wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

Depends which E. coli you are talking about. Many strains are highly
pathogenic; I wouldn't like 0157 in me, for example, immunosuppressed or
not. More info here if you don't mind being too bored:
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/e.coli.html

For "highly", read "slightly"!

Depends. May be true for neonatal meningitis (1:2000), but certainly not
for UTI. Quote "Uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) cause 90% of the urinary tract
infections (UTI) in anatomically-normal, unobstructed urinary tracts.". I
am amazed that the figure is so high. There are a lot of women out there
with UTIs caused by UPEC.

I wouldn't worry about 0157 - indeed, I may have it, for all I know
to the contrary - as it is dangerous only to the very young, very
old and immunosuppressed.

I'm not arguing about how dangerous it is, merely commenting on
pathogenicity. I've not had E. coli gut problems, but have had Salmonella,
so can speak from experience about the pathogenicity of bacteria affecting
the gut. Certainly not dangerous, but very debilitating, especially in a
tropical climate.

If you look at the reference you gave,
most of the pathogenic forms are described as dangerous to infants.

True for neonatal meningitis (couldn't really be anything else with that
name!). but not so for UTI - see above quote.

All forms (even the symbiotic ones) are dangerous if they grow in
the wrong place, which is one of the reasons you need immunity to
a wide range of them.

I definitely agree with you on that. Constant exposure to low levels of
bacteria is needed to keep the immune system ticking over properly. "Use it
or lose it" applies here!

--
Jeff