Hacker News Reader

Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry but I don't see how the two studies referenced in the article "vindicate" your complaints.

The study that is the main subject of the article found that a) the enteroendocrine cells of mice send signals to vagal neurons and b) in a petri dish, enteroendocrine cells form connections with vagal neurons.

Neither of the two points seem to be connected with migraines, specifically, and they remain the results of one study, in vitro and in an animal model.

It seems to me it's too early to feel vindicated about anything.

View on HN

To clarify, this is from the original Science article linked to by the article at the top of this post:

Thus, enteroendocrine cells are chemosensory cells that activate vagal sensory neurons via release of glutamate (see the figure). Kaelberer et al. hypothesize that synaptic transmission confers precise spatial and temporal information about gut contents. Such sensory feedback could allow neural control of rapid processes that modulate gut physiology, such as muscle contraction, whereas neuropeptides such as CCK are responsible for long-lasting behavioral outputs of gut stimulation, such as satiety (5, 6). A remaining issue is what behaviors or physiological processes rely on subsecond neural signaling from the gut.

It seems those gut-neurons (or whatever they are) serve to inform the brain of the gut's contents.

There is nothing there (or in the rest of that article) to suggest a connection between the gut and migraines.

No single study in isolation would vindicate me. I mentioned above that numerous studies over a span of years continue to paint a picture that increasingly vindicates me, in the sense that what I reported to some arrogant doctors was not as laughable as they pretended it was.

Out of curiousity, what are some examples of other studies, that "vindicate" you?

For the record, I find it dangerous to feel "vindicated" about any personal dispute on the basis of any number of articles in the scientific press, especially so if they're in a field that you are not specialising in. It's very easy for your feelings to get in the way and push you towards all sorts of misunderstandings of what is claimed in those publications.

I don't have them handy. It's ok if you don't believe me.

It's certainly dangerous with regard to cognitive bias, but I have backing from an excellent doctor who has noted my results experimentally, so I am convinced of what I'm saying.

edit: I would also stress that a lot of things that many of my former doctors were skeptical about were mere symptom reports. I think I would know when my intestines hurt, yet some doctors acted like this was malingering, or a "panic attack" when really I have food allergies (but they wouldn't know that since they gave up from the get go).

>> I don't have them handy. It's ok if you don't believe me.

Who said anything about not believing you (or believing you)? Why jump to conclusions about my mind-state, like that?

Can't I just be curious to see what it is you mean, and perhaps learn something I don't know?

>Who said anything about not believing you (or believing you)? Why jump to conclusions about my mind-state, like that?

>Can't I just be curious to see what it is you mean, and perhaps learn something I don't know?

Fair enough! I think you're right to ask for sources. What I'm saying there is that I have nothing on hand that would convince you of my claim, so whether you believe me or not is left to you, and if you don't, I will concede that discussion.

Since I now know you're only asking out of interest, I guess that point is moot now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com