A listener asks: does the constant low-grade exposure of bile to the small intestine after gallbladder removal cause meaningful harm? The question sits in an uncomfortable gap between surgical reassurance and gastroenterological reality. The small intestine evolved to handle bile in pulses, triggered by eating. Without the gallbladder, bile drips continuously, potentially activating bile acid receptors (FXR, TGR5) during fasting periods when they should be silent. While most patients adapt, a subset—estimated between five and fifteen percent—may develop duodenal inflammation, bloating, or postprandial discomfort. The evidence is mixed but plausible: studies show altered bile acid kinetics in post-cholecystectomy patients, and the constant presence of bile may shift the gut microbiome by favoring bile-resistant bacteria, potentially contributing to SIBO. Treatment options remain workarounds. Bile acid sequestrants like colesevelam can mop up excess bile in the lumen, but they are blunt instruments that can interfere with vitamin absorption. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) aims to shift the bile acid pool toward a less irritating composition. No device currently restores pulsatile delivery, though early-stage research on implantable artificial gallbladders exists. For now, the goal is symptom reduction, not cure.
#3701: Constant Bile Drip: Is It Harmful After Gallbladder Removal?
Does constant bile exposure after cholecystectomy cause chronic inflammation? We examine the evidence.
Episode Details
- Episode ID
- MWP-3880
- Published
- Duration
- 31:35
- Audio
- Direct link
- Pipeline
- V5
- TTS Engine
-
chatterbox-regular - Script Writing Agent
- deepseek-v4-pro
AI-Generated Content: This podcast is created using AI personas. Please verify any important information independently.
Downloads
Transcript (TXT)
Plain text transcript file
Transcript (PDF)
Formatted PDF with styling
You Might Also Like
Never miss an episode
New episodes drop daily — subscribe on your favorite platform
New to the show? Start here#3701: Constant Bile Drip: Is It Harmful After Gallbladder Removal?
Daniel sent us this one — and I'll be honest, it's the kind of question that makes you realize how much of post-cholecystectomy medicine is built on assumptions nobody's actually stress-tested. The gallbladder concentrates bile. You remove it. The liver keeps making bile, but now there's no reservoir, so it just... Into the small intestine. Twenty-four seven. His question is: does that constant low-grade bile exposure actually cause harm? Is it driving a kind of chronic low-level inflammation of the small intestine that explains some of the bloating and discomfort people experience after every meal? And if so, is there anything patients can do about it, short of more surgery? He also wants us to check the premise — is it even true that this constant drip causes meaningful symptoms in most people?
This is exactly the kind of question that sits in what I'd call the uncomfortable gap between what surgeons tell patients and what gastroenterologists see in clinic. And I want to start by validating the premise, because it's not just a hypothesis — there's actually decent physiological reasoning here. The small intestine, particularly the duodenum and proximal jejunum, evolved to handle bile in pulses. You eat, cholecystokinin gets released, the gallbladder contracts, and a concentrated bolus of bile arrives precisely when there's food to emulsify. Between meals, the sphincter of Oddi is closed. The duodenal mucosa gets a break.
The system has an off switch, and removing the gallbladder basically hardwires it to the on position.
That's the concern, yeah. And the duodenal mucosa isn't passive tissue. It's got bile acid receptors — FXR, TGR5 — that are involved in everything from hormone secretion to immune modulation. When bile acids are present continuously instead of intermittently, you're essentially sending a signal that shouldn't be there during fasting periods. The question is whether that signal translates into pathology.
The evidence is mixed, which is frustrating, but I'll give you what we know. There's a 2019 review in the World Journal of Gastroenterology that looked at this specifically — post-cholecystectomy patients show altered bile acid kinetics, with faster enterohepatic cycling and more frequent exposure of the proximal small bowel to bile acids. In a subset of patients, this correlates with duodenal inflammation on biopsy. But — and this is the part where I have to be honest — correlation isn't causation, and not everyone shows that inflammation.
What percentage are we talking about? Because "a subset" could mean five percent or forty percent.
The numbers vary wildly depending on the study. Post-cholecystectomy syndrome — which is the umbrella term for ongoing symptoms after gallbladder removal — affects somewhere between ten and forty percent of patients, depending on which paper you read and how you define it. But that includes everything: sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, bile reflux gastritis, retained stones, you name it. If you narrow it specifically to patients whose primary symptom is bloating and who show duodenal inflammation on endoscopy, you're probably looking at something like five to fifteen percent.
Which is not most people, but it's also not nobody.
And that's the thing about post-cholecystectomy complications — none of them are universal, but they're all common enough that the "you'll be fine" messaging many patients get feels inadequate. This constant-drip hypothesis is particularly interesting because it might explain a phenomenon that clinicians observe but can't always account for: patients who have no structural abnormalities on imaging, no bile duct dilation, normal endoscopy, normal gastric emptying studies, and yet they're miserable after every meal.
The diagnostic no-man's-land patient. Everything looks fine, nothing is fine.
And that's where I start wondering about the bile acid signaling angle. Here's something concrete: bile acids in the duodenum trigger the release of FGF19, fibroblast growth factor 19, which feeds back to the liver to regulate bile acid synthesis. It's a beautifully tuned negative feedback loop. In a post-cholecystectomy patient, that loop is disrupted because the bile delivery pattern is abnormal. Continuous low-grade FGF19 signaling might actually suppress hepatic bile acid production inappropriately, or alternatively, the constant presence might lead to receptor desensitization. Either way, you've got a regulatory system that's been rewired without anyone's permission.
It's not just that bile is showing up at the wrong time — it's that the wrong timing might be actively messing with the body's signaling architecture.
That's the concern. And there's another piece of this that doesn't get enough attention: bile acids aren't just detergents. They're signaling molecules. They activate receptors that influence gut motility, mucosal immunity, and even the gut microbiome. Constant low-grade exposure could shift the microbial composition in the small intestine — and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, SIBO, is already disproportionately common in post-cholecystectomy patients.
Which we've talked about before — the SIBO connection. But I hadn't connected the dots between constant bile drip and microbiome shifts. Walk me through that mechanism.
Bile acids are antimicrobial. They disrupt bacterial cell membranes. Normally, the small intestine has relatively low bacterial counts compared to the colon, and bile acids help maintain that gradient. But if you're delivering bile continuously at low concentrations rather than in concentrated pulses, you might be applying just enough selective pressure to favor bile-resistant bacteria without actually suppressing overgrowth. It's the worst of both worlds — you're not getting the antimicrobial punch of a concentrated bile bolus, but you're providing a continuous selective environment.
Like using antibiotics at sub-therapeutic doses. You don't kill anything, you just breed resistance.
That's actually a really apt comparison. And there's some evidence from a 2021 study out of the University of Amsterdam that looked at duodenal aspirates in post-cholecystectomy patients with bloating. They found altered bile acid profiles and a higher prevalence of bacteria that express bile salt hydrolase — an enzyme that deconjugates bile acids. Those deconjugated bile acids are less effective at fat absorption and more irritating to the mucosa. So you get a double hit: impaired digestion and mucosal irritation.
Alright, so the premise has legs. Constant low-grade bile exposure probably does cause issues in a meaningful subset of patients. Now the harder question: what can anyone actually do about it?
This is where the treatment landscape gets thin, and I want to be upfront about that. There's no drug that replaces gallbladder function. There's no device that mimics the storage and pulsatile release. So everything we have is a workaround, and none of them directly address the continuous-drip problem. But let me walk through what's been tried and what shows some promise.
First, bile acid sequestrants. These are resins — cholestyramine, colesevelam, colestipol — that bind bile acids in the intestinal lumen, preventing them from interacting with the mucosa. They were developed for pruritus in cholestatic liver disease and for cholesterol lowering, but they've been used off-label for post-cholecystectomy diarrhea for decades. The logic for the continuous-drip problem is: if you can't stop the drip, you can at least mop it up.
Does mopping help with bloating, or just with diarrhea?
The evidence is mostly anecdotal and centered on diarrhea. There's a small 2018 study from the Mayo Clinic that looked at colesevelam specifically for post-cholecystectomy diarrhea and found about sixty percent of patients reported significant improvement. Bloating wasn't a primary endpoint, but some patients did report improvement in that too. The problem is that bile acid sequestrants are blunt instruments. They bind everything — bile acids, sure, but also fat-soluble vitamins and other medications. Long-term use requires monitoring for vitamin A, D, E, and K deficiencies.
They're not exactly a joy to take. Cholestyramine in particular — I've heard it described as drinking sand.
The newer formulations are better. Colesevelam comes as a tablet rather than a powder, and it's better tolerated. But you're right, adherence is a real issue. And there's a timing problem: if the issue is continuous bile exposure, do you take the sequestrant continuously? Because taking it with meals helps with postprandial symptoms, but it doesn't address the interprandial drip. And taking it between meals on an empty stomach is...
It's a partial solution at best. What else is in the toolkit?
Ursodeoxycholic acid — UDCA. This is interesting because it's a bile acid itself, but a hydrophilic one that's less toxic to cell membranes. The idea is that by supplementing with UDCA, you shift the bile acid pool toward a less irritating composition. It's been studied mostly in the context of bile reflux gastritis, where it does seem to reduce symptoms for some patients. There's less data on its use for the continuous-drip-into-duodenum problem specifically, but the mechanism is plausible.
Plausible mechanisms and post-cholecystectomy care — name a more iconic duo.
I know, I know. The evidence base for almost everything in this space is underpowered and underfunded. But UDCA at least has a decent safety profile and it's been used in hepatology for decades. The dosing for this indication isn't well-established, but most clinicians who use it start at around ten to fifteen milligrams per kilogram per day, split into two or three doses.
That's two approaches: bind the bile or change its composition. What about actually trying to restore some kind of pulsatility? Is there any medical device work happening here?
There's been some early-stage work on implantable artificial gallbladders, but nothing that's reached clinical use. The engineering challenges are substantial — you need something that can fill passively, concentrate bile, and then contract on demand in response to hormonal signals. That's a pump, a reservoir, a sensor, and a control system, all implantable and biocompatible. There was a group at MIT that published a proof-of-concept paper in 2020, but it was in a porcine model and they haven't progressed to human trials as far as I know.
For the foreseeable future, patients are working with pharmacological workarounds, not restorative solutions.
And I think that's worth naming explicitly because it shapes how patients should think about managing this. The goal isn't to fix the underlying problem — we can't right now. The goal is to reduce symptom burden to a tolerable level using tools that each address part of the picture.
Which brings us to the question Daniel raised about whether we should even be alarmed. Is it possible this constant drip doesn't cause meaningful harm in most patients?
I think the honest answer is yes — for most patients, it probably doesn't. The majority of people who have their gallbladder removed do not develop chronic bloating or significant postprandial symptoms. They adjust, their physiology compensates, and they move on with their lives. The problem is that "most" isn't "all," and we're not great at predicting who's going to be in the unlucky minority.
When you're in that minority, hearing "most people are fine" is not especially helpful.
It's worse than unhelpful — it can be gaslighting. Patients get told their gallbladder wasn't essential, that it's a vestigial organ, that they'll adapt. And when they don't adapt, the implication is that something is wrong with them, not with the procedure or the post-operative care.
The disposable organ framing. We've touched on this before — the gallbladder is treated as expendable, and the fact that it does have important functions gets minimized.
And to be fair to surgeons, for symptomatic gallstones, removal is the standard of care for good reason — complications from untreated gallstones can be life-threatening. The calculus genuinely favors surgery for most patients. But the post-operative conversation tends to end at "you'll be fine," and for the ten to forty percent who aren't fine, that's where the system fails.
Let me pull on a thread you mentioned earlier — the sphincter of Oddi. In a normal system, that sphincter is closed between meals, which is part of how the duodenum gets its bile-free periods. After cholecystectomy, does the sphincter still function normally, or does the constant trickle of bile change its behavior?
And it gets at something subtle. The sphincter of Oddi is under complex neural and hormonal control. CCK normally relaxes it during meals. During fasting, it maintains tone and keeps bile out of the duodenum. After cholecystectomy, the sphincter's behavior changes in some patients — it can become dysfunctional, either too tight or too loose. If it's too loose, you get continuous bile flow into the duodenum, which is exactly the scenario we're worried about. If it's too tight, you get a different set of problems — biliary-type pain from increased pressure in the bile duct.
The sphincter can fail in both directions, and either way the patient loses.
Diagnosing sphincter of Oddi dysfunction is notoriously difficult. Sphincter of Oddi manometry is the gold standard, but it's invasive, carries a significant risk of post-procedure pancreatitis, and isn't widely available. Most patients with suspected SOD are diagnosed based on clinical criteria and treated empirically.
What's the empirical treatment?
For sphincter spasm, smooth muscle relaxants like nitrates or calcium channel blockers — nifedipine is the one most commonly used. For a sphincter that's too loose... there's not really a great option. That's essentially what we've been talking about — the continuous drip problem. Some clinicians try to thicken bile or slow its flow, but there's no established pharmacotherapy for that.
We've got a sphincter that might be too tight, might be too loose, might be just right. We've got bile that might be too concentrated, might be too dilute, might have the wrong composition. We've got a microbiome that might be shifted in unhelpful directions. And all of these variables interact. It's a combinatorial nightmare for diagnosis.
This is exactly why post-cholecystectomy syndrome is so frustrating to manage in practice. It's not one condition — it's a cluster of possible dysfunctions that produce overlapping symptoms. Two patients can have identical symptom profiles — bloating after meals, early satiety, intermittent diarrhea — and completely different underlying mechanisms. One might have bile acid malabsorption, another might have SIBO, a third might have sphincter dysfunction, and a fourth might have all three.
Which means the shotgun approach of "try this supplement, try that diet, try this medication" isn't just lazy medicine — it's almost inevitable given the diagnostic uncertainty.
I'd push back slightly on that. I think the shotgun approach is common, but I don't think it's optimal. There are ways to narrow the differential. A SeHCAT scan — selenium-homocholic acid taurine — can quantify bile acid malabsorption. It's not widely available in the US, but it's used in the UK and parts of Europe. A lactulose or glucose breath test can screen for SIBO. Upper endoscopy with biopsies can look for duodenal inflammation or bile gastritis. These aren't perfect tests, but they can at least point you in a direction.
How many post-cholecystectomy patients with chronic bloating actually get that workup?
Most get an ultrasound to rule out retained stones, maybe an upper endoscopy if symptoms are severe, and then they're told to try a low-fat diet and follow up in six months. The specialized testing just isn't part of the standard post-cholecystectomy pathway.
There's a gap between what's technically possible diagnostically and what actually happens in practice. That's a structural problem, not just a knowledge problem.
It's both. The knowledge problem is that we don't have great treatments even when we do identify the mechanism. If I diagnose bile acid malabsorption with a SeHCAT scan, my options are basically bile acid sequestrants, which we've already discussed as imperfect. If I diagnose SIBO, I can give rifaximin, but recurrence rates are high. If I diagnose duodenal inflammation from continuous bile exposure, I can try UDCA or a mucosal protectant like sucralfate, but the evidence is thin.
Sucralfate — that's the one that coats the mucosa, right? Like a bandage for your insides.
It forms a protective gel that adheres to damaged mucosa. It's used for peptic ulcers and gastritis. There's some rationale for using it in bile-induced duodenitis, but I haven't seen a randomized trial for that specific indication. It's another one of those "might help, probably won't hurt" interventions.
The "might help, probably won't hurt" formulary — that's basically the post-cholecystectomy pharmacopeia in a phrase.
I wish I could argue with that, but I can't. And it speaks to a larger issue: post-cholecystectomy care is an orphan area of medicine. It falls between surgery and gastroenterology, neither specialty owns it, and there's very little research funding for what's perceived as a "benign" post-surgical syndrome. Meanwhile, millions of people are living with daily symptoms that affect their quality of life.
Millions — what's the actual number?
In the US alone, about six hundred thousand cholecystectomies are performed annually. If ten to forty percent of those patients develop some form of post-cholecystectomy syndrome, that's sixty thousand to two hundred forty thousand new cases every year, just in the US. Over a decade, you're looking at a patient population in the millions.
That's not a niche problem. That's a public health issue that's been invisibilized.
It's invisibilized partly because the symptoms — bloating, gas, altered bowel habits — are embarrassing to talk about and easy for doctors to dismiss. Nobody wants to be the patient who keeps coming back to complain about bloating. It's not taken seriously in the same way that, say, post-surgical pain would be.
There's a hierarchy of symptoms, and digestive discomfort is near the bottom.
And that hierarchy shapes what gets researched, what gets funded, and what gets taught in medical training. I was taught in my own training that the gallbladder was basically optional, and that post-cholecystectomy symptoms were mostly functional — which in medical parlance often means "not real" or "psychosomatic.
Functional gastrointestinal disorders — the diagnosis you get when the doctor has decided the problem is you.
That's harsh, but there's a kernel of truth to it. And to be fair, the Rome Foundation has done important work in defining and validating functional GI disorders. But the label can still function as a way to stop investigating.
Let me circle back to something Daniel raised in the prompt that we haven't addressed directly. He mentioned bile gastritis — the harm caused when bile refluxes into the stomach rather than staying in the small intestine. How does that relate to the continuous-drip problem? Is it a separate mechanism, or are they connected?
They're connected but distinct. Bile gastritis happens when bile refluxes retrograde through the pylorus into the stomach. The stomach lining is not designed for bile exposure — it's designed for acid. Bile is alkaline and contains detergent compounds that strip the protective mucus layer. The result is chemical gastritis, which can cause burning pain, nausea, and a particular kind of gnawing discomfort that's different from acid reflux.
After cholecystectomy, is that more common because there's just more bile hanging around in the duodenum, available to reflux?
That's the hypothesis, and it's supported by some observational data. A 2017 study in the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that bile reflux gastritis was significantly more common in post-cholecystectomy patients compared to controls with intact gallbladders — about twenty-five percent versus eight percent. The proposed mechanism is exactly what you said: continuous bile in the duodenum increases the likelihood of retrograde flow into the stomach, especially if the pyloric sphincter is even slightly incompetent.
The treatment for that — is it the same sequestrants and UDCA, or is there something else?
UDCA is actually first-line for bile reflux gastritis because it changes the composition of the refluxate to be less damaging. Sucralfate is also used to protect the gastric mucosa. Prokinetic agents like metoclopramide or domperidone can help by improving gastric emptying and reducing the opportunity for reflux. And in severe cases, some surgeons will do a Roux-en-Y reconstruction to divert bile away from the stomach, but that's a major operation and not something to undertake lightly.
We've got bile dripping continuously into the duodenum, potentially causing low-grade duodenal inflammation. We've got bile refluxing into the stomach, causing gastritis. We've got altered bile acid signaling, disrupted FGF19 feedback, microbiome shifts, sphincter dysfunction. And all of these things can coexist in the same patient. It's not a single disease — it's a syndrome of syndromes.
And I think that's the most important thing for patients to understand: if you're dealing with post-cholecystectomy symptoms and the first thing you try doesn't work, it's not because you're untreatable. It's because you haven't found the right combination yet. The challenge is that finding that combination requires patience, a systematic approach, and often a clinician who's willing to think beyond the standard algorithm.
Which is a lot to ask of a healthcare system that's optimized for fifteen-minute appointments and algorithmic care.
And that's why patient communities online have become such an important resource. People share what worked for them, what didn't, which clinicians took them seriously. It's not a substitute for medical care, but it fills a gap that the system has left open.
Alright, let me try to synthesize what we've covered into something actionable. If someone is listening and they're dealing with the kind of chronic bloating and discomfort we've been describing, and they're wondering whether the continuous-drip hypothesis applies to them, what should they actually do?
I'd suggest a stepwise approach. Step one: get the basics checked. Ultrasound to rule out retained stones or bile duct dilation. Upper endoscopy with biopsies to look for bile gastritis, duodenitis, or evidence of SIBO. If your gastroenterologist isn't willing to do biopsies, find one who is.
Step two: if endoscopy is normal or shows nonspecific inflammation, consider a trial of a bile acid sequestrant. Start low, titrate up, and pay attention to timing. Some people do better taking it with meals, others need it between meals to address the continuous drip. It's trial and error.
Step three if the sequestrant doesn't help or isn't tolerated?
Step three: consider UDCA, especially if there's evidence of bile gastritis or if the symptom pattern suggests chemical irritation. It's generally well-tolerated and has a reasonable safety profile. Some clinicians combine UDCA with a sequestrant, though you need to space the doses apart or the sequestrant will just bind the UDCA.
Step four: SIBO testing and treatment if indicated. Rifaximin is the standard, though herbal antimicrobials have some evidence too. And if SIBO is confirmed, you also need to think about why it developed — is there a motility issue, is the continuous bile drip creating a permissive environment — because treating SIBO without addressing the underlying driver means it'll probably come back.
If all of that fails?
Then you're in the territory of motility agents, visceral hypersensitivity treatments like low-dose tricyclic antidepressants, and dietary approaches like the low-FODMAP diet. None of these address the continuous-drip mechanism directly, but they can reduce symptom burden. And at that point, finding a gastroenterologist who specializes in functional GI disorders or a neurogastroenterologist is probably the best move.
That's a lot of steps. And I imagine most patients get stuck somewhere around step one.
The system isn't set up for this kind of methodical, multi-step approach to a chronic post-surgical syndrome. It's set up to rule out surgical complications and then discharge. Everything after that is on the patient to advocate for.
Which brings me back to Daniel's question about whether we should even be alarmed. I think the answer is nuanced. For the majority of patients, the continuous bile drip probably doesn't cause clinically significant problems. The body adapts, the mucosa compensates, the microbiome adjusts. But for a minority — and it's a large minority, millions of people — it does cause problems, and those problems are underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. The alarm isn't about the existence of the problem. It's about the gap between the problem's prevalence and the medical system's response to it.
I think that's exactly right. And I'd add one more thing: the continuous-drip hypothesis is plausible, it's supported by some evidence, but it's not the whole story. Post-cholecystectomy symptoms are multifactorial, and fixating on any single mechanism — whether it's continuous bile exposure, SIBO, sphincter dysfunction, or bile acid malabsorption — is probably a mistake. The patients who do best are the ones who approach it systematically and are willing to try multiple things.
The ones who treat their own digestive system as a research project.
Which is not ideal. Patients shouldn't have to become amateur gastroenterologists to get adequate care. But that's the reality we're in right now.
Let me ask you one more thing before we wrap. You mentioned earlier that bile acids are signaling molecules, not just detergents. Is there any research looking at whether the continuous-drip problem might have systemic effects beyond the gut? If bile acids are constantly bathing the duodenum and triggering receptors that talk to the liver, the pancreas, the brain via the gut-brain axis — could there be metabolic or even neurological consequences we're not tracking?
That's a frontier question, and I love that you're asking it. The short answer is: we don't know, but there are reasons to wonder. Bile acids activate TGR5 receptors on enteroendocrine L-cells, which release GLP-1 — that's the same hormone that semaglutide and tirzepatide target for diabetes and weight loss. If continuous bile exposure is altering GLP-1 secretion patterns, there could be metabolic effects. There's also emerging evidence that bile acids influence the gut-brain axis through vagal afferent signaling. A 2022 paper in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology outlined a whole framework for bile acids as neuroactive molecules. Whether chronic disruption of normal bile acid signaling contributes to things like fatigue, brain fog, or mood changes — all of which are anecdotally reported by post-cholecystectomy patients — is completely unstudied.
The continuous-drip problem might not just be a gut problem. It might be a whole-body signaling problem that we're only beginning to understand.
That's the thing about removing an organ that's been dismissed as non-essential — you don't always know what you've disrupted until years later, when the data starts to accumulate and the patient anecdotes start to form a pattern. I'm not saying cholecystectomy is the wrong call for symptomatic gallstones — it's not. But I am saying that the conversation about what happens after needs to be a lot more honest and a lot more thorough than it currently is.
I think we've given this the depth it deserves. Let me see if I can summarize where we landed. The continuous low-grade bile exposure after cholecystectomy is a real physiological phenomenon, not just a theoretical concern. It probably does cause symptoms in a meaningful subset of patients — maybe five to fifteen percent directly through duodenal inflammation, and more indirectly through mechanisms like microbiome disruption, bile reflux gastritis, and altered hormone signaling. Treatment options exist but they're all workarounds: bile acid sequestrants, UDCA, mucosal protectants, prokinetics, SIBO management. None of them restore normal pulsatile bile delivery, and the evidence base for all of them is thinner than it should be. And for most patients, the system is not set up to provide the kind of systematic, multi-step diagnostic workup that would be needed to identify which mechanism is driving their particular symptoms.
That's a fair summary. I'd just emphasize that if you're a patient dealing with this, the fact that the evidence base is thin doesn't mean nothing works — it means you may need to be methodical and patient in finding what works for you. And find a clinician who takes you seriously. They're just not as common as they should be.
Now: Hilbert's daily fun fact.
Hilbert: The pigment carminic acid, extracted from cochineal insects, produces a red so intense that just one kilogram can dye approximately one hundred thousand liters of water to a visibly distinct crimson — and in Guyana, traditional textile dyers historically valued it as one of the most potent natural colorants available in the region.
Hilbert: The pigment carminic acid, extracted from cochineal insects, produces a red so intense that just one kilogram can dye approximately one hundred thousand liters of water to a visibly distinct crimson — and in Guyana, traditional textile dyers historically valued it as one of the most potent natural colorants available in the region.
...right. That's a lot of red from very little bug.
I'm now going to think about that every time I see anything dyed red.
One question to leave listeners with: if the continuous-drip hypothesis is correct, and the problem is fundamentally about timing and pulsatility, what would a device-based solution look like? An implantable artificial gallbladder sounds like science fiction, but so did continuous glucose monitors thirty years ago. Someone's probably working on this in a lab somewhere, and I'd love to see that research accelerate.
Thanks to Hilbert Flumingtop for producing, and to everyone listening. This has been My Weird Prompts. Find us at myweirdprompts.com or on your podcast platform of choice. We'll be back soon.
Take care, everyone.
This episode was generated with AI assistance. Hosts Herman and Corn are AI personalities.