I thought it would be neat to be able to go buy something like this over the counter at any drugstore if I wanted to reassure myself my soil tester is reporting the correct pH.
It made me seriously consider which was worse for me, the risks of drinking that much monosodium/disodium phosphate at one sitting, or the risk of an undetected intestinal problem. That stuff would sure clean someone out by causing reverse osmosis in the gut by its sheer concentration of salinity.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)
Phospho-soda AFAIK is to, um, clear out the colon. It doesn't have anything to do with pH management.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday September 10 2018, @05:12AM
I am always looking for alternative uses for things.
I took that stuff as pre-colonoscopy prep. As careful as I had been trying to keep my sodium intake down, I highly questioned putting that much saline into me at one fell swoop.
I had seen warnings about kidney failure after taking such a heavy saline dose. I could just imagine this scenario:
Presenting perfectly healthy... doctor says "we need to look up your butt. Clean yourself out. Take this stuff."
I take it. Kidneys fail. Now doctor says "You need Dialysis to live. The costs will be $500/month. How do you intend to pay?"
While the healthcare company gives me copies of the forms I signed in order to authorize the colonoscopy in the first place, which holds them harmless against anything that goes wrong.
Knowing I signed them because I had a whole bunch of people hovering around me insisting I sign the damned thing, and I am the major traffic jam in the room for refusing to sign, not them being the major traffic jam for insisting on my signing it.
Then I would cuss myself out for listening to the doctor and the healthcare industry in the first place. I should have never set foot in that place unless I was already pretty damn sick!
While looking this stuff up, I saw it was a very concentrated ratio of monosodium and disodium phosphate, and with that many ions in play, looked to me like it would be quite stable as far as pH buffering goes.
Being I also have use of pH meters from time to time ( mostly having to do with soil ), I would love to be able to go easily buy a common chemical, over the counter, that also had a very stable and known pH, just as all the radio amateurs know that WWV is not just a time source, the carrier itself can be used as a frequency reference.
Right now, I have to go get special "pH buffer solutions" to calibrate my pH meter, or verify its working properly. If I get bad readings, I incorrectly prepare my soil, not optimal for what I am trying to grow. I really would like to have more options than checking against pHydrion paper.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by number11 on Saturday September 08 2018, @07:25PM
Huh. Wonder if this is a regional/national preference, or something. (I dunno where to go for stats on that.) A friend of mine who is 80 was offered anesthesia, but declined. For me, 4 buttscopes with 3 different clinics, they've never even suggested it, and I'm not aware of anybody who has had it.
Feh. Each doctor seems to have their own favorite formula. I've had enemas and dulcolax, magnesium citrate, and gallons (plural) of polyethylene glycol (which has a wierd mouth feel, but I think is different than the chalky stuff).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 07 2018, @01:44PM (8 children)
But, testing cosmetics on hairless bunnies is morally irreconcilable?
Risk of DEATH from general anaesthesia sits around 1:100,000 - I suppose if there's nobody in the world that depends on you and the best value you have to offer is risking your life for the advancement of science, then, maybe.
Surgeons, especially in the US, are far too quick to discount the reality of complications leading to death which are still beyond their control.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Friday September 07 2018, @03:48PM (7 children)
Yes, it is. They are living, feeling beings that cannot provide informed consent. Informed consent is everything when it comes to being intentionally subjected to risk of harm from an otherwise avoidable vector.
We're a long way from becoming evolved enough in our thinking to do the right thing as a race, but these things are actually obvious if one pays attention to the actual issues at hand.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by crafoo on Friday September 07 2018, @04:41PM (1 child)
It's not that they cannot, the issue is that they are incapable. Also, informed consent isn't everything. People are forced by other people to do things against their will every single day. It's why money exists. I will trade 1 million rabbits for a single person's life, or an improved lifespan for all.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday September 07 2018, @05:07PM
A human baby isn't capable of of consenting. Does that mean it's okay to burn their skin with toxic materials? Does that mean it's okay to inject them with drugs just to see what happens? Of course not. So obviously "capability of consent" is not a valid place to stand here. "Cannot" is the proper fulcrum for decision making whenever a living being with feelings is concerned.
The fundamental issue is that such actions are amoral. You can try to rationalize your way around this. However, it is sophist nonsense no matter what you do.
At least in the USA, they are not forced to endure intentional poisoning, chemical burning and vivisection. That's the issue here. Not "you have to flip burgers in order to earn money." When the issue is one of involuntary subjection to immediate risk of harm, informed consent is everything.
Those that cannot protect themselves are inherently in the position of ward to those who can control their circumstances. Babies, animals, the handicapped, etc. When others take advantage of that inability to protect themselves to poison, burn and dissect them, the role changes from ward to victim, and the perpetrator has established themselves as an evildoer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 07 2018, @07:42PM (4 children)
So, I have a great deal of respect for wildlife, but... on the other hand... Oscar Mayer raises pigs for slaughter, pigs that would never have been born except for the industrial farming operation, and after a short life of rapid relatively disease free growth these pigs become bacon, among other things. So, when these bacon-to-be are growing up, is it more or less valuable for a small number of them to be used for scientific / medical research, or does that become immoral because the pig can't tell us that it would rather become bacon instead of helping to develop medical knowledge?
Nevermind the: we should all become vegans to "save the planet" for some fractional increase in human population carrying load argument - we are omnivores for a reason, and to ignore the meat eating side of our heritage is just as disrespectful to ourselves as anything we might do to our food.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday September 08 2018, @03:27PM (3 children)
And that reason is evolution. Evolution also equips us males to take the female for sex any time we want, because we're almost always much stronger. So should we? Oh. No. We shouldn't. Because it's obviously a terrible choice, even though we're equipped for it. And why is it a terrible choice? Because we are thinking animals that have worked out principles higher than "me Ug, me take what want" based on more extended consequences than "I want sex now."
You think so? Well, do you eat human children? They're meat, you know. How about the neighbors? Is fear of prions the only thing that has stopped you? Because if it is, fun news for you: Evolution has also provided protection for such a menu. [livescience.com] ...and with genetic engineering coming along nicely, perhaps there will be a solution to that whole prion business sooner than one might expect, now that we know what it takes.
But... I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the reason you don't eat humans - of any age - is neither out of disrespect for your evolutionary heritage or fear of prions. It's because you know that would be an utterly amoral act. If that's the case, then you might want to re-examine why it is you think it's okay to eat other animals. Perhaps you'll find something else is going on in your decision-making process, who knows.
These things are matters of choice. How we choose matters. Are we going to take an amoral path today, or not? This choice matters particularly to those that might end up on the lab bench or the dinner table if we choose the "me Ug" path.
Spend a few minutes observing a cat or a dog that has a strong relationship with its owner. Does this lead you to the thought, "hey, dinner!" or... no?
If you've made it to "dogs and cats are not food for humans", then consider: pigs (you know, bacon) are smarter than either dogs or cats. Octopi appear to be really smart, and the odds hugely favor various seagoing mammals such as whales and dolphin being smart too. Isn't that interesting? Food.... for thought. Not the dinner table. IMHO. These decisions too are based on more extended consequences than "I want food now." Thinking beings. That's us. Some of us, anyway.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:54PM (2 children)
So, I totally agree: eating humans, dolphins, whales, bad.
I've worked with piglets for medical research, you can see they're clearly smarter than cats with just a little interaction. Is eating bacon amoral? I know some people who think so, I know a whole lot more people who don't - does the democratic principle apply? If your principles put you in the "unable to enjoy bacon" minority, feel free to abstain, but until you've managed to convince a majority of the population of your position, I'd hold off on considering yourself somehow superior.
Long before the question of consumption of domesticated animals, I want resolution on the issue of total annihilation of the wild ecosystems. Me Ug want make baby is still out of control, IMO, and until that issue gets resolved, the rest is largely academic, a matter of small margins in the bigger picture. The "thinking people" of the world have convinced themselves that the 1950+ population explosion is stopping, any day now, gonna be alright, we shall overcome, no problem mon. Call me when year-on-year human population numbers are flat. Until that happens, it doesn't matter if we eat the animals or not, we're going to drive them all extinct from habitat destruction, except for the ones we raise domestically: to eat.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday September 08 2018, @06:38PM (1 child)
When we're talking about the suffering of animals, and their obvious intelligence, the evidence is not only clear, it is overwhelming. Consequently, the amorality of imposing unnecessary suffering and death is profoundly evident. Denial and ignorance are the issues. These are common elements of people's thinking today, and that's why you know the latter group of people.
The only way I could possibly land on the "me ug" side of that one is to intentionally ignore the data. That's not something I am willing to even try to do.
No. Realty is not subject to vote; democracy has no bearing on the veracity, or lack thereof, for these matters. What applies is the level of permissiveness society has for these behaviors as they relate to the facts. It is perfectly okay with the majority of our society to make animals suffer horribly, eat them, etc. There's almost always some excuse cast on the table, but none of them hold up worth a damn.
Reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
It's not about me. It's about animal suffering and death.
Yes. #thistoo isn't very relevant, though, other than to point out how selfish and unreasonable people are in general.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 08 2018, @08:28PM
The reality I know is: without a majority of the people, or a majority of the political power (aka money), that reality you believe in is irrelevant in the world controlled by opposing viewpoints with the power.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @08:58AM
not that sharp. it's pretty routine, actually.
they just send a rubber tube through your mouth into the stomach, and take samples (I don't think they need to cut anything, it's more like a swab). and they do the same through your butt.
the anesthesia is done just because it's unpleasant to be filled up like a balloon (pretty painful, actually), and this does need to happen in order for the camera at the tip of the tube to work properly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @11:31AM
Why don't use those pill robots, maybe someone loves to open up living people.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday September 07 2018, @02:41PM (1 child)
Many diabetics stick needles into their guts multiple times a day and don't die from it. I doubt these surgical samples had serious side effects for the likely healthy volunteers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Friday September 07 2018, @11:58PM
No, no they don't. They stuck needles into their muscles. If they injected insulin into their guts they would be in serious trouble.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @02:44PM
To prove that people are wasting millions on this crap?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 08 2018, @06:05PM
Today I learned: the Hippocratic oath actually forbids use of "the knife." Sounds like my kind of philosophy, at least for front line treatments.
🌻🌻 [google.com]