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.
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?
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.
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.
I assume the “disgust” being referred to was the potential patient’s disgust at the suggestion.
I don’t think so, that would have been made clearer, but let’s assume it was:
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.
I’m a bit surprised the stool transplant is given orally rather than anally.
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?
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.
I’m wondering why it is the last option, if it seems to work about as well as antibiotics on average?
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.