It is I think not a particularly surprising take. But then often it can be valuable to have things that are kind of obvious codified into a paper of some sort so that we no longer have to rely on "but isn't that obvious?" and can instead point to some primary source that actually explains what is true. That way it can be true for everyone, even the people for whom it wasn't already obvious.
We all know that apples fall from trees and that banging 2 rocks together makes sparks.
Maybe origins?
My point was that the basic ideas that have been studied and refined over centuries were simple.
There is no winning, only balance.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059777/
"Key controversies in blood microbiome research are the susceptibility of low-biomass samples to exogenous contamination and undetermined microbial viability from NGS-based microbial profiling"
Just because you can amplify some sporadic bacteria DNA from the blood does not mean that bacteria are hanging out in the blood in a physiologically meaningful way.
A lot of it is frankly junk science in disreputable journals.
On the otherhand: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01350-w
"Despite this, we found no evidence for microbial co-occurrence relationships, core species or associations with host phenotypes."
That's the whole point of this sort of research - to find out if there are physiological connections and what they are.