Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Search Of A Healthy Gut, One Man Turned To An Extreme DIY Fecal Transplant (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the DIY-projects dept.

Josiah Zayner writes: Arielle Duhaime-Ross at The Verge followed Dr. Josiah Zayner, a former Scientist at NASA turned BioHacker, as he attempted the first ever full-body microbiome transplant. She writes "Over the course of the next four days, Zayner would attempt to eradicate the trillions of microbes that lived on and inside his body -- organisms that helped him digest food, produce vitamins and enzymes, and protected his body from other, more dangerous bacteria. Ruthlessly and methodically, he would try to render himself into a biological blank slate. Then, he would inoculate himself with a friend's microbes -- a procedure he refers to as a 'microbiome transplant.'".

86 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Um, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to adjust the bacteria present, such as through diet. Furthermore, eliminating bacteria that ward off other, harmful, microbes seems dangerous. Why would you do this? I suspect this can be filed alongside things like very low calorie intake diets as a way to do some really serious harm to your body.

    1. Re:Um, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > There are other ways to adjust the bacteria present, such as through diet

      Probably not in the way he is attempting. It's almost like you don't understand what he's doing and suggesting an alternative course that is ineffectual out of obvious ignorance.

    2. Re:Um, why? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Also, how is this really that different from probiotics? Just dose yourself with antibiotics to wipe out intestinal microbes and take any of the number of probiotics that supposedly contain the healthy or beneficial bacteria that your body needs.

    3. Re:Um, why? by josiah.zayner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Totally different, probiotics usually have assorted bacteria that are usually not associated with a healthy or unhealthy gut. Microbiomes, like those of the gut function as communities meaning you can't just add one or two species and hope everything is better(at least not from what we know at the moment). Using a fresh poop sample increases the chances that not only will a transplant take but also that the beneficial microbes will be there in the appropriate amounts to be beneficial.

    4. Re:Um, why? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The probiotics can help people but they are far from complete. We don't even know the full composition of the gut microbiome.

      I'm not sure why he pushed it as far as he did, but the procedure he did on his gut is gaining acceptance in spite of the FDA rushing in to put the brakes on progress.

    5. Re:Um, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Probiotics are typically a supplement, trying to boost established levels of a couple of specific strains. Wiping out his microbiome and replacing it with a couple of strains probably wouldn't be the best idea... He's trying to replace his microbiome with all the strains present from a healthy one.

      While I can see this working I wonder how important the balance between each strain would be to replicate the healthy microbiome. After all, there is no guarantee on the numbers each strain will establish themselves to.

      As a simple example, in freshwater aquaculture and aquaponics you attempt to establish bacterial populations to convert toxic ammonia excreted by fish and decomposing waste into nitrites and eventually into nitrates which feed your crops. Fail to get the balance of nitrifying bacteria right and your system fails (plants die, fish die).

    6. Re:Um, why? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are other ways to adjust the bacteria present, such as through diet.

      That worked for me. A few years ago I bought a $39 yogurt maker from Amazon, and started eating a bowl fresh from the incubator every morning. As my gut bacteria changed, so did my appetite. I no longer craved sugar or other carbs, and started eating more fiber and veggies. I guess the little critters were using some sort of chemical feedback to make me eat a diet more to their liking. I am about 5 pounds lighter, have more energy, and have had no gut problems (diarrhea, constipation, or pain) in years.

    7. Re:Um, why? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Probiotics also come with disclaimers that their effects are unproven.

    8. Re:Um, why? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that yoghurt is primarily made from yeast

      No. This is wrong. Yogurt is made with bacteria. You can read all about it on Wikipedia, where the very first sentence explains that yogurt is made with bacterial fermentation.

      any bacteria it has are very unlikely to be bacteria normally found in the gut.

      Wrong again. Many of the bacteria commonly found in yogurt are also found in mammalian guts. Here is one example but there are many others.

    9. Re:Um, why? by harperska · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the live cultures in yogurt are bacteria. Perhaps the confusion is in that yogurt production is referred to as fermentation, and we usually associate that word with the action of yeast in alcoholic beverages. But fermentation just means anaerobic metabolism, and it occurs in yeast, some species of bacteria, and even animals when muscles work faster than they can pull in oxygen from the blood. The byproduct of yeast fermentation is ethanol, and the byproduct of bacteria and muscle fermentation is lactic acid, which is what makes yogurt sour, and makes muscles ache after sprinting without a cool down.

      You are probably right that the yogurt bacteria are not those usually found in the gut. But the presence of those bacteria may be beneficial in the gut flora due to being non harmful, while being competitive against other bacteria which are.

    10. Re:Um, why? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probiotics contain nothing that resembles fecal bacteria. If they did, they'd be immediately removed from the shelves.

      Probiotics are mostly a way to seperate people from their money.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    11. Re:Um, why? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I had a doctor tell me to eat a lot of yogurt once, in order to replenish bacteria after having an antibiotic treatment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Um, why? by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Depends on the priobiotic. But just because there are common strains of bacteria as that in the gut doesn't mean they would be pulled from the market. There is nothing wrong with consuming bacteria, we do it all the time. The problem is with specific species in specific quantities. Now the FDA isn't going to allow a probiotic on the market that contains salmonella, but lactobacillus they wouldn't care about nor should they, it's common in your gut and common in food you eat. There are several varieties of probiotics that contain up to 20 different strains that are common in the gut. The problem is, as others have already said, the colony in your gut is probably more than a 100 separate species of bacteria that all work in concert. A slight mismatch in the quantities of the various strains can cause it not to function or to function completely differently.

      There is a lot of interesting research been done recently that says people that are overweight and can't loose weight have problems with their bacterial colonies, key bacteria are missing and there are others in much higher quantities that you don't' find in a health persons gut. There is actually research being done on this right now to find out if poop transplants can make people healthier.

      It's entirely possible that these gut microbiomes affect far more than we realize.

    13. Re:Um, why? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the bacteria in yogurt were originally cultured from people putting milk in animal stomachs used as bladders to hold liquids. They are directly from mammalian stomachs. This is also where cheese comes from and probably almost every single dairy product other than plain milk.

    14. Re:Um, why? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Yogurt bacteria, lactobacillus and other strains are common in all mammalian stomachs. We would not be able to suckle on our mothers without it as it allows us to digest milk.

    15. Re:Um, why? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      Actually, the bacteria in yogurt were originally cultured from people putting milk in animal stomachs used as bladders to hold liquids. They are directly from mammalian stomachs. This is also where cheese comes from and probably almost every single dairy product other than plain milk.

      Yep. Animal bladders or 'sacs' were either dog food, or the perfect canteen for our paleolithic ancestors.

      Someone let a batch sit too long in a cave, and discovered yogurt. Then later cheese, probably.

      I mean, in the Stone Ages, people didn't just phone up Sigma-Aldrich for a "disinfected ruminant stomach number three", or whatever. It was a little less hygienic then.

    16. Re:Um, why? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      There is actually research being done on this right now to find out if poop transplants can make people healthier.

      It's entirely possible that these gut microbiomes affect far more than we realize.

      Your gut flora adjusts to your diet—To them, it is the type of Manna that falls from heaven.

      Fatties and gluttons who have diets that lead to morbid obesity have been on a consistent diet of CRAP for years. This is why 'crash diets' don't work.

      One needs to slowly ramp their diet to a healthy one, while simultaneously dosing daily with a 'full-mix' macrobiotic. In the end, the 'good bacteria' win out over the others. It is a process – NOT an overnight transformation!

      Oh, it also helps if you select your parents carefully...

    17. Re:Um, why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Many of the bacteria commonly found in yogurt are also found in mammalian guts

      Which makes sense - milk is secreted from what are probably glorified sweat glands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Evolution), and many of the bacteria that thrive in milk are also found on skin. And of course, as a slightly light hearted aside, a human is basically a torus, as any topologist will confirm, so the gut is really just part of the same surface as the skin.

    18. Re:Um, why? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had a doctor tell me to eat a lot of yogurt once, in order to replenish bacteria after having an antibiotic treatment.

      That doctor is clearly in the pocket of Big Yogurt and cannot be trusted.

    19. Re:Um, why? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Depends on the priobiotic.

      It really doesn't. There's a reason that bacterial transplants are done surgically or anally. Just how much of that not so tasty hyper expensive milk do you think will survive through your stomach acid? It's like those people who ph balance their diet so their blood acidity is healthy without realising they are feeding a self regulating system through a means that doesn't touch the said system.

      The number of bacteria which survive down to the gut through ingestion is not at all significant, and any that can't be killed will usually result in violent evacuation either through your mouth or if it does get into the gut, through the other end. Remember when you're in China ... don't drink the water, and if you do drink the water make sure you're staying in a hotel where the sink is close enough to the toilet so you can access both at the same time.

    20. Re:Um, why? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      What was your breakfast before you started eating yoghurt?

      If it included bread or other carbs then that might have something to do with this:
      "I no longer craved sugar or other carbs, and started eating more fiber and veggies"

      Also regarding that sentence, are you sure it wasn't the other way around? I'm not saying it is impossible that 'the little critters were using some sort of chemical feedback', but misattribution and jumping to conclusions are common things in diet-related matters (diet-hacks are an almost religious thing to many) and I think we should try to avoid that.

    21. Re:Um, why? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Except that yoghurt is primarily made from yeast

      I'm not going to the pub with you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Um, why? by Legionary13 · · Score: 2

      At the moment there don’t seem to be many biome treatments, but the recent availability of inexpensive bacterial profiling makes me hope to see some in the next decade. The British Gut Project will profile your microbiome for £75 (see http://britishgut.org./ Fecal transplants into animals have shown persistent changes to (for example) the tendency to obesity. There’s a chance Zayner will keep his improved gut health. I know that people with psoriasis show changes to the skin and gut biomes and have heard many anecdotes of symptom relief after taking probiotics, so I recently asked a skin specialist if there were any trials I could ask to join. No. For the time being abstaining from alcohol and exercising are helping and I don’t feel stuck enough to plan my own FMT.

    23. Re:Um, why? by tomxor · · Score: 1

      The torus on your mug is for your finger, not it's content... otherwise it would gradually shit out your coffee onto your lap.

    24. Re:Um, why? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      And yet probiotic yoghurt drinks appear to have a notable effect in reducing reflux after oral antibiotics. They've saved me on several occasions.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    25. Re:Um, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet there are documented cases where fecal transplants after microbiome-destroying procedures have radically changed someone's weight, despite no change in diet or exercise.

      We are shockingly ignorant of how the body's metabolism actually works, largely due to people like you dismissing everything as a matter of diet and exercise.

    26. Re:Um, why? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Be a bit more recent then stone age as our paleolithic ancestors wouldn't have been using animal milk.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    27. Re:Um, why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So using the Schwartz is not recommended?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:Um, why? by skids · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA. He had tried diet alteration already. Though granted, probably not thoroughly given his somewhat casual proclivities. Not that I can blame him: chronic intestinal distress eats away at your willpower and mental acuity quite severely over time. It's very hard to stay rational with a constant worm in your stomach. I can totally sympathize with the level of desperation that drove him to this. So, if doctor's don't want us nearly-schizophrenic IBS-ravaged patients turning to crazy DYI procedures, getting this area of medicine more science and evidence should be a priority, rather than giving us diazepam-laced anti-cholergenic cocktails, probably an antidepressant, and telling us to "avoid stress" (hah!), essentially treating it as a purely neurological problem.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    29. Re:Um, why? by harperska · · Score: 1

      Lactase, the enzyme allowing for milk digestion, is produced endogenously by mammals. Its production is downregulated after weaning, except for in approximately half of the human population who have a mutation in the lactase production genes resulting in production continuing into adulthood. Though I suppose it might be possible for the consumption of yogurt with live lactobacillus to allow lactose intolerant individuals to digest more milk than they otherwise would be able to.

    30. Re: Um, why? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it's more like "eat shit and live" for people with certain medical conditions.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    31. Re:Um, why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ya, I goofed. Long noisy work day.

    32. Re:Um, why? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      What were you eating instead, before you started eating probiotic yoghurt? One possible control for this experiment would be to sterilize the yogurt and see if it still helps.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    33. Re:Um, why? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      If probiotics really contained bacteria that could survive in our gut and make us healthier, we would just need to take one single dose and the company would not make any money on them.

      So instead, I suspect they contain bacteria that may provide some short term benificial effects, but are not really suited for our gut and disappear shortly afterwards. That way, you need to take them repeatedly and keep spending money on them.

      So if you want a healthy gut, probiotics are not the answer.

    34. Re:Um, why? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      There are some problematic bacteria that live in the stomach, and they can cause problems if they are not kept in check by competition from "nicer" neighbors.

      The bacteria that live in the lower GI tract are entirely different species. Pretty much nothing that lives in the extremely acidic environment of the stomach can thrive in the neutral environment of the intestines.

      Consuming samples of bacteria that should grow in the throat or stomach is fine, and it may help. At the very least, it is not completely asinine.

      Consuming samples meant for the lower GI tract will accomplish nothing because virtually all of them will die before leaving the stomach---hence the fecal transplant.

      Sometimes the most effective methods are disgusting. Google some videos of debridement to see how doctors deal with necrotic flesh, and realize that this is how we avoid amputations.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    35. Re:Um, why? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      To all who have replied: You are in agreement with me, but failed at reading comprehension:

      Sir Holo said:"... while simultaneously dosing daily with a 'full-mix' macrobiotic."

      Perhaps I should have written 'full-spectrum' instead?

      I was pointing out that our gut flora are a significant factor in our guts' response to, digestion of, and uptake of calories, vitamins, minerals, etc.

    36. Re:Um, why? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      The advice was to have a small probiotic drink 15 minutes or so before a meal. Another poster points out that heartburn is about the upper GI tract, not the lower, so not valid.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    37. Re:Um, why? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      The experiment would still be valid; you're arguing that it would be superfluous.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    38. Re:Um, why? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      And yet there are documented cases where fecal transplants after microbiome-destroying procedures have radically changed someone's weight, despite no change in diet or exercise.

      I hope the documented cases you refer to aren't 'Scheisse porn' videos. :-P

      Anyway, agreed, we know very little. Humans are superorganisms. Most of the cells in our bodies are NOT our own. IIRC, a human body has about 10 trillion cells. 90% of those cells do not contain our DNA — They are symbiotes.

      Going back even further, it is generally hypothesized that organelles in our own cells arose from this symbiosis. But, over eons, in mono-cellular organisms, some of these symbiotes lost their ability to survive outside of a living cell of the host. It is a profoundly important view, and really makes one think. Tough to do experiments to test the hypothesis, I imagine (not my field).

  2. So a real shit eating grin by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 2, Funny

    there, a poop joke

  3. Ron White by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Comic appropriatus

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  4. I read the article, says the experiment worked by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So unlike everybody who commented before me here (just ACs so far), I actually read what was written and apparently the experiment worked.

    I've been running an experiment of my own for 21 years now. For the first 8 years only ate raw veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds. For the last 13 years eating cooked food, only veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds but also cheeses, yoghurt and some breads.

    I think people should be free to experiment with their own bodies, we only live once. Some people climb rocks, others eat shit, who knows, maybe something will come out of it. I personally would like to go through the DNA procedure to increase the length of the telomeres like that lady in South America did, I don't want to wait for any government approval for any of it, it's my life.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't want to wait for any government approval for any of it, it's my life.

      That's fine, as long as neither government nor society in general are expected to cover the risk of that experiment going wrong. And that means if you ruin yourself and require $500K in medical expenses, that somehow healthcare prices are insulated from that event.

    2. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by sjames · · Score: 1

      Does that also apply to contact sports? How about skydiving?

      Does it apply to driving?

      Meanwhile, in this case, he may have saved healthcare a lot of money.

    3. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Driving is a funny example. It's precisely the reason we have seatbelt laws. Sure, you can skip them, but you'll get fined -- generally a large enough fine to convince people who would otherwise roll the dice on not wearing a seatbelt to do so. So, we legislate lower shared medical (and municipal fire/police/ambulance) costs.

    4. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, we mandate mitigation but car accidents are still a common reason for unpayable medical bills.

    5. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Khyber · · Score: 1, Troll

      "I think people should be free to experiment with their own bodies, we only live once."

      I've died twice, maybe YOU only live once, mortal!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Driving is a funny example. It's precisely the reason we have seatbelt laws.

      Well, unless you can point to a law requiring so much as a fine for feedling yourself poop, you've pretty much demonstrated why the legal conversation concerning this event should be over.

    7. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      That's just eating weird. Science isn't done by only observing yourself. After all your opinion is going to be colored by desired outcomes, confirmation biases, yada yada yada. Valid medical trials are done with double-blind placebos.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I am running an experiment on myself for my own sake, not for anybody else and I am not proposing that anybody follows me. My point is that we should be deciding what we are and what we do with ourselves, not any government or any other outside collective.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    9. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Yep. Evolutionary biology, and also active adaptations of existing gut flora. Both come into play here.

      Throughout our evolution into homo sapiens sapiens, our ancestors endured many varied and variously harsh environments. The result is that, today, we have a lot of "junk genes". LOL.

      Junk genes they are not. Just because they are not expressed does not mean that they enable some metabolic capacity or other during times of resource-stress that our progenitors endured. Should we endure something different from the modern 'three-squares-a-day' model (which is BS), then, given a reasonable time to adapt, we can adjust to a diet with a different weighting of sugars-carbs-oils-meats-fat.

      The "Paleo Diet" thing is a fad. But in reality, if you gradually change your diet from one primary source of energy to another (among chemical classes), then YOU CAN CHANGE your normal, healthy diet.

      My girl eats nuts, oils, meats, and some veggies – all with abandon. She can pull-off a sweater-dress easily (as in 'wear it and look great.'). Genetics is part of it. The second, and EQUALLY important part of it is a gradual exposure to foods – ones with a different chemical-caloric basis – when departing from the typical US "carb-based diet" – is entirely doable.

      Point is this: Give your gut flora a chance to respond to your intake of food of different calorimetric classes. If you "go on a diet", then FFS take some macrobiotic pills, eat yogurt, and ease into the the new diet. Otherwise—Well, your liver and gall bladder will protest at the sudden change. You will feel famished, exhausted, and so on.

      I know people who subsist at the opposite end of the spectrum as well. That is, their primary caloric intake is ethanol –a simple sugar. I have seen many high-functioning people (Professor-level, CEO-level) be healthy and successful for time unending because they introduced this particular diet slowly—They take multivitamins, B-complex, and folate daily – and their bodies have adapted, over time, to use ethanol as the primary metabolic-intake chemical for use as fuel for the body.

      I am not recommending alcoholism, not am I recommending an instant switch to a "Paleo Diet". My point is simply that we are products of the experiences of our progenitors – who managed to mate successfully – eons ago. Given time, those ancient genes will express because one of your ancestors lived through a crisis of having a single-type caloric food some time in the distant past.

    10. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That is, their primary caloric intake is ethanol -a simple sugar.

      Ethanol isn't a sugar, it's an alcohol. It winds up on the citric acid cycle via a slightly meandering path.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by tomxor · · Score: 1

      I guess I must be an illegal alien then.

    12. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Jack_of_Shadow · · Score: 1

      and when your uninformed, medically unsound experimentation kills you, your family will go around suing everyone they can, blaming everyone but you. Hence we have laws preventing unsafe behavior (in some instances).

      --
      My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
    13. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Hold on, hold on, let me write this down, who do they sue once the food I choose to eat kills me?

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    14. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Mysticeti · · Score: 1

      I personally would like to go through the DNA procedure to increase the length of the telomeres like that lady in South America did...

      This lady? https://www.technologyreview.c...

    15. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      That is, their primary caloric intake is ethanol -a simple sugar.

      Ethanol isn't a sugar, it's an alcohol. It winds up on the citric acid cycle via a slightly meandering path.

      Is that because the second carbon lacks a carbonyl (C=O bond)?

      If it did, with formula then C2H4O2 – instead of EtOH (C2H6O) – what would it be called? A monosaccharide, yes, but what is the nomenclature for monosaccharides? Would it be called "ethanose"?

      I'm a solid-state physicist, so I never took a biochem course...

    16. Re:I read the article, says the experiment worked by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Is that because the second carbon lacks a carbonyl (C=O bond)?

      Ugh. Er, organic chemistry... it's been a while.

      ethanol is a simple alcohol, i.e. an alkane (a simple hydrocarcobon) with an -OH bolted on to the end. Monosaccarides have one -OH attacked to every carbon atom except the last which has a carbonyl.

      Going by that formula (i.e. a 2 carbon sugar) would look something like:

      OH-C - C =0

      (with of course all the other hydrogens omitted). Apparently it goes by the name 2-hydroxy acetyl aldehyde, diose (sugar with two carbons, but there's only one isomer so it's specific), and because chemists like giving more names than a Russian novel, a handful of others such as glycolaldehyde. There's probably a 2-hydroxy ethanal in there as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's Macrobiome, jeesh scientists nowdays...
    https://xkcd.com/1471/

  6. Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Someone else tried a similar experiment:
    https://groups.google.com/foru...

  7. Sounds as useful by fred911 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as Slashdot's Disable Advertising toggle lately. Being eligible doesn't mean it's functional.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Sounds as useful by halivar · · Score: 1, Funny

      To be fair, it never actually worked. Not for me.

    2. Re:Sounds as useful by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      It used to work for me, most of the time anyway. It would randomly reset itself and I'd have to check it again. But, I've noticed that checking the checkbox no longer seems to do anything at all now. Oh well.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    3. Re:Sounds as useful by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it never actually worked. Not for me.

      It always worked reliably for me, very rarely it'd uncheck itself, but then I'd just recheck it and it'd be good for another 8 months. It's pretty irksome that it's useless now.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    4. Re:Sounds as useful by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      It resets itself at least once per day on me. In the past, it was for three months or so.

      Why have I been contributing for 10 years?

      Seriously. My constant commentary (highly ranked) is one among the many volunteer efforts by /. members over the last >10 years that raised the value of the 'property' for its recent buy-out by yet another media conglomerate. That means lots of $$$$$ in someone's pocket, yet the meagre reward that I had acquiesced to over the years was to "disable advertising".

      Now that is broken. Multiple times daily. Are the new owners of /. trying to destroy it?

      Recall, everyone, that "comments are owned by the poster ..."

      If the new owners piss us grey-beards off enough, we will all issue take-down notices of every single post we have ever made, butting the /. archive. And we will NOT come back.

      FIX IT!

    5. Re:Sounds as useful by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It works. When it's checked, the ads are replaced with "targeted links".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Sounds as useful by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Send your take-down notices and leave please.

    7. Re:Sounds as useful by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      Mine hasn't been working for a month. I sent an e-mail to Slashdot about it, got a canned response, and since then it's disappeared entirely.

      I guess it's "fixed" since I now have no expectation for it to work anymore since it's gone...

    8. Re:Sounds as useful by vandamme · · Score: 1

      How is Slashdot related to an article about eating shit?

      Oh. Right.

  8. Re: He ate shit... by sjames · · Score: 1

    That would be why he promptly replaced them with a new biome.

  9. Re:He ate shit... by sjames · · Score: 1

    So do you. There are even legal limits on the amount in food, as there is for bug parts.

  10. Good thing about "bio-hackers"... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The bad ones will probably kill themselves, unlike bad computer hackers that just stay on as script-kiddies or bad coders.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. Very promising by BlueCoder · · Score: 3

    Official studies need to happen and soon. We need to find out if sterilizing the gut is actually necessary. In many cases it may be possible to transform an existing gut into another just with fecal matter. We also need to know more about the component bacteria. It is likely possible we could artificially culture a healthy gut biome in an artificial gut. We just need the bacteria and it needs to become tasteless like a powder added to food.

    And cravings and the gut biome need to be thoroughly analyzed. And eating it might not be the ideal to replicate a biome; the digestion in the stomach could kill some bacteria but not others and or alter the concentrations.

    And of course it works. Come on people think. How much do people spend on diets? Once everyone figures out they can lose significant weight this way it will catch on like wildfire. Everyone with gut problems.. would you rather continue to suffer or eat a little shit?

    1. Re:Very promising by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      There has been research. The treatment is currently approved for C. difficile. Of course the FDA couldn't wait to jump in and slow down the research.

      Delivery methods include a nasal tube, an enema, scope, and enteric coated pills or capsules. The latter is probably the simplest and doesn't release the payload until it is past the stomach.

    2. Re:Very promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I'm disappointed that I can't get it in suppository form.

    3. Re:Very promising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You know how there are people who grow their hair long, cut it off and sell it on AliExpress/eBay?

      Actually you can already get something a bit like this. In Japan various potions and beverages that include bacteria for your gut are widely available. I have no idea if they really work... They make me feel better, but it could be placebo.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Very promising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Everyone with gut problems.. would you rather continue to suffer or eat a little shit?

      You'd rather not know what I'd rather eat

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Very promising by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      What do you think 'yogurt' is, let alone 'probiotic' yogurt? Or probiotic pills?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:Very promising by sjames · · Score: 1

      All of the methods I listed accomplish that.

  12. fecal transplants may be faster and more effective by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

    Contrary to what the FA suggests, some experiments with fecal transplants to treat various other conditions have been done. Although most available data is anecdotal, there is evidence that they could be the best treatment for obesity, and a possible cure for type 1 diabetes and other auto immune conditions. See, for instance, some views of Dr. Jeffrey Gordon

  13. Re: He ate shit... by sjames · · Score: 1

    Or that's my way of saying you need to step up your game.

  14. Re:you eat shit once... by jandersen · · Score: 1

    NASA or not, you are a shiteater for life /enjoy

    Well, faeces is just a later stage in the natural development of food; any meal is, in a sense, pre-shit, a term that sometimes seems strangely appropriate.

  15. That made me laugh. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I mean, in the Stone Ages, people didn't just phone up Sigma-Aldrich for a "disinfected ruminant stomach number three", or whatever. It was a little less hygienic then.

    Why was that? Poor cell phone connections?

    1. Re:That made me laugh. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I find it curious because it should have been exactly the opposite: phone use should have been *more* hygienic in the distant past, not a little less hygienic. Archaeological finds certainly confirm a substantial population of telephone sanitizers in the stone age.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  16. Re: He ate shit... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Or that's my way of saying you need to step up your game.

    Are you saying your shit's the shit and his shit's just shit? Way to shit on the man...

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  17. Re:fecal transplants may be faster and more effect by dullertap · · Score: 1

    Imagine the backlash when all the obese people band together because their doctors told them to eat shit.