11–20 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unable to verify that quote. Also, it's irrelevant, and not really true at all.
Quoted post unavailable.
And it's not pedantic to question a misquoting when the meaning is completely different. Nor is it pedantic to question the relevance of someone's comment.
I don't think this quote means what you think it means.
>people in U.S. cities...people in less developed parts of the world What about people in the US who are not in cities? That's the more interesting comparison to me. Why would that be left out?
(Update: I was thinking about this from a scientific perspective, ignoring the idea that people might be interested in what it means for them personally (facepalm) )
It's just going to get worse. People seem to have this fetish for anti-bacterial everything.. soaps, coatings, etc. They take anti-biotics even for viral issues then they wonder why they start developing a new health problem they didn't have before, like a mood disorder or an autoimmune issue.
* We have lost the microbiome that primates present
* have we gained other microbes?
* what did those microbes we lost do? If they break down heavy fibre (branches) we may simply not need them, so evolution would stop selecting for them
* This says cities, but it (a) only appears to look at the US, and (b) the article doesn't mention comparing to non-city dwellers in the US. Saying "cities" without also providing a non-city reference seems bogus, but also could simply be left out of the article.
* Following from the "US only" comment above - how stable is this microbiome between geographical regions in the US?, how about different countries in close geographic location (think Europe)?, or geographically separated countries with similar culture? different culture?
All of these things might be answered in the paper, but per-usual Science has given us a fairly useless summary article with a clickbait headline :-(
[Edited to bring back formatting. For a text only, anti-emoji, etc site HN is obnoxiously opposed to basic white space formatting :-/]
>people in U.S. cities...people in less developed parts of the world What about people in the US who are not in cities? That's the more interesting comparison to me. Why would that be left out?
I'm curious why that comparison is more interesting to you? I can see great value in having both data points when trying to formulate a hypothesis about what causes the decline in gut-microbes in us city folks, but I find it hard to think of a use-case for solely a urban/rural comparison without other context. (Update: I was thinking about this from a scientific perspective, ignoring the idea that people might be int…
"Moeller and others also suggest identifying the missing microbes may be the first step toward bringing them back. “If we determine that these groups were providing important functions to keep humans healthy,” Maccaro says, “perhaps we can restore them with probiotics.” Oh really? Nice submarine for Actimel, Yakult etc.
I think, for the time being, people are much more likely to accept a probiotic.
"Moeller and others also suggest identifying the missing microbes may be the first step toward bringing them back. “If we determine that these groups were providing important functions to keep humans healthy,” Maccaro says, “perhaps we can restore them with probiotics.” Oh really? Nice submarine for Actimel, Yakult etc.
I don't live in the city, but if I were told that I would be healthier with more of these microbes that my environment doesn't support, I'd opt for the pill.
Could this explain trends like increasing food allergies in countries where more and more people are becoming urban dwellers?
It's not impossible, and it might even be plausible... But it's a really, really difficult question. People outside of science: don't make the mistake of thinking that scientists haven't thought about this before! haha
I've done a bunch of anti-biotics in the last few years so what to get back to what I was.