Category Archives: Feature

Do Fecal Matter Transplants Actually Cause Obesity?


Ok, so let's get gross for a second so I can give you some specific background about poop transplants: Some people can't handle this topic and to them, I apologize. As of June 17th, 2013, the FDA decided to allow fecal matter transplants for recurrent bacteria Clostridium difficile, which is a gastrointestinal problem with symptoms like life threatening diarrhea, severe cramping and dehydration. Against C. Diff.,  fecal transplants have a 91% success rate. This  promising treatment might be able to combat a variety of gastrointestinal diseases related to probiotics and the balance of microbial life in the human gut. Right now you might be imagining something really gross and I can't exactly assuage your fears but when I researched the process, I was marginally reassured that the fecal matter is "rinsed and strained" um, ok, and then administered rectally or orally in pill form. It's kind of like asking where hotdogs come from.

Ok, so let’s zoom in on the gross for a second so I can give you some specific background about poop transplants:
Some people can’t handle this topic and to them, I apologize. As of June 17th, 2013, the FDA decided to allow fecal matter transplants for recurrent bacteria Clostridium difficile, which is a gastrointestinal problem with symptoms like life threatening diarrhea, severe cramping and dehydration. Against C. Diff., fecal transplants have a 91% success rate. This promising treatment might be able to combat a variety of gastrointestinal diseases related to probiotics and the balance of microbial life in the human gut. Right now you might be imagining something really gross and I can’t exactly assuage your fears but when I researched the process, I was marginally reassured that the fecal matter is “rinsed and strained” um, ok, and then administered rectally or orally in pill form. It’s kind of like asking where hotdogs come from.

A new case study about fecal matter transplants shows a possible link between gut flora and obesity which has far reaching implications for treatment of obesity and other gastrointestinal disorders. Some scientists and medical professionals already seem convinced but how related is your gut fauna to your body weight? Emerging research on the practice has shown gut bacteria to be linked to several surprisingly diverse aspects of human physiology. If this is a new topic for you, check out Jeroen Raes’ compelling ted talk on the subject.

In the above video, Jeroen Raes is very convinced of the efficacy of biotic treatments and the influence of microbial life on human health. In its current practice and form, can FMT cause obesity? If you are desensitized enough to examine a case study I can move on to explain where the obesity comes in.

Last November(2014) a woman‘s C. difficile infection was successfully treated by fecal transplant. After receiving the transplant, the patient experienced rapid weight gain to the tune of 34 pounds in 16 months. The donor was also overweight, yet the recipient had never had any problem with fatness prior to the FMT.  Open Forum Infectious Diseases has a long and detailed argument from active people in a variety of related fields,  if you want to see the debate unfold. Spoiler alert: there is not enough evidence to know for sure that the gut bacteria transplant or a related aspect of FMT caused the obesity.

After going through a variety of antibiotic treatments, the woman kept being reinfected because, the theory goes, her fecal bacteria was out of balance. After what was probably a pretty miserable few weeks of unsuccessful treatment the woman’s medical team at Newport Hospital in Newport, RI, decided to give fecal transplant a try.

Before the FMT treatment, the patient was at a healthy weight, 136 lbs with a normal BMI of 26. Her daughter, the fecal donor, weighed 140 lbs at the time, with a BMI of 26.6. In the weeks after the transplant, the daughter actually gained some weight, too. Recurrent infections ceased and the transplant appeared to be a success.

So, sixteen months passed and the fecal transplant recipient experienced a weight gain of 34 pounds, making her now technically obese. After going on a closely monitored exercise and diet program she still kept the weight on over 2.5 years later.

The author of the case report, Colleen Kelly, said, “We’re questioning whether there was something in the fecal transplant, whether some of those ‘good’ bacteria we transferred may have an impact on her metabolism in a negative way.”

Some science blogs are reporting this as a strong link to argue fecal matter can cause weight gain, and the case study is certainly compelling, but until further study is done we can’t be sure. It’s worth mentioning, though, that the association between gut bacteria and body weight has already been extensively theorized. A few animal studies seem to show FMT from a fat mouse to a normal-weight mouse may be related to a significant increase in fat in the recipient mouse. It’s not exactly a settled issue, though, with several possible factors which could alternatively explain human weight gain.  Gut flora may influence less direct aspects of body weight, like an increase in appetite. In fact, an increase in appetite may have just been a sign the subject in the case study beat the infection. To complicate the debate further links between H. pylori treatment and weight gain have been demonstrated in case studies that don’t involve fecal matter transplanting. The reason this case is so convincing is partly because the daughter and the mother both gained weight in conjunction.

The verdict? While the researchers conclude the FMT was partly responsible for the recipient’s obesity, I found the science inconclusive. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye out for new info on this most scatological and potentially very important debate.

[Via Open Forum Infectious Diseases and IDSA]

 

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Vaccines and the Psychology of the Anti-Science Movement


One of the things I love about science is the vocabulary that it allows people to use. The whole point of any science is to understand and adapt to the environments we find ourselves in. People who are particularly good at explaining this vocabulary make good or even great scientists but the ideas scientists explain are not dependent on any one human.

Sometimes the truth is harsh. Science sometimes allows us to see a harsh aspect of reality and rather than accept that harsh reality, some people search for a second opinion, in hopes that bad news is not true. This emotional state makes people vulnerable to misinformation, to anyone who might want to exploit that vulnerability. To me, science offers a way to look at those harsh realities for what they are without emotions clouding the ability to understand. The scientific method isn’t just a good way to examine reality, it’s the only way that guarantees the available truth can be understood.

I’m gonna use vaccination as an example of a harsh reality that people don’t always readily accept. I’ve had to go through the debate with various friends and family for years. The vaccination debate has half a dozen easily debunked, unreasonable reasons for not vaccinating humans against diseases. When I point out the science behind my arguments for vaccination they are met with a bizarre suspicion. Without going too much into the ridiculous anti vaccine argument, the anti-science part of it goes something like this:

The source of this scientific claim is suspect so the science itself is suspect. You may have found an article or study that proves my anti vaccination argument wrong but you have to consider the source. Some people write these studies or orchestrate them to show results that are not necessarily accurate.

Why it’s wrong:

You can use the scientific method to reevaluate any study. Science is like math. People can do math incorrectly and get a wrong answer but that doesn’t make math itself wrong. Badly done science doesn’t mean that the scientific method is bad. That’s what I mean when I say the scientific method is the only way. It’s the only logical way to understand literally anything. Saying you don’t trust it is like saying you don’t trust arithmetic.

So, the antivaccination argument that you can’t trust a study is beside the point.  I agree that no one should blindly trust any scientific claim. Not being able to readily rust information is a problem but the solution to the problem is to use the scientific method to weed out bad science. A study can be funded and published by a biased source and still be good science. By using the scientific method you can tell the difference between good and bad information.

We live in a time where we are assaulted by information. The antivaccination movement is a great example of how compelling bad science can become when the audience isn’t using the scientific method to parse the information they are reading. The antivaxxers are wrong but the misinformation has a chance to take root in the collective psyche of modern man because of how available information itself is. People without a solid understanding of the scientific method can’t follow the actual debate and must resort to whichever side wrote the most emotionally compelling argument. Not being able to tell what is true or untrue makes people suspicious and even paranoid. Learning and using the scientific method is crucial to the modern internet experience. It’s the only way to see what’s really happening.

 

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

It’s 2015…Where Are The Aliens?


Look, I mean… I want aliens to exist. As of Summer of 2013, statistically half of the United States believes there are aliens. Roughly a third of Americans believe there are intelligent aliens. While it isn’t the largest sampling size, the veracity of this stat is pretty unchallenged. (The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted June 11-12 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.) I’d love to update this post with better data but I think a fifty-fifty split as to whether aliens exist or not makes it a particularly interesting  debate.

While I believe it is better for humanity to be prepared and I understand the spirit of searching for alien life forms, I am having trouble squaring belief in alien life as scientifically accurate.

On the one hand, several prominent, respected, high-profile scientists claim to believe in aliens(or at least a high probability of aliens) yet there is currently no scientific data supporting the existence of extra terrestrial life. Skeptical attempts to try to answer this frame the question,  from Fermi to Degrasse Tyson, have stood largely unchallenged and withstood criticism when finally challenged. Until science can truly answer all questions about the conditions needed to reproduce life as it is found on Earth it’s difficult to know the statistical probability of finding life as we know it on similar planets. Good science requires skepticism and a strict definition of truth; believing in aliens without empirical data is bad science.

It’s actually harder to get data on this subject than it should be but National Geographic did a pretty solid attempt about 2 years ago, though. The gist of the statistical info is this: maybe not the majority but possibly half and even by the low-end estimates a huge percentage of Americans believe in aliens. Those people might be really great dreamers and thinkers in their own way but they are coming to the conclusion that extraterrestrial life exists using bad science.

Back in the early 60’s, Dr. Frank Drake made the first noteworthy attempt to quantify the aspects needed for Earthlings to detect intelligent life on other planets with what became known as the Drake Equation. Most of the scientists who believe in aliens argue that extraterrestrials are a mathematical probability. For example, Stephen Hawking said, “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” in his Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking’s Universe. The problem is, without knowing exactly how life on Earth began there is no way to know the mathematical probability of it happening anywhere else.

Dr. Frank Drake was responding to one of the most famous cases against extraterrestrials, though, an earlier, 1950’s argument usually called The Fermi Paradox. Last Thursday (Jan. 28th, 2015) Neil Degrasse Tyson explained his interpretation of the Enrico Fermi’s classic – and still indestructible-  argument:

“[Enrico Fermi] said that the universe has been around a really long time, and technological evolution, when it happens, happens fast. If there are [advanced] aliens in the galaxy, they should have been here by now. Because if they live approximately as long as we do, they can send colonies out to other star systems, set up base camps, and then [those base camps] send out other colonies. So one grows to ten, grows to a hundred, grows to a thousand,” Tyson explained. “And you can grow the number of colonies exponentially in the world very quickly, so where are they?”

You can watch last weeks Degrass Tyson lecture in Denver, CO in its entirety, here:

So, until new data arrives or a deeper understanding of life on Earth can be had, belief in Aliens is unsupported by any credible data. Contemporary Americans are pretty great at disregarding science in the name of what simply sounds cool or interesting, though, so most people will continue to believe in aliens.

How unscientific~!

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY