Link? There are theories that infection by certain viruses can trigger celiac in genetically susceptible people, but infection doesn’t usually count as microbiota.
Well, it’s behind the paywall, but even the abstract is pretty clear that there are no results (aka no evidence). The paper seems to want to “discuss future research directions”.
It’s a review paper. Of course it doesn’t present its own experimental results. It says it presents data (from other papers, no doubt) correlating CD with small intestine microbia, though this data is not sufficient to show causation.
What I read is: it’s possible that microbiota alteration have a role in CD, but studies that focus on that link are missing, so we should investigate more. Your sentence seems to imply that you read in the article the exact opposites, that studies were made but didn’t find any link. I know that’s not what you stated, I just want to be clear on the presuppositions.
As you said: there is no evidence, but there might be if it was investigated. So a role of microbiota is possible and at least not fantastically improbable. That’s why I used “might” five comments above.
Your sentence seems to imply that you read in the article the exact opposites, that studies were made but didn’t find any link.
I said “no results (aka no evidence)” which implies no data pointing one way or another. If I had said “negative results” that would have implied that there is evidence disproving the hypothesis.
there might be if it was investigated. So a role of microbiota is possible and at least not fantastically improbable.
LOL. There is a HUGE space of hypotheses for which there is no evidence but which are “not fantastically improbable”. Oh, and there’s a fellow with a razor here, he wants to talk to you… :-)
It’s more complicated than that. Small intestine microbiota might have a role in the genesis of the celiac disease.
Link? There are theories that infection by certain viruses can trigger celiac in genetically susceptible people, but infection doesn’t usually count as microbiota.
I’ve found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25483329
Well, it’s behind the paywall, but even the abstract is pretty clear that there are no results (aka no evidence). The paper seems to want to “discuss future research directions”.
It’s a review paper. Of course it doesn’t present its own experimental results. It says it presents data (from other papers, no doubt) correlating CD with small intestine microbia, though this data is not sufficient to show causation.
What I read is: it’s possible that microbiota alteration have a role in CD, but studies that focus on that link are missing, so we should investigate more. Your sentence seems to imply that you read in the article the exact opposites, that studies were made but didn’t find any link. I know that’s not what you stated, I just want to be clear on the presuppositions.
As you said: there is no evidence, but there might be if it was investigated. So a role of microbiota is possible and at least not fantastically improbable. That’s why I used “might” five comments above.
I said “no results (aka no evidence)” which implies no data pointing one way or another. If I had said “negative results” that would have implied that there is evidence disproving the hypothesis.
LOL. There is a HUGE space of hypotheses for which there is no evidence but which are “not fantastically improbable”. Oh, and there’s a fellow with a razor here, he wants to talk to you… :-)