I will scream this from the rooftops until people hear me on this one. Taking probiotics is probably a dead end for any kind of lasting treatment.
I find some probiotics to be modestly helpful for my GI problems. I have a complete lack of bidifobacterium, which probably is not a good thing. And probiotics are also a pretty standard addition to the treatment of anyone taking antibiotics to treat bacterial infections (Lyme & Bartonella in my case).
Perhaps it would clarify what you are talking about treating. Gut problems? ME? Something else entirely?
I'm afraid the abstract and other portions of this study are a bit misleading. They make a big deal out of some minor differences at week 5 out of 12, but there no significant differences at week 12.
Additionally they seem to have failed to either test for or report upon gut bacteria prior to starting the diets, and are again giving odd time points, which is likely to indicate that they are trying to display the data most supportive of their claims, while discarding contrary data. This data can be viewed in Supplement 1 (S1).
And as has been remarked upon by others, mice are not people. In some regards they can be useful for making comparisons, primarily involving the immune system if I recall correctly. But I would not expect their gut bacteria or dietary reactions to have sufficient similarity to humans. Humans have evolved to eat animal protein and the animal fat which accompanies it. The standard diet of a mouse in the wild is going to be grains, seeds, and nuts. They do not eat fish or pigs.
And with that very basic problem, it is unlikely that this study is of relevance to humans. Perhaps someone will investigate further in humans, but until then your conclusions regarding the study are premature and unwarranted.
If you never heard of it cured in a day maybe I am on to something? I understand the doubt but I am asking that you look at the science I am tagging my posts with.
The science you rely on usually does not say what you think it says. There are free classes available which can help in understanding research, such as are offered by Coursera. And if you are "on to something" I suggest you find a way to publish it instead of making unfounded statements to a lot of sick people, claiming that you supposedly have the ability to cure them.
If you detect animosity it is because we have been subjected to those sorts of claims dozens of times in the past. They usually fail to understand what ME is, and offer all sorts of baseless pseudoscientific claims to speculate about how they might cure us. Except they fail to make it clear that they are speculating, and offer their hypotheses as if they are firmly founded in scientific literature.
I am looking at the personal genetics and showing the personal genetics. I am looking at different peoples genetics.
I am showing how we can all look at our personal genome and based on that change our diet and use vitamin cofactors to create a PERSONAL treatment. I am doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you think I am doing.
I feel obliged to clarify for those who have not been following your posts in the SNP subforum: your understanding of SNPs, genetics, and related issues is minimal. You are very frequently wrong in your various claims regarding that subject matter.
I agree that genomics is an interesting and potentially useful approach to take, but it must be done carefully and scientifically. We cannot guess that SNPs are "expressing" in some manner contrary to what the research says, nor even guess that they might be doing something and act based on that as if it were fact. Yet this is what you have repeatedly done.
Oh, So how is that working for you? From what I read from your other posts you still seem to have health issues. Sorry to hear that.
This sort of sarcasm and patient-blaming are entirely inappropriate, and make you look very insecure regarding your hypothesis. Different things work for different people, especially if they have entirely different diagnoses. Pointing out that someone with a complex and currently incurable neurological, immunological, and muscular disease is not yet cured does not reflect some failure on their part, nor does it demonstrate any superiority of your hypothesis.
Of what, exactly?
