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) 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]