enema colon cleansng

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Matt, Oct 9, 2003.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products. I have used enemas and colon cleansing
    herbs. It generaly makes me feel good after a cleansing, herbs are hit and miss though. I did find a
    unique site that combines the two

    www.enemakit.com

    anyone ever purchase from them or combine herbs with colonic enema cleansing?

    Thanks Matt
     
    Tags:


  2. markd

    markd Guest

    "Feel" is the first thing to jump out, eat a great handful of hot peppers and you will "feel" twice
    as much. How do we discern the merely spam from the sincere request for information? Is there any
    research on which to base an informed opinion?

    >Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products. I have used enemas and colon
    >cleansing herbs. It generaly makes me feel good after a cleansing, herbs are hit and miss though. I
    >did find a unique site that combines the two
    >
    >www.enemakit.com
    >
    >anyone ever purchase from them or combine herbs with colonic enema cleansing?
    >
    >Thanks Matt
     
  3. Jaym1212

    Jaym1212 Guest

    > Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products.

    Eating more fiber rich vegetables and fruits is another way of accomplishing similar.
     
  4. Matt

    Matt Guest

    I guess that is a no? , ya I should of left out the website

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Feel" is the first thing to jump out, eat a great handful of hot peppers and you will "feel"
    > twice as much. How do we discern the merely spam from the sincere request for information? Is
    > there any research on which to base an informed opinion?
    >
    >
    > >Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products. I have used enemas and colon
    > >cleansing herbs. It generaly makes me feel good after a cleansing, herbs are hit and miss though.
    > >I did find a unique site that combines the two
    > >
    > >www.enemakit.com
    > >
    > >anyone ever purchase from them or combine herbs with colonic enema cleansing?
    > >
    > >Thanks Matt
     
  5. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products. I have used enemas and colon
    > cleansing herbs. It generaly makes me feel good after a cleansing, herbs are hit and miss though.
    > I did find a unique site that combines the two
    >
    > www.enesytdfuyrtmakit.com
    >
    > anyone ever purchase from them or combine herbs with colonic enema cleansing?

    I would definitely not recommend enemas, unless directed by a real doctor (chiropractors,
    naturopaths and other quacks don't count).

    The first reason is that they can be dangerous. You can get electrolyte abnormalities (problems with
    your body;s salt balance) and even rupture your colon.

    The second reason is that they are unnecessary. If you eat enough fiber, give yourself enough time
    to poop and get excercise, there should be no need to take or do anything to help you poop.

    There are also many false claims about how enemas and cleansing is good for your health. There is no
    evidence that this is true. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html

    Develop healthy bowel habits by eating right, getting enough excercise, drinking enough water (which
    helps keep your stool moist), and taking enough time to move your bowels, you should have no need
    for enemas.

    Jeff

    > Thanks Matt
     
  6. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

    > There are also many false claims about how enemas and cleansing is good for your health. There is
    > no evidence that this is true.

    If you search for things like "colonic irrigation" on Medline it will be clear that there isn't much
    evidence either way - there hasn't been much funding of research into the effectiveness of
    irrigating the colon.

    A good number of the studies that have been done are on patients with colostomies. The results there
    seem to be highly beneficial:

    ``Colonic irrigation for colostomies. Results of a national survey among 795 colostomized patients''

    - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=8734274

    ``Value of colonic irrigation. Long-term followed-up in 432 colostomized patients

    - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=7899291

    There's also a postive study on incontinence:

    ``Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances.

    - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=9221856

    ...several papers about hygene problems - e.g.:

    ``An outbreak of amebiasis spread by colonic irrigation at a chiropractic clinic''

    - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=6283354

    ...and several "Bah humbug" papers - e.g.:

    ``Colonic irrigation and the theory of autointoxication: a triumph of ignorance over science.''

    - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=9252839

    ...but not a great deal more.

    Maybe one day science will look into colonic irrigation in more detail. However until that is done
    the health claims made for it would perhaps be better described as "unproven" than "false".
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  7. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >
    > > There are also many false claims about how enemas and cleansing is good for your health. There
    > > is no evidence that this is true.
    >
    > If you search for things like "colonic irrigation" on Medline it will be clear that there isn't
    > much evidence either way - there hasn't been much funding of research into the effectiveness of
    > irrigating the colon.

    True.

    > A good number of the studies that have been done are on patients with colostomies. The results
    > there seem to be highly beneficial:
    >
    > ``Colonic irrigation for colostomies. Results of a national survey among 795 colostomized
    > patients''
    >
    > - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=8734274
    >
    > ``Value of colonic irrigation. Long-term followed-up in 432 colostomized patients
    >
    > - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=7899291
    >
    > There's also a postive study on incontinence:
    >
    > ``Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances.
    >
    > - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=9221856

    These three papers are about patients with very specific problems under a real doctor's care. Most
    people do not have colonostomies. And the problem with fecal soiling is a specific problem, as well.

    These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.

    > ...several papers about hygene problems - e.g.:
    >
    > ``An outbreak of amebiasis spread by colonic irrigation at a chiropractic clinic''
    >
    > - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=6283354
    >
    > ...and several "Bah humbug" papers - e.g.:
    >
    > ``Colonic irrigation and the theory of autointoxication: a triumph of ignorance over science.''
    >
    > - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=9252839
    >
    > ...but not a great deal more.

    The theories about colonic irrigation arose before our modern understanding of how the body works.
    It was thought that by doing colonic cleansing, toxins would be removed from the body and liver
    function (whatever they thought that was) would be improved. The fact is that the stuff inside the
    colon is not really in the body (it is isolated from the body by the colon wall). Toxins do not move
    from the colon to inside the body. Rather, they stay isolated in the colon until they are
    eliminated.

    There is no reason to suspect that colonic irrigation really does anything to help people. The basic
    medical sciences do provide any reason to believe that colonic irrigation will help anyone. There
    are no studies to support that colonic irrigation helps people avoid illness or that the toxins in
    the colon cause illness.

    There is evidence to suggest that colonic irrigation can cause electrolyte imbalances, colonic
    rupture as well as dependence of enemas to move the bowels.

    Bowels have been moving naturally by themselves for millenia. There is no reason to think that
    people need colonic irrigation. If people are having troubles moving bowels, the way to solve them
    is to solve the problems with diet and excercise (excercise helps improve intestinal mobility).

    Jeff

    > Maybe one day science will look into colonic irrigation in more detail. However until that is done
    > the health claims made for it would perhaps be better described as "unproven" than "false".
    > --
    > __________
    > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  8. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

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

    >> > There are also many false claims about how enemas and cleansing is good for your health. There
    >> > is no evidence that this is true.
    >>
    >> If you search for things like "colonic irrigation" on Medline it will be clear that there isn't
    >> much evidence either way - there hasn't been much funding of research into the effectiveness of
    >> irrigating the colon.
    >
    > True.
    >
    >> A good number of the studies that have been done are on patients with colostomies. The results
    >> there seem to be highly beneficial:
    >>
    >> ``Colonic irrigation for colostomies. Results of a national survey among 795 colostomized
    >> patients''
    >>
    >> - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=8734274
    >>
    >> ``Value of colonic irrigation. Long-term followed-up in 432 colostomized patients
    >>
    >> - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=7899291
    >>
    >> There's also a postive study on incontinence:
    >>
    >> ``Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances.
    >>
    >> - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=9221856
    >
    > These three papers are about patients with very specific problems under a real doctor's care.
    > Most people do not have colonostomies. And the problem with fecal soiling is a specific problem,
    > as well.
    >
    > These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.

    Yes I know. However if you discard studies like these there really isn't very much left on which to
    base an opinion.

    This shows how western medicine works in some respect - treatments are mostly tried on ill patients.

    Colonic irrigation is typically billed as preventative medicine - so it would be nice to see the
    effects on moderately healthy subjects - but few such studies have been performed.

    > The theories about colonic irrigation arose before our modern understanding of how the body works.
    > It was thought that by doing colonic cleansing, toxins would be removed from the body and liver
    > function (whatever they thought that was) would be improved. The fact is that the stuff inside the
    > colon is not really in the body (it is isolated from the body by the colon wall). Toxins do not
    > move from the colon to inside the body. Rather, they stay isolated in the colon until they are
    > eliminated.

    The problems that commonly afflict the colon in the aged include diverticulitis, cancer, ulcers,
    irritable bowel syndrome and inflammation.

    Diverticular disease is characterised by stagnant pockets of colon wall being pushed through their
    muscular lining, and then becomming breeding grounds for bacteria. It seems like common sense to me
    that washing and scrubbing the colon would be theraputic here.

    While the causes of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis are not known in detail it seems likely that
    they are caused - in part - by mechanical or chemical elements in the colon and rectum attacking the
    lining - and being repeatedly forced against its surface under pressure.

    Again, it seems likely to me that an internal warm bath is likely to be theraputic here. It offers -
    among other things - temporary respite from the insult, a means to relieve pressure by softening and
    loosening the material being compressed, and washes away the resident bacteria - allowing them to be
    replaced by benign species.

    > There is no reason to suspect that colonic irrigation really does anything to help people.

    Scientifically speaking there's no reason to think it doesn't either. That's the problem with a lack
    of study - ignorance works both ways.

    > The basic medical sciences do provide any reason to believe that colonic irrigation will
    > help anyone.

    What serious attempt to investigate the issue has been made by these sciences?

    > There are no studies to support that colonic irrigation helps people avoid illness or that the
    > toxins in the colon cause illness.

    That's because the question has not been adequately studied.

    > There is evidence to suggest that colonic irrigation can cause electrolyte imbalances, colonic
    > rupture as well as dependence of enemas to move the bowels.

    The danger of perforating the bowel seems pretty minimal to me - if reasonable care is taken.

    Electrolyte imbalances can stem from absorbing lots of material from the colon during the
    irrigation. Don't stick toxic compounds up there - and don't shove fluid up there continuously for
    many hours on end - and you should be OK. The other possible cause is very frequent enemas. Minerals
    are absorbed from the large intestine. If this is continuously empty then you may not be absorbing a
    balanced spectrum of minerals. The most obvious solution to this is not to have enemas day after day
    for weeks at a time without careful monitoring and compensating supplementation with minerals and
    intestinal flora.

    Dependence on laxatives is much more common than dependence on enemas. Since the former is more
    serious (through the influence of questionable chemicals on the entire GI tract), I should think
    giving a few more enemas instead would be warmly welcomed.

    The common long-term solution to such problems is high fibre diets. It is usually a very
    effective solution.

    Infection has been another concern historically - but sterilising the equipment used is an effective
    solution. Using a disposable speculum also works rather well.

    Im impression of the safety concerns over colonics is that the procedure is "mostly harmless" - and
    that the reported pitfalls are rather easily avoided by correct practices.

    > Bowels have been moving naturally by themselves for millenia. There is no reason to think that
    > people need colonic irrigation.

    People don't *need* colonic irrigation. They don't *need* exercise either. Nor do they need to -
    say - gargle.

    The question is not whether these things are "needed" but whether they can be beneficial.

    Yogis knew about colonics thousands of years ago. They have been practicing cleansing techniques
    such as Neti and Basti for centuries.

    Presumably science will eventually catch up - and figure out why colonics are of interest.

    There are after all, some obvious advantages to treating some bowel problems from below - rather
    than trying to do practically everything from the top.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  9. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    (...)

    > >
    > > These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.
    >
    > Yes I know. However if you discard studies like these there really isn't very much left on which
    > to base an opinion.

    Actuallay there is. Everything known about patholgy, gastrointestinal anatomy and function,
    pathology, immunology, microbiology, etc., indicates that the material in the colon stays in the
    colon until it passes. There is really very little evidence to indicate that colon cleansing
    does anything.

    > This shows how western medicine works in some respect - treatments are mostly tried on ill
    > patients.

    Gee. I wonder why.

    However, preventive medicine has done wonders, like prevent millions of deaths from measles, mumps,
    rubella, polio, smallpox, etc.

    > Colonic irrigation is typically billed as preventative medicine -

    There is abdundant evidence that vaccines work. And none that colonic irrigation works. And evidence
    that it is dangerous and potentially counter productive.

    > so it would be nice to see the effects on moderately healthy subjects - but few such studies have
    > been performed.

    Because they would, IMHO, be unethical. There is no evidence that they work, no basic science to
    suggest that they would work, they are expensive and potentially deadly.

    > > The theories about colonic irrigation arose before our modern
    understanding
    > > of how the body works. It was thought that by doing colonic cleansing, toxins would be removed
    > > from the body and liver function (whatever they thought that was) would be improved. The fact is
    > > that the stuff inside
    the
    > > colon is not really in the body (it is isolated from the body by the
    colon
    > > wall). Toxins do not move from the colon to inside the body. Rather,
    they
    > > stay isolated in the colon until they are eliminated.
    >
    > The problems that commonly afflict the colon in the aged include diverticulitis, cancer, ulcers,
    > irritable bowel syndrome and inflammation.

    None of which would colonic irrigation reduce. Proper diet, excercise, elimination patterns would
    help, however.

    > Diverticular disease is characterised by stagnant pockets of colon wall being pushed through their
    > muscular lining, and then becomming breeding grounds for bacteria. It seems like common sense to
    > me that washing and scrubbing the colon would be theraputic here.

    Why? What difference would it make? The colon is full of bacteria. As soon as you wash the colon,
    more bacteria will move. Better to have ensure better colon function by diet, excercise and proper
    elimination patterns.

    > While the causes of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis are not known in detail it seems likely
    > that they are caused - in part - by mechanical or chemical elements in the colon and rectum
    > attacking the lining - and being repeatedly forced against its surface under pressure.

    No, it is chemical irritation. And enemas will disturb the colon function, which will lead to more
    irratition. Instead, let the colon work naturally by proper diet, excercise and elimination.

    > Again, it seems likely to me that an internal warm bath is likely to be theraputic here.

    The water will most likely be a different temperature and the bacteria will be disurbed. Better to
    let the colon function naturally.

    > It offers - among other things - temporary respite from the insult

    yeah, a few minute a week from a function the colon was designed to do. Not much of respite. ,
    > a means to relieve pressure by softening and
    > loosening the material being compressed,

    No material is being compressed. And besides the colon can compress water just as easily.

    > and washes away the resident bacteria - allowing them to be replaced by benign species.

    Or bad species.

    > > There is no reason to suspect that colonic irrigation really does
    anything
    > > to help people.
    >
    > Scientifically speaking there's no reason to think it doesn't either.

    Yes there is. The colon is designed to work a certain way. That way does not include a tube shoved
    up the ass.

    > That's the problem with a lack of study - ignorance works both ways.

    Actually, no.

    > > The basic medical sciences do provide any reason to believe that colonic irrigation will help
    > > anyone.
    >
    > What serious attempt to investigate the issue has been made by these sciences?

    Gastroenterologists don't recommend them except in certain circumstances. What more do you need?

    > > There are no studies to support that colonic irrigation helps people avoid illness or that the
    > > toxins in the colon cause illness.
    >
    > That's because the question has not been adequately studied.

    Because such studies would be harmful and unethical

    > > There is evidence to suggest that colonic irrigation can cause
    electrolyte
    > > imbalances, colonic rupture as well as dependence of enemas to move the bowels.
    >
    > The danger of perforating the bowel seems pretty minimal to me - if reasonable care is taken.

    Minimal is not zero. And for a procedure that does not help, minimal is too much.

    > Electrolyte imbalances can stem from absorbing lots of material from the colon during the
    > irrigation.

    Or from lots of material, like water moving from either from the colon to the body or vice versa.

    > Don't stick toxic compounds up there - and don't shove fluid up there continuously for many hours
    > on end - and you should be OK.

    Should be? Not good enough for me.

    > The other possible cause is very frequent enemas. Minerals are absorbed from the large intestine.
    > If this is continuously empty then you may not be absorbing a balanced spectrum of minerals. The
    > most obvious solution to this is not to have enemas day after day for weeks at a time without
    > careful monitoring and compensating
    supplementation
    > with minerals and intestinal flora.

    Or not have enemas at all.

    > Dependence on laxatives is much more common than dependence on enemas. Since the former is more
    > serious (through the influence of questionable chemicals on the entire GI tract), I should think
    > giving a few more enemas instead would be warmly welcomed.

    Better yet, don't use enemas or laxatives all. I never use laxitives at and colon functions
    perfectly. The waste leaves my body after a few hours to a day or two (I can tell when I eat corn).

    > The common long-term solution to such problems is high fibre diets. It is usually a very effective
    > solution.

    Correct.

    > Infection has been another concern historically - but sterilising the equipment used is an
    > effective solution. Using a disposable speculum also works rather well.

    Or giving enemas works better and saves money.

    > Im impression of the safety concerns over colonics is that the procedure is "mostly harmless" -
    > and that the reported pitfalls are rather easily avoided by correct practices.

    Like not giving enemas in the first place.

    > > Bowels have been moving naturally by themselves for millenia. There is
    no
    > > reason to think that people need colonic irrigation.
    >
    > People don't *need* colonic irrigation. They don't *need* exercise
    either.

    Actually, excercise helps the heart, intestines, arteries, brain, etc. Colonic iirigation
    helps nothing.

    > Nor do they need to - say - gargle.
    >
    > The question is not whether these things are "needed" but whether they can be beneficial.

    Excercise, yes. Colonic irrigation, except for very specific conditions when supervised by a good
    health care professional, no.

    > Yogis knew about colonics thousands of years ago. They have been practicing cleansing techniques
    > such as Neti and Basti for centuries.

    So? That doesn't mean the techniques work. People have been practicing voo-doo and blood letting for
    years too.

    > Presumably science will eventually catch up - and figure out why colonics are of interest.

    The quacks have caught up. And so have their bank accounts.

    Yet you offer no reason to support your connection that colonics will help anyone. Can you come up
    with a reason why? We know the toxic theory is incorrect. Can you provide a reason why we would
    expect that a colonic would be helpful?

    > There are after all, some obvious advantages to treating some bowel problems from below - rather
    > than trying to do practically everything from the top.

    Really? What are these advantages? Electrolyte imbalances and colonic rupture?

    I would think that the advatages of a healthy diet would outweigh any advantages of sticking a tube
    up your butt.

    If you can provide any real evidenced that colonic irrigation is helpful, I will respond. All you
    are doing is responding with conjecture.

    Jeff
    > --
    > __________
    > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  10. Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff rambled on about "Re: enema colon cleansng." Our champion
    De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >Most people do not have colonostomies.

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    And, we all know why the patient got a colonostomy in the first place, don't we?

    Just more heroic medicine, in the modern age. :(
     
  11. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

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

    >> > These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.
    >>
    >> Yes I know. However if you discard studies like these there really isn't very much left on which
    >> to base an opinion.
    >
    > Actuallay there is. Everything known about patholgy, gastrointestinal anatomy and function,
    > pathology, immunology, microbiology, etc., indicates that the material in the colon stays in the
    > colon until it passes.

    Except for minerals and water. So what? Where was that disputed.

    > There is really very little evidence to indicate that colon cleansing does anything.

    That's a ridiculous statement, given studies I've already cited.

    >> This shows how western medicine works in some respect - treatments are mostly tried on ill
    >> patients.
    >
    > Gee. I wonder why.

    It's because that's how it is funded.

    Contrast with the situation in China - where doctors are paid when the family is healthy - and go
    unwaged when they are sick.

    >> The problems that commonly afflict the colon in the aged include diverticulitis, cancer, ulcers,
    >> irritable bowel syndrome and inflammation.
    >
    > None of which would colonic irrigation reduce. [...]

    In the absence of evidence from studies, there's no way to know that.

    >> Diverticular disease is characterised by stagnant pockets of colon wall being pushed through
    >> their muscular lining, and then becomming breeding grounds for bacteria. It seems like common
    >> sense to me that washing and scrubbing the colon would be theraputic here.
    >
    > Why? What difference would it make? The colon is full of bacteria. As soon as you wash the colon,
    > more bacteria will move.

    It would force water into the pockets - softening, and breaking down any materials inside, and
    flushing out any resident bacteria.

    The idea that the new bacteria are no different from the old ones is likely to be a fallacy. Old
    ones have had some time to adapt to their environment, and are chosen from a pool which has been
    present since the last time the colon was cleaned out.

    New ones are likely to be chosen from a much smaller pool initially, based on the contents of the
    current diet. The idea is that this smaller pool is less likely to contain pathogens.

    >> While the causes of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis are not known in detail it seems likely
    >> that they are caused - in part - by mechanical or chemical elements in the colon and rectum
    >> attacking the lining - and being repeatedly forced against its surface under pressure.
    >
    > No, it is chemical irritation.

    Isn't that what I just said?

    > And enemas will disturb the colon function, which will lead to more irratition.

    Really? Warm water bathing leads to irritation? On what are you basing that?

    >> Again, it seems likely to me that an internal warm bath is likely to be theraputic here.
    >
    > The water will most likely be a different temperature and the bacteria will be disurbed.

    Completely killing off the existing population of bacteria is part of the point of the exercise. It
    destroys any pathogenic ones at the same time.

    >> It offers - among other things - temporary respite from the insult
    >
    > yeah, a few minute a week from a function the colon was designed to do. Not much of respite.

    Not according to the patients. They report feeling "clear" and "not bunged up" for many hours after
    the treatment.

    >> a means to relieve pressure by softening and
    >> loosening the material being compressed,
    >
    > No material is being compressed.

    You speak nonsense. Compression of material in the lower colon is a serious issue - and is known to
    be the cause of many health problems.

    > And besides the colon can compress water just as easily.

    Have you tried compressing water? Get a new plastic bottle of mineral water and try squeezing it.

    >> and washes away the resident bacteria - allowing them to be replaced by benign species.
    >
    > Or bad species.

    Much more likely good species. You can deliberately feed good species in at the top - to ensure that
    this is the case.

    Bad species arrive in a haphazzard fashion with food over a period of time and accumulate - until
    the next time you obliterate them all.

    >> > There is no reason to suspect that colonic irrigation really does anything to help people.
    >>
    >> Scientifically speaking there's no reason to think it doesn't either.
    >
    > Yes there is. The colon is designed to work a certain way. That way does not include a tube shoved
    > up the ass.

    That reasoning is worthless. By using the same argument, you can prove that surgery doesn't help
    people either.

    >> > The basic medical sciences do provide any reason to believe that colonic irrigation will help
    >> > anyone.
    >>
    >> What serious attempt to investigate the issue has been made by these sciences?
    >
    > Gastroenterologists don't recommend them except in certain circumstances. What more do you need?

    I want more studies of colonic irrigation. Currently there are very few.

    >> > There are no studies to support that colonic irrigation helps people avoid illness or that the
    >> > toxins in the colon cause illness.
    >>
    >> That's because the question has not been adequately studied.
    >
    > Because such studies would be harmful and unethical

    The problem as I see it is funding. Volunteers would be easy to find.

    There's nothing unethical about looking systematically at people doing what they would be
    doing anyway.

    >> > There is evidence to suggest that colonic irrigation can cause electrolyte imbalances, colonic
    >> > rupture as well as dependence of enemas to move the bowels.
    >>
    >> The danger of perforating the bowel seems pretty minimal to me - if reasonable care is taken.
    >
    > Minimal is not zero. And for a procedure that does not help, minimal is too much.

    If it proven that it doesn't help, I will abandon any claim for it. I don't see that ever
    happening, though.

    >> Don't stick toxic compounds up there - and don't shove fluid up there continuously for many hours
    >> on end - and you should be OK.
    >
    > Should be? Not good enough for me.

    Don't worry - nobody is going to force *you* to have the procedure done ;-)

    >> Dependence on laxatives is much more common than dependence on enemas. Since the former is more
    >> serious (through the influence of questionable chemicals on the entire GI tract), I should think
    >> giving a few more enemas instead would be warmly welcomed.
    >
    > Better yet, don't use enemas or laxatives all.

    That is the ideal for the healthy. Not everyone is healthy, though - and currently the medical
    profession recommends laxatives for a number of conditions.

    >> People don't *need* colonic irrigation. They don't *need* exercise either.
    >
    > Actually, excercise helps the heart, intestines, arteries, brain, etc.

    I never said it didn't. I merely said they don't *need* it.

    > Colonic iirigation helps nothing.

    IYO - but in the absence of much actual testing, who is to say?

    We know that colonics halps certain sorts of incontinence, and is useful among colostomy patients. I
    reckon the chances are it would be shown to help others as well - if the tests were ever done.

    > Yet you offer no reason to support your connection that colonics will help anyone. Can you come up
    > with a reason why? We know the toxic theory is incorrect. Can you provide a reason why we would
    > expect that a colonic would be helpful?

    Firstly the "toxic gut" theory is far from discredited. There can be actively malevolent bacteria
    and their waste products in the colon - if these are not "toxic" then I don't know what is. It is
    likely to be in their interests to attack and penetrate the gut wall and take up more permanent
    residence.

    Colonics are likely to help diverticular disorders - by penetrating into the diverticular regions,
    and removing debris and potential causes of inflamation.

    Colonics provide temporary relief from the disorders of constapation. Other things do this as well -
    but few provide such immediate local relief.

    Colonics may help with disorders such as ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, pain,
    bloating, and colon cancer as well, by promoting correct flow, removing parasites and hostile
    bacteria, softening the stools - and so on.

    Lastly colonics provide a short-term psychological boost. An irrigation is a bit like having an
    exceptionally good crap. As a result you immediately feel much lighter, more free, and as though a
    digestive burden has been removed from you - which of course is actually exactly what has happened.

    >> There are after all, some obvious advantages to treating some bowel problems from below - rather
    >> than trying to do practically everything from the top.
    >
    > Really? What are these advantages? [...]

    You are near to the source of the problem, your intervention can be applied immediately, and it does
    not have to pass through the stomach and small intestine before it can go to work.

    > I would think that the advatages of a healthy diet would outweigh any advantages of sticking a
    > tube up your butt.

    Maybe they do - but it is not an either-or situation, since you can do both - so the importance of
    diet is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

    > If you can provide any real evidenced that colonic irrigation is helpful, I will respond. All you
    > are doing is responding with conjecture.

    If you recall my basic point was that there was insufficient evidence to say very much about the
    effectiveness of colonic irrigation.

    I will whole-heartedly agree that it is unproven - but take exception at claims that it has been
    shown to be ineffective.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  12. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

  13. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Matt <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> Matt <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

    >> >Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing products. I have used enemas and colon
    >> >cleansing herbs. It generaly makes me feel good after a cleansing, herbs are hit and miss
    >> >though. I did find a unique site that combines the two
    >> >
    >> >www.enemakit.com
    >> >
    >> >anyone ever purchase from them or combine herbs with colonic enema cleansing?
    >>
    >> How do we discern the merely spam from the sincere request for information?
    >
    > I guess that is a no? , ya I should of left out the website

    You can discern the "merely spam" from the "sincere request for information" by noting that Matt
    <[email protected]> is down as the administrative contact for www.enemakit.com.

    whois enemakit.com

    Domain Name: enemakit.com

    Administrative Contact: Matt Peterson (ZSNRG) [email protected] P38 Media 1441 Pennsylvania St #18
    Denver, co 80218 United States [...]

    That makes him an astroturfer who is too incompetent to disguise his own identity effectively -
    surely a low breed of usenet denizen :-(
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  14. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff rambled on about "Re: enema colon cleansng." Our champion
    > De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >Most people do not have colonostomies.
    >
    > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    >
    > And, we all know why the patient got a colonostomy in the first place, don't we?
    >
    > Just more heroic medicine, in the modern age. :(

    Yeah, instead, let's just let people die from colon cancer and let them suffer a horrible end with
    blocked intestines.

    Jeff
     
  15. Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff rambled on about "Re: enema colon cleansng." Our champion
    De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >Yeah, instead, let's just let people die from colon cancer and let them suffer a horrible end with
    >blocked intestines.

    Yeah, why start worrying about quality of life issues when medicine never has?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
     
  16. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >
    > >> > These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.
    > >>
    > >> Yes I know. However if you discard studies like these there really isn't very much left on
    > >> which to base an opinion.
    > >
    > > Actuallay there is. Everything known about patholgy, gastrointestinal anatomy and function,
    > > pathology, immunology, microbiology, etc.,
    indicates
    > > that the material in the colon stays in the colon until it passes.
    >
    > Except for minerals and water. So what? Where was that disputed.
    >
    > > There is really very little evidence to indicate that colon cleansing does anything.
    >
    > That's a ridiculous statement, given studies I've already cited.

    No. The studies you cited had to with people under doctor's care for taking care of the
    colonostomies or with very specific fecal soiling. Problems that do apply to very few people. You
    can't use these studies to back colon cleansing for people without these problems.

    > >> This shows how western medicine works in some respect - treatments are mostly tried on ill
    > >> patients.
    > >
    > > Gee. I wonder why.
    >
    > It's because that's how it is funded.

    Or because the of the lack of evidence that colon cleansing would help anyone, having these studies
    on otherwise healthy people would be dangerous and unethical.

    > Contrast with the situation in China - where doctors are paid when the family is healthy - and go
    > unwaged when they are sick.

    In the US, doctors are often paid by HMOs one set fee, regardless of how many visits a patient
    makes. This paying doctors to keep patients healthy.

    > >> The problems that commonly afflict the colon in the aged include diverticulitis, cancer,
    > >> ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome and inflammation.
    > >
    > > None of which would colonic irrigation reduce. [...]
    >
    > In the absence of evidence from studies, there's no way to know that.

    And no reason to beleive that colonic cleansing will reduce the symptoms of these conditions.

    > >> Diverticular disease is characterised by stagnant pockets of colon wall being pushed through
    > >> their muscular lining, and then becomming breeding grounds for bacteria. It seems like common
    > >> sense to me that washing and scrubbing the colon would be theraputic here.
    > >
    > > Why? What difference would it make? The colon is full of bacteria. As soon as you wash the
    > > colon, more bacteria will move.
    >
    > It would force water into the pockets - softening, and breaking down any materials inside, and
    > flushing out any resident bacteria.

    And remove healthy bacteria from the colon wall.

    But, what evidence do you have that colonic cleansing really gets in the pockets?

    > The idea that the new bacteria are no different from the old ones is likely to be a fallacy.

    Correct. They are likely to be less healthy for the colon wall than the ones that were there.

    > Old ones have had some time to adapt to their environment, and are chosen from a pool which has
    > been present since the last time the colon was cleaned out.

    Yeah, the same thing happens to me every mornign when I poop: The old bacteria get flushed.

    > New ones are likely to be chosen from a much smaller pool initially, based on the contents of the
    > current diet. The idea is that this smaller pool is less likely to contain pathogens.

    So? Why would you think that this idea is correct?

    > >> While the causes of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis are not known in detail it seems likely
    > >> that they are caused - in part - by mechanical or chemical elements in the colon and rectum
    > >> attacking the lining - and being repeatedly forced against its surface under pressure.
    > >
    > > No, it is chemical irritation.
    >
    > Isn't that what I just said?

    No. You said chemical irritation and mechanical forces. Yet there is no evidence that mechanical
    forces cause colon cancer. There are plenty of mechanical forces acting when one runs because of the
    contents of the colon are repeatably pushed up and down during running. But physical activity seems
    to decrease the risk of colon cancer.

    > > And enemas will disturb the colon function, which will lead to more irratition.
    >
    > Really? Warm water bathing leads to irritation?

    Yeap. I dries out the skin. And putting stuff in the colon that does not belong and distrubing the
    bacteria there will also lead to irriration.

    > On what are you basing that?

    Logic and knowledge of colon physiology and chemistry.

    > >> Again, it seems likely to me that an internal warm bath is likely to be theraputic here.
    > >
    > > The water will most likely be a different temperature and the bacteria
    will
    > > be disurbed.
    >
    > Completely killing off the existing population of bacteria is part of the point of the exercise.

    1) You won't completely kill all of the existing bacteria.

    2) Killing all of the existing bacteria will disturb the colon, which is not good.

    > It destroys any pathogenic ones at the same time.

    Really? And bacteria in the colon are pathogenic? And what evdience is there that these bacteria are
    pathogenic and that enemas help the situation?

    > >> It offers - among other things - temporary respite from the insult
    > >
    > > yeah, a few minute a week from a function the colon was designed to do.
    Not
    > > much of respite.
    >
    > Not according to the patients. They report feeling "clear" and "not bunged up" for many hours
    > after the treatment.

    Yet this hearsay is not evidence that this colon cleansing offers any real benefit.

    > >> a means to relieve pressure by softening and
    > >> loosening the material being compressed,
    > >
    > > No material is being compressed.
    >
    > You speak nonsense. Compression of material in the lower colon is a serious issue - and is known
    > to be the cause of many health problems.

    Really. How about some evidence that material is compressed and that this compression is the cause
    of many health problems?

    > > And besides the colon can compress water just as easily.
    >
    > Have you tried compressing water? Get a new plastic bottle of mineral water and try squeezing it.

    Exactly. Unless there is air in the colon, the contents can't be compressed.

    > >> and washes away the resident bacteria - allowing them to be replaced by benign species.
    > >
    > > Or bad species.
    >
    > Much more likely good species.

    Based on what evidence?

    > You can deliberately feed good species in at the top - to ensure that this is the case.

    Thank you. You provide a very good reason why colon cleansing is not needed.

    > Bad species arrive in a haphazzard fashion with food over a period of time and accumulate - until
    > the next time you obliterate them all.

    Really? Based on what evidence?

    > >> > There is no reason to suspect that colonic irrigation really does anything to help people.
    > >>
    > >> Scientifically speaking there's no reason to think it doesn't either.
    > >
    > > Yes there is. The colon is designed to work a certain way. That way does
    not
    > > include a tube shoved up the ass.
    >
    > That reasoning is worthless. By using the same argument, you can prove that surgery doesn't help
    > people either.

    I can provide evidence that surgery helps people.

    Based on your own admission, you are unable to provide evidence that colonic cleansing helps people,
    except for some very specific conditions under the care of physicians.

    There is much reason to believe that an enema can distrub the electrolyte balance or cause
    colonic rupture.

    > >> > The basic medical sciences do provide any reason to believe that colonic irrigation will help
    > >> > anyone.
    > >>
    > >> What serious attempt to investigate the issue has been made by these sciences?
    > >
    > > Gastroenterologists don't recommend them except in certain
    circumstances.
    > > What more do you need?
    >
    > I want more studies of colonic irrigation. Currently there are very few.

    Becuase there is no valid reason to beleive that colonic irrigation helps people. And much reason to
    think that it either doesn't help or is actually harmful.

    > >> > There are no studies to support that colonic irrigation helps people avoid illness or that
    > >> > the toxins in the colon cause illness.
    > >>
    > >> That's because the question has not been adequately studied.
    > >
    > > Because such studies would be harmful and unethical
    >
    > The problem as I see it is funding. Volunteers would be easy to find.

    Well, start a fundation for the funding.

    > There's nothing unethical about looking systematically at people doing what they would be
    > doing anyway.

    I disagree. If that is the case, start your foundation and see if you can get a hosptial review
    board to agree to supervise a study.

    > >> > There is evidence to suggest that colonic irrigation can cause electrolyte imbalances,
    > >> > colonic rupture as well as dependence of enemas to move the bowels.
    > >>
    > >> The danger of perforating the bowel seems pretty minimal to me - if reasonable care is taken.
    > >
    > > Minimal is not zero. And for a procedure that does not help, minimal is
    too
    > > much.
    >
    > If it proven that it doesn't help, I will abandon any claim for it. I don't see that ever
    > happening, though.

    You already have no real evidence for your claim.

    > >> Don't stick toxic compounds up there - and don't shove fluid up there continuously for many
    > >> hours on end - and you should be OK.
    > >
    > > Should be? Not good enough for me.
    >
    > Don't worry - nobody is going to force *you* to have the procedure done
    ;-)
    >
    > >> Dependence on laxatives is much more common than dependence on enemas. Since the former is more
    > >> serious (through the influence of questionable chemicals on the entire GI tract), I should
    > >> think giving a few more enemas instead would be warmly welcomed.
    > >
    > > Better yet, don't use enemas or laxatives all.
    >
    > That is the ideal for the healthy. Not everyone is healthy, though - and currently the medical
    > profession recommends laxatives for a number of conditions.

    Correct. And only use of enemas for specific conditions, like clean out prior to colonoscopy or
    surgery or sever blockage.

    > >> People don't *need* colonic irrigation. They don't *need* exercise either.
    > >
    > > Actually, excercise helps the heart, intestines, arteries, brain, etc.
    >
    > I never said it didn't. I merely said they don't *need* it.

    They *do* need excercise to stay healthy.

    > > Colonic iirigation helps nothing.
    >
    > IYO - but in the absence of much actual testing, who is to say?

    By this reasoning, riding on rollar coaster should be used to treat diarrhea. There is no evidence
    that it doesn't work.

    But, based on the physiology, anatomy and pathology of the body and gastrointestinal function, there
    is very little reason to beleive that colonic irrigation will be helpful and much reason to beleive
    that it is dangerous and will lead to dependence on colonic irrigation to move the bowels.

    > We know that colonics halps certain sorts of incontinence, and is useful among colostomy patients.
    > I reckon the chances are it would be shown to help others as well - if the tests were ever done.

    Your reckoning is next to worthless.

    > > Yet you offer no reason to support your connection that colonics will
    help
    > > anyone. Can you come up with a reason why? We know the toxic theory is incorrect. Can you
    > > provide a reason why we would expect that a colonic
    would
    > > be helpful?
    >
    > Firstly the "toxic gut" theory is far from discredited.

    Really. Provide evidence supporting it.

    > There can be actively malevolent bacteria and their waste products in the colon - if these are not
    > "toxic" then I don't know what is.

    OK, please name the toxiins that these bacteria produce and show us how when the blood levels of
    these toxins go up, people get sick.

    > It is likely to be in their interests to attack and penetrate the gut wall and take up more
    > permanent residence.

    Really? Show us the evidence that this occurs? Certainly, if this is true, pathologists will have
    many photographs of bacteria in the gut wall.

    > Colonics are likely to help diverticular disorders - by penetrating into the diverticular regions,
    > and removing debris and potential causes of inflamation.

    Again, show us the evidence. Likely is not good enough.

    > Colonics provide temporary relief from the disorders of constapation. Other things do this as well
    > - but few provide such immediate local relief.

    And risk colon rupture and other serious conditions.

    > Colonics may help with disorders such as ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, pain,
    > bloating, and colon cancer as well, by promoting correct flow, removing parasites and hostile
    > bacteria, softening the stools - and so on.

    May help? Again, not good enough.

    > Lastly colonics provide a short-term psychological boost. An irrigation is a bit like having an
    > exceptionally good crap. As a result you immediately feel much lighter, more free, and as though a
    > digestive burden has been removed from you - which of course is actually exactly what has
    > happened.

    Unless, of course, the digestive burden gets into your body because you rupture your colon. Or you
    become dependent on colonics to move your bowels.

    > >> There are after all, some obvious advantages to treating some bowel problems from below -
    > >> rather than trying to do practically everything from the top.
    > >
    > > Really? What are these advantages? [...]
    >
    > You are near to the source of the problem, your intervention can be applied immediately, and it
    > does not have to pass through the stomach and small intestine before it can go to work.

    No, the source of the problem is improper diet, bowel habits and excercise.

    > > I would think that the advatages of a healthy diet would outweigh any advantages of sticking a
    > > tube up your butt.
    >
    > Maybe they do - but it is not an either-or situation, since you can do both - so the importance of
    > diet is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

    The importance of diet is irrelevent to gastrointestinal function is irrelevent only to
    total assholes.

    > > If you can provide any real evidenced that colonic irrigation is
    helpful, I
    > > will respond. All you are doing is responding with conjecture.
    >
    > If you recall my basic point was that there was insufficient evidence to say very much about the
    > effectiveness of colonic irrigation.

    And much scientific evidence based on the physiology and patholgoy of gi function to support that it
    won't help colon function.

    > I will whole-heartedly agree that it is unproven - but take exception at claims that it has been
    > shown to be ineffective.

    Only because you are clueless and believe stupid people.

    Jeff

    > --
    > __________
    > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  17. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >
    > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> >> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    >>
    >> >> > These studies do not apply to the vast majority of people.
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes I know. However if you discard studies like these there really isn't very much left on
    >> >> which to base an opinion.
    >> >
    >> > Actuallay there is. Everything known about patholgy, gastrointestinal anatomy and function,
    >> > pathology, immunology, microbiology, etc., indicates that the material in the colon stays in
    >> > the colon until it passes.
    >>
    >> Except for minerals and water. So what? Where was that disputed.
    >>
    >> > There is really very little evidence to indicate that colon cleansing does anything.
    >>
    >> That's a ridiculous statement, given studies I've already cited.
    >
    > No. The studies you cited had to with people under doctor's care for taking care of the
    > colonostomies or with very specific fecal soiling. Problems that do apply to very few people. You
    > can't use these studies to back colon cleansing for people without these problems.

    All I was trying to dispute was that "there is really very little evidence to indicate that colon
    cleansing does anything". Perhaps that statement is just too dumb to bother with - but not even you
    would normally argue that its effects are no different from a placebo.

    >> >> This shows how western medicine works in some respect - treatments are mostly tried on ill
    >> >> patients.
    >> >
    >> > Gee. I wonder why.
    >>
    >> It's because that's how it is funded.
    >
    > Or because the of the lack of evidence that colon cleansing would help anyone, having these
    > studies on otherwise healthy people would be dangerous and unethical.

    No - since people willingly pay money to have it done on a daily basis. Study need only involve
    examinig thenm and following them up.

    >> >> Diverticular disease is characterised by stagnant pockets of colon wall being pushed through
    >> >> their muscular lining, and then becomming breeding grounds for bacteria. It seems like common
    >> >> sense to me that washing and scrubbing the colon would be theraputic here.
    >> >
    >> > Why? What difference would it make? The colon is full of bacteria. As soon as you wash the
    >> > colon, more bacteria will move.
    >>
    >> It would force water into the pockets - softening, and breaking down any materials inside, and
    >> flushing out any resident bacteria.
    >
    > And remove healthy bacteria from the colon wall.

    Yes. Replacing healthy bacteria is not difficult, though - eat some probiotics.

    > But, what evidence do you have that colonic cleansing really gets in the pockets?

    I don't know to what extent it does. Inevitably it will reach some and not others. Water is quite
    penetrating, though.

    >> The idea that the new bacteria are no different from the old ones is likely to be a fallacy.
    >
    > Correct. They are likely to be less healthy for the colon wall than the ones that were there.

    No, the reverse is the case. It's the same as with fasting. The bacteria are largely destroyed - and
    the healthy ones are replaced faster than the pathogenic ones - since the former are deliberately
    ingested - while the latter arrive less frequently on infected foodstuffs.

    >> Old ones have had some time to adapt to their environment, and are chosen from a pool which has
    >> been present since the last time the colon was cleaned out.
    >
    > Yeah, the same thing happens to me every morning when I poop: The old bacteria get flushed.

    Going to the toilet is not enough to remove bacteria from the colon. Of course many /are/ removed -
    but many more stay.

    Arguably, colonics are not always enough either. A simultaneous fast should help kill them off.

    >> New ones are likely to be chosen from a much smaller pool initially, based on the contents of the
    >> current diet. The idea is that this smaller pool is less likely to contain pathogens.
    >
    > So? Why would you think that this idea is correct?

    It fits what is knows about bacterial pathogens - the ones capable of reaching and infecting the
    colon are relatively rare.

    It is also one of the reasons fasting is thought to be theraputic - it kills intestinal pathogens by
    depriving them of food. You can stand the food deprivation stress - but they are much smaller, have
    fewer reserves, and starve.

    However I would certainly like to see more testing of these ideas.

    >> >> While the causes of colon cancer and ulcerative colitis are not known in detail it seems
    >> >> likely that they are caused - in part - by mechanical or chemical elements in the colon and
    >> >> rectum attacking the lining - and being repeatedly forced against its surface under pressure.
    >> >
    >> > No, it is chemical irritation.
    >>
    >> Isn't that what I just said?
    >
    > No. You said chemical irritation and mechanical forces.

    "Chemical irritation *or* mechanical forces" would have been a better summary.

    > Yet there is no evidence that mechanical forces cause colon cancer.

    Maybe - maybe not. My guess is though that scraping fecal material through the rectum increases
    local stress and cell death and ups the turnover rate of cells there, producing growth, and
    cancer. I definitely think pressure is involved. Pressure explains why most colon cancer is
    colorectal cancer.

    >> > And enemas will disturb the colon function, which will lead to more irratition.
    >>
    >> Really? Warm water bathing leads to irritation?
    >
    > Yeap. I dries out the skin. [...]

    A minor, short-term effect. Any displaced oils are quickly replaced.

    Bathing also cleans. Try six months without bathing and see what it does for your level of skin
    irritation.

    > And putting stuff in the colon that does not belong and distrubing the bacteria there will also
    > lead to irriration.
    >
    >> On what are you basing that?
    >
    > Logic and knowledge of colon physiology and chemistry.

    I'd prefer some actual test results. My experience does not suggest irritation is much of a factor -
    and AFAIK it is not regarded as a known side effect of colonics.

    >> >> Again, it seems likely to me that an internal warm bath is likely to be theraputic here.
    >> >
    >> > The water will most likely be a different temperature and the bacteria will be disurbed.
    >>
    >> Completely killing off the existing population of bacteria is part of the point of the exercise.
    >
    > 1) You won't completely kill all of the existing bacteria.

    Probably not. You will probably wipe out a good many strains, though.

    > 2) Killing all of the existing bacteria will disturb the colon, which is not good.

    Yes it is - since you get rid of the pathogenic ones - and the friendly ones are easily replaced.

    >> It destroys any pathogenic ones at the same time.
    >
    > Really? And bacteria in the colon are pathogenic? And what evdience is there that these bacteria
    > are pathogenic and that enemas help the situation?

    A good deal is known about pathogenic bacteria.

    Look into some of these, for example: Streptococcus faecalis, Salmonella, CMV, Cryptosporidium, MAC,
    Shigella flexneri, Clostridium difficile, Campylobacter jejuni, Histoplasma capsulatum.

    Colonic irrigation is fairly effective at removing bacteria from the colon. One of the problems is
    that is doesn't always penetrate as far as the ileocecal valve, though.

    If you want to know which pathogens it is most useful for treating, and how effective it is, then I
    expect you would be keen to see more research done on the issue.

    >> >> It offers - among other things - temporary respite from the insult
    >> >
    >> > yeah, a few minute a week from a function the colon was designed to do. Not much of respite.
    >>
    >> Not according to the patients. They report feeling "clear" and "not bunged up" for many hours
    >> after the treatment.
    >
    > Yet this hearsay is not evidence that this colon cleansing offers any real benefit.

    Fair enough. We will only knew whether colon cleansing offers any real benefit when the issue is
    properly studied scientifically.

    I don't see that as having been done yet.

    >> >> a means to relieve pressure by softening and
    >> >> loosening the material being compressed,
    >> >
    >> > No material is being compressed.
    >>
    >> You speak nonsense. Compression of material in the lower colon is a serious issue - and is known
    >> to be the cause of many health problems.
    >
    > Really. How about some evidence that material is compressed and that this compression is the cause
    > of many health problems?

    Diverticular regions:

    ``Diverticula are believed to be caused by overly forceful contractions of the muscular wall of the
    large intestine. As areas of this wall spasm, they become weaker and weaker, allowing the inner
    lining to bulge through. The anatomically weakest areas of the intestinal wall occur next to blood
    vessels which course through the wall, so diverticula commonly occur in this location. [...]

    A diet low in fiber results in the production of smaller volumes of stool. In order to move this
    smaller stool along the colon and out of the rectum, the colon must narrow itself significantly,
    and does so by contracting down forcefully. This causes an increase in pressure, which, over time,
    weakens the muscular wall of the intestine and allows diverticular pockets to develop.''

    Haemorrhoids

    ``Haemorrhoids are very common. They are said to be more common in countries where the diet has
    traditionally been more processed and low in fibre. The main contributory causes are those things
    that cause us to raise the pressure in the abdomen. This causes the blood vessels to swell and
    become engorged.

    It seems that the people most at risk of developing haemorrhoids are those who have more causes
    for raised abdominal pressure, such as:

    Those chronically straining with constipation. [...]''

    - http://www.medinfo.co.uk/conditions/haemorrhoids.html

    >> > And besides the colon can compress water just as easily.
    >>
    >> Have you tried compressing water? Get a new plastic bottle of mineral water and try squeezing it.
    >
    > Exactly. Unless there is air in the colon, the contents can't be compressed.

    Compressing stools squeezes water out of them. The water is absorbed by the colon walls. This water
    loss explains how the stools of constapated individuals can become dry and hard. Flooding the colon
    with water causes rehydration.

    >> >> and washes away the resident bacteria - allowing them to be replaced by benign species.
    >> >
    >> > Or bad species.
    >>
    >> Much more likely good species.
    >
    > Based on what evidence?

    Based on the fact that these can be ingested. Bad bacteria will only arrive with bad foods.

    >> You can deliberately feed good species in at the top - to ensure that this is the case.
    >
    > Thank you. You provide a very good reason why colon cleansing is not needed.

    If you *don't* remove the bad species, and *only* pump in good ones there is reduced chance of the
    good species coming to dominate. The bad species might be well adapted to their niches, and
    successfully persist.

    [snip]

    >> > Colonic iirigation helps nothing.
    >>
    >> IYO - but in the absence of much actual testing, who is to say?
    >
    > By this reasoning, riding on rollar coaster should be used to treat diarrhea. There is no evidence
    > that it doesn't work.

    In this case nobody is claiming it to be a useful therapy.

    I see no reason to investigate it further at this stage.

    > But, based on the physiology, anatomy and pathology of the body and gastrointestinal function,
    > there is very little reason to beleive that colonic irrigation will be helpful and much reason to
    > beleive that it is dangerous and will lead to dependence on colonic irrigation to move the bowels.

    Your intuition is different from mine. I think local interventions in the colon have significant
    theraputic potential. As first-aid for constipation; as maintenance for diverticulitis; and as
    preventative medicine for intestinal flora disturbances. The risks are pretty minimal and largely
    avoidable.

    >> We know that colonics halps certain sorts of incontinence, and is useful among colostomy
    >> patients. I reckon the chances are it would be shown to help others as well - if the tests were
    >> ever done.
    >
    > Your reckoning is next to worthless.

    Thanks :-(

    >> > Yet you offer no reason to support your connection that colonics will help anyone. Can you come
    >> > up with a reason why? We know the toxic theory is incorrect. Can you provide a reason why we
    >> > would expect that a colonic would be helpful?
    >>
    >> Firstly the "toxic gut" theory is far from discredited.
    >
    > Really. Provide evidence supporting it.

    See the literature on intestinal pathogens.

    >> There can be actively malevolent bacteria and their waste products in the colon - if these are
    >> not "toxic" then I don't know what is.
    >
    > OK, please name the toxiins that these bacteria produce and show us how when the blood levels of
    > these toxins go up, people get sick.

    You don't have to look far for bacterial toxins produced in the colon. Indol, Skatol, Paracresol,
    Phenol, Methane, Ammonia, Phenylsulphate, Ptomaine, Pyrrhol, Cadaverin, Isoamylamine, Ethylamine are
    all produced by bacterial action in the colon.

    Toxins don't have to enter the bloodstream to cause problems - they can act locally - as they do in
    the case of ulcerative colitis.

    >> It is likely to be in their interests to attack and penetrate the gut wall and take up more
    >> permanent residence.
    >
    > Really? Show us the evidence that this occurs? Certainly, if this is true, pathologists will have
    > many photographs of bacteria in the gut wall.

    Yes - what do you think ulcers are?

    In extreme cases the bacteria can eat right through the gut wall, and make it into the abdomen -
    resulting in peritonitis.

    >> Colonics are likely to help diverticular disorders - by penetrating into the diverticular
    >> regions, and removing debris and potential causes of inflamation.
    >
    > Again, show us the evidence. Likely is not good enough.

    I'm the one asking for more testing. Your position seems to be that science already knows that the
    therapy is worthless.

    >> Colonics provide temporary relief from the disorders of constapation. Other things do this as
    >> well - but few provide such immediate local relief.
    >
    > And risk colon rupture and other serious conditions.

    Inept medical practitioners can be a hazzard - in practically all fields of medicine. However you
    cannot use them to support the assertion that a treatment doesn't work.

    Modern colonic irrigation is really very safe. Compare its safety record to that of laxatives (which
    are widely used):

    ``Continued laxative use can cause bloating, cramping, dehydration, electrolyte disturbances and
    imbalances, cardiac arrhythmias, irregular heart beat and heart attack, renal problems, and death.''

    - http://www.diet-i.com/diet_pills/laxatives-to-lose-weight.htm

    When your competition looks like that, it is hard to have an inferior safety record.

    It is generally simpler and safer to put water in through the rectum than it is to feed irritants
    with dubious safety records in through the stomach and small intestine.

    >> >> There are after all, some obvious advantages to treating some bowel problems from below -
    >> >> rather than trying to do practically everything from the top.
    >> >
    >> > Really? What are these advantages? [...]
    >>
    >> You are near to the source of the problem, your intervention can be applied immediately, and it
    >> does not have to pass through the stomach and small intestine before it can go to work.
    >
    > No, the source of the problem is improper diet, bowel habits and excercise.

    All very well - but that does not offer much immediate assistance to the constipated patient in the
    waiting room.

    I'm all for preventative therapies rather than first aid. However first aid *is* an important part
    of medicine.

    >> > I would think that the advatages of a healthy diet would outweigh any advantages of sticking a
    >> > tube up your butt.
    >>
    >> Maybe they do - but it is not an either-or situation, since you can do both - so the importance
    >> of diet is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
    >
    > The importance of diet is irrelevent to gastrointestinal function is irrelevent only to total
    > assholes.

    That doesn't seem to be a sentence. I'm not /quite/ sure what you are saying - and so will postpone
    commenting directly.

    However, perhaps I can amplify on my original point:

    It doesn't matter if the advatages of a healthy diet outweigh the advantages of colonics - since
    they are independent events - and you can do both.

    Having a good diet does not exclude the possibility of health improvements by other means.

    It is the same with exercise. Prebably the benefits of a good diet outweigh the benefits of proper
    exercise. However that is no argument for not exercising. Whether exercise is theraputic or not has
    very little to do with the issue of how good exercise is with respect to diet.

    >> > If you can provide any real evidenced that colonic irrigation is helpful, I will respond. All
    >> > you are doing is responding with conjecture.
    >>
    >> If you recall my basic point was that there was insufficient evidence to say very much about the
    >> effectiveness of colonic irrigation.
    >
    > And much scientific evidence based on the physiology and patholgoy of gi function to support that
    > it won't help colon function.

    I don't see it. You asked me to explain how colonic irrigation might help - since you were under the
    impression that its theoretical foundations were unsound. I've made efforts in that direction.

    My comments are not contrary to the physiology and pathology of gastro-intestinal function as far as
    I'm aware.

    >> I will whole-heartedly agree that it is unproven - but take exception at claims that it has been
    >> shown to be ineffective.
    >
    > Only because you are clueless and believe stupid people.

    You are reduced to insulting me. A sorry end to the discussion :-(
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  18. Mr Trademark

    Mr Trademark Guest

    Tim

    That was not very nice. It seems you too are another astroturfer who is too incompetent to disguise
    his own identity effectively ( I love the photos )

    This is not matt, i just think those who live in glass houses........

    Tim Tyler 62 Ashton Road Ashton BRISTOL BS3 2EQ GB

    Organization:Mersenne Consulting Phone :+441.179396363

    Email:

    [email protected] [email protected]

    http://www.tt1.org/

    Great Photos of Tim

    http://timtyler.org/photos/index.html

    Name Server:NS0.SERVE.NET.UK Name Server:NS0.SERVE.CO.UK
     
  19. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    mr trademark <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

    > That was not very nice.

    I was trying to prevent folk from being duped by a deceptive poster.

    > It seems you too are another astroturfer who is too incompetent to disguise his own identity
    > effectively [...]

    Except that I wasn't astro-turfing - and I made no attempt to disguise my identity.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
Loading...