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: 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.