Colon Cleanse Product



"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > wrote or quoted:
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ga-
> > > stro.html]
> > >
> > > > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
> > > > > quacks spout
what
> > > > > they know nothing about?
> > > >
> > > > You might notice something there that is lacking in
> > > > most of the
posts in
> > > > this newsgroup: references.
> > > >
> > > > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
> > > > provide
evidence
> > > > where the folks at Quackwatch are incorrect?
> > >
> > > For starters...
> > >
> > > Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
> > > feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
> >
> > 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. Fecal
impaction is a serious medical condition which needs
treatment of the underlying cause, not a "cleanse." 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.

>
> > 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> > 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.

>
> Here is a list of the most common causes:
>
> ``Patients at risk include those who:
>
> * Take certain drugs:
> * Any type of narcotic pain medication
> * Methadone maintenance treatment for narcotic addiction
> * Anticholinergic medications
> * Antidiarrheal medications
> * Have decreased mobility
> * Have a limited diet (especially one that is low in
> fluids)''
>
> - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00023-
> 0.htm
>
> Note that it is not laxatives that are mostly to blame -
> but constapation-inducing drugs - such as opiates and
> antidiarrheal medications.

And note that that is not the high risk population that is
promoting the "cleanse" in this newsgroup and providing
anecdotal evidence that this purging made them feel better.
Those who are at greatest risk for constipation/impaction
will not benefit from a "cleanse." The rest of us will not
either. Barrett is still correct.

--Rich
 
Tim, the fecal impaction treated by enema is not the same
thing as a colon cleanse. In a colon cleanse, the concoction
is orally consumed and is suppose to push the feces out.

IOW, it creates a lot of pressure against the internal side
of the impaction and if the pressure is right BOOM!
Ruptured colon.

"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > wrote or quoted:
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ga-
> > > stro.html]
> > >
> > > > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
> > > > > quacks spout
what
> > > > > they know nothing about?
> > > >
> > > > You might notice something there that is lacking in
> > > > most of the
posts in
> > > > this newsgroup: references.
> > > >
> > > > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
> > > > provide
evidence
> > > > where the folks at Quackwatch are incorrect?
> > >
> > > For starters...
> > >
> > > Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
> > > feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
> >
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and the
> material is then manually manipulated.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Here is a list of the most common causes:
>
> ``Patients at risk include those who:
>
> * Take certain drugs:
> * Any type of narcotic pain medication
> * Methadone maintenance treatment for narcotic addiction
> * Anticholinergic medications
> * Antidiarrheal medications
> * Have decreased mobility
> * Have a limited diet (especially one that is low in
> fluids)''
>
> - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00023-
> 0.htm
>
> Note that it is not laxatives that are mostly to blame -
> but constapation-inducing drugs - such as opiates and
> antidiarrheal medications.
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
> lock to reply.
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote
> or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > > From time to time, a heron will suck up a beak full
> > > of water, twist
its
> > > neck around and insert the beak into its own anus,
> > > squirting the
water
> > > deep into its bowels to flush out the putrid debris
> > > and other
residue
> > > from its fish-based diet.
> >
> > This is total BS! We have herons, ducks, cranes and
> > gulls here and I
see
> > them all the time. You're listening to pure nonsense. No
> > animal or
bird
> > gives itself an enema.
>
> Stick your fingers in your ears and sing the La-La song,
> then - since this is well known.
>
> ``As a matter of fact, I have seen herons and other
> similar birds in Florida stand by a river or pool of
> water, fill their long beaks, and inject water into the
> rectum in order to give themselves an enema or colon
> irrigation. I never asked these birds what school, college
> or university they attended or who taught them this
> principle of internal lavage.''
>
> - Dr. Norman Walker - in Colon Health: The Key To A
> Vibrant Life!
>
> Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema:
>
> http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon-
> 1551_087

No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis giving
herself a douche'. Is there really a need to lie about birds
to promote enemas?
 
"Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema:
> >
> > http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon15-
> > 51_087
>
> No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis
> giving herself a douche'. Is there really a need to lie
> about birds to promote enemas?

Either of you two ever even seen an Ibis????

Plenty of ibises around near where I live, and they don't
look like that.

The bird looks a bit like a picture of a Dodo.

--
"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
 
"Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > > Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema:
> > >
> > > http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon15-
> > > 51_087
> >
> > No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis
> > giving herself a douche'. Is there really a need to lie
> > about birds to promote enemas?
>
> Either of you two ever even seen an Ibis????
>
> Plenty of ibises around near where I live, and they don't
> look like that.
>
> The bird looks a bit like a picture of a Dodo.

Can I infer that, if it is a Dodo, thenit became extinct
when it tried to give itself a cleanse?

:)
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> wrote or quoted:
>
> > I challenge anyone to come up with a single report of a
> > "poison" that has been found in the human colon AND been
> > shown to be removed by a "cleanse."
>
> A "cleanse" washes out *most* of the material in the
> colon.
>
> The question of whether there are any undesirable
> substances in these seems rather trivial - since the body
> has hallmarked the *entire* contents for excretion - and
> it inculudes a whole bunch of undesirable substances taken
> out of the blood by the liver, and a slew of products of
> bacterial fermentation.

I have a concern about the use of colonic irrigation: Isn't
it possible that HIV/AIDS might be transmitted that way? Or
not? (I'm asking as I don't know.) I mean, where the clinic
doing the colonic irrigation treats people who have AIDS as
well as those who are uninfected, they would need to be
extremely careful about sterilising their instruments,
wouldn't they? (Obviously the question of transmission does
not arise where someone does their own home colonics.)

--
"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
 
"Mark Probert-March 26, 2004" wrote:
> "Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrotein message
> > "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > >
> > > > Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema: http://w-
> > > > ww.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon1551_087
> > >
> > > No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis
> > > giving herself a douche'. Is there really a need to
> > > lie about birds to promote enemas?
> >
> > Either of you two ever even seen an Ibis???? Plenty of
> > ibises around near where I live, and they don't look
> > like that.
> >
> > The bird looks a bit like a picture of a Dodo.
>
> Can I infer that, if it is a Dodo, thenit became extinct
> when it tried to give itself a cleanse?
>
> :)

I always wondered how it got its name :)

--
"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
 
In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> > wrote or quoted:

> > > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/-
> > > > gastro.html]

> > 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.

> > > 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.

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

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.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> 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..

> 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"?

> 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?

> > > 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.
>
> >
> > 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?

> > 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 is at that time 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 26 Mar 2004 23:56:14 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>By the time someone is beginning to experience chronic
>constipation, simply drinking water is not usually going to
>have much effect. It is at that time that some choose a
>colonic, and with diet and lifestyle improvement also, may
>consider it "maintenance".

First one must define what "chronic constipation" means.
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.

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.

Most people can have regular bowel movements by increasing
the fiber in their diet or by ingesting psyllium husk.

Colon cleanses are a multimillion dollar business. IMO they
do far more harm than good. But because there are many
somatically hypervigilant and easily suggestible people,
there are many potential clients if you promote the
product/process correctly (read fraudulently). Sad that.

Where is the evidence that colonics rid the body of toxins.
Where is the evidence that those who have regular colonics
are healthier than those who do not. These questions are
rhetorical since the evidence is sorely lacking.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Wright <[email protected]> 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..

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 26 Mar 2004 23:56:14 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> 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..

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

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

Only if they are very sadistic.
>
>> 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?

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.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Can we drop the "***" talk with all this fecal
impaction ****?

"Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> 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..
>
> > 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"?
>
> > 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?
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> > > 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 is at that
time
> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
>> wrote or quoted:
>>
>> > I challenge anyone to come up with a single report of a
>> > "poison" that has been found in the human colon AND
>> > been shown to be removed by a "cleanse."
>>
>> A "cleanse" washes out *most* of the material in
>> the colon.
>>
>> The question of whether there are any undesirable
>> substances in these seems rather trivial - since the body
>> has hallmarked the *entire* contents for excretion - and
>> it inculudes a whole bunch of undesirable substances
>> taken out of the blood by the liver, and a slew of
>> products of bacterial fermentation.
>
>I have a concern about the use of colonic irrigation:
>Isn't it possible that HIV/AIDS might be transmitted that
>way? Or not?

*If* they didn't sterilize their equipment properly, then
there's a chance of it, though I would think that under such
conditions, infection by far more mundane (but often quite
fierce) pathogens would be more common and much more likely.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>, <Rich.@.> wrote:
>On 26 Mar 2004 23:56:14 GMT, Toby Joe
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> 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..
>
>What is the present rate of colon cancer?? What evidence is
>there that colonics reduce the incidence of colon cancer??

None that I know of. And let's spoil the party by
introducing some facts to the debate: despite the screams of
scaremongers, colorectal cancer rates in the US are not on
the increase; they've been declining for the last ten years,
after being fairly flat for two decades before that.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
Exactly! Colonics may be just a "shot-in-the-dark" but
what the heck!

"Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Wright <[email protected]> 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..
>
> 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
 
Rich.@. wrote:
> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >By the time someone is beginning to experience chronic
> >constipation, simply drinking water is not usually going
> >to have much effect. It is at that time that some choose
> >a colonic, and with diet and lifestyle improvement also,
> >may consider it "maintenance".
>
> First one must define what "chronic constipation" means.

I was following on from what Tim Tyler had said, and with
which Rich Shewmaker had agreed. They were talking about
fecal impaction.

T.Tyler: "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."

U. Shewmaker: "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."

When you ask to define "chronic constipation", it is the
situation where someone becomes aware that they're having
trouble goin' to da loo, not occasionally, but as a matter
of course, and where it does not improve under whatever
'normal' changes the person tries, such as new exercise
regimes and a high fibre diet, with plenty of fruit, veggies
and fluids. - OR where they have not got around to
implementing all those changes, and don't find improvement
with a few laxatives (which is what their Doc has
prescribed).

Does that make sense? There is a time when some people
realise that they have got a bit of a problem: it is not yet
serious as in "impacted", but is not "right" either.

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.)

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).

> 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.

> 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. If they have improved their diet and lifestyle
sufficiently, then they probably won't. But if they are
still pushing pens and keyboards, still reminding themselves
to walk to work and wondering why their gym season ticket
ran out after using it three times out of twenty, and are
grabbing that box-pizza or burger on the way home "just this
last time" for the 23rd day in a row...

> Most people can have regular bowel movements by increasing
> the fiber in their diet or by ingesting psyllium husk.

Yep. Lots of salads, fruit and veggies, plenty of healthy
fluids and a regular exercise regime can work wonders.

--
"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
 
Rich.@. wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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.

> 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?

> 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?

> 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]
> >> 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.

> 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.

--
"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 02:12:15 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Rich.@. wrote:
>> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >By the time someone is beginning to experience chronic
>> >constipation, simply drinking water is not usually going
>> >to have much effect. It is at that time that some choose
>> >a colonic, and with diet and lifestyle improvement also,
>> >may consider it "maintenance".
>>
>> First one must define what "chronic constipation" means.

>
>When you ask to define "chronic constipation", it is the
>situation where someone becomes aware that they're having
>trouble goin' to da loo, not occasionally, but as a matter
>of course, and where it does not improve under whatever
>'normal' changes the person tries, such as new exercise
>regimes and a high fibre diet, with plenty of fruit,
>veggies and fluids.

Yes, but people may think that they are constipated when
they really are not. It is a very subjective symptom. Some
people think that if they don't defecate at least twice a
day that they are constipated.


>
>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 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).
>
>> 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.

"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??
>
>> 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".

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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..

Logical fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question):
your argument hinges on an unstate premise (that colonic
irrigation can substitute for, or eliminate the need for,
cancer treatment) which is in as much need of proof as the
conclusion.

> 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".

"Natural" here simply means "the way things were in the
past" (in reality, "the way things were in the past for some
people and some places; most nostalgic visions of the past
presume that if one were to live in the past, one would live
as a member of the aristocracy. I remember an anecdote where
Isaac Asimov, in his early career when he was teaching, had
a student who was going on about how far civilization had
gone downhill since classical times. Asimov sat the student
down and gave him a rather detailed description of what his
life would have been like as a slave in classical Athens.).

The fact is that by all objective measures, people in the
West are healthier than they were in the past. Yes, some
"diseases of excess" like type 2 diabetes and other
conditions associated with too many calories and too little
physical activity are rising, and are occurring more often
than in the past, but that increase is more than offset by
the reduction in morbidity and mortality from many other
conditions.