
Researchers Find Further Evidence That Schizophrenia Is Connected to Our Guts - prostoalex
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/02/07/gut-bugs-may-shape-schizophrenia/#.XGtu1KSIaaO
======
moh_maya
There is good reason to be skeptical of the claims in the article. This
twitter thread [1] is a good, articulate criticism of the issues around the
paper.

To quote a segment from the series of tweets by the author, Kevin Mitchell (a
neurogeneticist from Trinity College, Dublin)[2] :

"1\. A supposed mechanism in search of a phenomenon... (What is the microbiome
supposed to explain here?)

2\. No actual mechanism.

3\. No actual findings. Just lots of exploratory blips, unconstrained by prior
hypotheses, uncorrected for multiple tests, and unreplicated.

4\. Massive hype.

Just because the genetics of complex disorders is complex and just because the
neuroscience of the highest functions of the human mind is complex, doesn't
mean we need to go looking for new kinds of biology to explain them"

[1]
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095012297200844800.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095012297200844800.html)

[2] [https://www.kjmitchell.com/](https://www.kjmitchell.com/)

[edit: formatting]

~~~
behindmyscreen
I think the most obvious question is “does schizophrenia cause an abnormal gut
microbiome or does an abnormal gut microbiome causes schizophrenia?”

My bet is it’s the former, not the later.

~~~
naasking
Then you need to explain how the fecal transplants triggered similar symptoms.

~~~
Haga
Maybe schizophrenia is not a sickness, merely a epi-genetic adaption to bad
circumstances. Have a little civil war? Turn yourself into a twitching little
zombie and walk it off?

So if you transport the message, you get a universal reaction.

------
stef25
I did my thesis on one possible cause of this illness 20+ years ago and then
never looked at it again.

After just reading up on the possible causes of schizophrenia it seems many
more discoveries have been made which has only resulted in more confusion and
we're basically nowhere near having a clue.

One of the most important points that rarely come up in these discussions is
that schizophrenia is not one illness but a bunch of different ones grouped
together that we haven't figured out how to differentiate. You can find
several patients that share very few symptoms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia)

~~~
gwbas1c
> One of the most important points that rarely come up in these discussions is
> that schizophrenia is not one illness but a bunch of different ones grouped
> together that we haven't figured out how to differentiate. You can find
> several patients that share very few symptoms.

Exactly.

I remember meeting someone at an alumni networking event who worked with
mentally ill people, including schizophrenics. He explained to me that a lot
of his patients had extreme sleep apnea, and their CPAPs were turned up much
higher than a typical sleep apnea patient.

His theory was that some of his patients were mentally ill due to their sleep
disorder.

~~~
aantix
And a high intensity cpap was inducing a sleep disorder?

Couldn’t he easily test that by having the patients reduce the intensity?

~~~
shredprez
I interpreted GP's comment differently:

Unusually high CPAP intensity indicates unusually severe sleep apnea,
suggesting a connection between sleep disorders and mental disorders.

Reflecting on the impact sleep has on my mental health, that makes intuitive
sense.

------
rthomas6
To me the most interesting and convincing part is that fecal transplants from
schizophrenic patients to mice changed the mice's behavior in ways that are
similar to schizophrenia, as well as changes in glutamate levels. This shows
some kind of causal link more than just correlation.

I feel like all the comments are ignoring this part of the blog post

~~~
moh_maya
from a twitter thread [1] critiquing the paper, by a neurogeneticist [2]:

" And we can test them on a whole range of behaviours, without correction for
multiple tests, without a hypothesis of which should show an effect, and again
without a replication sample In this case, the ones getting a SCZ fecal
transplant showed greater activity, but _less_ anxiety and _less_ "depressive"
behaviours. Why? Who cares? You can spin these kinds of findings any way you
want. We all love a good story."

Please read the cited thread.

/disclaimer: I am not a neurologist / neurobiologist. My training was in
genetics & molecular biology, and I've since moved out of active research /
life sciences. But bad statistics and gross over-interpretation bothers me
immensely; folks read such breathless reports & then start doing all kinds of
harmful stuff because it's been proven! But it's not. It may be a hypothesis
(and this report may not even qualify as that). And cruel as it is, we still
don't understand nearly enough about so many things in biology to be able to
address these disorders.

[1]
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095012297200844800.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095012297200844800.html)

[2] [https://www.kjmitchell.com/](https://www.kjmitchell.com/)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I'll take one well-designed and peer-reviewed study over 100 random Twitter
threads.

~~~
skj
What about twitter threads from well-respected researchers in the field? What
about a poorly-designed study (for the reasons pointed out in the thread)?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I don't know if the Twitter thread is from a well-respected researcher, or
whether their criticisms of the study are valid. That's my point.

~~~
skj
It sounds like you're not the target audience of either the paper or the
twitter thread.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Again, you make it sound like these are somehow equivalent. Why even have
peer-reviewed journals in the age of Twitter?

~~~
tynpeddler
Because this is how science has always been done, it's just visible on twitter
now. Someone submits a paper to be published. A few scientists look it over
and check for basic correctness. Then the paper is published and people read
it. If the paper is interesting, they start talking about it. They use the
breakroom, email, twitter, facebook, science journals, backs of envelopes, and
anything else that's convenient. This conversation about a paper is a critical
part of the community absorbing a new piece of evidence. From these
conversations, subsequent experiments are planned and published and science
keeps moving forwards. These conversations are not as formal as a journal
publication, but they are much more formal and structured than laypeople
usually realize. Comments are worded in particular ways, and only certain
kinds of objections make sense. Proving things about nature is an excruciating
task that requires an enormous level of care and evidence.

------
hjk05
It really feels like recently someone developed a new method to characterize
the microbiome, and now people are correlating that meassure with everything
like the probability that people eat green m&ms (no correlation) that they eat
blue m&ms (no correlation) yellow m&ms (no correlation) have scitzophrenia
(slight correlation!). And publish what ever hits a notisable p-value. But it
all leaves me skeptical of everything to do with the microbiome.

~~~
numbsafari
But isn’t this how science works? We discover a new way to measure something,
and then we start evaluating its usefulness as a measure. When and where we
find interesting relationships, report that out, and then start looking for
causes. Perhaps the new ruler is broken, or perhaps we learn something we
didn’t know before. Regardless, I see reports such as this one as interim
findings necessary to either justify or pursue additional funding.

VC and SV entrepreneurship is pretty much the same game. That’s why you have
the “Uber for X” syndrome. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn’t. We are
all human search functions reporting back to the hive mind.

~~~
plaidfuji
It’s not exactly how science is supposed to work. New measurement technology
should result more from a pull than a push. That is, the scientists studying
mental diseases probably want a better/more specific way to measure brain
activity, because most of their mechanistic hypotheses revolve around brain
function. In this case, they’ve been told that there’s a new way to measure
gut microbe populations, and the cool part is the technique produces _so much_
data from a single sample. Somethings gotta correlate!

Now I don’t actually think the gut microbiome is just an automatic p-hacker -
most studies are measuring pretty standard aggregate measurements of
“diversity”, not just finding one class of the billions of bacteria that
happens to correlate, so I’d agree with the OP that the question is more one
of causality. And since a fecal transplant from an ill mouse caused signs of
illness in an otherwise healthy mouse, then there’s reason to follow up.

~~~
numbsafari
I think it's a chicken-egg problem, so we are likely to not find agreement.

Sure, sometimes you have a hypothesis and you go searching for a way to
measure something.

Other times, you find a new way of looking at things, or you come across some
new fascinating data. This helps you generate hypotheses for which you need to
design new studies, not least of which is to ensure that the new measuring
tool is measuring what you think it is.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that the product of research such as
this shouldn't be policy or a change in world view. It should be hypothesis
generation and new testing.

------
amanaplanacanal
Most of these types of correlations turn out to be nothing. Don't get your
hopes up.

If a study shows A and B are correlated, it could be any of:

1\. A causes B. 2\. B causes A. 3\. They are both caused by a third factor C.
4\. Random chance. 5\. Bad experimental design. Science is hard. 6\. Fraud.
7\. Probably other things I can't think of right now.

As far as I know, the gut microbiome is most directly affected by what you
eat. Do schizophrenics have different eating habits than non-schizophrenics?

~~~
macawfish
Would you believe that peoples' appetites could be affected by their
microbiome?

Anyhow, it's perfectly reasonable that people suffering Schizoaffective
disorders might have different interactions with common foods that are
considered tolerable by "most people".

------
justanotherjoe
I have no trouble at all accepting this. Our gut is loaded with neurons. To
imagine this, consider that when you are feeling happy, they said its like
"butterflies in the stomach". Now consider a situation when someone cannot
feel this due to fucked up gut. That on situations when you are supposed to
feel happy, you are attacked by anxiety instead, which are also a distinct
sensation in the gut. Your life will become a nightmare. I've been there
myself, thankfully my gut is good now.

On the flip side, there are people out there with super gut, that feel happy
no matter what life throws at them. Just a dose of optimism to lighten up the
mood.

~~~
rantanplan
> I have no trouble at all accepting this

That's not how science works. If something is proven and reproducible via the
scientific method, it must work(used to make verifiable predictions) whether
you accept it or not.

Let's never forget
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel)
. His M.O. was to fabricate results that would be easy for his peers to
accept.

And if we take into account all the dangerous pseudo-scientific hype around
the gut(leaky gut, cleansings, etc) we should be twice as careful.

~~~
justanotherjoe
Understood and agreed. This is more apt a reminder in a thread about
schizophrenia too.

------
andrewflnr
I predict that over the next decade or so we're going to find that almost
every medical issue has some microbiome component, just like pretty much
everything has some level of genetic risk factor. The human body is too
interconnected to expect anything else. I just don't want people to throw out
the baby with the microbiome-quackery bathwater that's coming as well.

~~~
moh_maya
absolutely. I would hope people don't now start doing fecal transplants for
treating depression, or Alzheimers, or schizophrenia. These results,
interesting though they may be, are not a cure; they may not even be
diagnostic.

But clearly, diet, the gut microbiome, the immune system, at the very least,
are linked, and linked tightly. So it would not be surprising at all, that
there's a microbiome component. But we don't know what it is; how it affects
the underlying disorder, and how to approach it for treatment as of now.

And as you alluded to with "genetic risk factor"; its well possible that
though there is a component of the microbiome involved in the disease; it may
not be significant enough to act as a vector for treatment. Or that it is just
a comorbidity. We just don't know!

~~~
belltaco
>I would hope people don't now start doing fecal transplants for treating
depression, or Alzheimers, or schizophrenia.

Why not? That would be a fast way to find out if it works.

~~~
tsomctl
Because if they keep eating a poor diet that encourages an unhealthy biome,
they're going to defeat the point of a fecal transplant.

~~~
moh_maya
And you don't know what downsides fecal transplants may have. There's clear
preliminary evidence that gut microbiomes can drive obesity. Imagine giving
someone who is not obese / diabetic a fecal transplant to treat depression.

That doesn't work (the treating depression part), but suddenly, this person
becomes more susceptible to obesity / develops diabetes.

These things must not be rushed into!

~~~
hnick
I'm not sure if you're alluding to this, but it's supposedly already happened.

[https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/2/1/ofv004/1461242](https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/2/1/ofv004/1461242)

~~~
moh_maya
Damn. Thanks for the link. I was just speculating..

I don't think the authors are drawing a casual effect here; in effect, this is
scientific anecdata: hey, we tried this and this happened. We think you should
know.

I think it's great they published the result, even if the n=1.

Assuming this is due to the fecal transplant, it just goes to show, we are
messing with a major functional system in the body. And we should tread very
very carefully. Scary..

------
rv-de
The most direct connection between Schizophrenia and the gut is the
neurotransmitter Serotonin. Which plays a central role in the mechanics of the
disease as well as in the bowels. This is by the way also the reason why
consumption of psychedelics (which are mostly binding to the serotonin 2a
receptor) will usually cause bowel irritations from flatulences to nausea.

------
leoh
We basically have a huge bioreactor in our stomach. Surely it is possible to
introduce some gene into the collection of bacteria there that could cause the
production of metabolites that are destabilizing to mental health.

------
threatofrain
Would be curious to see if some kind of gut bacteria intervention could
ameliorate symptoms.

~~~
flatfilefan
Even if correlation doesn’t imply causation maybe there’s that link in this
case as they have done a controlled experiment. They seem to just have stopped
short of claiming that schizophrenia is caused by a bacterial gut infection. I
wonder why they didn’t claim that?

~~~
rorykoehler
Probably because it's only a comorbidity. We seem to want easy answers to all
these question but the reality is that humans are complex organisms. Having
one issue (i.e. an infection) without another (i.e. some specific genetic
corruption) will not result in the individual developing a disease however the
combination of 2 or more factors results in the development of a disease.

------
Nomentatus
One nice experiment showed the big difference biota make may be choline
absorption. [https://medium.com/@russjj/choline-is-it-the-key-to-
modern-i...](https://medium.com/@russjj/choline-is-it-the-key-to-modern-
illnesses-5da8f831a04b)

------
HocusLocus
Blood Music
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_\(novel\))

~~~
brandonmenc
I second this. Great book. One of my faves.

------
Haga
I know this is dangerous close to the nature /nurture no-man's land but my own
pet theory is that schizophrenia is a loop deformation. Every habitat swings,
as in the circumstances are unstable going from a plenty of food to no food,
zero disease to plague, nil predation to over predation. All this happens in
evolutionary short time, meaning it should be invisible to the blind and deaf
process that stupidly adapts to whatever is not worst enough for the
circumstances. I found that schizophrenia beeing one of these specializations
to a swinging habitat, as a theory, had a lot of explanationary power.
Unfortunately it has sad implications. If you are adapted to circumstances, it
makes only sence to prolong these circumstances. If the habitat swings back,
the dormant version will lie in wait looking for epi genetic triggers, that
allow this loop adaption to pre-emptive return and attempt to spread
displacing other loop adaption. I do not know if a discussion on this can
remain civilised.

------
mindgam3
Anyone interested in a theory of schizophrenia that actually explains the
logic behind these behavior patterns would do well to learn about Bateson's
"double bind" formulation.

Dr. Stanislav Grof's essay "Mind, Nature and Consciousness" provides a very
lucid introduction to this theory ([http://www.stanislavgrof.com/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/Gregory_...](http://www.stanislavgrof.com/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/Gregory_Bateson.pdf)):

"The basic idea of Gregory Bateson's theory of schizophrenia is that this
disorder basically represents a breakdown of metacommunication [messages about
messages, indicating how the communication should be understood, i.e. a wink
to indicate that this is a joke, /s for sarcasm, etc]. Psychogenetically, this
problem can than be traced to a specific disturbance in the communication
between the mother and the future schizophrenic which involves what he called
a "double bind.”

The basic characteristics of this situation are the following:

1\. The child is in a relationship of vital dependency, where it is critical
to identify correctly the communication from the mother.

2\. He or she is receiving from the mother messages which are contradictory,
since the qualifying metacommunication denies the verbal content or is
otherwise incompatible with it.

3\. The child does not have the opportunity to ask questions to clarify the
communication.

4\. The child cannot leave the field. Under these circumstances, he or she is
forced to distort his or her perception of the outer world and of the inner
feelings, and is incapable to develop meta-communicational skills.

Gregory's favorite example was a situation in which a mother, annoyed by a
child who is active and noisy, tries to get rid of him by saying: "Darling, it
is very late and you must be terribly tired; mommy will put you to bed. You
know I mean well for you." The message misrepresents the truth about the
matter. It says "you are tired and need to sleep" instead of "I really need
some space for myself." Messages and situations of this type force the child
to deny or disregard his or her inner clues and accept what the mother is
saying.

Metacommunication is extremely important in human communication and
individuals who do not master it tend to have great interpersonal
difficulties. Metacommunicationally inept persons who are incapable to read
subtle signals, understand jokes, and decode hidden meanings become easily
victims and scapegoats of their peers. There has been much discussion, whether
this mechanism is sufficient to explain serious psychopathology encountered in
schizophrenic patients. Gregory Bateson himself believed that much of
schizophrenic symptomatology can be understood as a total breakdown of
metacommunication."

~~~
ericb
This theory is total bunk. It is widely considered to be discredited and a
great example of fanciful psychological theory with no scientific backing.

I mean, if this theory was true, you would expect to find schizophrenic
families--after all, they all had the same mother. It also doesn't line up
with the timing of onset at all.

~~~
tome
Do you have a citation for wide discreditation? Wikipedia is more circumspect

> Bateson's double bind theory was never followed up by research into whether
> family systems imposing systematic double binds might be a cause of
> schizophrenia. This complex theory has been only partly tested, and there
> are gaps in the current psychological and experimental evidence required to
> establish causation [citation?]. The current understanding of schizophrenia
> emphasizes the robust scientific evidence for a genetic predisposition to
> the disorder, with psychosocial stressors, including dysfunctional family
> interaction patterns, as secondary causative factors in some instances.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind#Schizophrenia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind#Schizophrenia)

(Which makes me wonder: if the predisposition is genetic, why don't we have
schizophrenic families? After all, they have the same genes!)

~~~
skohan
I think it's highly unlikely that there is any meaningful causal link between
a particular parenting style and Schizophrenia.

We currently have a very robust physiological understanding of the disorder,
and the symptomatology is linked to observable structural changes in the
brains of Schizophrenic individuals.

As with many psychological disorders, there appears to be a stress component:
i.e. individuals may be more or less predisposed to the disorder, and
therefore some individuals will only ever experience symptoms if triggered by
a high level of stress, while for others it's unavoidable.

So in some cases, yes it's possible that a problematic family life was the
stressor that pushed them over the edge to develop full-blown Schizophrenia,
but that person might have equally been effected by being mugged at gunpoint,
or going through prolonged sleep deprivation during basic training in the
military.

The causal mechanism is almost certainly an interaction with Cortisol or other
stress hormones, or some other well understood biological pathway. It's
outdated pseudoscience at this point to take seriously the idea that
Schizophrenia is the result of mixed messages during childhood.

~~~
naasking
> We currently have a very robust physiological understanding of the disorder,
> and the symptomatology is linked to observable structural changes in the
> brains of Schizophrenic individuals.

While I agree overall with your point, I think your wording emphasizes a
common but mistaken view that psychological experience can't induce
physiological changes in the brain. This is obviously false.

~~~
skohan
Yeah I absolutely agree that there is a feedback loop by which neural activity
actually shapes physiology. But there’s also a degree to which psychological
disorders are contributed to by errant thought patters, verses being the
result of a functional problem with the brain as an organ. For example, with
some forms of depression cognitive behavioral therapy (changing your thought
patterns about certain things) can be very effective, while in the case of
serious bipolar disorder, medication may be the only way to mitigate manic
episodes.

For lack of a better analogy, there’s a degree to which different disorders
are the result of a software problem or a hardware problem, and all the
evidence points to Schitzophrenia as being firmly toward that hardware end of
the spectrum.

~~~
naasking
I again agree with everything you've said, but to tie this all back to the
article and the microbiome, while the body does have discrete, specialised
organs, we have to recognise that they are leaky abstractions.

Microbiota could influence psychology and thus physiology, or it could
directly affect physiology and thus psychology. The fact fecal transplants
triggered schizophrenic behaviours in mice shows there's some direct
connection here that needs explanation.

~~~
DanBC
> The fact fecal transplants triggered schizophrenic behaviours in mice

What are schizophrenic behviours in mice?

~~~
naasking
They discuss this in the article and the linked study which did the
transplants. You're best off consulting those.

------
edhowzerblack
This is fascinating. I've wrestled with anxiety and depression my whole life.
It seems quite intuitive to me that there is a gut link. I frequently
experience "butterflies' in my stomach. I frequently have gas, too. I wonder
if I could participate in a study? I'd be happy to.

------
_bxg1
As someone with both IBS and anxiety, this is slightly scary

~~~
afturner
I have suspected IBS and suspected Borderline (diagnosed MDD and Anxiety) and
I swear to god my stomach health is related to my mental health. Correlated,
perhaps, but there's definitely some sort of relation based on my experience.

ps; probiotic yogurt makes me very happy

~~~
_bxg1
Same with the yogurt; I'm actually planning to start taking probiotic
supplements to simplify that aspect, as well as a fiber source called phylum
husk.

Sorry to hear about the Borderline. Just remember that mental health diagnoses
are less rigid than traditional medical diagnoses. You've heard of mind over
matter; mind over mind is even more effective.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I take a fibre powder I make myself, but there are premixed versions:

Rice bran, oat bran, psyllium husk, ground linseed, and slippery elm powder.

Typically equal proportions, but it varies depending on how much of what I’ve
got left when it goes in to the mixing bowl.

I also regularly buy not continuously take a priobiotic and / or Greek style
unsweetened yogurt.

Lots of Vitamin D. I also need to supplement essential fatty acids or my skin
tears at the edges of my nails.

Plus running and lifting heavy things. Also dogs. My dogs are well trained,
they know our routines, and they make me laugh out load a lot!

------
trash_cat
There is something called gut-brain axis that does not seem to be mentioned
here. It is a relatively new discovery. But this finding, gut-schzophrenia, is
not something surprising at all. Gut-brain axis is such an important part of
our biology that it's probably connected to everything in one sense or
another. Schzophrenia, depression, our psychological health, you name it.

------
known
C4 gene led to a greater risk of developing schizophrenia
[https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2016/01/30/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2016/01/30/brain-gains)

------
BenMorganIO
I'm genuinely curious what yogurt might do to someone with schizophrenia. I
also wonder what their dairy consumption looks like and their diet to see if
there's relations.

There's also genetic relations with schizophrenia. I've always wondered if
these had to do with nature or nurture. Often studies simply say they check a
person's mental health background. Is it really genetic? Perhaps it could also
be what gets taught and passed down to us or the home we live in.

Perhaps the mental illnesses that our society experiences is nothing more than
poorly regulated drinking water, mold in the walls, a bad diet, Mom's
spaghetti, or spices that don't agree with us.

I find this research very interesting. The bacteria change could be a side
effect of something but since the bacteria is atypical, it leads to a very
interesting question: How did it get there?

What foods carry this bacteria? Does this bacteria kill other healthy
bacteria? Does it serve a purpose?

I'm not a biology specialist, but I would love to know if nutrition is
related.

~~~
woolvalley
I'm guessing it's an interaction between your genetics and how you react to
food. Just like how some people are more prone to diabetes or don't every
really get fat and don't manage their diets consciously.

~~~
justanotherjoe
Are you implying that people who dont really get fat, who dont manage their
diet consciously, are more prone to diabetes? I never heard of this...

~~~
skohan
I think they were giving the example that given the same diet, one person
might develop diabetes while another would maintain a healthy weight due to
predisposing genetic factors.

But actually it _does_ seem to be the case that the ability to put on fat is
in some ways protective against diabetes. In other words, people that easily
store calories as fat don't have the metabolic problems associated with
diabetes, since their body is able to effectively store any extra calories
they take in. Diabetes develops in individuals who are not effective at
converting excess sugar in their blood stream into fat, so instead they suffer
metabolic damage. That's not to say that they _don 't_ put on fat, but if you
see someone who has an enormous amount of excess fat, they are likely to have
a much higher threshold before they develop the disease.

~~~
justanotherjoe
good to know, since i can.not put fat no matter how hard i tried (admittedly
not very hard).

------
hjk05
So Schizophrinia should be curable by clearing the gut bacteria? Sounds like
something we already would have known if it was the case. Don’t strong
antibiotics clear the gut? And isn’t the microbiome changed within days of
traveling to a new country?

~~~
smolder
A gut cleared of bacteria is not a healthy one. The microbes are necessary,
and the genetic makeup and relative populations of microbes have some powerful
consequences for a person's health. Fecal transplants are an effective
treatment for a number of things.

~~~
behindmyscreen
...”if those things are gut related illnesses “

Finished your sentence.

~~~
smolder
You're right, of course it is limited to gut-related things.

------
mrcoder111
And mainstream people still think the idea of high fructose corn syrup,
gluten, etc. affecting mental capability is just people being OCD...

------
sjg007
One thing that is fascinating is that the Danes are supposedly the happiest
people on earth. I wonder what their microbiomes are?

------
pizza
This is only tangentially related but has anyone here read the book 'The Fiber
Menace', and if so, what are your thoughts?

------
simplecomplex
Is there a link between gut bacteria and diet?

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Is there a link between gut bacteria and diet?_

Yes. There are lots of articles (based on studies) on this. For example:

[https://www.bing.com/search?q=diet+gut+microbiome+tribal+stu...](https://www.bing.com/search?q=diet+gut+microbiome+tribal+study&qs=n&form=QBRE&scope=web&pc=EMMX20&sp=-1&pq=diet+gut+microbiome+tribal+study&sc=0-32&sk=&cvid=121BA76B8F444CF89307D3C33612C623)

------
shenal
For those who haven't already read this book Alanna Collen's Book is a good
start on the significance of microbes for human health [1]
[https://www.amazon.com/10-Human-Microbes-Health-
Happiness/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/10-Human-Microbes-Health-
Happiness/dp/0062345990)

------
myth_drannon
The next possible conclusion can be that antibiotics cause schizophrenia.

~~~
colordrops
I fear the incoming online information war between everyone and anti-
antibioxxers.

~~~
macawfish
Anti-antibioxxers? Have you been reading quackwatch on the wayback machine
again?

------
bitL
Wasn't schizophrenia fairly recently attributed to an off-by-one error in the
brain while deleting old brain cells, taking more than necessary, essentially
a natural algorithm gone wrong?

~~~
klodolph
It’s a long-studied and complicated condition, I don’t think we’re anywhere
near having such a concise explanation of its causes yet (etiology). There are
many competing theories each with different levels of support. There is also
reason to believe that schizophrenia is multiple disorders that are currently
lumped into the same category because we’re not good at differentiating them
(similar to the way different types of cancer are lumped under the label
“cancer”).

Trust the science, but don’t trust the science reporting.

~~~
bitL
I was talking about this (pruning of synapses):

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190204114612.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190204114612.htm)

This study pointed out 90+ days of taking minocycline/doxycycline during
adolescence "had a significantly reduced risk of a subsequent psychotic
disorder diagnosis than did those receiving other antibiotics." \- from their
10-years sample of electronic records.

I had a suspicion that as you say "schizophrenia" might be an umbrella term
for many distinct diseases with similar symptoms.

~~~
klodolph
But, is that a symptom of schizophrenia? Does it cause other symptoms? Is it
caused by other symptoms? Is it common to all forms of schizophrenia?

~~~
bitL
For me as a computer scientist with interest in medicine (using Deep Learning
to beat humans in detecting diseases), this was a cool finding pointing to a
possible algorithmic reason behind schizophrenia. Now it might be just a small
part of the puzzle, intertwined with other mechanisms we don't understand with
overly complex interactions, not mentioning it likely misses other, completely
different diagnoses sharing the same label.

So yes, your questions are perfectly adequate, though for me personally that
finding is exciting, as I can potentially apply supercomputing on that
problem.

------
t0ny
The comments on the website are a good laugh.

------
PavlikPaja
I don't see how that could be possible, unless it is a transmissable disease
that infects the brain.

------
sjcsjc
And if it's not the microbiome it's probably something to do with quantum
entanglement.

------
ralusek
I knew it! The CIA really _has been_ fiddling with my guts when I sleep! Just
wait until the aliens in my teeth hear about this.

