Fecal Transplant Can Save Lives

Remember the lady we listened to on the PR radio Dr. Diana had us listen to? The lady was talking about a fecal transplant that actually helped her gut infection! Well, I found a similar article written by Cassandra Willyard about a fecal transplant; it could even possibly be the same lady!

Dena Harris’ mother was diagnosed with a raging gut infection of Clostridium difficile. According to the article Clostridium difficile is a “nasty bacterium that causes watery diarrhea.” Harris’ mother, Ann hart, received a hefty dose of antibiotics, which are the standard treatment, but the antibiotics provided only “temporary relief.” Hart, crying from the pain, according to Harris’, then saw Dr. Colleen Kelly who is a gastroenterologist at Brown University.  Kelly uses an unconventional treatment called a “fecal transplant” that cured similar infections. This treatment involves taking “stool” or also known as feces from a healthy donor, mixed with saline and sends it through a tube into the colon of a patient. “Kelly explains, the treatment provides helpful germs that can restore the balance in the gut, replacing a patient’s sickly microbiome with a healthy one. Ms. Hart had her “transplant” and her daughter was the donor!

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/what-can-brown.jpg

This article was quite interesting, especially when I first heard it on PR radio. If you think about it, it’s just transferring feces from one person to another! But what some people would call a “nasty or disgusting” procedure can actually save lives! The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that Clostridium difficile kills 14,000 people each year in the U.S alone! For this procedure to work and possibly save many lives is outstanding! This article was very short but got right to the details on how this procedure works. The author was great in describing how the process works and what Dr. Kelly does to actually treat patients with Clostridium difficile! The only thing I can point out or that the author could have talked about was if there were any side effects to this procedure? If this procedure can save lives without having any costly side effects, why not use it right?

http://www.latimes.com/health/future/la-he-gut-research-fecal-transplant-20120913,0,2100637.story#axzz2uOjkkx6Y

Want a burger to go with that fecal matter?

Have you ever went to a fast food spot and got a drink from the soda fountain? Well, a study published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology say’s that the soda machine could actually be squirting out fecal matter. Sounds crazy and disgusting right? Let’s get into the study.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/08/soda.fountain.bacteria/

There were two studies done in Virginia to prove this point. The study looked at 30 soda fountains including 70 beverages. A follow-up study concluded 27 drinks including water. In the article, Amina Khan stated, researchers found that an astonishing 48% of the drinks were harboring “coliform” bacteria “which means they could contain fecal matter.” The beverages that were analyzed had more than 11% E. Coli and over 17% of Chryseobacterium meningosepticum. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum is a Gram negative, rod shaped bacteria; generally reported to cause outbreaks of meningitis. Not only did they find these pathogenic microorganisms, but many more! The article noted that these bacteria weren’t strong enough to cause real danger on most people’s systems and that no one including the study authors knew how they got there.

I definitely cannot argue with the facts! That is really disturbing and a lot of shhhhhh… I generally have more questions about this article than anything. Did the study use the stores cups? Was the soda the one harboring the bacteria or was it the machine itself? The article says it was the beverages but if you think about it, if the coke machine hasn’t been cleaned, it could be possible for pathogenic microorganisms to grow in the machine. I think this articles study could have had more detail on what was actually being researched. I also think this study should have included beverages from different cities, if not states.  Although this study only included research from Virginia, can it be knowledge of other soda machines in different areas? This article along with many others I’ve read makes me think, “Is eating out even really a good thing anymore.” Reading these blogs I’ve learned to watch out for cleaning agents (hand sanitizers), lemons, and now, soda machines! What is next?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/soda-fountains-fecal-bacteria-contamination-study.html

Are you a "germaphobe"?

https://twitter.com/Germaphobeinc

"Germaphobes" may cause a frenzy when they find out some of the soaps they have been using can actually be promoting the development of bacteria resistant to eradication and of exposing themselves to hormone-disrupting chemicals. The FDA recently released new rules that will make makers of antibacterial soaps and body washes demonstrate that their products are safe, effective, and prevent the spread of illness.

The products that are not shown to be safe and effective will be required to “reformulate or relabel them as a condition of continued sale,” according to Melissa Healy. According to Healy the FDA is focusing on triclosan, which is used in liquid soaps and triclobarban. Triclobarban is used in bar soaps and both of these compounds in high concentrations, in animals, have been found to have estrogenic effects and suppress thyroid hormone concentrations.  Research suggests a link between bacteria killing soaps and rise of resistant bacteria/human allergies. The article states the FDA emphasized that hand washing is essential for limiting the spread of illness-causing microbes and urged people to continue washing there hands.

I think hand washing is very important, along with many others. We all have been taught since kids that we should wash our hands regularly to keep from getting germs.  Learning that some of the soaps might be making bacteria resistant and exposing people to harm is very disturbing. I believe we had a discussion in class about hand sanitizers being quite similar. I don’t really disagree with anything the author states because she is kind of “reporting” what the FDA stated. Although to me it’s odd that at the end of the article it basically states we should continue washing our hands to limit "the spread of illness-causing microbes.” The article does state the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers but like I said we had a discussion that some hand sanitizers can be just as harmful. I believe the article should have stated more options on using soaps that are not harmful to people in the long run. This article also makes me wonder if we are as clean as we think we are after showering and washing our hands?

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-germophobes-fda-antibacterial-soap-20131216,0,5466860.story#axzz2sxJwlrPZ

Deadly Microbe Possibly Trapped In Graves

When most people think of a gravesite they think of where the dead are buried or where love ones are buried. But, a research team from Toronto plans to exhume or “dig up” seven bodies from permafrost. The research team hopes to find what caused a global epidemic that killed 20 million people from 1918 to 1919.

When I first read this part of the article, I thought to myself, “Digging up dead bodies to do research can be disrespectful to the family,” but as I read this article more closely I found out that not only did the research team get permission from the families but Dr. Duncan who was part of the research team stated, “This will be done with the greatest respect and dignity.” This research that is being done can also help people in the future with its knowledge of the epidemic.

http://www.whale.to/a/spanishflu.gif

The 1918 epidemic was called Spanish Flu at the time, but scientists were unsure what to accurately identify it as. The symptoms, which include sudden fever, chills, headache, malaise, muscle pain, pneumonia and rapid death killed millions. Dr. Kirsty Duncan an assistant professor at the University of Windsor, spent three years trying to locate the far-northern grave site of people who had died in the great pandemic.

I definitely agree with Dr. Lewin (team member of the research team) “discovering and analyzing the microbe will help ward off similar outbreaks in the future. “ I mean, finding and analyzing a microbe that killed millions of people can definitely be helpful to make sure that a similar outbreak don’t occur in the future because of it. Scientists are exploring and analyzing microbes every day! I can also see why people might get upset though. Uncovering a very deadly microbe that hasn’t been seen for almost 100 years can get people talking. Why are they doing this? It can revive and kill more!

For this article I am kind of in the middle. I see why people can get upset and say, “don’t uncover a microbe that is “stored” away, it could harm more people.” I wouldn’t want a microbe killing millions and cause a global epidemic. Then, there is the “researcher” side. They want to see if this microbe is still lurking in the lungs of the bodies and if it is, then they want to examine it to possibly prevent an epidemic like the one that happened in 1918. I also agree with this side because of the lives it can possibly save if this research does find adequate information to help prevent another epidemic. What is your opinion? Should we be cautious and not explore an old, deadly microbe? Or should we possibly play Russian roulette and uncover a deadly microbe to examine it to perhaps stop a similar epidemic?

(*This article was published it 1996. I wrote the blog as if it were just recently published. I will definitely follow up if I can find more information on this research.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/28/science/microbes-sought-in-frozen-graves.html