The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
It's almost like maybe there's a double whammy going on where it's like he bacteria are feeding on the mucin that's breaking it down but at the same time, the cells that make the mucin are being starved of the energy substrates they need to make that mucin. So you just got this like double whammy compounded effect.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think I read somewhere like between 60% to 90% of the goblet cells which are the specialized cell in the gut that produce mucin which is actually the mucus. Slimy stuff that makes up the gut barrier. They rely on that as energy.
when you're starving these gut bacteria in the colon, how they start to eat away the mucus and of course that's the gut barrier that is the mucus. Most people know about the gut barrier when that breaks down, you start to have the immune cells which are usually not in contact with all these bacteria in you gut. So it starts to come in contact and then they can start to have an immune response.