Colon Cleanse Product



In article <[email protected]>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:8-
> [email protected]...
> > Sounds like the same troll no matter how many times I
> > read it.
> >
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-
> > [email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Tim Tyler
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote or quoted:
> > > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/-
> > > > gastro.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"
> > > >
> > > > ...and yet there are *hundreds* of studies on
> > > > MedLine about "fecal impaction".
> > >
> > > You clearly have no clue what fecal impaction is.
> > > Fecal impaction is not "hardened feces accumulating on
> > > the intestinal walls." It is a condition when hardened
> > > feces passing through the colon get stuck and result
> > > in a colonic obstruction. Usually the feces behind the
> > > obstruction are liquid. The feces in general do not
> > > "accumulate on the intestinal walls." Fecal impaction
> > > is usually the result of decreased colon motility, as
> > > can be seen in bedridden patients.
> > >
> Okay, Miss Pepperoni, there are four posts quoted here.
> Just which poster are you calling a "troll"? Top posting
> is considered bad manners in newsgroups specifically
> because it causes confusion like this. Please put your
> comments just AFTER the post or portion of a post that you
> are trying to comment on, or at the very end.
>
> Also, discussion of points of disagreement is more
> useful here than schoolyard name calling. And as name
> calling goes, "troll" is pretty lame. Try again; you can
> do better.

I wouldn't count on that (her being able to do better).

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On 27 Mar 2004 02:51:54 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

You did?? You said "given the present rate of colon cancer".
This implied that you knew what that was and that it was
significant. Your point seemed to be that the rate of colon
cancer is so high suggesting that many colons are unhealthy.

> And you are the med-rep.

Huh? An interesting comment and very revealing.

> You would know
> better than I do.

Why do you say that?
>
>> 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?

I agree. What does reducing the rate of colon cancer have to
do with doing colonics. Please be specific.
>
>> 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?

Sure. Frequent colonics may strip the colon wall of its
mucous layer which may have an important role in prevention
of disease.
>
>> Without some kind of study your guess is as good as mine.
>
>Could Tim T. be a study, for n.g. discussion purposes?

Could Tim T. be a study?? Answer: No. How can one person be
a study. And considering his lack of credibility (claiming
that certain birds give themselves enemas)............

> 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.

He could have dyed his hair. What is your point?
>
>(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.

You have?? How do you know that they did not dye their hair
if indeed it returned to its original color.

>> 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.

I have absolutely nothing wrong with doing something to
prevent disease. Again I ask what evidence do you have that
colonics will do more good than harm.
>
>> 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.

Hey, we finally agree on something.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
"Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >> 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?
>
> I'll bite;

Probably the worst phraseology I have seen....

;)

frequent colonics would be likely to remove the mucus
normally
> secreted by the lining of the colon. Now to most "natural"
> believers that would be a good thing, because they
> believe, incorrectly, that a healthy body doesn't produce
> mucus, for no reason other than that they consider mucus
> "gross." But in fact mucus serves to protect mucuous
> membranes,
such
> as the lining of the colon, and removing that protection
> could make the cells of the colon lining more vulnerable
> to damage, damage that would require the cells to divide
> faster to be repaired. And anything that increases the
> rate of cell division would have the potential to increase
> the formation of malignant cells.
>
> BTW, I seem to remember that some years ago researchers
> were working on a screening test for colon cancer that was
> based on the fact that cancerous colon cells *don't*
> produce mucus whereas normal colon cells do.
 
On 27 Mar 2004 04:41:57 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Eric Bohlman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Eric, First, I am not saying or thinking that colonics
>alone could prevent colon or other cancer (much less
>cure it).

What do you think the benefits of colonics are and what
evidence is there for your belief?
>
>I think that it could have a role as a complementary
>therapy, within a wider health/ alt health framework, as a
>preventative (read deterrent, if that is preferable).

What evidence is there for colonics being a deterrent
for anything. And what do you think that it deters??
Be specific.

> To be of value, it would need to be used in conjunction
> with diet, exercise, and whatever supplements and other
> components of the health program.

What is the evidence that diet, exercise and supplements
would not work as well as adding colonics to the mix??
>
>Irt your comments, someone else had noted that using
>colonics is not exactly "Natural". My response to that was
>two-part: a) the lives we are living are not exactly
>"natural", and b) if we do nothing at all, when there is a
>possible preventative program available, then the end
>result of doing nothing _may_ be the need of rather less
>natural treatments yet again.
>
>(Does that 'work' as a logical argument?)

Once again what is the evidence that colonics prevent
disease either alone *or* in combination with other regimens
(diet, exercise)??
>
>> > 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".

By your logic since we are not living a natural way of life
it is OK to do therapies that are not natural?? Or perhaps I
am missing your point about how we live an unnatural life.

I think that the key to effective therapy is not that it is
natural or "unnatural" but that it is safe and effective.
Efficacy is not that easy to demonstrate.

Aloha,

Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On 27 Mar 2004 03:49:47 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> >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..

And it might get worse. What is the evidence that colonics
help with depression?? One possible scenario for colonics
helping with depression is if the person is depressed
because they think that they have toxins in their colon and
after having a colonic feel psychologic relief that they
finally are doing something to get rid of the toxins, or
some similar scenario. The problem is that these people may
develop recurrent depressions/anxieties due to somatic
hypervigilance.

For example we have a poster here who was convinced she had
parasites. She had a parasite cleanse and immediately felt
better. Then she thought she was dying of mercury poisoning,
had some amalgams out and immediately felt better. Of course
this feeling better was quite transient as symptoms soon
returned. It is often a vicious cycle.
>
>> >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???

We are talking about colonics which is not just a lifestyle
and other health changes. Again what evidence is there that
colonics do anything other than provide some psychologic
relief to those who are anxious about their colons?
>
>> >> 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.

Please provide ANY evidence that visiting a colonicist, have
a colonic will facilitate being healthier longer.
>
>> "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.

What situations do you think colonics can be helpful?? Have
you ever had a colonic??

>No, I haven't researched the yukky issue, so I don't know
>what evidence is out there.

You have not researched the yucky issue and yet you seem to
have a lot to say about it. Why don't you research it??

> Maybe the Tim T. guy does?

What do you think his credibility is?? Birds giving
themselves enemas??
>
>> >> 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. Colonic
>irrigation is NOT any be-all or end-all, it is just one
>more thing that might help make a difference sometimes.

Yes and it may be harmful to one's health too. Why don't
you do some research as it appears you have an interest in
this subject

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

There may be no beneficial effects. Keep an open mind. Do
some research. Don't buy into the propaganda you often see
on this subject.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
OMG! You are Jan Drew!

"Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:FqqdnRYYz6EqgfjdRVn-
[email protected]...
>
> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:IMM8c.30087>
> > 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.
> ============================
> What I believe he observed is the preening act where the
> bird rubs it's
bill
> or beak on the oil gland on it's tail, above it's anus -
> then preens the
oil
> through it's feathers. This makes the feathers shine and
> waterproofs
them.
> No water is *shot* anywhere.
> --
> Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
> http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
> http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> > 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.

Unfortunately true (if you're the one who had to do the
disimpacting). This is often a task delegated to the intern.
--
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 protected]>,
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..

Why? Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just assuming?
--
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 protected]>,
Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

One possible scenario: Chronic inflammation can lead to
cancer in many scenarios, and it's not hard to imagine that
frequent use of colonics could lead to chronic inflammation
of the lining of the colon.

Another possible scenario: The disruption of the natural
bacterial flora of the colon by frequent use of colonics
leads to colonization by other, less benign bacteria,
leading to chronic inflammation and then cancer.

There are other plausible scenarios that might be speculated
on. Studies would be needed to determine if they are valid.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:51:04 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, 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..
>
>Why? Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
>colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just assuming?

"Toby" has already said that she has not researched this
"yukky" topic. She has already suggested that we ask Tim
Tyler who she believes is knowledgeable about the subject.

She is completely clueless about whether colonics do
anything positive wrt reducing the chance of getting colon
cancer. And she probably never even considered the
*possibility* that colonics can do more harm than good wrt
colon cancer rates.

You see I believe that Toby, like many of the alties, has
great anxieties about developing various illnesses like
colon cancer. She has read about how colon cancer is one of
the leading cancers and she desperately wants to do
something to reduce her chances of getting it. She probably
thinks that colon cancer is due to a dirty colon filled with
toxins and that colonics clean you out so it must be good.

If I mischaracterized Toby's position then I apologize and
would like to give her the opportunity to explain exactly
what her position is.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > 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..
>
> Why?

The question was asked in the context of the earlier
statements. TT referred to "hardened, static" material,
which is likely to increase over time. RS replied that such
material is "not static in the healthy bowel".

Now is his statement simply one of definition? (A healthy
bowel or colon = one without static material). Because
without some indication of the rate of healthy vs not-so-
healthy, it doesn't amount to much more than that, and does
not contribute very much to ongoing discussion. For his
statement to have applicable meaning, there needs to be some
indication of the percentage of healthy vs non-healthy in
any population.

I referred to the current colon/bowel cancer rate, whatever
it may be, as being one possible main signifier of "healthy"
vs "unhealthy" colons, or at least to be taken into account
when considering what are "healthy" vs "unhealthy" colons.

What would have been helpful is if RS or someone had then
said, say,
a) The current rates for colon and bowel cancer are col#%
and bwl#% (eg)
b) Over 65 yos rate is sen#%; mid-range adult ages are
mdr#%
c) The percentage of "unhealthy" bowels/colons is
considered to be 32% higher than that, as it includes
various other colon problems such as incontinence,
frequent impaction, - diverticulitis (maybe) - and so
on. And hopefully there would be some sort of reference
or site link to check.

> 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.

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?

--
"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 28 Mar 2004 03:37:39 GMT, Toby Joe <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > > > 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..
>>
>> Why?

>> Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
>> colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just assuming?
>
>I am not assuming anything.

Avoidance of answering question noted. Once again, do you
have ANY evidence that flushes, enemas or colonics prevent
colon cancer?? It is a very simple question. Either you have
some evidence or you don't.

If you don't have any evidence then why do you continue to
assert that colonics are a good adjunctive therapy as part
of an overall health plan for some people. Please be
specific. Or are you just assuming that colonics have a
positive effect other than reducing anxiety in somatically
hypervigilant people. YOu say you are not assuming anything
but I suspect that you are.

> 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.

What do the rates of colon cancer have to do with whether
colonics are an effective adjunctive therapy?? You are
creating a diversion. I also wonder why you don't do your
own research instead of relying on others. Seems to me that
you could find this information in a matter of minutes
using Google.

>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.

What makes you think that they would lessen the likelihood
for surgery?? Surgery for what??
>
>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?

That is the question that is repeatedly asked of you since
you continue to assert that colonics are a useful adjunctive
therapy. I would suggest that before endorsing an
alternative therapy you do a bit of research to see if there
is any evidence that it does anything more than placebo. I
would also strongly encourage you to understand that
colonics can have harmful effects. It really makes no sense
to do a procedure that can cause harm when there is no good
evidence it does any good.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> One possible scenario: Chronic inflammation can lead to
> cancer in many scenarios, and it's not hard to imagine
> that frequent use of colonics could lead to chronic
> inflammation of the lining of the colon.

I don't quite follow the reasoning. Why or how could
colonics lead to inflamation of the lining of the colon?
(They are often water only, at tepid temperatures.)

> Another possible scenario: The disruption of the natural
> bacterial flora of the colon by frequent use of colonics
> leads to colonization by other, less benign bacteria,
> leading to chronic inflammation and then cancer.

Frequent use may not be necessary in order for them to
be helpful.

I found two refs to bacterial flora. One was studying
"disorders of intestinal microbic landscape" in peritonitis
of biliary origin. It says that, "Application of elaborated
method of colonosanation had permitted to a considerable
extent to eliminate these disorders and to improve result of
treatment of the patients".

Klin Khir. 2001 Jun;(6):35-8. [Efficacy of application of
colonic lavage for peritonitis of biliary genesis]
http://tinyurl.com/2zacn www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.-
fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract
&list_uids=11688263

The other was "Effect of the lavage of the digestive tract
on microflora in patients with polyps in the large
intestine" This found different effects in healthy people
from those with polyps. Among the healthy ones, there was
restoration and improvement of flora soon after the colonics
or "lavage". Among those with polyps, "at the expiration of
this time intestinal microflora in the patients with polyps
could be characterized as dysbiotic".

I wonder why the difference, and what that means. Ok for
some and not for others?

Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol. 2001 May-Jun;(3):76-80
Korshunov VM et al http://tinyurl.com/35rdh www.ncbi.nlm.ni-
h.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract
&list_uids=11550567
>
> There are other plausible scenarios that might be
> speculated on. Studies would be needed to determine if
> they are valid.

--
"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
 
It is common courtesy to "lurk" in a newsgroup for a while
in order to get the style of the posting before jumping
right in and making an asshole our of yourself.

This would be good advice for you and after a few weeks of
practice you will be able to thread like real person here.

Welcome to the group.

<PLONK>

"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:35:13 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >Sounds like the same troll no matter how many times I
> >read it.
>
>
> Do you EVER say anything worthwhile here?
 
In sci.med.nutrition Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote:

> I found two refs to bacterial flora. One was [...]

[Efficacy of application of colonic lavage for peritonitis
of biliary genesis -
http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11550567]

> The other was [...]

> This found different effects in healthy people from those
> with polyps. Among the healthy ones, there was restoration
> and improvement of flora soon after the colonics or
> "lavage". Among those with polyps, "at the expiration of
> this time intestinal microflora in the patients with
> polyps could be characterized as dysbiotic".
>
> I wonder why the difference, and what that means. Ok for
> some and not for others?

[Effect of the lavage of the digestive tract on microflora
in patients with polyps in the large intestine
http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11550567]

Other disorders can create resevoirs of bacteria that are
not necessarily easily removed by irrigation - e.g.
diverticulitis.

Polyps may have acted as a marker for such disorders - or
they may have created wrinkled growths that harboured
bacteria - preventing the cleansing being completely
effective.

One of the idea of colonics it to completely obliterate life
in the colon. This takes out all the pathogens - as well as
all the friendly bacteria.

The other main therapy that does this is fasting. That
obliterates bacterial flora throughout the digestive tract -
by depriving it of food.

The model where such interventions can be expected to be
effective is where pathogens arrive with a low frequency -
but are persistent once they have established themselves.

After both, therapies, the subject restocks with
friendly bacteria.

My impression is that the colon-therapy folk take more care
over this than the fasters do - while a reasonable case can
be make that a prolonged fast (especially with psyllium and
clay) is likely to be rather more effective at sterilising
the digestive tract.

Oral supplementation presents some difficulties when
restocking: Colonic bacteria are mainly anaerobic - while
the small intestine is primarily an aerobic environment.
Those with sufficiently powerful equipment to actually clean
out the whole colon can normally be expected to be the same
ones that restock with bacteria from both ends - and to use
an appropriate delivery system for the top route.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
In sci.med.nutrition Orac <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> In article <[email protected]>, Toby
> Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Rich.@. wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > Can you give any possible scenario or framework within
> > which that would be the case?
>
> One possible scenario: Chronic inflammation can lead to
> cancer in many scenarios, and it's not hard to imagine
> that frequent use of colonics could lead to chronic
> inflammation of the lining of the colon.
>
> Another possible scenario: The disruption of the natural
> bacterial flora of the colon by frequent use of colonics
> leads to colonization by other, less benign bacteria,
> leading to chronic inflammation and then cancer.

The two most obvious ways colonics could help are by
influencing ulcerative colitis and constapation.

The casues of ulcerative colitis are not entirely clear -
but usually in immune system attack of a bacterial or viral
infection is implicated.

If the offending aliens can be destroyed before they cause
problems, then the outcome might be positive.

Alternatively, irrigation with topical agents in solution
*has* been found to produce positive effects as treatment
for ulcerative colitis. E.g.:

``Effects of propionyl-L-carnitine topical irrigation in
distal ulcerative colitis: a preliminary report.

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=14571743

The authors described the treatment as "safe and effective".

The other area where colonics might have an impact is by
reducing the number of clogged, constipated, sigmoid
colons that are buckling under the pressure of straining
to excrete.

However - while this effect may be responsible for a number
of cases of diverticulitis - and diverticulitis is a risk
factor for colon cancer [1]
- the effect is probably not very direct.

Of course colonics are merely first aid for constipation.

To fix the problem at its source, adopting a high-fibre diet
is required.

[1] Increased risk of left sided colon cancer in patients
with diverticular disease.

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=8491397
--
__________
|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:
>
> Watching an Ibis is how the Egytpians were believed to
> have discovered the enema.

A lot of things are SAID. That doesn't make them true.
>
>
> A photograph of a heron with it's beak a centimeter or so
> from its backside:

Please spare the pics - not one of these birds is giving
itself an enema.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote or
> quoted: This is evidently mistaken:
>
> http://www.auduboninstitute.org/press/images/flamingo-
> egg.jpg
>
> ...should illustrate that clearly enough.
========================
Where do you see a bird inserting it's beak up it's
cloaca here?
--
Kim...

Coloklysis to clean out you skinny little @$$ Of all the
toxic goodies you do not pass Globs of gunk and the mucus
you store Parasites, flukes and worms galore So take some
Coloklysis so you can pass All these nasties from your
skinny little @$$.....

The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> ``An ibis uses its beak as a clyster to give himself
> an enema''
>

LOL!!! Well he or she has the angle all WRONG!!! LOL!!!! :)
He would have to get BEHIND himself and insert his beak
forward... an impossible angle. Give it up already.
--
Kim All these nasties from my skinny little @$$..... The
most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back