Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mordisquitos | Hacker News Reader

In support of your scepticism I have to say there is something I'm always missing in these discussions about the alleged function of the appendix. That thing that I'm missing is a straightforward description of what are the consequences of patients losing these functions after an appendectomy. Surely there is more than enough population over which to do a case-study observational analysis? So, where is it? What happens to the immunity or gut flora of people who have had their appendices removed? Anything?

View on HN

The article touches on this:

> Studies have shown that infections with the really bad, nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed.

Thanks, I somehow missed that part. I wonder how those studies controlled for confounding factors — it could well be that a prior tendency to more Clostridium difficile infections is correlated to a tendency to get an appendix infection.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily as sceptical as GP commenter. I'm just surprised that so much talk about the actual function of the appendix appears to centre around theoreticals rather than on clinical data.

> nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed.

Uh, because people undergoing appendectomy are, almost by definition, more likely to receive antibiotic treatment, which is a far-better documented basis for C. diff infection. This article is catastrophe.

Though I tend to agree with your train of thought, I'm always reminded of the French man who lost 90% of his brain mass yet still had a family a job and lived a normal life by all accounts. The human body can confound expectations for sure.

He didn't lose his brain mass, it was compressed into a thin shell around his skull.[0] Moreover, his IQ was 75 - I'm not sure ending up in the bottom 5% of human intelligence as a consequence of chronic hydrocephaly is a "normal" life.

[0] https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-s...

Not normal, but impressive nonetheless.

Sure, but outliers aside, I'd reckon you would see some sort of statistically relevant effent if you take, say, 1000 people, yank out 90% of the brain of half of them, and just watch them go about their day. (If the ethics committee would let you)

You might want to invest in some creative writing for the IRB packet for that one.

This seems similar to asking what happens if you loose a number of parts whose loss does not produce immediately discernible detriment, or perhaps parts whose function may be approximated by something else in the event of a failure.

Of course, it is a perfectly valid question to ask what the effects of losing a part are.

Hence mention of a large population who lost those parts. The actual detriment may not be identifiable in a random individual, but it will show up at scale, as the noise of other confounders will average out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com