I've come across plenty of evidence in the literature but there are lot of variables that can prevent any positive effects from taking place. If you're taking probiotic supplements in isolation and the rest of your diet is suboptimal in terms of bacteria-friendly nutrients, it's unlikely that you'll get results. It could be the case that many people are throwing money away if they're taking probiotic supplements without addressing their diet and lifestyle.
There's so much variety between people, one formulation for one person might work well for one person but have negative effects on another even if they have a supportive diet and lifestyle. People might simply have to trial multiple formulas that have the right mix of strains before they find one that works for them.
Prebiotic foods seem to have more consistent results on gut health, according to some studies.
Weird question perhaps, some research suggests that bacteria source nutrients from the cell lining in the gut if there is an absence of sufficient nutrients from the food coming into the digestive system. (example: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31464-7)
That made me wonder what the triggers might be, since the studies see the corroding effect appear in diets deficient in polyphenols/insoluble fibres. At what interval do microbes need nutrients and is simply eating a highly-processed snack that has nothing much to offer bacteria in the gut a possible trigger in itself?
Fascinating question - and not one whose answer is known.
Fiber is good for microbes merely by the virtue that humans lack the glycan-degrading enzymes that are necessary to break it down, so it reaches the colon intact where the microbes can eat it. Humans can digest starch (though it can be physically and chemically modified to be harder to digest) but not the hundreds of other types of fibers that are found in a traditional diet.
I think there is good research that shows that higher fiber diets are associated with lower risk of developing a range of metabolic and immune pathologies, but the particular mechanistic linkages are so subtle that it will require absolutely massive studies to identify them. In general, we know that humans used to eat a much higher fiber diet (e.g. the Hadza people eat 70-150 grams of fiber a day), and we believe that produces a much healthier microbial composition.
The paper you cited is really interesting! I haven't read it - but the overall idea that the mucus lining of the gut can be degraded by microbes who are sourcing carbon, energy, and nitrogen from it is well established.
I think there is consensus that some amount of gut barrier integrity is due to microbial signals. This occurs in two ways - 1) our epithelial cells sense microbial products (proteins, carbohydrates, etc.) and respond by tightening the junctions between them. The overall idea being that you want to keep the bacteria in the colon, but you must balance some level of nutrient flow. 2) The goblet cells which produce mucus in the gut, respond to microbial signals to increase or decrease their mucus production.
There is a lot of research going on trying to understand how certain diets cause defective mucus production and in turn how that can allow microbes to get to close to the epithelial lining (usually the mucus is ~100 microns thick) which results in inflammation.
Recent evidence of another function of microbial activity in the gut of hibernating animals. In short, it appears that they help the host supply enough nitrogen for maintaining muscle mass during hibernation: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh2950
What was your diet like when you were taking them? It's been observed in some studies that delivered mixed results that responders had better diets (i.e. more bacteria friendly components in the diet such as indigestible carbs from vegetables/legumes/fruit etc) whereas non-responders had weaker diets in terms of providing the gut microbes nutrients.
Diet is now generally low-FODMAP, emphasis on reducing fructose, glucose, and sugar alcohols e.g. sorbitol, erythritol, to which I seem especially sensitive -- this may be atypical among IBS patients.
The SEC report confirms that shorts closed their positions and short interest dropped significantly over a year ago, and it has remained low since. You can't have a short squeeze without significant short interest.
Read Section 3.4 "Short Selling and Covering Short Positions". It describes the short covering that took place. Look at the chart of short interest on page 27. It shows the short interest dropping precipitously, meaning the majority of short positions were closed.
It is honestly baffling how many GME conspiracists are apparently illiterate and unable to understand that "X didn't have as much of an effect as Y" doesn't mean "X did not happen". Especially when it is surrounded by multiple paragraphs explicitly talking about the X that was happening.
Look at XRT short interest. There's plenty of information explaining the situation. If you look at the recent votes by the SEC. GG wanted to make better short reporting since that is a big issue. In multiple occasions hedge funds and banks mark their short position long and then get a small fine years later.
Note: I was never a member of WSB. I have researched GME years before this whole saga and hold a position in my portfolio because I saw the value in the turnaround prior to the squeeze saga. That said, as an investor the mechanics of the market need to change.
I think it comes down to priming, at least for those of average intelligence. They don't read the report start to finish with an objective mindset, they are first fed snippets here and there while being told what to read from those snippets. If they ever do decide to really read it, they are primed to take from it only what they have already been told to take from it.
I have read the report multiple times trying to make an educated investment decision. As I mention in other comments, I was following the company way before this saga. Probably for similar reasons than Burry, Ryan Cohen and DFV decided to invest on it, although I admit what caugh my attention was their dividend years ago (no longer pays a dividend). I researched a lot of companies, GME happened to ended up with this craziness all around. I think this is not going be worth millions per share like Reddit says, but it will be worth way more than it is right now. I am far from a bagholder, I've earned a nice return and based on what I have seeing, things are going to be better for the company. The short part of investment is something I had to learn more thanks to the whole saga. I am always looking for bearish thesis about my investments and why this is not going to be worth more in 5 years. Watch DFV youtube videos, he is far from a meme, his videos are very informative about why it is worth it.
That was without counting any work performed by RC and the turnaround.
From for the report:
* Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned.
The SI was 140% of the float. Small fraction of the volume was the short (without counting short volume), you think it was enough volume for both? There's no way to know how much was that. Gabe Plotkin in his testimony even says that short have plenty of time to cover but it didn't seem that was the case. If you look at the SI chart it seems the shorts got closed right away, but the stock manage to have couple of wild runs to 300 and a few to 250. With no retail nor volume to back it up. Why is that? you don't see that with any other company. Maybe some fraud behind?I really don't know.
Anyway, I am not saying there's a 140% short position (nor crazy 1000% like reddit speculate), but the SI is not 10% nor 20%. The price action nor the options market backs those numbers, I may be wrong but I believe there's more to it. It is hard to be sure obviously, but I don't mind to have a few hundred shares and see how it unfolds, long term it is going to be worth more and I am not counting on any squeeze for that. This is not financial advice, it is just my opinion on something I ended up finding fascinating, from the investment side and the human behavior side.
Alcohol consumption was pretty common in the NBA, with some even drinking during halftime. Some of the biggest stars of the league in the past decades drank a lot of alcohol, though much less now with more stringent policies in place. There are players that led the league in scoring despite drinking well into the night all the time. Lebron James is a famous wine drinker. He drinks every day and his longetivity and conditioning is unmatched, but he may be from a different planet.
These were some random facts from an NBA fan who doesn't drink.
I agree, if you had to get a team together with the sole purpose of crushing people's spirit and grinding people down with opinions while appearing to be somewhat wellmeaning, the guardian would be a stellar example of that.
Compassion/self love is what made me change my lifestyle and overcome excuses. If you have compassion for the work that your organs are doing, you are going to be more motivated to do the things that keep those organs healthy, while doing less of the things that damage them. One day I heard someone talking about how the heart has to work harder pumping blood around if you sit all day. I couldn't shake the thought, so eventually I started moving more and adopted a cold shower routine despite hating the cold. I started giving a shit about my cardiovascular health as a result of compassion. I didn't have to crack the whip either, making lifestyle adjustments just felt like the right thing to do.
Compassion is not about making people feel better for not taking care of their situation/body/work/goals/life/relationships, it's about acting with a level of care for the things that matter most.
That's great to hear. I do believe in the power of compassion & self love. Especially how you define it. I just was not understanding the point of the article:
> Forget new year resolutions and stop striving to be someone you’re not. It’s time to embrace your messy, imperfect, soft-bellied self
Isn't the point of working on yourself to become someone you're not right this moment, but strive to be? (i.e. the better version of you)
A psychiatrist had changed my perspective from yours to the poster’s by pointing out that genuine self-forgiveness seems to be more effective than self-flagellation in allowing for change.
By accepting who you are at this point (without a negative connotation), the path towards becoming your ‘better version’ is easier to travel.
Examples of this change in difficulty come in the form of reducing the angst towards visiting gyms/being seen working out, and in wanting to eat better to help yourself as opposed to telling yourself that you need to eat better so you won’t be the way that you are.
Self forgiveness also helps in reducing procrastination by allowing yourself to start a task without the negative associations of past procrastinations.
In the UK over 300 hundred thousand adverse events have been reported to the yellow card system, with over a 1000 deaths. I've heard that VAERS underreports because medical professionals don't have the time to make the submissions (I don't really know if that's true or not). It's impossible to confirm what the precise risks are and whether those reporting systems are over- or understating the real picture, but it's irresponsible, I think, to handwave about risks to someone who clearly had a bad response.
I know someone who had both the myocarditis as well as a severe allergic reaction, which could have been fatal if she hadn't received benadryl in time. After that, she was advised by her doctor to not get the 2nd shot. But because the social pressure being placed on people is so high, she is still minded to get the 2nd shot even when her own doctor advises against it. I don't think medical decisions should be swayed by peer pressure from people on the internet, or an employer.
The point about VAERS is that you do not need to be a medical professional to submit to VAERS. Joe Schmoe from down the lane can submit to VAERS and say the mRNA vaccine caused him to turn into the incredible hulk and it will be listed alongside people who had legitimate flu-like symptoms.
I don't understand why this batch of vaccines is being compared to vaccines for other diseases as if they are the same thing. Other vaccines are generally mandated for children with extremely high efficacy, have an extremely low chance of adverse events, prevent community spread perfectly or almost perfectly, have an exactly known quantity of doses required and are deployed as prevention (not in the midst of a pandemic). Importantly, they treat diseases that cause extremely bad outcomes in children at very high rates. This current generation of covid vaccines is more like a drug that works well for some and not so for others, doesn't prevent transmission, aims at moving target, requires an unknown amount of doses, only modestly discourages continued spread and represents one of many ways for society to treat, tackle and prevent the disease. This is a disease that is trending downwards in its mortality rate, while being of fairly low risk for the majority of the population, with the lowest risk found for young people. The diseases we mandate children to get vaccinated for are not declining in their disastrous health effects as far as I know. The risk of adverse events from the current set of covid vaccines is lowish but not particularly low. All that doesn't make the vaccines we have for covid any less important, but the comparison really does not wash and is a highly dubious way of engaging around the topic of body sovereignty.
There are a small group of people out there who are scared to death to take this vaccine because they genuinely think it will do harm to them. They are being asked to override their own alarms by people who do not share the fear because they don't have the same alarm bells going off. I know only a few of these people and they all have a ton of prior negative experiences with the medical system that would have left me feeling much the same way if I had shared their experiences personally. There are people that have been put in a 'do as you are told' situations and have received medical interventions that have done them great harm. Now they are being hounded and once again are being told to do as they are told, while fearing for their own health. A lot of people are willing to sweep aside their concerns as if they are asocial, ignorant, stupid, irresponsible and part to blame for the scale of the epidemic. People who feel out of control want to blame others so very badly, concentrating culpability in the hands of a group of bad actors, and it results in completely warped thinking with a tendency to dehumanise. And people can pick this up in others and it only increases their skepticism. They fear people operating in a blinkered, blame-seeking authoritarian way, and they see that as danger.
Though I encourage vaccination and have repeatedly tried to talk people who fear it off the ledge, I totally understand where the dictatorship and corruption logic is coming from. It doesn't take a hard-core cynic to raise an eye-brow when a drug company CEO proclaims that we'll all be needing many repeated doses of their product for years to come, while a leading political figure with immediate ties to the biotech industry wants to encourage countries to mandate the use of their products. If you had told me 2 years ago that society would control, monitor, demonise and divide people on the basis of having or having not received a recent government sanctioned medical treatment, I would have probably called you a hysterical conspiracy nut.
Thank you! Every crazy axe murderer receives more empathy then the people who simply stopped trusting the system after being lied to one time too often.
Two things drive me crazy:
1. How easy it is to dehumanize a significant percentage of the population.
2. How willingly politicians embrace that in order to find a scapegoat for their own failures.
Am I an odd case? Nowadays all my side-project code is to scratch an itch, fix a problem or create a solution I want to use that doesn't exist yet. I'm not motivated by the tech itself and the money is not a primary driver either.
There's so much variety between people, one formulation for one person might work well for one person but have negative effects on another even if they have a supportive diet and lifestyle. People might simply have to trial multiple formulas that have the right mix of strains before they find one that works for them.
Prebiotic foods seem to have more consistent results on gut health, according to some studies.
(not medical/health advice disclaimer)