Interesting snippet on Tx resistent depression.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your experience is, apparently, about taking painful shits after following the advice of a shaman.  

Yes, to hell with personal experiences....they are at best anecdotal and at worst mere assertions.  Neither of these two things have shown themselves to be very useful to science or rational thought. That this particular experience is your own doesn;t make it any more useful or worthwhile...though I (and probably every human being on earth) can understand why you would feel attached to it.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm actually surprised it took you THIS long to get to the "Big Pharma Government Conspiracy" bullshit.

And no...in the realm of the scientific method, your personal experience doesn't count a rat's ass for anything. I don't care WHAT you think came out of your ass. [emoji57]

[Arkilogue]

I find it funny how you thought that was a "mic drop" moment in any capacity, as though you've actually scientifically "proved" something..

I don't care about preliminary or "promising" research in the context of this thread, Ark.  There exists a plethora of preliminary research describing the potential mechanisms by which healthy gut flora can positively effect human health.  No one is disputing that.

You made a cause-and-effect claim about gut flora and depression.  It is up to you to provide us with the robust body of high quality, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials (on humans, not mice) that have established this cause-and-effect relationship to such a degree of certainty in the scientific community, that its use as treatment is reflected in the well-described standards of practice set forth by any and all relevant health organizations.

You can't do that.  Because, the research isn't there yet.  It may not be there in 10 years.  It may not ever be there.  And until it is, you DON'T make treatment recommendations for illnesses.  This is called, "being a professional in your field of expertise."

Yeah....how did all that work out for people in the decades long "low fat" craze?

https://authoritynutrition.com/7-ways-th...ur-health/


https://authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
An Epic Debunking of The Saturated Fat Myth

The health authorities have been telling us for decades that saturated fat raises the risk of heart disease.
For this reason, we’ve been told to avoid foods like meat, eggs, coconuts and dairy products.

The theory goes like this:

Saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol in the blood.
LDL cholesterol lodges in the arteries, causing atherosclerosis and eventually, heart disease.
This is also known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

This theory has never been proven, despite it having been the cornerstone of dietary recommendations since 1977 (1).

The first part of the diet-heart hypothesis is that saturated fats raise blood levels of LDL cholesterol.
However, despite this idea being so deeply ingrained in the minds of laypeople and health professionals alike, there is no clear link.

Some short-term feeding trials do in fact show that increased saturated fats raise LDL in the short term.

However, the effect is weak and inconsistent and many of these studies have been criticized based on methodological flaws (26, 27, 28). If saturated fats were such a dominant factor in LDL, the association should be strong and consistent in observational studies, but it’s not.

---

Your experience is, apparently, about taking painful shits after following the advice of a shaman.  

Yes, to hell with personal experiences....they are at best anecdotal and at worst mere assertions.  Neither of these two things have shown themselves to be very useful to science or rational thought.  That this particular experience is your own doesn;t make it any more useful or worthwhile...though I (and probably every human being on earth) can understand why you would feel attached to it.

Ain't no simplification like over-simplification.

[LadyForCamus]

I find it funny how you thought that was a "mic drop" moment in any capacity, as though you've actually scientifically "proved" something..

I don't care about preliminary or "promising" research in the context of this thread, Ark.  There exists a plethora of preliminary research describing the potential mechanisms by which healthy gut flora can positively effect human health.  No one is disputing that.

You made a cause-and-effect claim about gut flora and depression.  It is up to you to provide us with the robust body of high quality, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials (on humans, not mice) that have established this cause-and-effect relationship to such a degree of certainty in the scientific community, that its use as treatment is reflected in the well-described standards of practice set forth by any and all relevant health organizations.

You can't do that.  Because, the research isn't there yet.  It may not be there in 10 years.  It may not ever be there.  And until it is, you DON'T make treatment recommendations for illnesses.  This is called, "being a professional in your field of expertise."

Yeah....how did all that work out for people in the decades long "low fat" craze?

https://authoritynutrition.com/7-ways-th...ur-health/


https://authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
An Epic Debunking of The Saturated Fat Myth

The health authorities have been telling us for decades that saturated fat raises the risk of heart disease.
For this reason, we’ve been told to avoid foods like meat, eggs, coconuts and dairy products.

The theory goes like this:

Saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol in the blood.
LDL cholesterol lodges in the arteries, causing atherosclerosis and eventually, heart disease.
This is also known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

This theory has never been proven, despite it having been the cornerstone of dietary recommendations since 1977 (1).

The first part of the diet-heart hypothesis is that saturated fats raise blood levels of LDL cholesterol.
However, despite this idea being so deeply ingrained in the minds of laypeople and health professionals alike, there is no clear link.

Some short-term feeding trials do in fact show that increased saturated fats raise LDL in the short term.

However, the effect is weak and inconsistent and many of these studies have been criticized based on methodological flaws (26, 27, 28). If saturated fats were such a dominant factor in LDL, the association should be strong and consistent in observational studies, but it’s not.

---

Your experience is, apparently, about taking painful shits after following the advice of a shaman.  

Yes, to hell with personal experiences....they are at best anecdotal and at worst mere assertions.  Neither of these two things have shown themselves to be very useful to science or rational thought.  That this particular experience is your own doesn;t make it any more useful or worthwhile...though I (and probably every human being on earth) can understand why you would feel attached to it.

Ain't no simplification like over-simplification.

There exists no "epic debunking" of the effects of saturated fat on human health. This is just a blatantly false claim. Also, Authority Nutrition is not an accredited site, it's a professional-looking blog. It has some okay stuff occasionally but the author takes way too many liberties with his personal philosophies.

Also, let me stop you BEFORE you even bother referencing the "for profit" publications by Gary Taubes and Nina Tiecholz. They are dishonest cherry-pickers (have been plainly exposed as such), and there is NOTHING scientifically or intellectually accurate about their "work." I have never seen so much effort put into misrepresenting scientific research in all my life.