The typical diet there is low in the rich foods common in the west, and higher in the basic carbohydrates, like rice or potatoes.

Once people from these areas begin eating the fat and cholesterol rich Western diet, they develop these diseases to the same rate as the “native” Westerners.

I’m neither a professional scientist, nutritionist or medical practitioner, but in my reading about this, there appears to be quite a bit of supporting research in the medical literature.

Just thought I’d mention it, as it seems that hadn’t occurred to you.

The research on commensals is basis research funded by the government. I am very excited by it, because I think it will confirm the presence of the bacteria I am working with; provided the correct human populations are looked at. Those would be people living in rural undeveloped regions where they do not have access to abundant clean water to use for bathing. As a consequence they don’t bathe and so have a “natural” commensal surface biofilm; the biofilm humans evolved to have on their skin.

There is a large gradient in many diseases between the rural undeveloped world and the developed world. Heart disease, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, allergies, asthma, kidney failure are virtually unknown in the rural undeveloped world. The hygiene hypothesis has been suggested to explain this gradient as being due to exposure to some environmental factor, some disease, parasite or even dirt. So far no such factor has been found. I am pretty sure that factor is the ammonia oxidizing bacteria I am working with. The only reason it hasn’t been found is because the proper culturing techniques were not used.

Daedalus, wouldn’t someone from a deodorant company fund study on commensuals? Just a wild guess. But isn’t the result of the body’s culturing of commensual bacteria the target of their multi-billion dollar industry? Or perhaps I learned that wrong.

The problem with trying to supply a known mixed consortium of beneficial bacteria is that the normal flora of the gut is extremely complicated; hundreds of species and many of them are not culturable. Virtually all of these bacteria can be opportunistic pathogens. They may usually be benign, or even beneficial, but in some patients may cause harm. The bacteria in yogurt have been known to cause heart infections, and also liver abscesses. If you give a patient a mix of 100 different bacteria and they get sick, who is liable? How do you test a mix of 100 different bacteria? One at a time?

There are some programs to look at the human microbiome using culture independent methods (usually just sequencing everything then putting the bits together).

Essentially the only bacteria that are being looked for are heterotrophic bacteria. As far as I know, I am the only person doing any research at all on autotrophic bacteria as commensal organisms. All the culture techniques that have been used to date would not find the bacteria I am working with and which I have found can survive long term on human skin and become the dominant flora. None of the people I have talked with looking at human commensals have been the slightest bit interested in working with me.

At most of my hospitals patients started on antibiotics get a brand of natural yogurt that is full of the same bacteria in the pills.

as a food I would bet it is produced with better standards.

the closer the yogurt is to stool the better.

as to goldwaters question.

my e coli may not be your e coli and so there is more potential for disease if you get a new strain of bacteria. they have tried attenuated strains of e coli to prevent urinary tract infections in quads with success, but if you are going to take stool bugs, you probably want those from your children > spouse > random donor. the flora of the gut, the strains of common organisms, may in part be genetically determined.

My understanding is that when a baby is born, s/he has little or no flora-culture [if that's a word] in the gut. Yet, the baby gets some level of immunity from the lactating mother. In the meantime, the baby ingests enough cultures to begin a healthy gut culture on his/her own.

Would this pro-biotic research suggest experiments with probiotics in babies who can not get breast milk…or perhaps in all babies as a propholactic against disease until a naturally metabolized & healthy culture takes over?

I think a lot of the newbie deaths in the 3rd world are from complications of gut afflictions…like diarrhea.

But, here’s my question. Why not inoculate with known mixtures of gut bacteria that are known to inhabit the healthy human gut? Shouldn’t the environment select-out a bacterium that doesn’t belong the same as it would for the species used to make yoghurt? In the meantime, the gut can metabolize the actual bacteria that can be useful to digestion, nutrition, and other health functions?

Does anyone know why we are experimenting with a bacterium that will be selected-out?

I understand the experiment as a proof-of-concept for using a bacterium that will be selected-out while being a “place-occupier” for the bacteria that will later be selected. But isn’t this an extremely weak approach when compared to drug supplied assaults designed to limit the body’s cultivation of infectious bacteria?

Another question I have is: as different harmful bacteria are selected to navigate through the pro-biotics and thrive on them, will we be better off, worse off, or neither in the end?