Lactobacillus: no growth in stool sample despite lots of supplements given

[anotherdayanothersquabble]

Any ideas why the lactobacillus I am putting in, is not colonising?

I was suppose ting with 8bn bacteria for three months before the sample was taken, stopped 2 weeks before to test colonisation. Have been taking probiotics on and off for 8 years. Biocare, Biocult and Hyperbiotics.

It was a private stool sample, analysed by Genova Diagnostics. There was colonisations of Haemolytic Escherichia coli, Baccillus species and gamma haemolytic Streptococcus which we will start to treat.

Could these additional bacteria be preventing the growth of the lactobacillus? Any other thoughts as to why they are not sticking?

How are they "treating" the "other" colonisations?

Also, if they are treating "Bacillus species", then that would include Lactobacillus- spot the issue there.

I'm sorry but this sounds like money making pseudoscience to me.

Have you seen an NHS specialist or just private?

This sounds like money making to me too!
I did see an article about probiotics and how most don't ever reach the gut alive or something so pointless. The only one that seemed to make a difference when tested for results was called Symprove which I did try for a few months and it made me feel a lot better.

He has seen a proper doctor as well, hasn't he?

Thanks for your questions, Micah, Looseleaf and Halkluyt. We see an immunologist who is a 'proper' doctor, recommended by our paediatrician. Not in the UK, so not NHS. And sure, it's making money for someone but so far, the nutritional approach is costing us much less than the hospital admissions and medications were before we started this!!

Not sure why I put 'proper' in ' '. Just intrigued at the question.

It was me said "proper"-sorry.

I am pretty sure that probiotics and gut flora and things like that are pretty dodgy science- and I would certainly be asking questions after 8 years of supplements...............

Does he have a diagnosis?

Gut flora plays a huge part in our immunity.
That are now doing faecal transplants to treat some infections rather than resorting to antibiotics, especially for C. difficile.
There was also the case of the obese person whose faeces were used for a transplant and the recipient became obese. I think there will be a lot more research into this in the future.

"There was also the case of the obese person whose faeces were used for a transplant and the recipient became obese."

Say more?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31168511

So they cured her vomiting, diarrhoea and ado pain, she started being able to eat again and put on weight?

To me the obvious cause of the weight gain would be the improvement to her original symptoms. Why they're jumping to the faecal transplant being directly responsible....how are they going to prove causative link there?

o/p, if it's been 8 years I'd be concluding it's not working.

Again, what is the treatment for the other colonisations? And how do they explain wanting to colonise with lactobacillus but "treat" Bacillus spp as a whole? You can't do one without the other...

Thanks for pseudoscience perspectives.

What are you doing to treat the E coli, bacillus species and streptococcus colonisation?

Fatima, none of those bacteria need treating under normal circumstances - they are 'healthy' commensals.

What Pacific said. These are normal gut bacteria.
I'm prepared to be corrected, but I thought that Lactobacillus fell into the category of Bacillus species...

This does worry me- I do hope the OP comes back.

This does worry me- I do hope the OP comes back

I doubt it. I don't think we've given the "correct" responses. None of the questions asked have been answered. Either the o/p is following this HP's advice without knowing exactly the risk/benefit, or she chooses to think she and the dr are right, and we are all wrong/sceptics.

I'm prepared to be corrected, but I thought that Lactobacillus fell into the category of Bacillus species...

I've asked this question twice, but no response. You can't remove Bacillus as a species without removing Lactobacillus, so something seems off with the advice in the original post to try and colonise with Loactobacillus, while removing bacillus spp.

Just for the poor little boy and the fixation with his poo............

OK, I have had some time to have a look more closely given the comments made above and looking in more detail at the notes I made during the consultation. Apologies for my lack of understanding. The bacterial analysis is split into beneficial bacteria (lacking Lactobacillus), other bacteria non pathogen, which includes the ones I mentioned above and potential pathogens (none found). The other analysis identified parasites and high acidity levels. The treatment we have been given is to treat the parasites and to address the high acidity levels.

I hear the comments about pseudo science and the fact that giving pro biotics over the years does not seem to have worked, though that it is possible the Lactobaccilus is there, just not detected.

I am hoping that removing sugar and addressing the acidity levels might help.

Thanks for all of your input.

So where are the "high acidity levels"? How did they measure that? Blood, stomach?

What parasites? worms?

So if there aren't any pathogenic bacteria, why have they suggested "treating" non-pathogenic organisms?

Not picking, trying to understand so I can understand properly what it is they're trying to do (have a microbiology/biochem background).

I also want to understand.
We send off faecal samples regularly for cats and dogs. Parasites are always named. Only pathogenic bacteria are treated. PH is never mentioned, so why is it important for it not to be acidic?

Acidity levels in poo??

Honestly, I don't understand at all now.

I took bacillus species to mean Bacillus spp, not all bacteria that happen to be bacilli. Bacillus and Lactobacillus are different genera.

c diff is the only infection that faecal transplants have been used for as far as I am aware, and then only when antibiotics have failed. It's not a first-line treatment to avoid resorting to antibiotics and isn't without risk.

I am trying to be open-minded about this thread because there is a lot of research going on in this area at the moment but it's early stages and I wasn't aware that anything that was understood well enough to be incorporated into clinical practice yet. There may well be things I don't know about though.

Having said that, I can't imagine any good coming of trying to "treat" perfectly normal gut commensals. If nothing else the C diff risk would be significant!

Oh, and non-pathogenic parasites in poo are very common and perfectly normal as well. And wouldn't be reported in a clinical sample.

Pacific I know none of them need treating, it was OP that said they were treating them so I was merely wondering what they were doing to "treat" them