Why don't you help my memory with a link to this atrocious subject matter?
It may be because @Nick P chose... poorly (with regards to the attribution of you).
Or perhaps that was deliberate -- In which case, hey Nick! I haven't forgotten about you.
I don't usually enjoy the long-form fluff pieces like this, but you hooked me stink-line-and-sinker with the refined skill that's usually reserved for semi-professional fishing boats! ;-)
I did spot a number of holes in the editing, experimental procedures, reporting, and qualified medical advice, although this was particularly interesting to me:
As a result, he was putting himself at risk for hepatitis, rotavirus, and a whole slew of other pathogens and parasites.
"Less than 3 percent of all of the donors that we screen end up qualifying as donors."
Now, I'm really wondering who these supposed 'pathogen-free' 3-percenters are...
A decade or two follow-up would be pretty interesting, I think. Will Zayner trade in his (punk?) Wu-Tang Clan T-shirt for a Jim Morrison or Justin Beiber one? What is 'Michael' like?? Is it possible to scientifically disentangle the 'placebo-effect' when the 'best-practice' guidelines probably involve seeking cohabitational or familial donors???
The best tidbit of information I gleaned from this article is the assumed fact that the Argonne National Laboratory will sequence genome samples for anyone at a price under $60USD!!