The paper clearly refers to strain specificity

So obviously Jillian did not read this paper. Some glaring omissions, in regards to her statement.

1] However, molecular mechanisms mediating the beneficial effects are as yet poorly understood. These studies indicate that probiotics might indeed provide a strain-specific protection against parasites, probably through multiple mechanisms. But more unravelling studies are needed to justify probiotic utilisation in therapeutics.

2] Importantly, a general probiotic statement on a genus or a species cannot be established, as two closely related strains can induce inverse effects. Therefore, a probiotic must always be fully characterised at a strain level.

3] About 50 strains corresponding to 26 species fulfil these criteria.

4] However, probiotic beneficial effects have been more often demonstrated in model animals than by direct clinical evidences and depend largely on the dose ingested. Dose of at least five billion colony forming units per day for at least 5 days is recommended.

5] In conclusion, probiotics can kill or inhibit pathogens by strain-specific mechanisms relying on competition, molecule secretion, and/or immune induction

6] In the following chapters, we will report the recent findings concerning the effects of probiotics on several parasites as illustrated in Table 1 and propose future directions to help to standardize probiotic tests on eukaryotic pathogens. 

7] The above studies converge towards a beneficial effect of probiotics to control parasitic infections and point towards a strain-specific probiotic effect. As yet, little is known on the cellular or molecular mechanisms sustaining these effects. So far, the experimental studies on Cryptosporidium, Giardia, or Eimeria are the only ones that support a probiotic action via the secretion of an active principle that can inhibit parasite development, although the molecular nature of these components remains unknown.

8] Probiotics have been also proposed to influence gut microflora and development of immune response. The underlying mechanisms are however not clear,,,

9] Proposing probiotics as alternatives to classical treatments, such as drugs or vaccines, against parasites appears unreasonable; a complementary therapeutic approach to reduce risks of infestation or to sustain classical treatments seems more realistic. For the moment, studies of probiotic effects on parasites are still in their infancy, and further investigations are needed to move forward in this direction.(Bear in mind this paper was published in 2011) Several important points also need to be addressed. 

 

Three that were noted::

• The probiotics used have to be precisely characterized at a strain level.

• Efforts need to be made to standardize protocols in each model (administration, dose, time, etc.).

An interesting note of caution,,,

But long-term immune stimulation does not increase the effect. In a healthy subject, a great activation of the immune system cannot be conveniently obtained, because constant antigen stimulation could produce negative effects on the host, including autoimmunity.

• In depth understanding of the molecular mechanisms sustaining probiotic action is required to properly design future probiotic treatments.

Conclusion,

The concept that probiotics could control the development of eukaryotic pathogens is emerging. Therapeutic approaches with probiotics could help to reduce the risks of infestation by specific parasites or complement classical antiparasite treatments. A better understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of probiotic on the parasite infection is essential to validate the approach. Further deeper investigations are thus needed using more defined protocols (specific probiotics and experimental models), as well as extended clinical investigations. Gnotobiotics, whose genotype and microbial status can be clearly defined and whose diet and environmental conditions can be easily controlled, could be invaluable tools to go forward in this direction.