Colon Cleanse Product

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted: ``I do not
claim to be the discoverer of this method of internal
purification,

It's NOT purification - it's perversion of a natural
process. The emptying of the bowels.

for it is in reality of ancient origin, as we have it on

Quoted message said:

good authority that it was practised by the ancient
Egyptians, who, it is believed, acquired their knowledge
from observing a bird called the Ibis, a species of
Egyptian snipe.

What good authority? They also believed the earth was
flat with four corners. They believed the sun was reborn
every morning and died at night.... these things weren't
true either.

The food of this bird, gathered on

Quoted message said:

the banks of the Nile, was of a very constipating
character, and it was observed, by the earliest
naturalists, to suck up the water

They CANNOT SUCK with a beak - a beak is nothing like a
needle. Get real for cripes sake!

of the river

Quoted message said:

and using its long bill for a syringe, inject it into
its anus, thus relieving itself.

Totally absurd. This sounds like the ravings of some freak
into enemas and a justification for using one.

=== inane info' snipped ===
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <[email hidden]>,

Toby Joe said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just assuming?

I am not assuming anything. I would still like to know the
present rates for colon and similar cancers, and for
related illnesses, particularly chronic ones. Obviously I
can go and search for it if I "really really" would like
to learn more about it, but as others were making
knowledgeable comments, I thought they might have ready
access to some of the info and/or could refer us to
somewhere online that had it.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence that
flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon cancer."

Quoted message said:

A quick scan of medline suggests that few _if any_ studies
have been done on the topic. (I couldn't see any.)

And I don't understand why they (c.i.s) have been so
totally ignored by the med community. They are used for
"intra op" procedures, but not as an early stage
intervention to lessen likelihood of need for surgery.

Is there any evidence that they do not or could not be
helpful as a preventative intervention for those who could
be considered at higher risk of developing colon or bowel
cancer, or for chronic diseases of the colon?

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium. See:

infidels.orglogic.htmlOpen ↗

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance."
The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be
true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or,
equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false
because it hasn't been proved true.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

My gay boyfriend cleans my colon with his [censored]....... Cocks
are birds !!!!

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:27:51 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Exactly! Colonics may be just a "shot-in-the-dark" but
what the heck!

Russian roulette is a "shot in the dark"

Quoted message said:

"Toby Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler said:

David Wright <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

> I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they
> did do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not
> birds, our digestive systems are decidedly different,
> and so are our diets.

This is true - of course.

I was addressing the comment:

``What can be more UNNATURAL than a colon cleanse?''

Colonic irrigation is in fact very natural - for some
creatures.

I don't know about the bird example. Somehow that doesn't
quite, er,

wash..

Quoted message said:

However, colonics are rather more natural than surgery,
more natural than resection, more natural than most drug
meds, more natural than radio or chemo, more natural than
a colostemy..

Also, we are living a way of life that is not natural.
Sedentary living, processed food, even our
bathrooms/toilets are not as would be if we were entirely
"natural".

--
"I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
and multiply." R. Serling

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:51:21 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email hidden]>
wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email hidden]>
wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > [quackwatch.org01QuackeryRelatedTopicsOpen ↗
> > /gastro.html]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is normally
preceded by an extended period of constapation - during
which the time of passage of material through the colon
is slowed down - and the fecal material has time to dry
out. Since the problem is partly caused by dehydration,
applying water is an obvious form of first aid.

Yes, drinking six to eight glasses of water per day
(along with a proper diet) is the best way to prevent
constipation. That is NOT the same thing as a "cleanse."
It is also not "first aid." It's maintenance.

Unfortunately, drinking the water does not have much
effect. Dietary water is removed by the kidneys before it
has much of a chance to rehydrate material in the colon. If
water is to be effective, it has to come from below.

Drunk water will not help the faeces already compacted, but
being fully hydrated at all times will prevent constipation
due to inadequate hydration. Of course if you have screwed
up your diurnal peristalsis by irritating it chronically
with laxatives....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What's more, fecal impaction is often the RESULT of
> the misuse of laxatives and enemas.

Fecal impaction is rarely the result of the misuse of
laxatives and enemas.

Constipation is the natural result of regular laxative
and enema use. And constipation is the precursor to
impaction.

Enemas are first aid for constapation.

Prevention is first aid for constipation.

Quoted message said:

If you use them often enough that your muscles
atrophy - maybe.

No, your gut nervous system gets out of whack and
anaesthetised (desensitised). Then you will get muscle
atrophy.

Quoted message said:

Simarly if you lie down for long enough, your muscles
will atrophy - but that is hardly a good reason for
avoiding lying down, for fear that you won't be able to
get up again.

Huh? Lying down is necessary every day. Interfering with
bowel habits is not.

On 26 Mar 2004 23:56:14 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

> Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
> accumulation of hardened feces on the intestinal
> walls; [...]

The feces are certainly hardened, accumulating and
static.

But not adherant, and not static in the healthy bowel.

What percentage are "healthy"?

Ninety-odd?

Quoted message said:

Given the present rate of colon cancer..

Much of which is hereditary, and not really that common.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fecal impaction is a serious medical condition which
needs treatment of the underlying cause, not a "cleanse."

But doesn't gen.med treatment sometimes involve a
medication to "clear it out"?

Sometimes even surgery. Hence the expression "[censored] a
brick!" 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not the result of an insidious buildup of feces, but
rather an interruption of the natural perstalsis of the
gut. The reason for the stasis needs to be diagnosed and
corrected. The "colon cleanse" has no place in the
treatment of impaction.

Is it ever treated by surgery?

When necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> it is a severe form of constipation. While the
> impacted stool may be "hardened," it does not adhere
> to the wall of the colon, and is not something left
> behind after evacuation of the bowel. To attempt a
> purgative "cleanse" while fecally impacted would be
> harmful, and possibly fatal. [...]

*Even* conventional medicine uses enemas to treat the
problem.

Yes, we do. But we discourage the REGULAR use of enemas,
and we NEVER use "high colonics" or other radical enemas.

Quoted message said:

Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and
the material is then manually manipulated.

With or without lubricant, manual disimpaction is the first-
line treatment for impaction.

Which is?

Dig it out with a teaspoon, or for some, a soup ladle 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is normally
preceded by an extended period of constapation - during
which the time of passage of material through the colon
is slowed down - and the fecal material has time to dry
out. Since the problem is partly caused by dehydration,
applying water is an obvious form of first aid.

Yes, drinking six to eight glasses of water per day
(along with a proper diet) is the best way to prevent
constipation. That is NOT the same thing as a "cleanse."
It is also not "first aid." It's maintenance.

By the time someone is beginning to experience chronic
constipation, simply drinking water is not usually going to
have much effect.

It certainly will help, on a regular basis. Laxatives may be
needed for a few days only. Then more roughage and water in
the diet should help, oh, and regular moderate exercise.

Quoted message said:

It is at that time that some choose a colonic, and with
diet and lifestyle improvement also, may consider it
"maintenance".

Then they are wrong and will suffer the consequences. The
occasional enema is probably harmless in most, but totally
unnecesary. Unless as a precursor to a surgical procedure in
that region (including childbirth)

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:26:21 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Can we drop the "[censored]" talk with all this fecal
impaction [censored]?

And discuss your inanities? No thanks. What a dill!!

Quoted message said:

"Toby Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
> > accumulation of hardened feces on the
> > intestinal walls; [...]
>
> The feces are certainly hardened, accumulating and
> static.

But not adherant, and not static in the healthy bowel.

What percentage are "healthy"?

Given the present rate of colon cancer..

Quoted message said:

Fecal impaction is a serious medical condition which
needs treatment of the underlying cause, not a
"cleanse."

But doesn't gen.med treatment sometimes involve a
medication to "clear it out"?

Quoted message said:

It's not the result of an insidious buildup of feces,
but rather an interruption of the natural perstalsis of
the gut. The reason for the stasis needs to be
diagnosed and corrected. The

"colon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cleanse" has no place in the treatment of impaction.

Is it ever treated by surgery?

Quoted message said:

> > it is a severe form of constipation. While the
> > impacted stool may be "hardened," it does not
> > adhere to the wall of the colon, and is not
> > something left behind after evacuation of the
> > bowel. To attempt a purgative "cleanse" while
> > fecally impacted would be harmful, and possibly
> > fatal. [...]
>
> *Even* conventional medicine uses enemas to treat the
> problem.

Yes, we do. But we discourage the REGULAR use of
enemas, and we NEVER

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"high colonics" or other radical enemas.

>
> Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and
> the material is then manually manipulated.

With or without lubricant, manual disimpaction is the
first-line treatment for impaction.

Which is?

Quoted message said:

> Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is
> normally preceded by an extended period of
> constapation - during which the time of passage of
> material through the colon is slowed down - and the
> fecal material has time to dry out. Since the problem
> is partly caused by dehydration, applying water is an
> obvious form of first aid.

Yes, drinking six to eight glasses of water per day
(along with a proper diet) is the best way to prevent
constipation. That is NOT the same

thing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as a "cleanse." It is also not "first aid." It's
maintenance.

By the time someone is beginning to experience chronic
constipation,

simply

Quoted message said:

drinking water is not usually going to have much effect.
It is at that

time

Quoted message said:

that some choose a colonic, and with diet and lifestyle
improvement also, may consider it "maintenance".

--
"I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
and multiply." R. Serling

On 27 Mar 2004 02:51:54 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Rich.@. said:

Quoted message said:

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But not adherant, and not static in the healthy bowel.

What percentage are "healthy"? Given the present rate of
colon cancer..

What is the present rate of colon cancer??

Hey I asked the question first. And you are the med-rep.
You would know better than I do.

No, you stated it as a given. What is it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What evidence is there that colonics reduce the incidence
of colon cancer??

I don't know, but I think you may agree that we need
_something_ to try and reduce the colon cancer rates. Not
so?

Yes, and a lot is being done. Genetic testing is a
good start.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately many people just assume that colonics will
get rid of toxins and improve ones health, reduce one's
chances of getting a serious disease. For all you know
colonics may *increase* the chances of getting colon
cancer.

Can you give any possible scenario or framework within
which that would be the case?

Introducing irritants into the bowel? (including pure water)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without some kind of study your guess is as good as mine.

Could Tim T. be a study, for n.g. discussion purposes?
Presumably he's had some experience as he seems to know a
bit about it, and also he has photos on his website. One
thing I notice is that since the first one, he's not
aquired great numbers of lines or other aging symptoms. In
fact, it looks almost as if he had greyish hair one year,
and then the grey was replaced by darker hair, - but that
could be just the photos, and only he would know for sure.

(I've met a few people who had grey hair before they went
on a strict health regime, then found that their original
colour returned. That's why I wondered. But it may not have
been grey at any time in Tim's case - could have been
blondish tipped from the sun or something.)

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The "colon cleanse" has no place in the treatment of
> impaction.

Is it ever treated by surgery?

Depends on the cause. For example I would think that a
blockage of the intestine preventing the feces from being
expulsed may require surgery. It is important to have a
correct diagnosis before determining the proper
treatment. Unfortunately many alternative practitioners
do not have the knowledge to derive a valid diagnosis and
use a one treatment fits all approach.

Which is why the better time to try out something like
colonics is well before there is any need of surgery or
other "heavy duty' treatments. - As part of a preventative
program, rather than a cure.

The cure is a proper diet and regular moderate exercise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is important to have a correct diagnosis before
determining the proper treatment. Unfortunately many
alternative practitioners do not have the knowledge to
derive a valid diagnosis and use a one treatment fits all
approach.

I totally agree that a proper med diagnosis should always
be sought before anything else.

Ayup.

On 27 Mar 2004 03:49:47 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Rich.@. said:

<[email hidden]> wrote: Yes, but people may think
that they are constipated when they really are not. It is
a very subjective symptom.

Life's pretty subjective for some of us 🙂

Some people wouldn't know where their colon is! If the
person with the symptoms described below also had a lumpy,
solid mass down the left side of their abdomen, which the
docs all said was "normal" but which just sat there and
never really shifted, and felt sore sometimes, - that's the
descending colon isn't it?

And if you don't [censored] for a week, see your doc. Remember, if
you don't work, you don't eat, and if you don't eat, you
don't [censored], and if you don't [censored], you die! 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe the person also feels congested most of the time,
has difficulty thinking as clearly or swiftly as they
once could, has less energy despite a regular exercise
regime, has bad breath despite good teeth and no
infections... (Remembering I am not any kind of
practitioner whatsoever and am just answering this
without checking any med details - just as an ornery
person.)

The above might suggest that the person is depressed.

And that depression just might clear after a series of
colonics..

Why? Relief?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And they have been to their family doc who checked them
out and found nothing wrong, just prescribed laxatives;
then they went to their cousin's doc who did blood tests
and other check ups just to be sure and also found
nothing, and suggested the person take a break from work
and "Stop worrying" (possibly good advice, but the
person wants to do something more to get things back to
working order and also can't take time off from work).

Again this sounds like some psychological problem. Psycho
logic problems can manifest with physical symptoms (like
constipation for example).

And which causes which, Rich? Chicken or egg? And
psychological probs cannot be helped by lifestyle and other
health changes???

Exercise and a good diet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Unfortunately those who push colonics have a vested
> interest in creating fear in the mind of the
> prospective client that they have toxins that must be
> eliminated.

And those of us who want to be healthier longer have a
vested interest in finding all possible ways of
facilitating that.

I certainly am interested in that myself. I am not sure
how your statement followed from mine. It appeared to be
a non sequitur.

It's the other side of the same coin. The colonicist or
other therapist
- - - - the person visiting them.

Quoted message said:

"Toby", do you believe that colon cleanses rid the body
of toxins?? If so do you have evidence of what toxins are
removed and how this was measured??

I don't know about "toxins". I do believe that colonics can
be helpful in some situations. No, I haven't researched the
yukky issue, so I don't know what evidence is out there.
Maybe the Tim T. guy does?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If one uses colonics regularly for "maintenance" it is
> likely that the person's bowels will become dependent
> on the colonics for evacuation of the feces. This is a
> very bad situation except for those who are raking in
> the bucks from the colonics.

I meant, say, once a year or so, for those who feel they
need it.

Oh, once a year probably will not be likely to cause
problems. I am concerned about people who have these
colonics or other cleanses several times a month to rid
their body of "toxins".

It varies from person to person. A 20-something year old
tri-athlete training for Athens who's already on a super
charged diet isn't likely to need one. Nor most fit,
healthy, youngish people who are already in top health.

But people in sedentary city lives who've been too long on
junkish diets, who are lethargic despite being cheerful,
get more than their share of headaches and congestion, who
don't sleep as well as they used to, who are just not
bouncing back to the health they once had, may want to try
something extra to help get things into gear again.

If their bowel movements are regular (three times per day to
every three days or so) then the best medicine would be to
get out and do a bit of moderate exercise. Improve the diet.

Quoted message said:

Colonic irrigation is NOT any be-all or end-all, it is just
one more thing that might help make a difference sometimes.

Never.

Quoted message said:

And without accompanying dietary and other health/
lifestyle improvements, whatever beneficial effects it may
have will likely only be temporary. imo.

Why include a totally useless procedure with this? I thought
the Poms were the ones obsessed with their bowels.

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just
assuming?

I am not assuming anything. I would still like to know
the present rates for colon and similar cancers, and for
related illnesses, particularly chronic ones. Obviously
I can go and search for it if I "really really" would
like to learn more about it, but as others were making
knowledgeable comments, I thought they might have ready
access to some of the info and/or could refer us to
somewhere online that had
it.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence that
flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon cancer."

Define "evidence".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A quick scan of medline suggests that few _if any_
studies have been done on the topic. (I couldn't
see any.)

And I don't understand why they (c.i.s) have been so
totally ignored by the med community. They are used for
"intra op" procedures, but not as an early stage
intervention to lessen likelihood of need for surgery.

Is there any evidence that they do not or could not be
helpful as a preventative intervention for those who
could be considered at higher risk of developing colon
or bowel cancer, or for chronic diseases of the colon?

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium. See: w-w-Open ↗
ww.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam

Diversion from the topic question, and avoidance of any
response to that topic question, noted.

--
costofwar.comcostofwar.comOpen ↗ www.unicef.org/sowc02/g31.htm

Moosh:) said:

Toby Joe <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

What percentage are "healthy"?

Ninety-odd?

Is that based on anything, or is it a totally random figure?

--
costofwar.comcostofwar.comOpen ↗ www.unicef.org/sowc02/g31.htm

"Mark Probert-March 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
in message news:5VX8c.46974>

Quoted message said:

IOW, it creates a lot of pressure against the internal
side of the

impaction

Quoted message said:

and if the pressure is right BOOM! Ruptured colon.

=================
And if the person dies they'll blame it on God, saying it
was "God's will."
--
Kim Colonics to clean out your stuffed up @$$ Of all the
toxic goodies you do not pass Globs of gunk and the mucus
you store Parasites, flukes and worms galore So take a
colonic so you can pass All these nasties from your
paracitized @$$..... The most amazing BS artists there are:
members.rogers.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <[email hidden]>,

Toby Joe said:

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

> Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
> colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just
> assuming?

I am not assuming anything. I would still like to know
the present rates for colon and similar cancers, and
for related illnesses, particularly chronic ones.
Obviously I can go and search for it if I "really
really" would like to learn more about it, but as
others were making knowledgeable comments, I thought
they might have ready access to some of the info
and/or could refer us to somewhere online that had
it.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence that
flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon cancer."

Define "evidence".

If you don't know what constitutes evidence, I can't help
you.

I meant scientific evidence, BTW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A quick scan of medline suggests that few _if any_
studies have been done on the topic. (I couldn't see
any.)

And I don't understand why they (c.i.s) have been so
totally ignored by the med community. They are used
for "intra op" procedures, but not as an early stage
intervention to lessen likelihood of need for surgery.

Is there any evidence that they do not or could not be
helpful as a preventative intervention for those who
could be considered at higher risk of developing colon
or bowel cancer, or for chronic diseases of the colon?

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium. See: http:/-
/www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam

Diversion from the topic question, and avoidance of any
response to that topic question, noted.

It was not a diversion at all. It was a spot-on
interpretation of YOUR response, which was an excellent
example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantum.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Moosh:) said:

On 26 Mar 2004 23:56:14 GMT, Toby Joe
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and
> the material is then manually manipulated.

With or without lubricant, manual disimpaction is the
first-line treatment for impaction.

Which is?

Dig it out with a teaspoon, or for some, a soup ladle 🙂

Actually, back when I was an intern, manual disimpaction
meant exactly that. You put on the long rubber gloves and
and went to work to dig it out. I'm glad I'm not an
intern anymore.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

Quoted message said:

> > Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
> > colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just
> > assuming?
>
> I am not assuming anything. I would still like to
> know the present rates for colon and similar
> cancers, and for related illnesses, particularly
> chronic ones. Obviously I can go and search for it
> if I "really really" would like to learn more about
> it, but as others were making knowledgeable
> comments, I thought they might have ready access to
> some of the info and/or could refer us to somewhere
> online that had it.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence
that flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon
cancer."

Define "evidence".

If you don't know what constitutes evidence, I can't
help you.

In that case, all you are doing is a rather nifty little
celtic jig, all on your lonesome. Fancy footwork, but
doesn't help with taking the discussion forward.

Quoted message said:

I meant scientific evidence, BTW.

Yet you can't say what you would accept as evidence. Way
cool for someone who only wants to score points, as you are
then free to "raise the bar" at any and every time that
evidence does turn up. But it doesn't help much with
bringing any evidence to light and discussing it further, so
that we may all have the chance to learn a little from the
discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> A quick scan of medline suggests that few _if any_
> studies have been done on the topic. (I couldn't see
> any.)
>
> And I don't understand why they (c.i.s) have been so
> totally ignored by the med community. They are used
> for "intra op" procedures, but not as an early stage
> intervention to lessen likelihood of need for
> surgery.
>
> Is there any evidence that they do not or could not
> be helpful as a preventative intervention for those
> who could be considered at higher risk of developing
> colon or bowel cancer, or for chronic diseases of
> the colon?

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium. See: htt-
p://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignoran-
tiam

Diversion from the topic question, and avoidance of any
response to that topic question, noted.

It was not a diversion at all. It was a spot-on
interpretation of YOUR response, which was an excellent
example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad
ignorantum.

I asked a genuine question because I would like to know: I
would like to understand the topic a little better. Opinions
would be welcome, as long as they are not presented as
facts. Facts are welcome, as long as they are referenced
and/or otherwise easily verifiable.

--
costofwar.comcostofwar.comOpen ↗ www.unicef.org/sowc02/g31.htm

There is research going on now for the effects of
colonics (which have been used in exclusive health spas
for many years).

meridianinstitute.com6 4.htmlOpen ↗

"L Kelly, DC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is research going on now for the effects of colonics
(which have

been

Quoted message said:

used in exclusive health spas for many years).

meridianinstitute.com6 4.htmlOpen ↗

I missed the part about the study. Care to post it?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Toby Joe said:

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

> > > Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas,
> > > or colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you
> > > just assuming?
> >
> > I am not assuming anything. I would still like to
> > know the present rates for colon and similar
> > cancers, and for related illnesses, particularly
> > chronic ones. Obviously I can go and search for it
> > if I "really really" would like to learn more
> > about it, but as others were making knowledgeable
> > comments, I thought they might have ready access
> > to some of the info and/or could refer us to
> > somewhere online that had it.
>
> I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence
> that flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon
> cancer."

Define "evidence".

If you don't know what constitutes evidence, I can't
help you.

In that case, all you are doing is a rather nifty little
celtic jig, all on your lonesome. Fancy footwork, but
doesn't help with taking the discussion forward.

Nope. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand what
constitutes valid scientific evidence, not I.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I meant scientific evidence, BTW.

Yet you can't say what you would accept as evidence.

I just did. Scientific evidence. If you knew what
constituted scientific evidence, perhaps you would be less
confused by my simple request.

Quoted message said:

Way cool for someone who only wants to score points, as you
are then free to "raise the bar" at any and every time that
evidence does turn up.

No, I leave that technique for alties, who are very
good at it.

In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't even
TRIED to present any evidence to support your assertions?

Quoted message said:

But it doesn't help much with bringing any evidence to
light and discussing it further, so that we may all have
the chance to learn a little from the discussion.

It's hard to bring evidence to light when you won't even
produce any to support your assertions.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Toby Joe
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it doesn't help much with bringing any evidence to
light and discussing it further, so that we may all have
the chance to learn a little from the discussion.

It's hard to bring evidence to light when you won't even
produce any to support your assertions.

Indeed.

Toby asserts that colonics are an important part of an
overall plan to have a healthy colon and reduce the
incidence of disease.

However when repeatedly asked for evidence of this
assertion she does a "song and dance".

Toby realizes that she does not have any evidence to
support her assertion so she attempts to create a diversion
to derail the discussion. And then she manipulatively tries
to shift the blame onto the skeptic for causing problems in
discussion.

This is typical behavior of many altie posters here.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

Orac said:

In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't even
TRIED to present any evidence to support your assertions?

I've presented this twice now. Here it is again:

J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 May;66(5):282-7. A potential
alternative treatment of uncomplicated painful diverticular
disease by trans-colonoscopic irrigation technique: a
preliminary report.

Chen WS, Lin JK. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Taipei
Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University,
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticular disease is a common
disorder in elder patients. Medical treatment was usually
recommended as the first line management for this disease.
However, the recurrence rate of such disorder is still high.
In patients with severe complications such as abscess or
fulminant inflammation, non-invasive diagnostic examination,
abdominal CT scan for example, is recommended. Its most
common symptom is repeated abdominal pain with disturbance
of bowel habit. Many patients are found to be with
diverticular disease only after colonoscopic examination.
The aim of this study is to introduce a new irrigation-
draining method and to evaluate its efficacy in treatment of
uncomplicated painful colonic diverticular disease.

METHODS: To reduce the risk of recurrence of acute
diverticulitis and other severe complications, we introduce
a transcolonoscopic irrigation technique for patients of
uncomplicated diverticular disease by flushing out the
obstructed fecalith from the diverticular sac in order to
improve the drainage from the obstructed diverticular sac.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease with obstructed fecalith impacted were
treated by this technique. Clinical symptom improved in all
of them and no complications developed during the mean follow-
up period of 46 months.

CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest
that this technique accomplished in the colonoscopic
examination without additional therapeutic procedures. It
provides another potential alternative to the conventional
medical treatment for patients with uncomplicated
diverticular disease. tinyurl.com2s9pyOpen ↗ n-n-Open ↗
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do-
pt=A bstract&list_uids=12908570

--
costofwar.comcostofwar.comOpen ↗ www.unicef.org/sowc02/g31.htm