You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

hyporational comments on [Link] Low-Hanging Poop - Less Wrong Discussion

36 Post author: GLaDOS 16 October 2013 08:51PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: hyporational 17 October 2013 08:01:08AM *  11 points [-]

Obviously, sheer disgust made it hard for doctors to embrace this treatment.

This is a blatant failure at imagining what a doctor's work day looks like. Doctors who would treat resistant cases of diarrhea would be gastroenterologists, that is people who pretty much specialize in dealing with poop.

I agree with the general argument, though.

ETA: Did I misunderstand this article? I thought the whole feces with chocolate thing was there just to spice up the story. They don't make people eat feces and I'm not sure they ever have. it's done through a tube and I think these things have been around for several decades.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 October 2013 01:24:12AM 3 points [-]

I assume the "disgust" being referred to was the potential patient's disgust at the suggestion.

Comment author: hyporational 18 October 2013 04:28:15AM *  2 points [-]

I don't think so, that would have been made clearer, but let's assume it was:

He mixed some normal stool with chocolate milk and fed it to the lady.

This is not how it's done, they use a tube. Stool transplant is usually the last option when nothing else works, the patient is desperate and might die without treatment.

The linked study suggests stool transplant is more effective than antibiotics. This doesn't necessarily mean that antibiotics shouldn't be tried first, as they are simpler to administer and more readily available.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 October 2013 04:58:28PM 4 points [-]

I'm a bit surprised the stool transplant is given orally rather than anally.

Comment author: hyporational 18 October 2013 07:57:57PM *  1 point [-]

I suppose upstream is done too, but actually, I think it's usually given nasally ;)

I guess it's simpler and more comfortable that way, you're going downstream so peristalsis and gravity does the work. You don't need to wait with a rather bulky tube up your colon. A thin feeding tube doesn't feel like anything once it's in place.

ETA: wait, did someone actually think they make people eat feces?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 October 2013 11:12:59AM 3 points [-]

He mixed some normal stool with chocolate milk and fed it to the lady.

Comment author: hyporational 19 October 2013 11:50:27AM *  4 points [-]

It seems you find inferential distance from where you least expect it. Judging from the story that was ages ago and the guy must have been short on feeding tubes. If not, I would've fired him too.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 October 2013 06:16:19AM 1 point [-]

Stool transplant is usually the last option when nothing else works, the patient is desperate and might die without treatment.

I'm wondering why it is the last option, if it seems to work about as well as antibiotics on average?

Comment author: hyporational 20 October 2013 10:08:27AM *  2 points [-]

The infection is relatively common and ab treatment failure is rare. In Finland we have free health care, so I'm looking at things from the resources pov.

Antibiotics: give the patient a pill, four times per day for a few days, no infrastructure needed. The patient might even get to stay home. It's very rare this doesn't work.

Transplant: Admit the patient to a hospital and have them take someone elses place. Isolate the patient from other patients. Make staff wear protective clothing when dealing with the patient. Find the right kind of poop donor (I'm not sure if poop can be stored). Have someone prepare the transplant. Have an already busy gastroenterologist explain the treatment to the patient and insert the tube.