What is the public perception of FMT? How much does it matter? Has it been blocking progress? Other 

In one of the Reddit threads you link, someone ("WalterBishRedLicrish") said the following:

Third, this is poop we're talking about. You want their poop. For us in the medical or research fields, it's just stool and we don't think anything of it. For regular folks, it's disgusting. To frame it like good poop is not only a hot commodity, but we want your good poop because of how you look, that sends the request right on into creeper territory. It doesn't surprise me that someone blocked you, or that you get no response.

This seems to be exactly the sort of thing that NameHere was saying, and I have been noticing.

There seems to be a strong aversion among many people to the idea of using something from a healthy person's body to heal another person's body. The very fact that people who are seen as "ideal" in some way are wanted for something that their bodies produce, no matter whether obtaining it harms the donor at all, just causes a visceral "squick" response in some people.

I suspect it doesn't help that many of us in the position to need microbes from healthy donors aren't in a position to grasp the psychology of being someone who not only is healthy enough to live his or her own life without being held back, but is wanted by other people who idealize his or her body in some manner--it is almost Martian to us in level of unrelatability. We think "if that person is a decent human being, why wouldn't he/she help me out?" I mean, even if and when someday I'm healthy enough to function well, I've lived so long being held back by my health, I would likely give stool, urine, saliva, sweat, what ever someone even thinks he or she might need from me to test out a theory. Since I did nothing on purpose to need to go on antibiotics to get me messed up like this, it would seem weird to me to feel "possessive" of a healthy microbiome, and feel any kind of contempt or disgust at someone who needs an infusion of microbes to function, so it seems like everyone else should feel the same.

It's easy for us to get resentful that these people who stand between us and the health we had before, that we feel we still deserve, are human agents with their own willpower who can say no to our requests. I know I sometimes fall into that way of thinking. In the language of inane Internet portmanteaus, you could say we become "poopcels" or "microbiomecels". And like the incels that inspired these silly terms, there's something about that way of thinking that really puts certain people off in an instinctual sort of way. And those voices seem particularly pronounced in our culture right now.

Again, not everyone is like this, there are very generous people who would love to help, but their voices kind of get drowned out in our world.

Now, there IS also an opposing "instinct" that has also been just as prevalent across a number of world cultures--suggesting it's also partly "innate"--that imbues healthy young bodies with an almost magical or supernatural ability to heal others' problems. The manifestations of this range from the obviously very violent and cruel practice of infant sacrifice, all the way to the mostly innocuous even if strange-sounding "virgin boy eggs" of China.

These two impulses seem to have kind of "dueled it out" across world history, and it so happens that in current Western culture, the tendency to be weirded out by the concept of using healthy people's bodies as some kind of means to the betterment of others seems to have the upper hand. This has some good sides, that hopefully some truly harmful and exploitative non-consensual behavior that was overlooked in the past is finally being brought to light; however the downside is that some genuinely good and benevolent ideas have become a hard sell just because of people's hyperactive squick detectors. So something like FMT, which is as harmless to the donors as those Chinese eggs, yet has a MUCH greater weight of evidence supporting its benefit and considerable plausibility given what we know about the gut, is difficult to promote.

You could say that the concept "culturally smells", and when you add the literal, olfactory stink of (most) stool, you get something many people don't want to touch--and that others (such as politicians) avoid to not trigger the sensitivities of those people. In order to overrule this "cultural stink", one would need considerably stronger evidence than just "the gut microbiome plays a role in many diseases".

That's why there are all these scientists studying the gut who promote things like the Mediterranean diet and so few promoting FMT. There's nothing culturally unsavory about promoting a Mediterranean diet, in fact quite the opposite--many people like Italian food and nobody or nothing is reasonably exploited to create it. Yes, there's scientific evidence for the Mediterranean diet, but a lot of the strength of that evidence can be attributed to how "fashionable" it is to study. If there was as much study of FMT as there has been of the Mediterranean diet, we'd probably have tons of people doing it now.

Then, due to the lack of good data, another cultural phenomenon comes into play--the fear of charlatans and being labeled as an intellectual heretic. Contrarily to the aversion to someone seeking donors, which relates to fears about the healthy donors being manipulated or used in some way, this relates to the fear that the sick recipients may be preyed upon or that people might attempt to "steal" prestige that they aren't due.

In my understanding, FMT only gets the negative response it does because of all three of these things working together. FMT would be better researched if high quality donors were more available, which would happen if the process didn't weird people out. With a lack of good research, the evidence isn't strong enough to overpower the "cultural stink". And leaders who are aware of the "cultural stink" don't dare support it unless there were doctors to "clinic-wash" the whole thing and cover up the visceral offputtingness of putting something from one person into another. So the whole field languishes.

That's why tons of other health practices and views (like anti-vax-ism) that many scientists consider pure quackery nonetheless have a flourishing market, and proponents of them even get very high in politics--yet FMT "dare not say its name".

And your comment that 70% of people would be willing to try FMT for C. diff doesn't contradict any of this. People like that would be acutely, seriously ill with a well recognized disease, at a point in their lives when their dignity is at a nadir. They would be getting treatment in a hospital by doctors who remove any trace of the "person-to-person-ness" of the transplant, and for this indication the proof of effectiveness is very strong. All this context does matter. This is very different from for example asking people if they would consider donating stool to a person suffering from diseases like ME/CFS, which some ignorant people think of as "just stress".
 
Just some points of clarification, as I suspect some people may misunderstand parts of the above--I'm NOT implying that FMT recipients mistreat donors in any way, or even tend to. Most of us are very nice to donors who we actually feel are promising, and very "down to earth" in our expectations of the time put in by them. It's the mere neediness (unfortunately something we can often do little about given our poor functioning) that puts some people off, unless (and occasionally even IF) couched in a super-diplomatic sort of way.

The more "stigmatized", for lack of a better word, the recipient group is, and the more "boutique" their criteria for donors seems to be, the more likely it will be to get viewed negatively. This "boutiqueness" can involve anything from sports stars and rich celebrities to the unusually attractive like beauty queens to merely exceptional youthfulness, and the "stigmatization" can be anything that makes the potential recipients seem unrelatable or "weird".

So something like blood transfusion is not seen negatively because the recipients are usually those with severe accidental injuries, not a stigmatized group at all, and the only requirement for the donors is that they are free of major diseases and have a matching blood type. Whereas the idea that FMT for chronic illness would be a miracle cure if only we had exceptional high quality donors IS seen negatively because most people have a hard time imagining being in a situation where they need to beg others for their stool, barring being in the hospital or similar, and the donors are hard to come by. It's in a way the old "beggars can't be choosers" maxim, where we are in the position of being forced by circumstances to "beg" (because stool sources are scarce, and many of us are poor) AND "choose" (because as we all know, FMT can fail or even make us worse if not done right).

Let's imagine for a second that there were some kind of chemical compound in the earwax of college cheerleaders that protects against baldness. I'm in no way implying that there IS, in fact I'd say the probability of this being true (and there not being a much simpler source for this same compound) is almost nil. But my point is that even if this WERE true, we'd likely never find out, because the level of public resistance to going so far as approving or funding a study that could potentially demonstrate this would be huge, and the hoops needed to jump through to justify it so onerous. Even if there were decent preliminary evidence suggesting it might work, such as animal studies where grad students rubbed their earwax on mouse fur, anyone in government who turned out to have been in charge of assigning taxpayer money to try to prove the cheerleader-earwax-baldness link would be ridiculed like there's no tomorrow.

Yes, if people DID get to studying this, eventually there's a point where science would need to acquiesce and admit there is truth to the claim. That's the great thing about science. But this likely wouldn't be until long after everyone in the world who was starting to go bald at the start of this all had already lost all his or her hair.

So it's not a matter of that people are so cognitively impaired that they can't read, and it's not a cover-up or conspiracy. It's that the treatment we're trying to get runs headlong against many people's emotional biases, and these same biases make doing the research necessary to get the data that overturns these biases very slow. And I'm not saying that I agree with these biases in any way--in fact they are often a major barrier to advancement of human knowledge--but to deny that they exist shows its own kind of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
I think public perception of FMT is largely a non-issue. I commented on the "ick factor" in the other thread. And the 72% and 28% stat given there is roughly what I observe on social media as well.

The only times I've ever received a negative reaction from someone were when I was asking them to be a donor.

I have a ton of experience over the past decade, and I think the biggest issues by far, and thus the only ones worth focusing on, are laziness, apathy, and ignorance.

These are the recurring themes, both in the general populace (patient communities), as well as the research communities. You can see that I've documented a plethora of experiences in support.

I gave another example recently of me emailing the hundreds of Human Microbes recipients, most of whom got better from the FMTs, and only two or three were willing to do something as simple as send emails to Congress.

I just spoke to a couple of people who had never heard about FMT or the microbiome before. They reacted with amazement and interest, not disgust. One of them is dealing with many health problems, including being overweight. I mentioned the "transfer of obesity via FMT mouse studies". I told them what I'd been doing in DC for the past 9 months, and that I've been unable to make progress since the general public doesn't seem to care.

When I followed up with him about it, it was clear that he didn't care either, even though he's been involved in politics and talks about it frequently. I asked him why, and he said "Well, there are lots of things I could be doing for my health". A response that very clearly supports the "laziness, apathy, and ignorance" conclusion.

This is overwhelmingly my experience. And Congresspeople will not take action unless a large number of people demand it.

I think that focusing on anything else is a red herring.

That's why there are all these scientists studying the gut who promote things like the Mediterranean diet and so few promoting FMT.
They don't promote FMT because it's an experimental medical treatment that is not even approved for C. diff (it's simply allowed) in the US. It has major risks, unlike eating healthy diets.

That's why tons of other health practices and views (like anti-vax-ism) that many scientists consider pure quackery nonetheless have a flourishing market
Based on my observations and interactions, that is a result of people being poorly informed and unintelligent.

So something like blood transfusion is not seen negatively because
Poop is much grosser than blood. And there are groups who object to blood transfusions.

Let's imagine for a second that there were some kind of chemical compound in the earwax of college cheerleaders that protects against baldness

Even if there were decent preliminary evidence suggesting it might work, such as animal studies where grad students rubbed their earwax on mouse fur, anyone in government who turned out to have been in charge of assigning taxpayer money to try to prove the cheerleader-earwax-baldness link would be ridiculed like there's no tomorrow
I highly doubt that.
 
Last edited:
They don't promote FMT because it's an experimental medical treatment that is not even approved for C. diff (it's simply allowed) in the US. It has major risks, unlike eating healthy diets.
Umm... so now you're agreeing with the people who have been telling you that it's too experimental and has major risks?

Poop is much grosser than blood. And there are groups who object to blood transfusions.
Again... so you're now agreeing that disgust is one of the main factors, when you have spent about five posts trying to convince us why it's insignificant in the larger picture?

Yes, there are people who object to blood transfusions but they're generally religious fanatics. As even you seems to now agree, the grossness of poop has a lot to do with why it's being treated differently. And the grossness of someone making a commodity out of it for the benefit of people who supposedly have other treatments available makes it sound even worse to many.

I highly doubt that.
Which do you doubt: That cheerleader earwax contains an anti-baldness compound? or that anyone who'd even propose testing to potentially discover this cure would be laughed out of town? If it's the former, I'm totally with you. If it's the latter, I think you underestimate the need to seem "respectable" among people in charge of government agencies. Note my comment was absolutely NOT that there isn't a "mad scientist" weird enough to GET the idea--there certainly are many such eccentric scientists out there. The issue is rather with the social institutions with which they would need to interact if they want this idea to be condoned by the public and/or get funding FROM the public.
 
Umm... so now you're agreeing with the people who have been telling you that it's too experimental and has major risks?
This is a very misleading statement. I have been one of the most vocal people about FMT's risks:
Continued letters and complaints to the FDA, NIH, and HHS (Jan 2025, FMT) | Human Microbiome Community Forum

Again... so you're now agreeing that disgust is one of the main factors
No, that is not what I said.

or that anyone who'd even propose testing to potentially discover this cure would be laughed out of town?
This one.
 
This time I agree with @SFBayFMT5 fully. Your comments were very reasonable and kind in this thread compared to other threads. Also, I didn’t see any logic or convincing argument from @Michael Harrop and disagree with him fully compared to countless other threads and posts where I agree with him fully or atleast there is a logic . I mean no disrespect. I respect him a lot. He is a logical and smart person otherwise.

But Again , I am mentally ill and non functioning person so my words don’t mean much and probably be ignored .
 
Last edited:
This time I agree with @SFBayFMT5 fully. Your comments were very reasonable and kind in this thread compared to other threads. Also, I didn’t see any logic or convincing argument from @Michael Harrop and disagree with him fully compared to countless other threads and posts where I agree with him fully or atleast there is a logic . I mean no disrespect. I respect him a lot. He is a logical and smart person otherwise.

But Again , I am mentally ill and non functioning person so my words don’t mean much and probably be ignored .
I certainly am not ignoring it. My question though is, how can we band together and do some kind of community outreach to find the people who AREN'T turned off by this.

Michael is trying to do this on a national scale, which is commendable--but if we all banded together to help each other find donors in our own local communities, we'd probably have a better chance. I think that minds are easier to change on a local level where people are on a more familiar level. Then once people know someone down the street who benefited from a treatment like this, they are more likely to push on a state or national level.
 
I've been posting videos to Twitter and other social media for the past few weeks and no one is interacting with the tweets, and the videos are getting very few views. The accounts are linked at the top right of the page: https://www.humanmicrobes.org/
I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but I watched most of your videos and had some comments.

In one video, you mention that you approached a man who looked "visibly unhealthy", and he reacted " with astonishment that you came to that conclusion. Then when you educated him about FMT, he "reacted with amazement" (all quotes are verbatim from your video). You interpreted this as him being clueless about health and that he found the very idea that there could even exist a cure like FMT to be huge news.

I wasn't there of course, and even if I HAD been there, as someone on the spectrum I would not have been in a good position to judge his reaction. However, I know that among neurotypicals, walking up to random strangers and offering them unsolicited health advice based on their appearance is considered inappropriate. While plenty of people internally judge other people all the time, saying such thoughts aloud is considered rude, especially when the target is just someone going about his or her daily life and not attempting to start up a health-related conversation. It's therefore possible that this guy was "astonished" at the idea that someone would be such a "rude weirdo" as to approach someone on the street who he or she doesn't know from Adam and openly call him "unhealthy" to his face based upon how his body looks and how he walks. I'm sure there are quite some people who would react this way, especially if the stranger uses phrases like "biologically deficient or defective" to describe his or her health (which you may or may not have used with people who walk up to your sign). The latter could even lead some people to think that you might be some kind of neo-Nazi, which of course would make them completely uninterested in your sign and opinions.

It doesn't matter that you were well-meaning and introducing him to a possibly miraculous treatment--it's the mere fact that someone calls attention to someone else's health-related traits. I've shared with some people some things I was going to send potential donors, and they have drawn attention to even some very complimentary and non-objectifying statements I was about to make as possibly coming across as too judgmental. With people you know well, it's possible to share more of your honest opinion of them without it being seen as intrusive and rude. Though even there, there are people who don't take well to this kind of counseling. I tend to not get along with such people for long.

That brings me to the other main thing I wanted to bring up, which has to do with that person at your sign saying "there are many things I could be doing for my health". I've noticed the same thing that you have, that most people view their health with a quite different frame of mind than you or I, in that they see it less as "all or nothing" and more just as a series of tradeoffs that they're making constantly. Someone like you or I have been convinced that there's a HUGE gap between the version of ourselves that we currently are, and the maximum potential we COULD have. A lot of this has to do with our life experiences of "Flowers for Algernon" sort of huge losses or gains in state of functioning (as you alluded to once). Whereas most people, regardless of how thriving or disabled they are, feel as though they're functioning about where they "should" be, even if not where they'd like to be. In other words, they see their limitations and/or disabilities as facts of life that should be managed rather than as catastrophic "breakages" that need a magic bullet to fix. This is especially true after age 40 or so.

I have found this difference in attitude very frustrating in people I've been in relationships with. I haven't met someone who I feel truly understands the sort of transformation I'm seeking for myself. I find it even much MORE frustrating when dealing with doctors who seem to act as though being this messed up is "normal". I'm not sure to what extent those other people are "accurate" in the sense that their own biology is incompatible with such quantum leaps of improvement, or whether they just haven't found something like FMT that made that kind of life-changing difference.

Finally, I will say that there IS something "odd" about how your manner comes across when speaking, which is something I thought I picked up in stills of your face but admittedly was just inferring rather than actually observing. Now that I've seen video, I've realized that you come across "oddly" in a somewhat different way than what I was imagining. You don't come across like a raving insane person, rather you have a completely expressionless, "stony" face and body, almost as though someone edited a video and froze everything in place but your lips and chin. This means you don't come across as "engaging" the way you would if you gestured and moved your face more. This in and of itself would NOT be any problem whatsoever, if it weren't for the fact that you're trying to get people to talk about a "weird", potentially disgusting topic. But given that you ARE, this likely contributes to the reactions you're getting.

Anyway, I commend you for putting in so much effort to spread awareness about the microbiome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The first half of your comment is erroneous because he wasn't some random stranger.

Yes, it's very frustrating that people have come to accept disease as normal.

My lack of expression is due to my poor health. I've been bed-bound & homebound for the past decade. What I've been doing in DC for the past year is an extraordinary feat.
 
The first half of your comment is erroneous because he wasn't some random stranger.
I don't mean he was necessarily an "average Joe"--he could have been a super important politician or businessman with lots of connections who is very well known in his circle of influence and still be a "random stranger" for these purposes. He could have even been in the healthcare field himself, he could have been a doctor, he could even be the Surgeon General for that matter--and yet he'd still be a "random stranger" from the perspective of taking health advice from you. You could have had a meeting with him or his staff previously and that wouldn't change a thing.

What I doubt was that this guy was someone you have some sort of ongoing personal relationship with, who sees you as something other than just some petitioner on the street. Even in the (seemingly very unlikely) chance that this man was an old high school friend of yours who just happened to walk right by you on the street of Washington DC at the right time, the intervening life he has led as an adult since then would put you mostly back into that "stranger" category.

What you would need would be either someone who you meet in the context of him seeking health information, like for instance if you met him in a chronic illness support group, or else the sort of person who knows you well enough that he would consider having you babysit his kids or tell you about his relationship struggles. In the first case, people who attend illness support groups already acknowledge that they are unhealthy. In this context, offering to tell them about a new treatment is not out of context and wouldn't "astonish" anyone. In the second context, the person already has a reason to respect you and expect your genuine concern when you point out something personal about him.
 
You are wrong on all accounts. You made a bunch of erroneous assumptions in order to reach a negative conclusion. Then, when you are told that your assumptions were wrong, you persist. That is the behavior of a troll.
 
Back
Top Bottom