Although it's too late for me, it would be great if they go ahead with clinical trials.
I've always wondered though. How would you do a double blind study of
fecal transplant? Would you give the control group some concoction that
looks and smells like poop, but is actually bacteria free and inert?
Or maybe a study can be persuasive even if it's not double blind.
Another uncontrollable factor is that each donor and each poop specimen is different.
There's no proof yet, but I think it's likely that a considerable number of UC cases
are caused by bacteria.
Consider the history of peptic ulcers. A bacterial cause was not entertained since it was believed that no bacteria could survive in the hydrochloric acid of the stomach.The party line was that peptic ulcers are caused by stress. Many people made their living by counselling patients on how to reduce stress in their lives. Then, in 1982, the Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren identified Helicobacter pylori as the cause. Marshall actually swallowed a dose of H. pylori. He quickly developed stomach ulcers. Then he cured himself with antibiotics. It wasn't until 1994 that
a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference recommended
antibiotics as the treatment.
An interesting fact is that roughly half the world's population has H. pylori living
in their stomachs, but only a tiny fraction develop stomach ulcers. So, you could say that those people who do develop ulcers from H. pylori have an autoimmune disease, or
perhaps an imperfection in the mucous membrane lining of their stomachs.
Who cares? It's curable by eliminating the bacteria, H. pylori. May it prove similar
with ulcerative colitis!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori
http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm