I really enjoyed reading this article and the perspective it brought around being cautious and alert when reading scientific information related to the microbiome. It is a great reality check for me, and I am sure many others, to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to information in this field as it is still in the early stages and needs more data to be understood. Dr. Hanage’s key questions when interpreting scientific literature start with, “Can experiments detect differences that matter?.” This is important to think about when putting the data into the context of is this change significant enough to lead to real change or is on such a small scale it won’t really matter. The second question of “Does the study show causation or correlation?” is a critical distinction that must be made since causation is much more impactful than a correlation. Third, considering “What is the mechanism?” is essential for understanding how the results are proven and if the way of action describes what may be going on. His fourth question of “How much do experiments reflect reality?” is interesting because the main point of studies is to improve human health and if the findings don’t seem applicable to that, then what is the point. Lastly, “Could anything else explain the results?” is the question I believe is most helpful when discussing controversy. When engaging with other scientists about other avenues that may be causing a certain effect, the controversy about the topic and be explored and all the information for possible mechanisms can be evaluated as a whole. This hopefully can lead to ruling ideas out and coming up with new ones to be studied or an agreement on a mechanism of action.