enema colon cleansng

[Matt]

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

[markd]

"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

[Jaym1212]

> Just wondering what people think of colon cleansing
> products.

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

[Matt]

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

markd@toad-link.com wrote in message
news:<3f86f8f7$0$35840$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> "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

[Jeff]

"Matt" <matt@p38media.com> wrote in message
news:7821b6ee.0310092045.60c3192e@posting.google.com...
> 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

[Tim Tyler]

markd@toad-link.com wrote or quoted:

> Is there any research on which to base an informed opinion?

Not enough - IMO.

In the mean time check out this for a convincing reason to
consider colonics:

http://timtyler.freeshell.org/colonics/from_the_colema_bowl.j-
pg

Better out than in, I reckon ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

Matt <matt@p38media.com> wrote or quoted:
> markd@toad-link.com wrote:
>> Matt <matt@p38media.com> 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 <matt@p38media.com> is
down as the administrative contact for www.enemakit.com.

whois enemakit.com

Domain Name: enemakit.com

Administrative Contact: Matt Peterson (ZSNRG)
matt@p38media.com 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Jeff]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:HMLFqy.BuJ@bath.ac.uk...
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock
> to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:HMLFqy.BuJ@bath.ac.uk...
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[John 'The]

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. :(

[Jeff]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:HMLrxo.22n@bath.ac.uk...
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock
> to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:HMLrxo.22n@bath.ac.uk...
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Jeff]

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan@grapefruit.com> wrote in message
news:9vfgov8256i9ie327f5fsbpgp5l72rgnms@4ax.com...
> 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

[John 'The]

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!

[Jeff]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:HMM5J5.FoM@bath.ac.uk...
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:HMLrxo.22n@bath.ac.uk...
> >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock
> to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:HMM5J5.FoM@bath.ac.uk...
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>> > "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:HMLrxo.22n@bath.ac.uk...
>> >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Mr Tradema]

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:

tim@tt1.org tim@alife.co.uk

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

[Tim Tyler]

mr trademark <hydrojunky@hotmail.com> 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/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.