Hacker News Reader

Comment by aroch | Hacker News Reader

This is probably an unpopular opinion but it seems to me that "SV culture" has taken to fetishizing "health hacking" with little to no medical training/background or support. See the recent SV craze with "health informatics hacking". They're putting a shiny, appealing veneer over what amounts to homeopathy and random self-experimentation.

Someone is going to say, "but they have all this data, like this guy from µBiome" -- he's not a doctor, he's not a trained scientist, he's a dude who is shoving fecal extracts from his friend up his bum and hoping the results are positive.

View on HN

"he's not a doctor, he's not a trained scientist, he's a dude who is shoving fecal extracts from his friend up his bum and hoping the results are positive."

Arguably, this is the oldest and most fundamental version of science.

You don't need to go to school for ten years to great your Magical Science Certificate in order to practice Science--you just have to be able to ask questions and try out random shit and share your results.

It's haphazard, but at least people here are trying, right? And if they're unfettered by the academic-industrial complex, so much the better.

    It's haphazard, but at least people here are trying, right?

No, no, no, no.

We should not encourage people to randomly experiment on themselves under the guise of "being a hacker" when those experiments can pose significant threat to life. Unscreened, random FMT can have a number of potentially life threatening outcomes; stool contain human serum, blood, lymphocytes, viruses and other biologics that can be harmful.

OP: I agree completely, unscreened "random" FMT would be a very bad idea. The donor in this case was definitely not random.

Knowing the donor, calling them your close friend, is not the same thing as medically screening both of you and the poo before the transfer.

But it is thousands of dollars cheaper, which is kind of the whole point. People wouldn't be doing this themselves [as often] if genuine elective medical treatments were not priced out of reach.

>They're putting a shiny, appealing veneer over what amounts to homeopathy

How is self experimentation equivalent to homeopathy? I don't get how giving a shit about your own health is equated so quickly with a specific nonsensical, pseudoscientific sham.

This may not be, but things like Soylent which claim to solve all your nutritional and health needs by drinking it, are the equivalent of homeopathy -- like say, drinking g tea made from the horn of rhino will make your virile.

Well, I'm there with you on Soylent. And the at home FMT makes nervous as well. What I don't get is the widespread notion that: self experimentation makes you a nutter.

Self experimentation doesn't make you nutters, its performing invasive medical procedures that involves the transfer of biologic waste from one person to another with no clinical supervision that makes you nutters

A little perspective, here, please. Humans sell lubricant specifically marketed for introducing foreign objects to their lower digestive tract. We also sell home enema kits without a prescription at local drugstores. You don't need clinical supervision. At best, they could provide donor screening to reassure you that you aren't going to give yourself a new disease. If you know the donor, you could probably do at least as well just by observing them for a period of time.

Putting someone else's poop in your colon is not that disturbing when you realize that it already had your poop in it. It wasn't exactly squeaky clean before the procedure.

And believe me, the guy squirting strange feces into himself as a personal experiment has thought about this a lot harder than you. Even the guy doing it for a bar bet has probably invested more doubt.

If you are an amateur experimenter, and require a human test subject, self-experimentation may be your only remotely ethical option.

There is also the added advantage that you also know whether the test subject is complying with the experimental protocols. The disadvantage is that the person running the experiment on you is an amateur that may not necessarily be aware if the experiment is harmful.

Given that many physicians can't be certain of the results when they prescribe treatments and medications, I figure that if they can roll the dice like that without even having a stake in the outcome, people who take greater risks for greater payouts are not crazy. They are just less risk-averse.

How is Soylent, which actually has ingredients, anything like homeopathy, which is just water?

Soylent isn't perfect but it's not even close to equivalent to the non-efficacy of homeopathy.

Soylent claims to have every dietary macro-nutrient necessary for maintaining life. And it's pretty simple to look at it and say, "yep." It meets that claim perfectly as we understand macro-nutrients.

The problem is, there may be more to us than just "add macronutrients." We might need things like micro and nanonutrients. We might need variations in the kinds of proteins. The bacteria in stuff we eat might be the key to keeping us healthy in the long term. But how are we ever to know any of this unless someone studies it?

That, in absolutely NO WAY, should be misconstrued with homeopathy, which is absolutely bullshit about water "remembering" molecules that used to be in it.

I don't think you know what homeopathy is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy will give you a clue. "Tea from the horn of a rhino" is possibly considered treatment in some places, but it is not homeopathy.

(Which is not my support of homeopathy - it's just that using the right term is important for discourse. It's important to distinguish between copyright infringement and theft, and it is important to distinguish between different forms of alternative -- that is, not scientifically proven -- medicine).

Man, you're just not seeing it. This "experiment" was not done going by rigorous scientific protocols. We have no idea whether or not the results are due poo placebo effects.

I really expected you to say that they were "polishing a turd"! [1] On the flip side, you have to admire people who are becoming actively involved in their health AND learning more about the basic functions of human anatomy. A long time ago, it was illegal to dissect cadavers and medical knowledge required committing a crime. Isn't it better for smart people (who in theory understand the risks) to be allowed to conduct even uncontrolled experiments?

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Polishing%20a...

OP here: It's true I'm not a doctor or scientist. This isn't a rigorously designed experiment. Yes, I am hoping that the results are positive, but I don't have unrealistic expectations. Mostly I'm just interested in seeing what I can learn about myself.

Also not much "shoving" was involved. I'll do another post later that describes the process. It's pretty gross, but mostly due to the preparation. (I had to put shit in a blender and press the button) The actual administration is about as gross as using a suppository.

There's a reason FMT's require clinical care and they don't sell "FMT-at-home" DIY kits. Without careful screening of the donor and recipient, you risk severe consequences. Bloodbourne pathogens are a real and present risk with fecal matter on top of the microorganisms poo contains. What's healthy/works in one persons gut can be tremendously bad for anothers.

Oh god, that is much worse than I was imagining. I was picturing something like swishing your finger around in some poop and sticking it up your butt, which is still gross but probably tolerable. Once you said the word "blender", I'm out.

Even assuming you START with random experimentation, you will end up with non-random feedback. And assuming even cursory logical competence, the results of experiments will be useful. Even doctors get better over time with experience and practice.

OP: I'm not from uBiome. I'm a uBiome customer. I've had little interaction with the uBiome staff to date.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com