Re: A thought on LF

(I'm responding to your latest post here b/c that branch is too far to the right, making the text boxes too narrow.)

I'm starting to feel guilty now. Like I'm picking on someone who is mentally or emotionally handicapped. Seriously, I'm feeling like a bully.

But anyway, first, let me address the explosive bombshell of a science paper that you found that turned everything around in your mind, and got you jumping up and down, typing in 20-pt font and red letters, and acting like Homer Simpson. Do you know what the phrase "per milliliter" means? I think you do. The numbers in previous posts all referred to millions or billions of bacteria "per m/L." The paper that you found, on the other hand, says simply "10⁵ to 10⁶ bacteria were present in the biopsy samples." It does not anywhere say how large the samples were. You see the problem? There are no units of volume mentioned. Which makes sense b/c it was not a QUANTITATIVE study (numbers/population density) it was a QUALITATIVE study (which types). They were not interested in population densities so they didn't use any units of volume. So, sorry to stick a pin in your balloon but that study does not say what you think it says. (Ohh, to have seen the look on your face! Your eyes getting big, the expression of glee, rubbing your hands together... )

It was a qualitative study that said the strains of bacteria present in feces were "significantly different" from those residing in the colon mucosa. So let's look at the score: I found 2 or 3 studies that said the diversity of populations was "SIMILAR" or "COMPARABLE", and you found 1 that said they were significantly different. Let's suppose you and I spend the next year scouring the internet looking for similar studies, and at the end of it I find 25 that say "similar" or "comparable" and you find 4 that say "significantly different." Then what? This is not what we were arguing--we were arguing over where more bacteria reside, the colon or the small intestine. And I have proven, and you know in your heart of hearts, the answer is the colon.

But let me give you a pat on the back. After 5 days of saying "BECAUSE I SAID SO!! Nya-nya na nya-nya," you at long last supplied a link to a third party, scientific website. This is great news. I've turned you. I've flipped you. You are now someone seeking to back up his case with facts. The fact that you found one site (even if it didn't say what you thought it did) means you must have gone SEARCHING through various sources! Reading things! Researching! This is good news, I'm proud of you.

But alas, Fecal Matter Smiley Face, I have some bad news. This thread is dead. I'm done respopnding to it. In the beginning I thought it was going to be a substantive debate b/c you sounded authoritative (in addition to sounding "fierce" and vicious), but rather than supporting your case you just kept saying, in essence, "BECAUSE I SAID SO." Numbers of bacteria in the intestines is not something laymen can know for themselves. There's no anecdote or layman's opinion that matters. But let me hand it to you--you stalled and bought yourself a lot of time. Five days worth, in which to scour the internet looking for a SHRED, of ANYTHING, to support your mistaken belief. I didn't realize what you were up to, but looking at the paltry link you just spit up I realize now what was going on. Kind of reminds me of a last-second basketball shot from half-court. As the buzzer sounds it clangs off the rim, even though it wouldn't have affected the outcome b/c the deficit was too large.

BTW, I just noticed. In your post directly above, that I'm responding to
--are you saying the bacteria get absorbed by the villi??

[I]ntestinal flora reside in the small intestine, which is where they assist in breaking down food and are absorved by the villi.

Wait, don't answer that. This thread has gone on long enough. I really do feel like a boxer whose opponent won't throw in the towel even though I've turned his face into a bloody pulp. There could be criminal charges in the offing... Put some ice on that.

How do you feel about Art? I think you would do well in The Arts. After spending so much time reading about medicine, health, anatomy, science, I find it relaxing to turn to things like music, movies, poetry, the visual arts. Art gets us in touch with our emotions. It taps into a different part of the brain. It speaks to different truths. And if done right, often times it nurtures the soul. In the visual arts I've always liked sculpture. And when it comes to sculpture I'm partial to the Italian Renaissance. They just don't make 'em like that anymore.