From the same article:
*"Key Points
Although some probiotic formulations have shown promise in research, strong scientific evidence to support specific uses of probiotics for most conditions is lacking."*
Sure, Probiotics don’t cure everything they are promoted as- but neither do antibiotics, and who call them ‘woo”?
Two weeks of severe diarrhea, to the point of rectal bleeding, and eating absolutely nothing whatsoever for a week, will thoroughly screw up your GI tract. Basically, my body not only tried to “flush out” the norovirus by copious use of bodily fluids, it also apparently “washed away” a lot of the normal gut fauna.
Admittedly, mine was an extreme bout of the disease. Spending a week in the hospital unable to hold down even plain water while producing quarts to gallons of diarrhea daily sort of sucked. Yay, IV’s.
The gastroenterologist recommended some probiotics as part of restoring my system to normal function, in no small part because I couldn’t handle eating yogurt, which was his first suggestion.
First off DrDeth my apologies for not realizing what was and what was not behind the wall. The same material hower is included in Deegeea’s link.
DrDeth, the issue is the magnitude of the chasm between what they do do and what some claim they do, specifically the claims asked about in the op.
“Strong evidence” of probiotic efficacy only exists for a very few specific indications. “Promising” means that there is really no good evidence at all, just good reasons to speculate. Even the “substantial” translates to a good amount of conflicting evidence. Here are some details on the atopic dermatis front:
(Bolding mine.)
Meta-analysis says … maybe some modest benefit in prevention of atopic dermatitis by giving the probiotics to women before they give birth.
So certain probiotics used prenatally can modestly reduce the frequency of atopic dermatitis, presumably by impacting what biota gets established in the first place. No good evidence that it does anything once atopic dermatitis (or the microbiota) is already established.
Do you get a sense of how wide the gulf is between what the evidence actually is and the claims being made that using who knows what probiotics can impact autism, celiac disease, allergies, cancer, etc.?
There is real hard science research that strongly suggests that changes in the Western microbiota is associated with a variety of allergic and autoimmune diseases … even research that shows that gut bacteria play a major role in the efficiacy of various cancer therapeutics. The science will likley evolve to points where more can be said and specific courses of action can be advised to impact the nature of our microbiomes (which may include some use of some certain probiotics in specific circumstances); I believe it will. But the “probiotics good and can cure all” mentality is woo that harms the cause of figuring out what real roles they may have.
Not what most people are thinking of (or selling) in terms of pro-biotics, but worm infestations may end up playing a role in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and possibly other auto-immune conditions.
This article focuses on mucus, but there is a lot of work out there to suggest that auto-immune diseases lacking the acustomed challenges. (Hygeine hypothesis, etc). Weinstock’s work focuses on the immune system, not mucus, I believe.
An additional comment on the op itself. Those people are placing probiotics as the cure for the effects of endemic antibiotic exposure (via the big food industry), exposures to antibiotics from early childhood on, and the additive intergenerational effects on our microbiomes, our crappy diets inadequate in fruits, vegatables, and whole grains, the relative paucity of diversity in our microbiomes and the impact of not being exposed to enough of “the right sort of dirt.”
I agree with the identified problem. But not with probiotics as representing any sort of solution. The analogy I’d make is to the history of lake Erie. It had a lack of normal life in it and was instead overgrown with algae, to the point it was considered “dead.” The reason was pollution and in particular excessive phophorus leading to algal overgrowth which then died and created anoxic areas as they decomposed. Throwing few thousand trout, pike, or walleye, even tens of thousands, in the lake would not have helped much. Revitalizing the lake occurred by changing the environment of the lake, limiting the amount of phophorus and raw sewage entering it. Once that was done fish populations, diverse fish populations, gradually recovered.
“He say…medicine…is for goat.”
– Tom Hanks character in The Terminal
The latest:
… how do you weigh a mouse testicle?
Weigh yourself.
Weigh yourself with the mouse’s testicle in your hand.
Math.
On a tiny scale (after dissection).
Kind of hard to weigh them again six months later if you’ve already dissected them. 
After suffering thru a bout of C.Dif. last year from overly prescribed antibiotics for surgery, I take bovine colostrum powder every day to (theoretically) replenish the flora in the gut. Since the gut is the place where immunity is established, it makes sense. I havent been sick since taking it. touch wood
These meese gots big balls. Just have them lift the left one onto the scale, then the right. Operant conditioning.
And here I had assumed that immunity was established in the immune system.
Got a cite?
You must ask for a cite. And if she gives you one, you must evaluate it. Is it based on double blind studies?
Apparently, the very first population of intestinal flora happens in the birth canal. Babies delivered by Cesarian don’t get that.
So, none of your stomachs are upset? 