- Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
I gathered folks' self-reported stories from this forum into one place, and did some simple analysis. I did this because I found myself wondering the same thing that many others were: is FMT effective as a treatment for colitis in its various forms? Since there are no studies on it, to the best of my knowledge, I researched the topic with the data that was available: self-reported anecdotes. I never claimed to be a statistician or credentialed researcher, nor did I make any claims about the quality of my data. In fact, I do my best to ensure folks reading what I write understand where it comes from, and that the sample size is, in fact, small, in the hopes that they aren't misled. Can't guarantee folks aren't misled, but I do try. So, DB, your observation about it being no better than chance is a good one, and prompts me to present the data to the larger audience so that they can draw their own conclusions. The aggressive and testy tone of your post is rather unwelcome, though. So, toward the greater good, here is the data itself. In the spirit of total disclosure, please note that, when tabulating this data, I had to judge whether the protocol the person was following was good ("+"), so-so ("+/-"), or not good ("-"). I also had to judge (though, much less so) whether people's results were good, so-so, or not good (people tend to give their own opinions about their results). I personally made these judgments, based on my own research into FMT, and the best (or worst, as some cases turned out to be) ways to go about it. I have read several of Borody's papers, as well as many other papers, case studies, and anecdotes about FMT. My research was conducted over the course of about 6 months' time. It is up to you whether you believe my judgment to be reasonable or not. If not, then I invite you to do your own research and make your own judgments. Results for ulcerative colitis only (self-reported) Results Protocol + +/- - + 4 1 1 +/- 0 1 1 - 0 2 2 Protocol quality is in rows, Results are in columns. This is the data from which I said that those who pay attention to what they're doing (protocol = "+"; the first row showing 4, 1, and 1) can get some good results (4 people out of 12). It also shows 4 people of 12 got bad results (the results = "-" column). But I think it clearly shows a bit of a distinction: good protocol tends to get good results. To a much lesser degree, bad protocol yields bad results. And then there are the unfortunate souls who get so-so or bad results, despite a good protocol. Expanding the scope to all diseases/conditions that are reported in this forum (C-Diff, colitis, IBS, indeterminate colitis, pan colitis, proctitis, UC, UP, and one who did not report a disease/condition), we get this data: Results Protocol + +/- - + 8 1 1 +/- 4 2 1 - 1 2 4 I think the trend is clearer here: good protocol generally begets good results, and bad protocol generally begets bad results. Note that "good results" here does not mean cure. It means improvement or positive outcome, as judged by the person doing FMT and reporting their results. There you have it. Do with it what you will. |