Hookworms Successfully Prevent Type 2 Diabetes In Human Trial 126
A two-year human trial conducted by James Cook University (JCU) has concluded, demonstrating positive results using low-dose human hookworm therapy to treat chronic conditions, particularly in relation to type 2 diabetes. New Atlas reports: [O]f the 24 participants who received worms, when offered a dewormer at the end of the second year of the trial, with the option to stay in the study for another 12 months, only one person chose to kill off their gut buddies -- and it was only because they had an impending planned medical procedure. "All trial participants had risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes," said Dr Doris Pierce, from JCU's Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine (AITHM). "The trial delivered some considerable metabolic benefits to the hookworm-treated recipients, particularly those infected with 20 larvae."
In this double-blinded trial, 40 participants aged 27 to 50, with early signs of metabolic diseases, took part. They received either 20 or 40 microscopic larvae of the human hookworm species Necator americanus; another group took a placebo. As an intestinal parasite, the best survival skill is to keep the host healthy, which will provide a long-term stable home with nutrients 'on tap.' In return, these hookworms pay the rent in the form of creating an environment that suppresses inflammation and other adverse conditions that can upset that stable home. While the small, round worms can live for a decade, they don't multiply unless outside the body, and good hygiene means transmission risk is very low.
As for the results, those with 20 hookworms saw a Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) level drop from 3.0 units to 1.8 units within the first year, which restored their insulin resistance to a healthy range. The cohort with 40 hookworms still experienced a drop, from 2.4 to 2.0. Those who received the placebo saw their HOMA-IR levels increase from 2.2 to 2.9 during the same time frame. "These lowered HOMA-IR values indicated that people were experiencing considerable improvements in insulin sensitivity -- results that were both clinically and statistically significant," said Dr Pierce. Those with worms also had higher levels of cytokines, which play a vital role in triggering immune responses. The study was published in the journal Nature Communications.
In this double-blinded trial, 40 participants aged 27 to 50, with early signs of metabolic diseases, took part. They received either 20 or 40 microscopic larvae of the human hookworm species Necator americanus; another group took a placebo. As an intestinal parasite, the best survival skill is to keep the host healthy, which will provide a long-term stable home with nutrients 'on tap.' In return, these hookworms pay the rent in the form of creating an environment that suppresses inflammation and other adverse conditions that can upset that stable home. While the small, round worms can live for a decade, they don't multiply unless outside the body, and good hygiene means transmission risk is very low.
As for the results, those with 20 hookworms saw a Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) level drop from 3.0 units to 1.8 units within the first year, which restored their insulin resistance to a healthy range. The cohort with 40 hookworms still experienced a drop, from 2.4 to 2.0. Those who received the placebo saw their HOMA-IR levels increase from 2.2 to 2.9 during the same time frame. "These lowered HOMA-IR values indicated that people were experiencing considerable improvements in insulin sensitivity -- results that were both clinically and statistically significant," said Dr Pierce. Those with worms also had higher levels of cytokines, which play a vital role in triggering immune responses. The study was published in the journal Nature Communications.
IOW (Score:3)
The host was eating human plus 20 worms worth of food.
Would reduction of food intake have the same result?
Re: (Score:2)
The host was eating human plus 20 worms worth of food.
That's not the mechanism causing the effect.
Would reduction of food intake have the same result?
Eating less and losing weight will help with type-2 diabetes.
The problem is that people don't stick to it.
Re: (Score:1)
An adult male who works out moderately need sbout 2000 calories a day.
The average meal st a restrauant is about 1200 calories.
Eating out twice a week ( or ordering door dash) ggivesbyou an exyra days worth of food ina week.
The problem is poetion control. Limit how much you eat and dont clean yourbplate just vecasue you bought it and stabilize your weight over time.
Fat builds quickly and leaves slowly. The only longer term succeess is done through portion control at every single meal.
Re:IOW (Score:4, Informative)
An adult male who works out moderately need sbout 2000 calories a day.
The USDA [usda.gov] disagrees with you on this. So does the Mayo Clinic [mayoclinic.org]. Under 40, even physically inactive men need more like 2400 calories per day. Physical activity quickly adds to that.
Also, your math is awful. When splitting a nominal 2000-calorie diet into three meals, each meal should be about 670 calories. A 1200-calorie meal is not even two nominal meals, much less half a day extra. But most people have one or two meals that are lighter than the most caloric meal of their day, so if that calorie-heavy meal is when they eat out, it's less of an impact.
Still, people should pay attention to how much they are eating, avoid sugary drinks (even fruit juice), and prefer low-fat foods. It's almost impossible to eat a balanced diet with just vegetables and some fruits, but legumes and high-fiber starches are a good way to add fairly healthy calories.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 175cm and run 20km a week. If I ate 2000kcal a day, I'd gain weight. Your estimates are bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
This is prior to adjusting for the fact many of said people are as big as a whale. More insulation = less calories per day.
Overweight people actually require more calories, not less. Their optimal intake will depend on whether they're trying to lose weight, maintain current weight, and/or exercise. A 5'10" male, at 165lb (approx median of ideal weight range), should consume around 2400 calories a day assuming they exercise 1-3 days a week. Obviously, the exact value will depend on the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Overweight people actually require more calories, not less.
Not true. Completely depends on their activity and how their metabolism is. They could have very little muscle mass and training their body to effectively slow down where even 1500/day is not being burned.
(one of the reasons long term low caloric diets stop working)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overweight people actually require more calories, not less.
The heavier you are the less energy per pound is required to maintain that weight and the difference is massive. Telling people who care about calories - those trying to lose weight that they need to burn 2400 calories a day is the exact WRONG message to be sending.
https://shs.touro.edu/news/sto... [touro.edu]
A 5'10" male, at 165lb (approx median of ideal weight range)
Not even close. At 165lbs when you are 5' 10" you are not even considered overweight let alone obese.
Obviously, the exact value will depend on the individual.
That isn't what was offered by parent.
Re: (Score:2)
The heavier you are the less energy per pound is required to maintain that weight and the difference is massive. Telling people who care about calories - those trying to lose weight that they need to burn 2400 calories a day is the exact WRONG message to be sending. https://shs.touro.edu/news/sto [touro.edu]... [touro.edu]
What I said is that overweight people naturally burn more calories. That is absolutely true. I'm 42, and roughly 5'10". Ideal weight range is around 150-185lb. I used 165 in my example. At 165lb, the RMR is 1870 calories. Doubling the weight to 330lb for simple math gets us an RMR of 3000 calories. The number is absolutely higher, like I said. The article's point, and I wasn't arguing otherwise, is that the caloric need doesn't go up linearly. We've doubled the weight, but there is only a 60% to the RMR
Not even close. At 165lbs when you are 5' 10" you are not even considered overweight let alone obese.
I cl
Re: (Score:2)
What I said is that overweight people naturally burn more calories. That is absolutely true. I'm 42, and roughly 5'10". Ideal weight range is around 150-185lb. I used 165 in my example. At 165lb, the RMR is 1870 calories. Doubling the weight to 330lb for simple math gets us an RMR of 3000 calories. The number is absolutely higher, like I said. The article's point, and I wasn't arguing otherwise, is that the caloric need doesn't go up linearly. We've doubled the weight, but there is only a 60% to the RMR
The answer for resting calories for 165lbs according to the citation in the study is 2112 (165 * 12.8) calories. 1870 doesn't even pass a cursory smell test given previous 2400 assertions.
Secondly if you cherry pick doubling of weight at 300 lbs you would be at 2490 calories. At 250 lbs you would be at 2075 calories which in totality is LESS calories than the 165 lb person in your example.
Further calorie requirements have a hysteresis to them and are simply not a function of current weight. Someone losing
Re: (Score:2)
The answer for resting calories for 165lbs according to the citation in the study is 2112 (165 * 12.8) calories. 1870 doesn't even pass a cursory smell test given previous 2400 assertions.
That is from your source, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not the only source. My numbers are more or less corrected based on a number of other sources. However, those sources might be pulling from the same original source. My numbers aren't wrong, just different.
Secondly if you cherry pick doubling of weight at 300 lbs you would be at 2490 calories. At 250 lbs you would be at 2075 calories which in totality is LESS calories than the 165 lb person in your example.
A proper comparison would be for different weights using the same source's metrics, not metrics from two different sources. . Using the numbers from your source, 165*12.8=2062 and 250*8.3=2075. 250lbs is still more, admittedly by a margin,
Re: (Score:2)
> Eating out twice a week ( or ordering door dash) ggivesbyou an exyra days worth of food ina week.
Do you really think people are eating out twice a week? LOL. Some people eat out for EVERY MEAL OF THE DAY, ahahahaha.
Re:IOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Helminths also secrete a cornucopia of bioregulatory hormones (to prevent the host's immune system from going bonkers on them) which have been shown to do a wide amount of positive effects for human health, not limited to such things as moderating inflammatory bowel disease, moderating asthma in extreme sufferers, moderating allergies in extreme sufferers, and a bunch of others.
the issue, is that "they are parasitic worms" has stuck since the 19th century, when it was vogue as an idea to eradicate all germs, and all parasites.
Treating them as potentially valuable endosymbionts instead might be therapeutic, which is where helminthic therapy (such as this one) comes into play.
Re:IOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry AC, but at the risk of sounding like an elitist ass--
Your lack of a robust education is not my problem; In this amazing and information dense era, you practically have to go out of your way to avoid information. I learned about helminths (parasitic roundworms) quite accidentally.
I've known about their use in experimental therapies for such conditions for several years now, and every time the news comes up, I make note of it. The clinical term for such therapies is "Hemlinthic therapy", since it works by adding helminths to a human host, specifically to get a ready and inexpensive supply of biologic (a class of drugs that are produced by a living organism-- usually extremely expensive to get, talking millions of dollars a year to keep prescribed) immunoregulators (drugs that regulate immune system response).
See for instance, this man:
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
There is evidence to suggest that having a few helminths in his digestive tract could save this man a fortune in medical costs, with a minimum of life upset from having them; easily made up for just by eating a bit more.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
The issue at hand, is that there is an uphill battle in gaining support for the more widespread use of helminths as a serious treatment option, due to the outstanding issues if prejudice against the treatment, because "They are PARASITES!"
Nevermind that by definition, once they start conferring a benefit to the host (which in this case, they most certainly would), they stop being "Parasites" and become "Symbiotes".
The more you know. (Star flies over.)
Re: (Score:2)
Leeches and bloodletting are the ways to go....
Re: (Score:3)
I read medical texts as a hobby. I have read documents that are dated back to the 1600s. I believe that leeches and bloodletting worked for a small number of patients; otherwise, why would a doctor, medieval or not, try them again after the first failure? (In a Steve Martin voice: "Maybe the 100th time is a charm!")
In fact, I thought I read that leeches were used with success rather recently. Humans, of course, over-prescribe and overdo things, so it wouldn't surprise me that s
Re: IOW (Score:2)
You can't know with that old stuff because they had no controls. They also believed in humorism, which if you haven't heard of it is much akin to being the medical version of alchemy, and likewise complete crap.
It's just as likely that for these few patients, it was merely the power of suggestion. Basically the same shit people get from modern bullshit like homeopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, maybe the placebo effect was in play. I'm not saying that these things are concretely sound, I'm only saying they should not automatically be ruled in or out (without experiments, etc.). Personally, I'd bet that they had merit (even if as just a placebo, which is not no
Re: IOW (Score:2)
Humorism was the dominant practice at the time, it really wasn't some niche thing, and it was also the basis for using leeches in the belief that it would "balance the humors".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: IOW (Score:2)
What they used leeches for back then would today be met with therapeutic phlebotomy in the very rare case it's needed, which is much safer. Your link has nothing to do with reducing Hb count, rather they're investigating the usefulness of other things leeches do in the process of feeding, namely with their secretion of anti-inflamatory and anti-coagulant chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No dude, read your link. In the old days they only used leeches for one thing: phlebotomy, or bloodletting as they called it. In the paper you linked, they're only testing them as a means of treatment for some post-surgical conditions, NOT phlebotomy. In fact, usually after surgery, patients need the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I thought I read that leeches were used with success rather recently.
Yup. They're great for preventing swelling and keeping blood flowing after limb reattachment or other significant skin surgery. Also, IIRC, maggots can be used medicinally for removing necrotic tissue without removing the living tissue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wow. that was unexpectedly unreadable due to the terminology. it would help if you didn't write like a medical journal.
Given your comment, I thought it was unexpectedly readable. The problem with describing stuff outside our normal experience, is that you end up having to use unusual words. But they really aren't very hard to understand if you have a few basics under your belt, and are prepared to read slowly.
Re:IOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A parasite, by definition, contributes no benefit back, and its removal is beneficial. symbiotes both benefit from the other organisms, and removing them harms both.
If its it a 'very bad idea' to get rid of them, then they're probably symbiotes not parasites, and calling them "parasites" is simply wrong.
Re:IOW (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. Most endo-parasites contribute in some way to the health of their host. The question is the balance between costs and benefits. Mitochondria started off as an endo-parasite of some bacteria that became one of our ancestors, and these days we couldn't live without them.
Symbiotes (well, endo-symbiotes, but the term is almost never used) have a balance tilted strongly in favor of beneficial, but that's just one place along the gradient, and they are still parasites. I.e. they still pull the resources they need to live from the host.
And it's more complicated than that. What the balance (beneficial vs. detrimental) is is often situational. E,g, in this case the hookworms are beneficial to pre-diabetic folks, but would be detrimental to those with anorexia.
Re: (Score:2)
A parasite, by definition, contributes no benefit back
Then a hookworm is not a parasite by your definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it does seem that there is some situational nuance to the question.
What would be parasitic on me is symbiotic on someone else.
What would be parasitic if there were hundreds or thousands is symbiotic if there are low tens.
Re: IOW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On parasite versus symbiont (Score:2)
The distinction between parasite and symbiont is probably fuzzy. If two organisms evolve together for a while, they "adjust" in various ways. Sometimes these adjustments have a benefit to the "host", and sometimes the host gets so "used to" them, that they become a necessity to the host, or at least partially dependent on them.
When the host is dependent, it's hard for researchers to tell if it's a parasite or a symbiont, as we usually don't have the pre-dependent organization to compare to. It's hard to tel
Re: IOW (Score:2)
"Eating less and losing weight".
This is true, for those at risk or with type 2 and over weight.
There are other people where weight and diet are NOT the main factors at play.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Would reduction of food intake have the same result?
Yes but that requires accepting some personal responsibility.
Re:IOW (Score:5, Informative)
You might be confusing hookworms with tapeworms. Tapeworms live in the gut and consume food meant for the host. Hookworms are much smaller (7-11mm long for adults and about the width of a human hair IIRC) and attach to the small intestine to consume the host's blood. For this level of infestation (20 worms) the blood loss is negligible and after the initial 3-6 month period they are generally well tolerated.
To echo another poster, the article summary is incorrect. Hookworms are parasites and their survival skill is not as concerned with "keep[ing] the host healthy" as it is with reducing inflammation in the gut to make the gut environment less dangerous to them. Functionally it works out to be similar with lower worm loads, but it's an important distinction.
I actually host about 20-30 of this same worm (necator americanus) and have been on "helminthic therapy" as it is called for the last 12 or so years on and off, mainly for IBD (Crohn's disease). I've found it's been very helpful, although it can increase histamine levels when I re-dose every 6-12 months. Wikipedia says the worms last about 3-5 years on average, but the lifespan varies widely by individual and how permissive their immune systems are to the organisms. With me it's about 9-12 months, but there have been case studies where you have 10+ year old worms. I have a friend that had horrible allergies and was on at the "end of the road" with prednisone treatments (due to side effects) and these were a godsend for him too. It's not a miracle treatment though, and one has to be careful about dosing and side effects.
Doctors in certain states (NY, CA and TX I think?) can prescribe these, but in most states you are on your own, and there are certain online providers that can supply the worms. Most seem to do a pretty good job, but one really needs to do their research.
A community run wiki for learning more about this therapy is at https://helminthictherapywiki.org/wiki/Helminthic_Therapy_Wiki
Re: (Score:2)
How do you limit the population to 20-30? Any special care for the large number of shed eggs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Irresponsible claim with no evidence.
We do know for a fact that calorie reduction (and in particular, reduction of carb consumption) is THE treatment for type 2 diabetes. We do also know it's perfectly safe, confers other benefits (treating metabolic syndrome, improving cardiovascular health, etc, etc), and is perfectly safe as long as you don't overdo it (stick to no more than 24-hour). So how the hell is that "irresponsible with no evidence"?
Re: (Score:2)
Irresponsible claim with no evidence.
We do know for a fact that calorie reduction (and in particular, reduction of carb consumption) is THE treatment for type 2 diabetes. We do also know it's perfectly safe, confers other benefits (treating metabolic syndrome, improving cardiovascular health, etc, etc), and is perfectly safe as long as you don't overdo it (stick to no more than 24-hour). So how the hell is that "irresponsible with no evidence"?
The grandparent didn't talk about "calorie reduction", it talked about "fasting" and didn't specify what that meant (once a day for a few hours? two weeks with almost no food? daylight hours?). There is definite evidence that fasting can be harmful, in fact, fast for long enough and you'll die. Of course there's also evidence that some forms of fasting have benefits. Unfortunately no clear double blind randomized trials for obvious reasons.
Whilst we're at it, can we banish the phrase "no evidence". Every pe
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Irresponsible claim with no evidence.
We do know for a fact that calorie reduction (and in particular, reduction of carb consumption) is THE treatment for type 2 diabetes. We do also know it's perfectly safe, confers other benefits (treating metabolic syndrome, improving cardiovascular health, etc, etc), and is perfectly safe as long as you don't overdo it (stick to no more than 24-hour). So how the hell is that "irresponsible with no evidence"?
The grandparent didn't talk about "calorie reduction", it talked about "fasting" and didn't specify what that meant (once a day for a few hours? two weeks with almost no food? daylight hours?). There is definite evidence that fasting can be harmful, in fact, fast for long enough and you'll die.
OK, so I guess you also run around saying "it's irresponsible to claim drinking water is good for you, because it can kill you [wikipedia.org]". Most people when they talk about fasting talk about intermittent, short term. That very definitely is beneficial (YES, before you start splitting hairs again, outside of anorexic people, severe malnutrition, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Irresponsible claim with no evidence.
We do know for a fact that calorie reduction (and in particular, reduction of carb consumption) is THE treatment for type 2 diabetes. We do also know it's perfectly safe, confers other benefits (treating metabolic syndrome, improving cardiovascular health, etc, etc), and is perfectly safe as long as you don't overdo it (stick to no more than 24-hour). So how the hell is that "irresponsible with no evidence"?
The grandparent didn't talk about "calorie reduction", it talked about "fasting" and didn't specify what that meant (once a day for a few hours? two weeks with almost no food? daylight hours?). There is definite evidence that fasting can be harmful, in fact, fast for long enough and you'll die. Of course there's also evidence that some forms of fasting have benefits. Unfortunately no clear double blind randomized trials for obvious reasons.
Whilst we're at it, can we banish the phrase "no evidence". Every person who's fasted and lived long is evidence for, every person who died after fasting is evidence against. If they died in a car crash soon after that's just low value evidence. Could we at least say "no good evidence".
I'd prefer 'no conclusive, peer reviewed scientific evidence' but then I'm the type of heretic who prefers science over 'deeply held beliefs'.
Re: (Score:2)
> fast for long enough and you'll die
This sounds profound. Is there a special term for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very dangerous approach. For example, if you exclude car crashes as sample bias, you might miss the fact that people get distracted when hungry and have more accidents.
Re: IOW (Score:2)
Yes, calorie restriction may work, but then how can I still eat fast food three times a day and upsize my extra large coke and fries with my fat ass meals? /sarcasm of course
Re: IOW (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, I lent my ears to a doctor (general practitioner) at an in-person talk over the past weekend. While intermittent fasting has become more mainstream/fashionable recently and DOES confer benefits, this doc explained how more regenerative mechanisms kick in at around day 4 of a fast. So he enthused about a 5-day fast, which might be extended to no more than 7 days. That said, some of his patients have seen remarkable results after 14 days of fasting (under medical supervision and with supplementation of vitamins, minerals etc). He also advocates a program of intermittent fasting with progressively larger ratios of fasting/eating for around a year before undertaking such a fast, and some ramp-up/ramp-down protocols before and after a 5-day fast.
Interesting, because he fasts himself and has some patients that fast (not only for diabetes), and will probably look at literature more knowledgeable than us muggles - and talking on a layman's level obviously causes some dumbing down and skipping scientific references, so I'll need to double-check. Or try it on myself...
Re: (Score:2)
Closeted junk-food eaters (Score:5, Funny)
"George, you're weak, spineless, a man of temptations! But what tempts you? You're a portly fellow, a bit long in the waistband. So, what's your pleasure? Is it the salty snacks you crave? No, yours is a sweet tooth. Oh, you may stray, but you'll always return to your Dark Master! The cocoa bean. Only the purest syrup nectar can satisfy you. If you could, you'd guzzle it by the gallon!"
Can one suppose that here on Slashdot that much of the scolding directed at how people eat comes from celebrity vegans such as that Serbian tennis player? Or does it come from prisoners of their passion? From self-loathing junk-food addicts. You hate yourself, and you criticise others like you. You are in an occupation that draws social outcasts with bad habits, so you're already a target of a suspicion. You seek to deflect social stigma by engaging in junk-food bashing.
Hookworms? (Score:2)
Re: Hookworms? (Score:3)
Editing? (Score:5, Informative)
Inflammatory Bowel Disease is very different from Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and the two should probably not be conflated to this degree. Who edited this article, ChatGPT?
Re: (Score:2)
Inflammatory Bowel Disease is very different from Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and the two should probably not be conflated to this degree. Who edited this article, ChatGPT?
Actually ChatGPT was consulted to calculate the chances of the audience even reading TFS, let alone TFA.
Accuracy requirements were established based on that. Congratulations on being today's outlier. It's not every day you pop up.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a prize? Do I win something?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
The Slashdot Effect.
There you go. Read and enjoy the reminiscing aura of our former power. Right from the petty cash bin.
The hygiene hypothesis (Score:3, Interesting)
From a 2012 NYTimes article called "A Messy, Exuberant Case Against Being Too Clean", on the "hygiene hypothesis":
This hypothesis argues that our modern obsession with eradicating germs has backfired into an explosion of disease, specifically all the “new” diseases that have replaced infections to undermine our health. The modern immune system, the idea holds, is stymied by the sudden absence of its customary microbial targets. With nothing constructive to do, it is crazily spinning its wheels, resulting in soaring rates of food allergies and asthma, arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis and diabetes, even heart disease and cancer — not to mention alopecia [...]
A human being, the proponents of the hypothesis argue, is not really an individual. Instead, each person is a “superorganism,” a large creature subsuming many billions of smaller ones, most of them intestinal microbes. Thriving in the colon, these “old friends” that have been with us since time immemorial are as important to our health as a limb or an organ. Altering their numbers, whether with sanitary measures, antibiotics or deworming pills, is analogous to fooling around with the liver or the spleen.
And that doesn’t just mean that antibiotics may cause ruinous diarrhea. The microbes in the intestine, the hypothesis holds, educate the immune cells that travel all over the body, and any major alteration in the intestine sends some wild and crazy cells out there to wreak havoc unpoliced.
There's also a Wikipedia article called "Hygiene hypothesis".
Re: (Score:3)
I remember one researcher commenting that rates of allergies increase tenfold among populations that move from rural areas to cities & suburbs. So yeah, we need
Re: (Score:2)
There's also George Carlin's take on germophobia [lingq.com]. And the video version [youtube.com] for those who prefer.
Re: The hygiene hypothesis (Score:2)
Everything but the simple solution that works - no carbs.
Gotta think about the insulin profits!
Parasites Found (Score:1)
Sounds good as long as it doesn't take a remotely operated microscopic human-shaped robot with a sword to kill them when necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's good cholesterol, but it spreads like bad cholesterol!
No diabetes but possibly cancer? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we know the treatment increases the risk of certain cancers we can do regular screening for them and treat them early.
Re: (Score:2)
burger, fries, and extra nematode on the side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're hooked on the special sauce containing hook worms.
Re: (Score:2)
Just change to a cheaper junk food source and you get the treatment for free!
Allergies too? (Score:1)
Hookworms are parasites, not symbiotes (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA doesn't seem to understand the difference between a parasite and a symbiote. Hookworms are parasites, and a serious infection produces serious symptons. The trick in the research was keeping the number of worms relatively low (they reproduce outside the body: you poop out the eggs). They tried 0 (placebo), 20 and 40 worms. The greatest improvement in insulin resistance came from the smaller number of worms. However, the abstract also notes that "adverse events were more frequent in hookworm-treated participants".
Reading between the lines, all patients were seriously overweight (hence, the risk for type-2 diabetes). One of the positive outcomes for some patients was weight loss. Unclear is the extent to which that weight loss may have resulted from those "adverse events", which included "nausea, vomiting, ..., stomach cramps and abdominal pain".
Color me unconvinced...
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the adverse affects aren't that bad:
Re:Hookworms are parasites, not symbiotes (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because the worms alter their brain chemistry so they feel good about having worms.
Re: (Score:2)
If they only had the effect of making people smart, too...
Re:Hookworms are parasites, not symbiotes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
People with cat parasites tend to be extra aggressive and impulsive [cbsnews.com]. A certain tinted public figure displays all the symptoms. There really was a rigging: of his body.
So he's not participating in the debate tonight because CNN might catch him scratching the podium or rubbing the moderator's legs?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading between the lines, all patients were seriously overweight (hence, the risk for type-2 diabetes). One of the positive outcomes for some patients was weight loss.
Well yeah it wouldn't make sense to take perfectly healthy people for this study, it would produce meaningless results.
Also correlation is important too. Many treatments for various human ailments do not exhibit direct causation, so yeah we all know weightloss reduces the risk of diabetes, so even if the hookworms caused weightloss instead having a direct impact on diabeties it ultimately is irrelevant if the disease was averted and the treatment didn't have ill effects.
And don't reply with "they should jus
Re: (Score:2)
TFA doesn't seem to understand the difference between a parasite and a symbiote.
It doesn't sound like a perfect solution yet, but it does make one wonder if selective breeding of the things could bring it up to a symbiotic level. How many adverse side effects have to be eliminated?
Now I want to watch Stargate again.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, give latin a rest already! (Score:2)
the human hookworm species Necator americanus
Was it so hard to call it Killer US asshole in plain English?
who'da thunk it (Score:1)
maybe cancer is actually beneficial to us in some strange way
That's no new idea (Score:2)
Back in the 1800s [atlasobscura.com], people already deliberately infected themselves with parasites to lose weight.
tl;dr: Turned out it wasn't that great an idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Back in the 1800s [atlasobscura.com], people already deliberately infected themselves with parasites to lose weight.
tl;dr: Turned out it wasn't that great an idea.
The stuff you linked doesn't contain any reasons for why it wasn't such a great idea, other than "ZOMG, gross!" sentiment.
Hygiene (Score:2)
"good hygiene means transmission risk is very low"
I see people shit and not wash their hands all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Hygiene (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Toilet paper is thin, tears, and I wouldn't guarantee that my hand never comes in contact with stuff incidentally, even maybe a wrist bumping against the seat where someone else might have made a mess for all I know, even if it's not a visible amount.
I can't understand why one wouldn't wash hands after, just in case.
Re:Hygiene (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a gross motherfucker if you don't wash your hands after you shit, chemist or not. You disgust me.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, fuck the disgusting motherfuckers that modded you up to 5. No wonder you people never get any pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
I hit a nerve with that no pussy comment.
Ozempic, Hookworms... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything but diet and exercise, right?
You also need to treat the often present underlying psychological issues that result in overeating in extremely obese people. People can lose weight, but if the root causes, beyond diet and lack of exercise, are not addressed they'll simply gain it back.
Just sent this to my endocrinologist (Score:2)
Your responsibility also includes keeping your providers up to date.
Everyone used to have them (Score:5, Informative)
"Parasitic helminths have infected humans throughout their evolutionary history."
" Through such coevolution, normal human immune development and function is likely to have become dependent upon the presence of immunomodulatory helminths"
https://elifesciences.org/arti... [elifesciences.org]
This just in (Score:2)
Didn't I see this episode of Futurama? (Score:2)
In related news ... (Score:2)
This sort of thing is also an (experimental) treatment, or immunotherapy, for certain types of autoimmune disorders. One of the hypotheses being that the parasites help re-train the immune system. Helminthic therapy [wikipedia.org]
Just 40 participants? (Score:2)