In my field, many things that cause the average man-on-the-street to get a bit squeamish or squicked are rather commonplace. My own studies include two types of bacteria that are carried rectally in humans (and other animals), so I spend an absurd amount of time thinking about, well, shit, and the lifeforms that inhabit it and collectively make up our normal gut flora. The vast majority of these species don't harm us at all, and many are even beneficial: priming our immune system; assisting in digestion; and filling niches that could be colonized by their nastier bacterial brethren.
It's typically when there's some disturbance in these flora that bad things happen. For example, you may ingest food contaminated with a foreign bacterial strain that may transiently colonize your intestines, resulting in cramping and diarrhea. Typically these infections are self-limited and your normal flora "resets itself" after a short time, but some pathogenic bacteria have a propensity for making themselves at home in your gut. How to get rid of these nasty invaders then? Antibiotics are one option, but they also kill your regular bacteria, potentially making the problem worse (especially if the nasty invader happens to be resistant to many antibiotics). There has been a large increase in the use of probiotics--formulations designed to add beneficial bacteria to your gut. However, these have largely not been rigorously tested or regulated, so it's unsure how well they actually work.
What if, instead of re-constitituing healthy gut flora one species at a time, you could simply take the entire fecal contents from a healthy person and use it to re-colonize your own gut--in other words, undergo a fecal transplant? Yes, it's like probiotics on steroids: getting an infusion of someone else's gut flora in order to re-establish a healthy gut ecology of your own, and squeeze out some potentially harmful organisms along the way. A recent story discusses this treatment for patients suffering Clostridium difficile infections in Scotland, but it's actually not brand-new, and has already surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. More after the jump...
First, a quick review of C. difficile, which is a spore-forming bacterium carried asymptomatically by a small percentage of us. This species has become a problem in recent years due to both the emergence of a new, more virulent strain, and apparently due to an increase in use of a certain class of antibiotics, the fluoroquinolones.
These antibiotics are termed "broad spectrum:" they kill a number of different species of bacteria in one fell swoop. This is good for the clinician, because it means they can start treatment quickly, before culture results are even back from the lab. However, it may be bad for the patient in the long term because it means that the antibiotic regimen will kill not only the bacterium causing the disease, but also will wipe out many beneficial organisms in and on the body. The result can be a disturbance in the ecology of one's normal flora, setting the stage for an invader such as C. difficile to come in and set up shop--and once it's there, it's notoriously difficult to get rid of. And once it's there and causing a symptomatic infection, it can be hell to deal with, resulting in copious and sometimes frequent diarrhea, and occasionally causes a more serious and painful condition called colitis (inflammation of the colon). Additional antibiotics can eliminate C. difficile, but they don't work for all patients, and infection can result in miserable symptoms. Thus, some have turned to the fecal transplant as a last-ditch effort to cure themselves of the infection.
This procedure was described in a 2003 Clinical Infectious Diseases paper, documenting 19 patients who'd undergone a fecal transplant between 1994 and 2002. Donor feces are provided to the patient via a nasogastric tube as depicted in the picture to the right. 
First, of course, donor stool must be procured. When possible, they used donor stool from someone the recipient would be in contact with anyway--a spouse or other household member, preferably. A fresh sample is obtained and then, um, processed. The authors describe their methods (emphasis mine):
Select a stool specimen (preferably a soft specimen) with a weight of 30 g or a volume of 2 cm^3. Add 50-70 mL of sterile 0.9 N NaCl to the stool sample and homogenize with a household blender. Initially use the low setting until the sample breaks up; then, advance the speed gradually to the highest setting. Continue for 2-4 min until the sample is smooth. Filter the suspension using a paper coffee filter. Allow adequate time for slow filtration to come to an end. Refilter the suspension, again using a paper coffee filter. As before, allow adequate time for slow filtration.
25 mL of the suspension is then transferred to the recipient, who's already been prepared for the transplant via treatment with vancomycin (to kill off as much existing C. difficile as possible) and omeprazole (Prilosec, to decrease stomach acid production). The tube is then flushed with a salt solution and removed, and the recipient is free to go. (They were followed up either via phone or return visits to the clinic).
Was it worth it? It appeared to be a fairly successful procedure:
After the stool transplantation, 14 of the 16 surviving patients submitted a total of 20 stool samples that were tested for C. difficile toxin. Patients 3 and 11 did not submit stool samples after undergoing stool transplantation. A telephone follow‐up conversation with patient 3 and a review of the clinical record for patient 11 verified that neither patient had experienced a recurrence of diarrhea after the stool transplantation. Both patients remained free of diarrhea during the 90‐day follow‐up period.
One additional patient did develop diarrhea due to C. difficile, and was given an additional course of vancomycin (after which he was fine). Additionally, "all surviving patients reported that bowel habits returned to the functional pattern that had preceded their first episode of C. difficile colitis."
The authors acknowledge that additional research needs to be done (including clinical trials). A limitation exists in the design: one can't be certain if it was the vancomycin treatment or the fecal transplant that led to the resolution of symptoms (although the former seems unlikely, since recipients were all patients who had previously received vancomycin treatment). Additionally, there's obviously a lot of "ick" factor that needs to be overcome. There are also several logistic hurdles, such as storing and transporting feces in some cases:
"I had to collect stool samples for five days prior to our leaving Toronto, and I collected it in an ice cream container and kept it in the fridge," said [donor] Sinukoff.She had to then fly the samples to Calgary so that [Calgary physician Dr. Tom] Louie could transplant it into her sister -- a process that involved getting the sample through airport security.
"My biggest fear was that my samples were not allowed to be frozen, so I had to take them as carry-on luggage in the airplane and I was terrified that I was going to be asked to have my luggage searched," she said.
As the article quips, in the annals of medical history, this method has the potential to be one of the most effective, but also most stomach-churning.
Reference
Aas, J. et al. 2003. Recurrent Clostridium difficile Colitis: Case Series Involving 18 Patients Treated with Donor Stool Administered via a Nasogastric Tube. CID. 36:580-585. Link.
Image from http://www.disaboom.com/getfile/6e427b25-7801-4474-b794-fe8e5aab179c/NasogastricTube.aspx
Comments
"take the entire fecal contents from a healthy person and use it to re-colonize your own gut"
One problem is, of course, what is "healthy"? Does my 'healthy' mean the same, in terms of gut ecology, as the (apparently`)'healthy' of my 'donor'? I suppose sharing an overall environment, including diet, would help. But how similar is body flora of presumibly 'healthy' people in the same environment? What research I have seen seems to indicate a large variation, ie there are few things everyone seems to have in abundance, then there is all the rest,highly variable, which usually where the problems are. I might just be switching (or adding) someone elses problems for mine. Seems risky until we know a bit more about it.
Posted by: Ron | December 17, 2007 12:23 PM
It still varies, and sure, there are risks. They note in the methods they screened for several other potential enteric pathogens, as well as parasites and ova, and did blood tests for a number of blood-borne pathogens that could theoretically be introduced during such a procedure as well. It's certainly not something you'd want to do for anything minor, but C. difficile infections can be chronic and very tough to get rid of, and keep people practically confined to their bathrooms in the worst cases. These patients all had been treated for it previously, and treatment failed--leaving few other options.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | December 17, 2007 2:14 PM
So... Finally a use for which creationists appear to be specially designed! If I read this correctly could one Michael Behe could potentially treat an entire continent?
Posted by: Anon | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM
This pinged an old memory. I seem to recall in William Nolan's book "Making of a Surgeon" (which I think I read in 1971) his account of a colleague using a similar technique to treat a case of staph infection at Bellevue, I think in the late 1950's.
Apparently the "healthy stool" was introduced by mouth, mixed in with chocolate milk! (I will let that thought linger without comment.) Interestingly, when the resident was called on the carpet for using an untested technique, he claimed to have used a procedure very similar to the one you describe (filtering, sterile saline, etc,) probably hoping to diminish the ick factor.
Obviously the story was vivid enough to hang in my mind all these decades. I can't help wondering if this meme has been bouncing around the medical world for many years.
Posted by: roland | December 17, 2007 2:52 PM
I've been wondering about this as apparently it's sometimes used to treat Crohn's disease and I know a few people who suffer from that.
Then there's the "give your immune system something to do" approach, which gives Crohn's patients pig parasites so their immune system works on them and leaves off attacking the intestine. The parasites don't multiply in the human gut so the patient takes a pill of parasite eggs every 2 or 3 months.
It sounds yucky but it has to be better than having your intestine yanked out.
Posted by: Monado | December 17, 2007 3:01 PM
Sorry, that should be every two or three weeks.
Posted by: Monado | December 17, 2007 3:03 PM
They laughed at my theories at the university. They said my research on poop transplantation trampled in domains Man was not meant to tread. They said I was mad! Mad, I tell you! Well who's laughing now? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-haaa!
Posted by: Victor from Geneva | December 17, 2007 4:08 PM
There are too many jokes that could be made here...
"If God had meant for us to transplant poo, He'd have made it harder to donate!"
"So Mr. Hanky now has a new occupation?"
Seriously though, this is quite cool. Can't wait to see whether this catches on.
Posted by: MemeGene | December 17, 2007 4:53 PM
Very interesting! I, for one, am not so squeamish or "squick"-able as the average person.
Posted by: HannahJ | December 17, 2007 5:20 PM
Why were the bacteria introduced to the stomach? It seems more direct and less revolting to introduce them to the colon, and less prone to pH-based eradication of the desired organisms.
(The strain of C.diff that's been on the rise lately is surprisingly horrible and persistent, and I knew some patients who had previously had perfectly adequate bowel control who were repeatedly incontinent after the organism took hold. That's a huge problem for seniors who want to go home to live independently after a stint in postoperative rehab or a brief hospitalization.)
Posted by: jen_m | December 17, 2007 6:40 PM
This reminds of advice I found in the literature concerning rabbit husbandry. When a rabbit's digestive system shuts down after a prolongued period without eating, an easy way of relaunching its system was to feed it pellets from a healthy rabbit.
I know, it's a rabbit not a human and their digestive system depends on the continued ingestion of caecal(?) pellets.
Posted by: Sascha | December 17, 2007 7:02 PM
If this had to be refrigerated, I think I would be buying an extra refrigerater! I'm so squeamish I can't even stand to keep opened dog food in my fridge. My mother did that when I was a kid and it grossed me out. I'm not sure why.
Posted by: Gary | December 17, 2007 7:26 PM
It seems the Canadian group is doing it the other way--via the colon in an enema-based inoculation. However, the CID authors say in the discussion re: the nasogastric tube method:
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | December 17, 2007 8:16 PM
Hey, as a solid organ transplant patient I can say the ick factor may be higher, but the procedure and recovery sounds much much better.
Isn't there some statistic of likelihood regarding the amount of shit each person has already consumed, sans ng tube?
This will be an interesting treatment to follow.
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2007 11:53 PM
Of course, the other question is whether it's possible to develop a more effective culture of bacterium in the lab and use that instead of a fecal transplant?
Then again, I suppose all the nastiness associated with feces comes from the bacteria anyways. =/
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | December 18, 2007 12:23 AM
A man is visiting his friend when he walks into the kitchen to find him at the counter eating a bowl of poop. Aghast he exclaims, "What are you doing that for!?"
His friend looks at him and says, "I don't know, I've just been feeling like shit all day."
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 18, 2007 12:31 AM
Austin Powers can get recolonized too:
Posted by: natural cynic | December 18, 2007 12:53 AM
Yuck indeed.
But I guess it's no worse than "I'm gonna slice open your body and cut away the bad bits". [No offense to the surgeons out there.]
A suppository would seem a bit less, umm, icky, but I guess less effective at colonization.
Hey, I made a joke, "colonization", gettit, har har.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | December 18, 2007 1:50 PM
Potentially, but recall that we can only culture a small part of our normal gut flora--and we have only the most basic notions about the overall ecology of intestinal bacteria and how it's maintained. That's why the "whole poo" transplant, in theory, would be more successful--you're sending along the whole shebang, so you eliminate some of the problems with probiotics and their frequent inability to establish themselves as part of the pre-existing gut ecology.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | December 18, 2007 2:10 PM
Tara Smith said:
Minus Hepatitis A and the miscellaneous intestinal parasites
hopefully......I hope the donors are screened appropriately...
Maybe some kind of colonic irrigation with the appropiate
specimen would be more acceptable?
Posted by: Dark Matter | December 18, 2007 2:59 PM
Eat shit and... live?
Posted by: Anon | December 18, 2007 11:11 PM
As a medical student I always used to joke that the specialty of coprology should exist. Now it seems that it does.
Posted by: MattO | December 18, 2007 11:42 PM
Way back in the early 1980's I read a medical lab report on the use of 'normal fecal enemas'. The ick factor was high back then too, but so was the cost of vanco... By the way, the specialty of coprology belongs to the lab and paleontology. Has anyone else noticed how much those hydration systems bikers and hikers use resemble enema bags?
Merry Christmas, Tara!
Posted by: mary | December 19, 2007 1:19 AM
So, homophobes keep dwelling on the "unsanitary" "disgusting" et cetera sexual habits of goes and talking about fecal matter getting on the sex partner's penis and spreading diseases.
Doesn't this suggest that frequent anal sex as the passive partner with multiple partners might actually increase your chances of maintaining a healthy bacterial ecosystem?
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 19, 2007 9:15 AM
What a nonsense entry. Blogging on peer-reviewed research, aren't you? Well, as far as I can see, it's at least a very cute illustration of the fact that peer review is nothing but inbred science. People who believe shit validate other people's shit.
You know, Tara, the day you understand that flora disturbance is not a cause but a symptom, that day you'll be set on your way to something relevant. Maybe.
Posted by: jspreen | December 19, 2007 9:37 AM
That was a great post! It makes a lot of sense to...although you'll excuse me if I stick with my daily bowl of yogurt rather than shooting shit up my nose. I'll save that for when I get desperate!
Posted by: lycaon | December 19, 2007 9:45 AM
"and homogenize with a household blender. Initially use the low setting until the sample breaks up; then, advance the speed gradually to the highest setting. "
remind me to not have a smoothie at that dude's place
Posted by: ramster | December 19, 2007 11:15 AM
Several times today I said to myself: "It's a joke, of course, it's April's fool day!" Several times today I found out that, no, it's not the first of April. Scientists really imagined and performed this experience. With real donors. With real patients. This thing has entered the anals of peer reviewed research.
Man, am I proud that I had already recognized, before reading this fecal transplant thing, all by litte self and before the herd nerds started to wake up and smell something's terribly wrong, the peer reviewed evidence based medicine for what it is: bullshit.
Herd nerds waking up, you ask me? Of course, now the shit transfer practice has hit the fan, people cannot fail to finally wake up and reognize the insanity of modern "Post Louis Pasteur" medicine.
Posted by: jspreen | December 19, 2007 12:00 PM
10 years ago I suffered with a bout of C. difficile and believe me, I'd gladly have eaten shit with a spoon if it would have given me relief from the never-ending misery I was enduring. The infection is horrible. Look at it this way: Eat shit OR die. Sorry for the 'gross'factor here, but when you're suffering from this disorder, you wish you were dead, just to relieve your misery.
Posted by: Anon | December 19, 2007 12:03 PM
"What a nonsense entry. Blogging on peer-reviewed research, aren't you? Well, as far as I can see, it's at least a very cute illustration of the fact that peer review is nothing but inbred science. People who believe shit validate other people's shit."
Could you, like, back that up with something, like, say, evidence or stuff? You know, anyone can call anything shit. Are you saying that the people who got better after the treatment when nothing had helped them before didn't actually get better?
"Of course, now the shit transfer practice has hit the fan, people cannot fail to finally wake up"
How so? As far as I can tell, your point here is "It sounds really weird, so that proofs that it doesn't make sense." Interesting line of argument from people who take pride in being unconventional rather than "herd-following".
BTW, do I have to remind you that various forms of "alternative medicine" have been big on urine treatments for quite a while?
"and reognize the insanity of modern "Post Louis Pasteur" medicine."
Wich is why life expectancies went down so radically since that was introduced.
Posted by: Raphael | December 20, 2007 8:11 AM
As to the "nonsense entry" bit - jspreen, it mystifies me that someone who doesn't believe that microorganisms cause disease so regularly reads a blog about disease written by an infectious disease epidemiologist. You think *every* entry is nonsense. I am sure Dr. Smith takes it as read, so why bother saying so?
Posted by: jen_m | December 20, 2007 12:17 PM
Great stuff, Tara. I wish I'd noticed your post before making a casual reference to fecal enemas in my latest post; I've just added an update. It's worth noting that the 2003 case series you referred to was not the first published report of doctors re-seeding a colon to treat C-diff. In 2002, I wrote a cover story for Science News that lead with a case report of such a treatment. In that case, in contrast to the study you blogged about, the doc went in the back door, so to speak. He used a sigmoidoscope, if I recall, to insert of bit of fecal matter from his patient's husband into the lower colon of his patient. (A creative solution to a novel medical challenge, I thought.) By the time I interviewed the patient, her husband had died, but some of his commensals probably lived on in her GI tract.
Posted by: Ben Harder | December 20, 2007 12:21 PM
No mystery here. Most people prefer to hang around with their peers, it's so much easier. But I got a bit tired lately of sharing my ideas with people who already agree and I gave it a try in this snake pit. And yes, I think it's a lot more effective. Mainly to give a chance to the heirs following main stream who never ever heard the name Ryke Geerd Hamer, and will never ever read about the Germanic New Medicine in main stream media or peer reviewed evidence based medicine research columns.
You know how it goes.
You read about something totally new and way off stream. First you think "bullshit". But as times passes by and you read about it more often here and there, the idea eventually finds its way into the brain cells of even the nerdiest.
Mark my words, jen_m. Ryke Geerd Hamer, Germanic New Medicine. In some time, when mankind has become intelligent, GNM will be teh thing. At that same time, todays practices of chemo poisoning, radiation burning and, why not, shit transplanation, etc., will be a source of a mighty lot of thigh slapping.
Posted by: jspreen | December 20, 2007 1:56 PM
The increase of life expectancy has little to do with medicine. Modern medicine is surfing on the wave of wealth in the Western contries and, were it not for the absence of life threatening poverty, famine, war or whatever, or scientific medicine would long since have started to decrease life expectancy. Don't forget, Raphael, people who for instance survive a cancer after chemo survived not because but in spite of their treatment. Idem dito for Aids and wonderfull life saving killer drugs like ARVs.
But maybe you're right and I should really stop ranting around here. The world is getting overcrowded and, as I wrote before: Anybody, dumb enough to believe that drugs that make you sick from the first moment you start taking them are good for one's health, should be allowed full access to health-care facilities.
Posted by: jspreen | December 20, 2007 2:09 PM
And here I would have thought this would be right up jspreen's alley: all natural, no "toxic" drugs, restoring the body's normal balance.
Posted by: trrll | December 20, 2007 3:33 PM
I note that you didn't answer my main question, so I'll repeat it: Could you, like, back that up with something, like, say, evidence or stuff?
The first thing you said here is that this entry is nonsense. What evidence or compelling arguments do you have for that claim?
"peer reviewed evidence based medicine research columns." So, do I get this right- you yourself admit that peer review is about evidence? Are you admitting that the evidence goes against you?
"You know how it goes.
You read about something totally new and way off stream. First you think "bullshit". "
Do you really not realise how well this describes your first posts in this thread? How much sense does it make for you to assume as a matter of course that something is wrong if it first looks like bullshit to you, but expect others to take exactly the opposite approach to the things you say?
"But as times passes by and you read about it more often here and there, the idea eventually finds its way into the brain cells"
Sometimes, somretimes not. The idea people can live of nothing but air, for instance, still hasn't found a way into my brain cells. (Neither has the idea that Britney Spears makes good music, for that matter.) You know, for the more rational and sane ones among us, wether an idea convinces us depends on wether it has such funny things as "evidence" and "compelling arguments" in its favor.
"Mark my words, jen_m. Ryke Geerd Hamer, Germanic New Medicine. In some time, when mankind has become intelligent, GNM will be teh thing."
So you think mankind will embrace some kind of semi-nazism? That implies that most members of mankind are inferior? Why should mankind do this?
Not to mention that you haven't given any compelling reason to believe that being intelligent implies agreeing with you.
" At that same time, todays practices of chemo poisoning, radiation burning and, why not, shit transplanation, etc., will be a source of a mighty lot of thigh slapping."
Again, could you, like, back that up with something, like, say, evidence or stuff? And while we're at it- by what date do you think will that be so, and what are you willing to bet?
"The increase of life expectancy has little to do with medicine. Modern medicine is surfing on the wave of wealth in the Western contries and, were it not for the absence of life threatening poverty, famine, war or whatever, or scientific medicine would long since have started to decrease life expectancy."
Once again- Evidence? Compelling arguments?
"Don't forget, Raphael, people who for instance survive a cancer after chemo survived not because but in spite of their treatment. Idem dito for Aids and wonderfull life saving killer drugs like ARVs."
Again, what evidence do you have for that? And anyway, what share of medicine do these treatments form? What about people who got bitten by rabid dogs, got vaccinated, and survived? And others, who (since long before modern medicine) got bitten by rabid dogs and died? And people who had an appendictis, got their appendix removed, and survived, and others who got appendictis, didn't get their appendix removed, and died? What about people who survived physical injuries that would have killed them 200, 100, 50, or even 20 years ago? What about people who had a headache, took pills, and were relieved? Talking of pills- what about the Pill? Are you saying that it doesn't have any effect?
"But maybe you're right and I should really stop ranting around here." I don't think so- it might be fun if you tried to argue for your opinions, instead of simply asserting them.
Posted by: Raphael | December 20, 2007 5:11 PM
Out of curiosity, do we know how the intestines acquire this colony? Does a newborn have a colony in place at birth, or is it something the child acquires at a later date? If the latter, is that acquisition from mother's milk or does this not begin until solid food is introduced?
There must be a difference between colonies across the human spectrum - otherwise visits to Mexico would not be so fraught with danger of intestinal distress. As a former developing world road warrior, I employed the Bedouin trick of eating raw onions from local sources. This was usually successful when combined with usual precautions.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | December 20, 2007 5:23 PM
I recall reading in an article on biofilms that one of the big but rarely-discussed issues among colonoscopists is how to handle the cleaning of the instrument, since it has a hollow center. Apparently there's no known way to really sterilize a colonoscope, given how successfully and rapidly biofilms form (because even if you kill off all but one of the bacteria, then there it is surrounded by the perfect growth medium, the bodies of its peers, and off it goes again).
One gathers they basically figure what they're doing is more important than the risks, or perhaps there's no way to document the risks if any of spreading organisms this way.
Where does a bacterium sit?
Everywhere it wants to.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 20, 2007 8:18 PM
Onkel Bob, from what I've been able to gather with a quick look at some reviews on the subject, the colonization begins during birth, with the rupture of the membranes and the passage through the vaginal canal (which is colonized by its own microflora and often contaminated with intestinal contents during labor), and continues during nursing, when the infant is exposed to skin and environmental bacteria. Apparently formula-fed infants have gut microflora more similar to adults' than their breastfed peers.
Populations of gut bacteria apparently change in a characteristic developmental manner as infants mature and are exposed to different sources of bacteria, too.
On a side note, I'd always wondered why, given that the human gut usually slows during sustained physical stress (sympathetic ANS arousal), women so often defecated during the strain of childbirth (i.e. they still had stool bulk in the rectum despite many hours of physical effort, unlike, say, marathon runners.) I imagine that perhaps if very early colonization with maternal gut symbionts is protective, it might be that the presence of such materials furnishes a survival benefit that merits continued gut activity. (Or it might just be that for the very long effort of birth, it's worth processing whatever calories are already onboard. I shouldn't get too carried away with my speculations!)
Posted by: jen_m | December 21, 2007 2:24 PM
A lot of questions, Raphael. A pity I can't answer you. Too sure you won't listen to my answers, really. Almost nobody can, especially those who swallowed the little Hitler hate campaign against Hamer hook, line and sinker.
Well, OK, I'll give in and answer this one:
Easy. What about people who had a headache, took nothing, and were relieved?
My crowd outnumbers yours, Raphael. A thousand times.
Posted by: jspreen | December 21, 2007 4:15 PM
A lot of questions, Raphael. A pity I can't answer you. Too sure you won't listen to my answers, really. Almost nobody can, especially those who swallowed the little Hitler hate campaign against Hamer hook, line and sinker.
Well, OK, I'll give in and answer this one:
Easy:
What about people who had a headache, took nothing, and were relieved?
And:
What about people who had a headache, took pils, and found no relieve?
My crowd outnumbers yours, Raphael. A thousand times. What does that mean? Simply that your kind of questioning doesn't lead anywhere.
Posted by: jspreen | December 21, 2007 4:18 PM
Thank you Jen M. Interesting note on bottle fed infants. I'm guessing that the gastric/stomach acids and enzymes are not as highly developed and allow more flora to pass through. I'm not a father (and pushing 50 I hope not to be one!) so I have limited experience with children.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | December 22, 2007 12:21 AM
Uncle Bob, from the mother presumably.
I remember reading somewhere a theory that efficient herbivory
(requiring specialized gut bacteria) in evolution only developed together with child care because previously there was no reliable
way to "infect" the babies.
Posted by: nn | December 22, 2007 11:24 AM
So, basically, you have perfectly fine answers for my questions, but you're not going to tell me about them? Oh, purr-lease. Honestly, do you expect *anyone* to buy that?
Anyway,
"Well, OK, I'll give in and answer this one:
What about people who had a headache, took pills, and were relieved?
Easy:
What about people who had a headache, took nothing, and were relieved?
And:
What about people who had a headache, took pils, and found no relieve?"
None claims that modern mainstream medicine always works, so cases where it doesn't don't refute anything. You, on the other hand, seem to claim that it *never* works, so any single case where it does refutes your beliefs.
"My crowd outnumbers yours, Raphael. A thousand times."
And where's the evidence or comelling arguments for that?
"What does that mean? Simply that your kind of questioning doesn't lead anywhere."
My kind of questioning is basically asking for evidence or compelling arguments. What do you mean when you say that it doesn't lead anywhere? That you don't have evidence or compelling arguments?
While we're at it- don't you think there's a tiny bit of a contradiction between
"Too sure you won't listen to my answers, really. Almost nobody can,"
and
"My crowd outnumbers yours, Raphael. A thousand times."?
Wich one is it?
Another thing I noticed: You talked here about "the insanity of modern "Post Louis Pasteur" medicine." However, judging from your writings, GNM seems to imply that any kind of medicine that relies to a good deal on prescribing some kind of medication or another is wrong- wich would mean, pretty much any kind of medicine the human race ever came up with, pre- or post-Pasteur, mainstream or alternative, modern or ancient. What's supposed to be so particularly insane about "modern "Post Louis Pasteur" medicine", then?
(To everyone else: Sorry, I'm kind of enjoying this at the moment.)
Posted by: Raphael | December 22, 2007 5:48 PM
May be some time before this hist the supermarket shelves - although the marketing possibilities of using celebrity 'donors' would be enormous ; )
Posted by: Dean Morrison | December 23, 2007 10:52 AM
A small trial of fecal enemas for ulcerative colitis was also highly successful. All 6 UC patients who underwent fecal enemas from healthy donors went into long remissions (in fact it's tempting to say "cured", since UC relapsed in none of them over years). Published in J. Clinical Gastro 2003: http://www.cdd.com.au/pdf/UC%20bacteriotherapy.pdf
Posted by: Joe | December 26, 2007 2:02 AM
Raphael, it just ends in frustration if you think in any way your obvious questions will persuade it to think scientifically.
Posted by: apy | December 26, 2007 9:51 AM
My, this jspreen person is rather annoying.
If one is using the Firefox browser, and one wishes to not have to wade through the jspreen leavings, a quick bit of googling on "firefox, greasemonkey and killfile" will soon set things right.
Behold:
Comment by jspreen blocked. [unkill][show comment]
I never thought I have to use it on a science blog. Political blogs, yes.
Posted by: Chris Tucker | December 27, 2007 5:29 PM
I always wondered why so many dogs find it appealing to eat each other's droppings. Maybe there was an evolutionary benefit to dogs who did so?
Posted by: Judy | December 28, 2007 7:56 AM
"Raphael, it just ends in frustration if you think in any way your obvious questions will persuade it to think scientifically."
Oh, I don't really think that I can convince people like jspreen to think scientifically- I just sometimes find it amusing, and sometimes even interesting, to watch their responses or lack thereof to reasonable questions.
Posted by: Raphael | December 28, 2007 8:10 AM
Raphael, I'm saving the links to your comments here and here so 1) everyone can see what a weaselly little coward jspreen is AND 2) they can save themselves ten minutes of typing in reply to the little energy creature. He reacts to "show us your evidence" like bleach does to ammonia.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | January 1, 2008 10:41 AM
Could that be simply because there's not a single trace of science to be found in today's medicine?
But may I invite you to have a look at this and think of a smart scientific comment?
Posted by: jspreen | January 1, 2008 5:20 PM
Should I find it ominous that they felt the need to specify "surviving patients?"
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 1, 2008 8:40 PM
A small trial of fecal enemas for ulcerative colitis was also highly successful. All 6 UC patients who underwent fecal enemas from healthy donors went into long remissions (in fact it's tempting to say "cured", since UC relapsed in none of them over years).
Posted by: Download, indir | January 2, 2008 8:19 PM
May be some time before this hist the supermarket shelves - although the marketing possibilities of using celebrity 'donors' would be enormous:))
Posted by: canta | January 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Orac on Hamer and New German Medicine
I stumbled upon that article yesterday. And jspreen is all over that one like stink on shit, too.
Posted by: J. John Johnstown | January 11, 2008 4:41 PM
Yeah, I'm all over the place. Some love it, others don't. Well, such is life, I guess. Here, more heaps of fascinating information! You're welcome.
Posted by: jspreen | January 12, 2008 10:55 AM
Hi All,
My 23 year old daughter was just diagnosed today with c diff. We live in a very rural area and don't have easy access to really good health care. She has been very sick now since the spring of 2004. Over the past 4 years she has had about 6-8 bouts a year that she would be very sick for 2-3 weeks,and then a few weeks of "FEELING GOOD". Each time she would be prescribed Flagyl and she responded very well for the 10 days and then even was feeling fair till her next relapse. This past year has gotten so bad that we finally headed to a bigger city and got into a gastro specialist. That took 6 months to even get into see them. After a 2 hour consulation, he ordered extensive tests be done. It was very frustrating as she had already had a colonoscopy done in 2005 which came back normal, stool testing that each time came back normal, blood work, etc. etc. By the time we got to see him, she had been bed ridden for over a month, diahrea with lots of blood and mucous, excrutiating lower left abdominal pain and nausea. I truly felt she was going to die on me and yet I felt helpless to find answers because after 3 1/2 years of having every blood test and other tests known to man we still had no answers. well the phone rang and the doctor confirmed she had c diff infection and only mild inflammation of the colon. He has started her on Flagyl for 10 days and she may have to go on another antibiotic after that. I have been searching all day on the web about this disease and it scares me to think of her not responding to the antibiotics and having a full recovery. If anyone out there has a story of similarity to mine I would sure like to hear from you. I would like to hear from others that have been diagnosed with this and their prognosis and progress of the disease. I know it is easy to make jokes about this and to keep my sanity I can find humor in them too, but I have to say if this type of treatment can help someone with this disease, then I hope trials for research are available to infected patients as it is a HORRIBLE DISEASE that needs to be studied so people are not mis diagnosed and suffer for years unnecassarily. Hope to hear from others on this disease. Thanks
Posted by: mamac | January 30, 2008 10:19 PM
Hi, Well to all that made fun at us with this miserable CDAD I say go ahead and have fun. To those in agony that I have had for 2 1/2 years, begging Doctors for relief, Flagyl did nothing, Vancomycin at the max dose of 2000 mg a day could not stop it for more than 12 hours before one could hit the eye of a needle at forty paces.
I had my fecal implant done on Feb 11 and have been off of all Vancomycin since, no more 20 to 30 trips to the bathroom! My bowel is slowly healing up and my pain is down 90% and continuing to improve. I have a normal bowel again all because I took a 7 day course of antibiotics. The thought of loosing the bowel is a lot more icky than this proceedure. Most people don't know this but the proceedure is painless, takes a couple of hrs, spend a nite in a hotel and you can go home. I have seen more Doctors and Hospital ER's than I care to see. Dr. Louie has a good track record and is truly a person who has a heart. There is no price for this proceedure that is high enough yet the medical system will not pay the Doctor doing it. The cost of Vancomycin was close to $3,000.00 for a 45 day supply. That is why no other Doctor will do it. Think about it. Have a good day, the passage out of the Bible says "it is better to Give than recieve"! In my case I was much happier to recieve it.
Posted by: David Klassen | March 17, 2008 11:48 PM
Hi, other than the obvious gross factor, why not fill an empty capsule with fecal matter from a healthy donor and swallow with a stiff chaser?
Posted by: Patrick | March 21, 2008 12:57 AM
Should I find it ominous that they felt the need to specify "surviving patients?"
Posted by: Cevapyaz | April 11, 2008 6:11 AM