Talk:Colon cleansing/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Colon hydrotherapy

Colon hydrotherapy version before redirect, for future reference. - Roy Boy 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the redirect RoyBoy? Point made below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniolus (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some interesting citations clearly pronounced as factual yet without any supporting evidence - see citations 8 and 9. The fact that a gastro-enterologist says 'its all unnecessary and potentially dangerous' appears to be stating his opinion as he has no supporting references in his 'position'. Yet this citation is being clearly used to mislead the reader using a reference to the Mayo as a statement of fact - somewhat going outside of WP balanced view guidelines I believe. I would suggest adding further discussion topic headings to cover the other fields in the article, as the FDA statements are also misleading - linking colonics (i.e. colon hydrotherapy in common parlance) with non-regulated 'supplements' - this is an absurd sentence comparing apples with oranges. The FDA does not regulate the profession, but it does regulate the manufacturers of colonic equipment in the US, albeit for use 'prescribed by order of a physician' (though doesn't require a physician in many or most states to perform the treatment). More topic headings please from whomever is moderating. Thanks. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

This is a fringe topic and therefore the standards to admit criticism into the article are somewhat laxer. The standards for claims about the benefits of colonics are still suitably high. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the claims are high - I also contend with that. But then those claims are worth exploring and debunking properly with serious citations - and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I mean if someone claimed that they could cure cancer with colonics, and they failed - would that mean that the whole therapeutic modality should be dismissed? I think not. Mostly the biggest claim that therapists make from my research of the subject is that they treat contstipation. The autotoxemia question still gets bandied around far too often, but that too hasn't really been debunked by the orthodox medical profession. And yes, I have read many articles on the subject by them. Though the orthodoxy doesn't believe in that, it does recognise the role of microflora in the gut in prevention of intestinal and colonic disease, it does recognise the role the immune system in the gut, it does recognise the role of impaired immune systems in a pivotal role in most if not all disease processes. It also does not recognise the importance of nutrition in health and disease other than on a very cursory level. It also does recognise that we have spiralling out of control cancer and cardiovascular disease rates - and has no real answers as to why that should be the case. All sides are making claims, and many of those claims on both sides of the orthodox / complementary fence don't stand up to scrutiny, or simply haven't been researched. Lack of research however does not invalidate things, it is merely lack of research - and that applies to all. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Without citations to review, this discussion isn't really helping the page. Because the claims made by colonic companies and advocates are fringe theories, the assumption is that there won't be attention from real scientists. Ergo, Quackwatch is an appropriate source. If you have no actual citations to review, there's not much point in discussing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article there? Well I put my medical science hat on, and shred nearly every line - contentious, misleading, full of assumption and opinion. But hats off to Barrett - the untrained eye he could have them convinced - he weaves it cleverly into an almost convincing argument, and throws plenty of citations around. I read a lot of medical research papers, and review articles - this one is just another one typical of quackwatch's turn of phrase and manipulation of opinion. So you telling me that because something is considered 'fringe' it has different standards to adhere to with regards to the 'opinions' of various medical, or pseudo medical websites that are extolling their unsupported view. Having been through every cited webpage in the article, they are pretty poor, and mostly saying the same thing, often in the same words or very close. Presumably if every one says it, it must be true? Take for instance the citations for 'infections' - 11 and 12 - both regarding an unfortunate incident that happened in 1980! That one comes up in many articles on the web. Citation 1 is 'opinion' and unreferenced, 2 is a sales pitch site for various herbal cleansers, 3 is covered above, 4 is more 'opinion' by doctors; 5 and 6 I can't comment on as I haven't read the full articles - though no doubt raise valid points with regards to the autotoxemia question; 7 is Cecil Adams 'opinion'; 8 is Mayo's 'opinion'; 9 is Melissa's 'opinion'; 10 is reasonable - regarding 3 cases - yes 3; 11 and 12 as above, and 13 I haven't been able to read as yet - but regarding a somewhat different subject - even if you contend that enemas are part of this grouping, coffee enemas are a different ball game and not designed for colon cleansing (though will have some cleansing 'side-effect'). Of course you wouldn't accept the opinions of the device manufacturers - I would hope not. Nor the therapists - though arguably they have as much right to voice their 'opinion' as the various gastros voicing their 'opinions' on subjects they possibly have never really researched themselves. I am quite sure you will be able to find much out there online by NDs (though probably more outside of the US where naturopaths still practice naturopathy), health spas, medical doctors who utilise colonics in their clinics, and the many medical doctors who clearly support colonics as some states in the US require a prescription from a doctor in order to get one! I have come across a few doctors who both practice and recommend colonics online, and I believe that colonics are relatively widely used by gastro wards in Spain too, not to mention many other clinics in Europe, Russia, and parts of Asia. Of course you will only get their 'opinions' too for the medical research reasons mentioned before. But you could watch http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TeWjxHspRKs, but that's only media and no doubt just 'opinion' of one gastro. If I happen to come across some more 'credible' webs I will be happy to send them up - albeit they will be judged of course by different criteria, so there is probably little point. Oh for scientific scrutiny and the balanced view on WP ... Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Undent. WP:TLDR. "Nor the therapists - though arguably they have as much right to voice their 'opinion' as the various gastros voicing their 'opinions' on subjects they possibly have never really researched themselves" - if they had researched and published their claims, they would be eligible for the page. Reliability is determined by oversight and reputation, not by 'experience'. Please read the policies cited as the page must be based on them, not on our opinions. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So where is the oversight and reputation of most of these citations? Is that based on the fact that the webpage concerned comes from a 'reputable' or 'reliable' source? If you read the citations, it is quite clear that most of them are based on opinion, not experience of any kind, nor research of any kind. Citation 1 is written by a health writer doing a lot of paraphrasing and dissing colonic therapy as a result of critical analysis of a 'Secrets of robust health' article. 4 written by Larry Lindner though appearing on what may be a reputable site - of course he is also a health writer, not a medico. Cecil Adams and the Straight Dope I can't imagine qualifies as a reliable source according to your criteria (7), Michael Picco at the Mayo only makes a statement that colon cleansing is 'unnecessary', and that it MAY be harmful - unreferenced in any way, and short statements about his opinion and paraphrasing 'most doctors' - no doubt he has researched that for himself. 8 is written by another health writer, hardly to be considered a 'reputable impartial source', and playing the old record of the fact that the 'colon knows how to do its job' - now if only all things in medicine were that simple - like the immune system knows how to do its job (so we never get infections), and the heart knows how to do its job (so we don't get cardiac arrests, and cardiac medications are obviously bunk medicine - I think I may find a few cardiologists that would disagree with that) - one could write a book on the patent inaccuracy of those premises. Sounds like old greek philosopher logic to me. The rest of the citations are regarding those unfortunate few incidents. If you want to provide a so-called mainstream view, I have no doubt that far better scientifically scrutinised and validated sites could and should be used as references - what you have here is the opinions mostly by health writers, and a couple of doctors. The last three refs, though absolutely valid, are discussing safety issues, mostly from long ago. I honestly cannot see how the majority of quoted citations meet your criteria of reliability, verifiability, and reputation etc. Surely at WP you have a greater duty to provide better sources than that - I am sure there is no lack of them out there. I mean, outside of the 'autotoxemia debate' and the 'tragedy issues', you only have two citations which are written by people with a medical background - Michael Picco (who paraphrases most doctors and really doesn't add weight to the argument), and Stephen Barrett who we all know just loves to thrash complementary therapy of any kind. So really what you have here is an article that basically is paraphrasing the POV of Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch. His commentaries have already been dismissed from other pages within WP as he is misleading and assumptive in his writing and research style, and making quotations up that are paraphrasing all colon therapists without substantiating evidence. He does have some good points for sure, but hardly a worthy source for the basis of this article. And if you would like me to point out the issues with that source, I will be more than happy to do that - you will find when you read that article by Barrett that he is 'spraying and praying' at anyone who deals with gastrointestinal health from a none orthodox POV, including but not limited to: the Diamonds, chiropractors, naturopaths, food faddists, 'some alternative therapists' (unspecified as to who they are), those performing fasting (now, that's not 'colon cleansing' as far as I can see), cleansing products and herbs (presumably herbalists are in the firing line there too), laxative manufacturers (hope no gastro out there ever suggests one uses one of them then). He finally gets to the point when he discusses the expense (which hardly constitutes a valid argument), and the potential to cause harm (where he once again quotes, like so many before, that one unfortunate incident back in 1980!) Then goes on to make that contentious statement concerning 'no licensing or training is required' which may be the case in some states (where they would be practicing illegally), but not in others where there is heavy licensure, and in some states by 'physician order only'. The legal action part is interesting, but hardly constitutes anything at all - just because a therapy has received legal attention does not mean that it is to be then dismissed now does it? By that last nuance of Barretts clearly all of medicine should be hauled over the coals as every field has received legal attention over the years. Bit thin???? So is it you WLU that is providing that 'mainstream' view here?? Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

WP:TLDR. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)}

Antoniolus, can you try to be more precise for easier reading and understanding of what points you are trying to make? Also, please sign your posts, you can make it easier to remember whether you signed by using the 'show preview' button on the bottom of the edit page just under the edit summary. This helps keep the bot away and allows editors to know who is posting, thanks. I read what you said and I am not sure what you are saying totally except to me it sounds almost conspiracy theory meaning that everyone has a POV in the refs thus they should not be used. I am trying to understand you here but I am having troubles following your long postings. Another thing you might take a look at is WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:Fringe to start off with so you understand better what is allowed here in Wikipedia. For example the You Tube link would not be permitted as a WP:RS. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ChronieGal. I thought I had been signing my posts, but think my connection may have timed out without my knowledge. I do generally check first to ensure signature. I am not suggesting conspiracy theory at all - I am merely pointing out that POVs are just that - POVs. Which is fair enough, most people have one - especially on this subject it seems. I am trying to understand here the criteria used by WP - seems like all the 'negative' POVs (mostly without any clear basis from the webs concerned) are acceptable as citations, whereas any positive POVs, or even written articles by MDs, are not. I appreciate that the youtube link would not be a citation - it was added to this discussion for simple reasons - to dispute the alleged NPOV and consensus. It seems also clear that most of the cited links, which are almost entirely used to 'create' the POV and tone of the article, also do not appear to meet WP:MEDRS, nor RS criteria from my understanding. This is not an attempt to spam in any way, just one intended to bring a little balance to this article: a clearly emotive subject. Another question for you which has not been answered as yet is the following: why the redirect? It would seem reasonably clear that 'colon cleansing' and 'colon irrigation' and 'coffee enemas' are not the same thing, yet they are being lumped in the same boat here. I think the article should be split up into various pages, or could be altered in terms of its headings. For one thing, there is clearly a difference between taking laxative preparations whether herbal or otherwise (and flushing the entire intestinal tract - I would suggest this would be more appropriately named 'intestinal cleansing') to injecting water into the lower bowel (and cleansing the colon). I am not suggesting that one is better than the other, nor that they are even effective for some of the claims made (though presumably they do work to 'cleanse the colon' - even the FDA has approved that one). I am merely suggesting that the article is unduly biased in the absence of evidence either for or against, and that the NPOV and consensus which seem to be used as a justification for that are not really in existence. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Latest edit has become inaccurate - enemas are not colon hydrotherapy (whether any editor likes the title or not, it is what it is, and is well understood in the public domain). These are being synthesised together as a single modality. They clearly have similarities, but they are not one and the same. Please see my last edit for some greater clarification, though appreciate that it is not very succinct. --Antoniolus (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quackery

I think this statement is biased and only sites one source. Consider removing.

Jamieydale (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it really must be quackery. It only takes one reliable source to verify, and we have it. Colon cleansing does nothing but remove money from your pocket. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also "scientific proof" that God does not exist, but you don't see me putting "According to any logical being, God is quackery" on that Wiki page. Hannabee (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whereas God is supposed to be beyond logic and proof, the colon is far more understandable and testable. My initial position on this is that Hannabee should provide any reliable source which says this "may not be" quackery. If there is one at hand I take your point, if not, Orangemarlin's position is NPOV as it is the consensus view; without meaningful opposition. The fact we reference Quackwatch is incidental; if absolutely necessary we can tame the language from Quackery to Incorrect. - Roy Boy 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roy. And to Hannabee, you are completely misusing "scientific proof", because science does not endeavor to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of supernatural beings.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So if this is all 'verifiable' I would sure like to know what the actual research done by the Mayo was to determine the invalidity of this therapeutic technique. Clearly the gold standard of the double blind placebo controlled study cannot be performed with colonic therapy for obvious reasons - I mean you either have one, or you don't - not like popping a sugar pill. So not sure if it solely Orange Merlin who has a bee in his bonnet about all this; the previous incarnation of this page which (now removed) strikes me as a lot more balanced rather than downright dissing by citing a single source. I mean, do we really want to get into the debate about whether the majority of medicine actually works? Those of us that look critically at medical research on all sides of the orthodox / complementary divide should recognise that there is much that needs addressing in terms of research on both sides. A pharmaceutically funded research paper that has buried all negative studies and which has statistically manipulated the results hardly qualifies as good research, and tens, hundreds or even thousands of years of use of a therapeutic modality and unending amounts of anecdotals doesn't constitute it either. I view both critically, but also know only too well which one I would go for for myself. It seems that this new edition of the topic has been more than a little bit biassed. There are negative aspects that can be said about the therapy, and about those who practice it - but what is presented in the article is not it. I mean quoting the FDA as a source of wisdom and lack of bias? Time to get REAL .... Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I am very familiar with FDA underfunding making them reliant on pharmaceutical research, experts and funding to vet their own products, the revolving door of execs/lawyers from the private sector going into government positions. It is quite interesting; however it does not provide meaningful evidence of a risk/benefit analysis of "colon cleansing". I watch documentaries and Frontline frequently.

I will not validate nor temper criticism of a treatment because it is the "underdog", or "alternative" or challenges "orthodoxy". The reality is this isn't "us" vs. "the man", it is "unvalidated practices" vs "scientific rigor".

A good example is leeches, used for centuries for a variety of ailments and then modern medicine declared it quackery. Now leeches are being used for therapeutic uses, particularly in encouraging blood flow. Does this make "modern medicine" incorrect, no; as the vast majority of historic leech treatments had no impact on the illnesses they were used for. Only through careful study and replicated results can we know their specific benefits and risks. Likewise for any treatment. - Roy Boy 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Royboy, you seem to have this conversation under control. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I am a little puzzled as to how discussion about the inadequacy of how leeches were once used has anything to do with this. As for colon cleansing, well what exactly is the 'quackery' argument you believe you are debunking? Would this be that colonics do or do not actually cleanse the colon? Or that colonics do or do not reduce the level of waste in the colon? Or would it be that there is no value in removing the waste from the colon? Oh sure the colon is destined to be a self-cleansing and eliminatory organ - but like all things in the body, what they 'should be' isn't necessarily what they are - after all the body is a 'self-healing' biological organism, though we still get sick / diseased / infected / etc etc. Maybe you may wish to clarify the scientific rigour to which you are referring to RoyBoy? As for scientific methodology, little in medicine across the board is scrutinised long term - the impacts of prolonged use of any therapeutic modality cannot be judged merely by the immediate impact they have, but by the sum total of their effects across the fullness of time. To my knowledge such scientific rigour has never been applied to the field of colon cleansing, though please correct me if I am wrong. I am not disputing your position, merely questioning why and where your bias has come from. I mean, there are clearly many satisfied customers out there receiving this treatment that one can only imagine didn't have success with more orthodox methods such as using laxatives or herbal compounds. I agree that there are contentious claims made by therapists out there, as there are in all fields of medicine. But that does not invalidate the therapeutic modality - just like your leeches - even if there may be misguided beliefs as to what the therapy can or cannot achieve. Your ball ... Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

What is pertinent here is that satisfied customers does not make for valid data. Assuming they did work, I want to know why; anecdotal evidence does not a treatment make. Long term studies are indeed a great idea, however colonics is presented as an immediate treatment for a variety of ailments. In order to seperate the good from the bad, and the outright dangerous we need hard evidence. I do not have a bias, Wikipedia has a requirement as part of its NPOV policy, that if claim(s) are made they need validation with reliable sources. If we did not have that requirement articles would be full of unqualified back and forth. - Roy Boy 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here here RoyBoy. Though of course there are many fields within medicine, including orthodox medicine, where a procedure or drug is recognised as being effective despite not understanding exactly why. Decapitation for a headache works to cure the headache - but is not the greatest for the health of the person concerned - to make a very crude illustration. Often the reasoning behind therapy and the physiological understanding of it comes way after the event - even if there may be a cursory understanding initially. It is also of course the reason why treatment modalities get discontinued and drugs get pulled off the market often many years after they have been in routine use, and had previously been generally recognised as safe. I agree that there are contentious issues in the field here, but it is also wise to recognise that the 'therapeutic modality' is not equal to 'the therapists' who practice it. The point being is that there is a wide disparity of education and medical knowledge by therapists in the field, and from country to country - and that deserves to be put into question - a gastro-enterologist performing colonics will probably have a very different view point to someone performing the treatment that may have no prior medical training before practicing colonics. They both may make the same claims however - though one may be far more capable than another at actually holding up to those claims. Out of interest could you specify which contentions made about colonics you have issue with so that this conversation can continue in a more targeted manner? Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

I want evidence that Any claim made by colonic practitioners, be they amateur or professional, has been verified scientifically. Your rationale does not constitute affirmative evidence of its efficacy nor does it validate its claims of trapped toxicity and fecal matter. You have submitted links below and that's a big step in the right direction. But if they are not sufficiently reliable then that leaves the article where it is, describing the viewpoints of reliable sources, which are corroborated by current knowledge / understanding of the subject. If that viewpoint changes, then so will the article.

Also, I want to emphasize it is not Wikipedia's role to anticipate trends or new discoveries. You appear to be confident that colonics in some way can and will be validated. That's fine, but NPOV constrains us into waiting for that to actually occur and be verified by 3rd party sources, and ideally corroborated by reliable sources; who do not have a conflict of interest on the subject. - Roy Boy 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note it is clear that WP would benefit from dealing with the subject of colon hydrotherapy / irrigation seperately from the use of oral bowel cleansing agents. Or the article should be broadened to include orthodox laxative preparations, orthodox fiber supplements, and clearly nutrition and diet too to maintain a balanced view, with all the pros and cons of all those various methodologies. Which is of course somewhat absurd as it all gets far too broad - better to differentiate hydrotherapy from oral colon cleansing. This used to be the case seemingly, but seems like an automated redirect from the prior 'colon hydrotherapy' page has been put into place, thus lumping all these eggs in the same basket. This is all rather misleading to the casual reader, not to mention the negative bias. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

To do any of the above, reliable sources are required. Patient testimonials aer not reliable sources. Regression to the mean and placebo effects can account for satisfied customers but only scientific trials can demonstrate real benefits. Enema covers the actual medical benefits of putting fluids in your rectum, this is for the quackery aspects. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is sufficient material to differential these practices they can be given a new sub-section here. Only if it grows sufficient in its own right would it warrant a seperate article. - Roy Boy 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I appreciate that reliable sources are required and that testimonials and anecdotals are 'unreliable' - what would they know about their own bodies anyhow! I assume then that the same applies in reverse that reliable sources to dismiss the modality and call it quackery are equally required - which doesn't seem to be the case in the majority of citations, which are clearly unsupported and based on 'opinion' as viewed on the webpages concerned, whether those 'opinions' be held by doctors or anyone else. I do agree that there are some outlandish claims that appear frequently if you research the subject online - I would suggest that these claims are caused by repetition of old fashioned dogma perpetuated by educationalists in the field. But this has nothing to do with what is being presented in this article, which just comes over as dismissive with little supporting evidence. Sure there have been some casualties - that is always unfortunate, and a tragic side-effect of the practice of medicine. By my count from the citations provided there have been around 10 deaths in say 30 years from colonics, and obviously a few from coffee enemas - but that in itself is not sufficient to dismiss a therapeutic modality, other than to recognise that it is invasive by its nature, and things can and do go wrong, albeit infrequently. By the medical profession's and the WHO's own admission, iatrogenic fatality is now the third leading cause of death in the US, mostly caused by preventable drug interactions - yet pharmaceutical medicine is not completely dismissed as a result, neither in WP nor in the big wide world. As mentioned before, there are many things within the profession that could be criticised, but those mentioned in the article are pretty thin to say the least, especially if you consider the big picture. Double blind placebo controlled research can never occur in this field, which is a regrettable reality. One of the citations did interestingly point out that I-ACT did attempt to begin some kind of research, but was forced to suspend it by the FDA!! No doubt for good reason - they are always honourable after all, and hold only the public in their highest esteem... Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

You are wrong about the sourcing requirements for fringe theories, see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Dismissing citations based on opinion is original research and therefore not allowed, iatrogenic drug deaths are irrelevant to this page. Without sources there's no need to continue talking. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it fringe exactly? I mean, there are a lot of therapists, a lot of schools in the US, and clearly from the amount of websites out there a lot of people receiving treatment? Who decides on whether something is fringe or not? When does fringe get out of its fringebox? Believing the Earth was round was pretty fringe for a long old time ... I mean, I couldn't care less what WP says about this stuff, but dissing things without due consideration irks my medical science head. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Consensus in part determines fringe subjects, but sources are also a good way of doing so. A topic becomes non-fringe when respected, mainstream sources report on it, at which point the page should be re-written to reflect the content of those sources. The roundness of the earth is, and has been subject to verification, and if you don't care what wikipedia says, then don't post here. If you do care, find sources and suggest changes based on that. There is a strong push to use wikipedia to spam unjustified information for profit, and the alternative medicine crowd is a great supporter of unresearched information. Insisting on sources for topics considered quackery is one way of ensuring wikipedia doesn't become stuffed with stuff like this, which is a thinly-disguised attempt to promote an irrational product based on unsubstantiated claims. Get sources if you want to change the page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, hello??? Come again? I think you will find that it is precisely that I DO care what wikipedia says that I bother posting at all. I hear your point - but the question is, do you not have a duty to provide a balanced view rather than deciding what the mainstream view is? I will dig you out some sources, but it would be rather helpful if you want to get targeted sources you could specify where the issues are. Is this quackery because man does not get intestinal parasites? (Just go look up the CDC website. From other sources quoted intestinal infestation rates in the US vary between 20% and 40% from various websites). Because fecal matter does not accumulate in the bowel? (well who knows, the fact that colonoscopies do not reveal that is because ... they give you jumbo laxatives before hand. But my common sense tells me that if you are eating three or maybe even four meals a day, and having 2 bowel movements a week, or less, something is going on there. Of course, that is only my NPOV) Because colon cleansing doesn't help with constipation? (When clearly it does by current definition of constipation, even if only transiently) Because of the autotoxemia model? (no comment at this stage - but clearly debunked by Barett by his reference to research done close to 100 years ago ...) All of the above and more?? Clearly you won't get colonic research, most likely because it hasn't been done - though the Russians and Spanish have been doing colon cleansing for a long time, and no doubt will have some research for you - I am assuming of course that non-US research will be 'acceptable'. Russian orthodox medicine is typically somewhat more pragmatic than western US medicine - i.e. if it works they will explore it, they don't get nearly as much caught up in their medical belief systems or dogma. Seems like not a lot, if any, anti-research been done by the looks of things - but that's OK, I really don't have a problem with that - just makes the whole exercise a little more challenging. I am of course making the colossal assumption here that WP is globally representative and not just representative of the alleged NPOV in the USA - please correct me WLU before I waste my time finding credible sources. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Please add WP:OR to your reading list. Credible sources are never a waste of time; see WP:RS and particularly WP:MEDRS for what "credible" means on wikipedia. Other standards are meaningless. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WLU - those WP definitions are useful to all. Though it seems that other than the 'autotoxemia' articles and the 'associated death' articles, most others don't seem to fit the criteria of WP:MEDRS, and constitute opinions. Stephen Baretts is somewhere in between as a secondary / tertiary article. I am guessing that the sources that do meet these criteria, having been published in journals have a somewhat different position on the therapeutic validity of colon cleansing. I.e. the autotoxemia journal publications clearly dispute the validity of the autotoxemia model - but this does not invalidate the use of colon cleansing in itself. It may invalidate it by WP criteria with regards solely to the autotoxemia question. This in itself is actually undermining most of the field of naturopathy, not just some of the contentious premises taught to colon therapists. Most colon therapists also advocate diet and nutritional importance in the picture of health, as well as lifestyle modification - all of these are now accepted into the NPOV of health strategies, medical or complementary. Colon cleansing does NOT rest solely on the anti-autotoxemia mandate (though it does appear frequently), something which should be abundantly clear from research into the field - it does also address many other 'medical' areas, such as constipation, pre-colonoscopy use (which is supported by the FDA funnily enough, and is the classification under which the devices used to perform colon hydrotherapy fall), dealing with fecal impaction to name but a few. Much greater subtlety ought to be brought into this article as mentioned before to start to illustrate a truer picture, and without emotional attachment colouring scientific judgement. One thing you can be sure of in the field of cleansing the bowel is this: everyone has an opinion, whether based on reality or not! Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple more links for perusal, albeit appearing on a colonic device manufacturers website. However, the author is a doctor, and may have written a peer reviewed paper in Spain. My spanish isn't too hot, so couldn't interpret much of the second page where there is more discussion, and not just a list of stats. Other webs of interest in the FDA section below.

http://www.transcomsl.com/r_dat2_i.php - english stats

http://www.transcomsl.com/r_dat_c.php - spanish discussion

Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source, what peer-reviewed journal, was that information published in? As is that could not be used to change the mainpage. That's a self-published source. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated WLU - I haven't come across where this may have been published as yet. If it has, it will probably be in a Spanish journal, and probably in Spanish. The reason it has been brought to the attention of the discussion is simply to illustrate that by the looks of things, research in some form HAS taken place somewhere in the world, and the field is not research-free. It is also there to challenge what appears to be the large assumption regarding the NPOV and consensus - which appears to have been an editorial decision rather than one based upon reality. It is also there to challenge the assumption of quackery, which should appear by now to be a fairly bold and contentious statement not supported by evidence, rather by many people's opinions. Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You still need to demonstrate mainstream medical acceptance before any benefits can be listed or substantial changes to the page. A selfpublished source is not the basis of a good wikipedia page. Until it is published in a reliable source, it is not a suitable reference. It's one person's opinion that goes against mainstream medicine and science. Therefore, it's fringe to use it on the page. If you don't like my opinion, go to the fringe theories noticeboard, or the medical wikiproject, or even WP:NPOV - we must portray the mainstream position and extreme claims are not discussed without a very good source. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I for one am not suggesting for one minute that you start listing contentious medical benefits in the absence of researched and peer reviewed 'proof'. But does the reverse not also apply? The position in the general medical population by the sounds of things is one of 'we just don't know, it will require research'. The person in question in the links above does, assuming it is genuine, hold qualifications in medicine and surgery - I would have thought that that should hold a little more water than the other self-published sources which come from people with little if any medical background, and yet are still being cited. And yes, I do appreciate that it is self-published - I an not suggesting that those links be used in the article - I am pointing out that there is contention in the claimed NPOV. I will also point out that most of the citations used to support the article are self-published, including Stephen Barrett's and all of the health writers concerned - so it seems like the 'rules' of WP are being manipulated to suit a position decided by someone, whomever they may be. This by the way is not an accusation, but an invitation to DISCUSSION - which, correct me if I am wrong, is what this page is for. As for substantial changes to the page - well it would seem like they would be in order considering some of the items already mentioned. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

An interesting link on PubMed: Shevchuk NA - Hydrotherapy as a possible neuroleptic and sedative treatment. Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(2):230-8. Epub 2007 Jul 20. Abstract here

If you read the abstract there are some very interesting elements, in particular in the last few lines, to quote from the author:

Human and bacterial toxic waste can sometimes be partially retained in the colon and it is known that many high-molecular-weight compounds can be absorbed there. Most narcotics can cause intoxication if administered rectally and there is also significant comorbidity of schizophrenia with intestinal illnesses. Additionally, there is indirect evidence that colon cleansing can significantly improve mental state. Therefore, it is possible that chronic intoxication with yet unknown components of partially retained waste could be one of the unrecognized organic causes of psychosis.

Some fairly interesting 'hypotheses' there I think to add to this discussion. Certainly opening the door again to discussion about auto-toxemia, to which this is alluding. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Complications and risks

The FDA sentence is somewhat misleading for the reasons mentioned elsewhere. Colonics clearly refers to 'colon hydrotherapy', using either a closed or open system - that's a whole topic in itself. Whether enemas come under the heading of 'colonics' is debatable from current common parlance. The use of herbs, osmotic or stimulant laxatives, colon cleansing compounds etc do not fall under that umbrella (though they are colon cleansers), yet the first sentence is linking 'colonics' with 'supplements' - clearly misleading and should be clarified or removed. The quoted infections from colonics have been few and far between from my research (the oft quoted amoeba case 30 years ago where 6 people tragically lost their lives to amoebic dysentery as a result of cross-contamination from equipment), and bowel perforations have occurred maybe 3 times in the US from what I have read (all of which have occurred using so-called 'open systems' where the recipient self-administers the treatment). Stephen Barretts articles on quackwatch are their usual blend of opinion masquerading as fact, and are misleading in their own right(as opposed to simply 'biased'). The 'heart attack' contention is presumably referring to coffee enemas - once again all lumped in the same sentence with a whole host of citations. I haven't had access to the article but can make an educated guess that it may have been from people abusing it, or using it as part of the Gerson Therapy (in which case they were probably terminal with cancer which is why they would have been doing this therapy, been very unwell and probably taking 5 coffee enemas daily for months).

To quote from the article regarding interactions: "If you are an avid HFAF reader, you are already know that herbal supplements are not so innocuous - they may indeed interfere with the prescription medications you are taking, and you should be aware of these potential interactions (see ACSH's publication on drug-supplement interactions)" The authors are clearly quoting a general premise which is quite valid that herbs and pharmaceuticals interact and does not appear to be targeting specifically the herbs routinely used in colon cleansing formulas - but this is not what is being implied in the article, rather it is clearly making a generic claim about interactions. Misleading addition to the article body and should be removed or revised. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

The article looks heavily sourced, nearly every sentence in fact. There's no reliable sources that I have seen that assert that there is any benefit to colon cleansing, only a whole bunch of alternative medicine spam products and a lot of pseudoscientific testimonials. If you have any appropriate references, please provide them for review as mere opinion is not sufficient to alter the page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are sourced - but mostly from sources of opinion, not referenced material or peer reviewed published studies - so they don't really count for squat. By that token, you could source any 'pro' webpage from a therapist or external source and call it a 'source'. I mean, surely you need to apply the same rules to both sides of the argument if you want to create a balanced view. And that does not change the fact that much of the wording and how things are lumped together is quite misleading - linking colonics with coffee enemas with supplements all in the same sentence - a little bit of scientific scrutiny would make for a better more rounded article. And yes, though it may not count for nothing, the fact that millions of people have performed various methods of colon cleansing over the centuries does amount to considerable support that it does something of benefit. I wasn't aware that the scope of this article was to argue the toss over whether the benefit is from placebo or otherwise - either way people are feeling better clearly. The placebo analysis question should be left up to serious medical researchers and is well and truly outside the remit of WP, or of the opinions of moderators and editors. I can go to quackwatch for that kind of stuff. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Actually, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, the sources are adequate and policies do not require "equal" treatment; they require that we report the mainstream first. The mainstream position is that colonics are quackery, unnecessary, sometimes dangerous or harmful, and scientifically unsupported. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the Undue weight paradigm is interesting - according to online stats there are approximately 7500 gastroenterologists in the US - compared to maybe 10000 practicing colon therapists. That of course doesn't mean that they are not all practicing quack medicine with state licensure, and in some states specifically under the prescription or supervision of an MD. But it does mean that there is some weight to both sides of the divide. Your quote regarding the 'mainstream view' is supported by 12 websites, and there is no scientific support because no research has been done. Do you mean to say really here that the mainstream view is just the one provided by 'establishment' orthodox medicine (which hasn't researched it either by the looks of things, but has a lot of opinions!), and not by what actually goes on 'in the field' so to speak? The 'sometimes dangerous or harmful' point is valid - for the 10 people who have tragically lost their lives over the last 30 years. Quackery is highly debatable (but not of course for Stephen Barrett), and necessity - maybe one should consider that the US is the highest user of laxative preparations in the world - provided by the orthodoxy or manufactured by pharmaceutical companies - so necessity is also somewhat debatable. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

It's not a vote. It's scientific mainstream consensus, not the number of practitioners. If no research has been done, then there is no reason to place any text that portrays colonics as effective, and the scientific view is at least predicated on an understanding of basic anatomy and physiology while the "9 pounds of fecal matter" is apparently based on Egyptian voodoo. Since colonic practitioners do not publish in (or have to be familiar with) mainstream, peer reviewed journals, no weight is given to their opinion. The use of laxatives probably has more to do with the lack of fiber than anything, and the mainstream medical position is "eat more fiber", not "fill your rectum with herbs". Again, you're not providing reliable sources to give any reason to change the page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The scientific view you allude to seems to be based equally on lack of evidence and lack of research, i.e. it is a medically religious belief based on dogma, not on science. As for your Egyptian voodoo - not sure what that has to do with it, nor when voodoo entered Egypt. As for your mainstream peer reviewed journals - well you have citations on this article which only link to discussion of the autotoxemia model, not to anything alluding to the effectiveness of colon hydrotherapy in restoring intestinal / colon health. As for your opinion regarding the use of laxatives and why, well I think we have established that 'opinions' whether yours, mine or anyone elses are irrelevant.

Here follows a series of links, all coming from US based sites for your perusal.

Lastly, [1] - and to quote from this page: "Spokespersons for the American Medical Association and American College of Gastroenterology said their organizations could not comment on colon hydrotherapy because too little is known about it."

I hope some of those may satisfy your criteria for mainstream endorsement, and certainly make it clear that the 'mainstream' POV is contested. The fact that the AMA and the ACG do not have a position on colon hydrotherapy at all should raise considerable doubts about the chosen bias for this article. And yes, there are a lot more websites out there, and a lot more information. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

[2] This one is no good, it requires sign up to see anything. [3] this one to be honest I'm not sure about. It looks like some of may be used to expand the article but I don't know this source so others will have to give an opinion. [4] I think this has useful information but it shows the negatives mostly to why this shouldn't be done and the dangers of it. [5] Endorsements are not WP:RS. [6] This one doesn't say much different then the third one, not sure about this one either but may be useful to also expand the article. Can you find anything on Pubmed or something similar? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

At best I might use them descriptively, but certainly would not use them to add any statements about its efficacy. The mainstream medical point of view is not contested - colonics are not recommended for anything beyond simply as an enema. It is promoted as helping with a variety of other ailments, but there's no support for these uses. Not a single one looks like a medically reliable source for any claims of effectiveness. These are again at best testimonials, none published by a suitably reliable source.

To focus the discussion, what changes are suggested based on these sources? I would suggest using a user sub-page if the changes are to be substantial, to draft what is believed to be a better version. The sources have very limited uses on the page, but waving them about doesn't give the implications for the actual page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With the links above, even if you do not 'like' the sources or they don't meet your criteria, I cannot see how you can say that the mainstream POV is not contested. If the ACG and the AMA do not have an official stand on it (and yes, that is ONLY in the USA, and does not apply to the rest of the world) where is the mainstrean POV and consensus here? The purpose of illustrating with these sources is to challenge your notion re the NPOV, which strikes me clearly as assumption in light of the above. Endorsements don't count for squat - sure I appreciate that - but when they are coming from 'reliable sources' - just as reliable as the better (MD) sources of the citations in the article. I mean, at least these MDs in the links above have actually explored it, and some may even use it either themselves or for themselves. Are they to be dismissed because they don't fit your NPOV stance? Are they now unreliable because they don't quite fit? As mentioned before, in the US there are clearly many supportive MDs out there as some states require physician prescription. The fact that I have not, and cannot, provide you with a list of names doesn't change that reality - it is still clearly there. If you insist on continuing down the quackery path, I would think that you also have a duty to bring in some 'reliable' sources to support that claim - I can't see how the rabid rantings of Stephen Barrett fit that bill, especially as he is the only one stating that implicitly. Other sources which are supporting the quackery view are coming from health writers - these are journalists, hardly strong sources - how do these fit the bill as 'medically reliable sources'? And as mentioned before, as the ACG and AMA appear not to have a position, how can you say it is not contested? Now I have not contacted either of those institutions to confirm their position, and appreciate that this is a note in an article. The position by them stated was 'that they don't know as it has not been researched' (paraphrase) Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Read WP:MEDRS WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE. Medically reliable sources are only required to assert that there is some efficacy to the procedure. Here there is not. Similar high-quality sources are not required to criticize an idea considered quackery, which is not supported by mainstream medicine or science (somewhere there is a policy, guideline or essay that states "if it the idea contradicts what is generally known about an area of science, it's a fringe theory"). Parity of sources applies - if there is to be any idea presented that colon hydrotherapy has any medical benefits beyond that of a simple enema, an idea that is considered unscientific, then a very good source is required to make this assertion. On the other hand, to state that colon hydrotherapy is based on poor, or no science, which agrees with the idea that there is no real merit to colon hydrotherapy, requires a much lower quality source. Currently I have seen no sources of adequate weight to require any disclosure of anything beyond what believers believe, and what science actually says (i.e. that it's bunk). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The contention that the procedure has no value still has no real sourcing. It seems that the argument persistently used, and now in increasing evidence with latest article edits, is that colon cleansing is colon hydrotherapy is auto-intoxication theory. When clearly these things are not all synonymous. The article is now starting to demonstrate strong negative insinuation overtones, along with fairly gratuitous 'attack' criteria on the modality. WP is supposed to be representing factual knowledge, and the fact is clearly that there is not enough knowledge to make a value judgement on the potential benefits nor on side effects of the therapy. This article needs considerable further work to start to provide any degree of balanced exploration on the wide fields of colon cleansing. I think it is good to inject a healthy amount of skepticism into the auto-intoxication theory, but that is NOT what this article is about. The whole exploration of the auto-intoxication theory here is being used as a means to discredit colon cleansing with no real basis upon science - the science clearly states - that more scienctific investigation is needed. So at the moment, the field of colon cleansing is in agnostic limbo - and ought to be represented as such. There is a colossal amount of research out there regarding the nature of perturbed microflora spectra in the bowel - which all starts to become part of this wider topic, and is strongly linked intimately with the auto-intoxication model, though not using the same names. As mentioned above on more than one occasion, the fact that colon cleansing is even a fringe topic needs some justification - it clearly has wide adherants not only within the community at large, but also within the medical / gastro-enterological community - albeit they will no doubt be a minority. I suspect that most of the gastros out there will support the ACG position, one based on science - that is - until more research is done, we don't know what the scientific evidence is to support or refute cleansing the colon, (or more likely to understand the subtlety of when this modality can be used beneficially). Laxatives are still big business in the western world and supported by the medical profession - though they clearly point out that they are not to be abused. Laxatives are one of the many forms of 'colon cleansing', and ought to be thorougly explored also in this article if one is to keep it on the subject of 'colon cleansing' - especially as the use of them are clearly the most abused form of 'colon cleansing' out there, with possibly the greatest side effects - at least in terms of research. Whether the science attributes some of the reduction of symptoms associated with constipation as being a simple mechanical is good and interesting science, but does clearly not invalidate the subject at hand. --Antoniolus (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I count eight sources that explicitly call it quackery of no value. I've already pointed them out. WP is not supposed to promote anything, including colon cleansing, and in particular should not be used as a soapbox for treatments with no demonstrable benefits and extensive criticisms. WP:NPOV does not require equal treatment to all sides, it requires a presentation that is equivalent to the perception of the mainstream within the appropriate field. The current status is, colon cleansing is considered obsolete and based on an incorrect understanding of the body. Autointoxication is bullshit, and bacterial microflora is unrelated. Creationism has extensive support within the United States popular imagination, but we report the beliefs of biologists, not religious nutters. Laxatives being big business is due to low fiber, not because of compacted feces and mucoid plaques. We're based on sources, not assertions, and good sources at that. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Same applies WLU. You clearly have some very strong and passionate views on the subject. A few sources all stemming from Barrett's paper does not make a mainstream view - that is little different to your creationist argument above. There are many within the GI field who would disagree that there is no value - references to a few have already been made. Many of the sources listed seem not to meet WP:RS criteria and are appropriate for removal, though some sources clearly meet the criteria - that is not disputed. Bacterial microflora unrelated? Bold statement that I assume you have some reasons to assert - please share. As for autointoxication - I think that has been covered enough - though your turn of phrase is a little strong - one paper in 1919 is a little outdated; I haven't been able to read the full JAMA article as it is not available for free viewing, and the abstract isn't great - but if you could make it available for perusal as I assume you have read the full paper, I would love to do so. Agreed the prevailing view at the time held by the orthodoxy and CAM was incorrect - but there is plenty of evidence through biological and microbiological science that toxicity within the digestive tract is a real phenomenon - but this should not be a soapbox for that argument. The prevalence of abnormal gut microflora by orthodox medical research is relatively easy to find, along with some of the exotoxins and putrefaction / fermentation metabolites that some of those species produce - whether they are eliminated or whether they are absorbed and dealt with or not by the liver. I am not making synthesis suggestions based on that to appear in the article, just responding to your microflora point above.

Maybe you should look for a published assertion from the AMA or ACG regarding mainstream view if you wish to support that argument - just a friendly suggestion. If they are currently making that statement, it should be included. Current sourcing of Picco being a spokesman for 'gastroenterology' is a little bold to say the least. The only previous ref I have found with regards to the institutional position stated agnosticism, though not from a good source. I can't see how quackwatch and Picco become 'the mainstream' view - and most of the other MD sources (including Picco) are not referencing their opinions, nor give the appearance to be basing them on known researched or unresearched fact. As for laxatives and compacted feces / constipation - I suggest you look at constipation for a medical interpretation of definition, which is sourced well. This article is about colon cleansing, not autointoxication. Maybe a WP page devoted to discrediting autointoxication would be of value here, rather than coatrack-ing it into discussion about colon cleansing. I know where you are coming from, but think that the article is continuing to be misleading in the absence of science for or against, though as mentioned in many of the links below, there is science in support, and there is FDA approval for specific uses. Apologies if my response is overly lengthy. --Antoniolus (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FDA warnings

Correct that the FDA does not regulate colonics per se (i.e it does not regulate the profession - this is left up to individual state licensure) and colon hydrotherapy as a profession is self-governing in accordance with state legislation. The FDA does however regulate manufacturers of colonic equipment which are classed as class 2 medical devices. It also approves manufacturers outside of the US that wish to sell to the US. The second half of the sentence is clearly misleading as it refers to supplements - non-regulation of which by the FDA may well be true, but this is not where the sentence is going. Needs revision and clarification. The fact that the FDA has regulated the devices used in colon hydrotherapy at all implies that the FDA doesn't feel that the devices themselves are dangerous, does it not? Their classification may also imply that they have a medical function as they are classified as such - just a thought ... The warning letters the FDA may or may not have written seems somewhat superflous and misleading as presumably the FDA having received complaints will have ensured that those complaints have been dealt with and rectified. Seems like the author of this part of the article has been clutching at straws to mislead yet again. As stated before, there are contentious issues within colon cleansing, but these stated FDA issues smack of a deliberate attempt to diss the therapeutic modality. A little more science and a little less opinion would not go amiss here Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Sourced, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Analyzing the warning letters and their reasoning is original research. No need to change the page in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Even when the first line statement is clearly misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniolus (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. The source states "colonics", that's the wording used. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the source states, to quote: "The Food and Drug Administration doesn't regulate colonics, so manufacturers can make health claims that aren't supported by solid evidence." It does not say: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate colonics, meaning claims made by supplement manufacturers are not scientifically verified" as in the article. Are you getting what I am talking about here? It really ain't that complicated, and clearly needs correction - it is misleading, misquoting, and also giving quite a different nuance to the whole sentence: the NPOV would clearly distinguish the subtlety of meaning between 'solid evidence' and 'scientifically verified'. Outside of the errors in transcripting, the sentence is somewhat misleading anyhow for reasons already discussed, and your 'source' is hardly one of high calibre. The FDA DOES regulate manufacturers (implied here that they don't), it DOES NOT regulate the profession (i.e. the therapists) - that is left to individual state licensure and decision, and is not federally required. And if a source turns out upon simple analysis of their words to be ill-informed - surely that should start questioning the validity of the source? Not sure why you are resisting correcting this clear error - have you got an angle here we should all know about WLA? Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

If you're talking to me, you're using the wrong username. You're also accusing me of a conflict of interest, demonstrating a complete lack of good faith and implied that I'm stupid. I think it's fine and still see no reason to change the page. I think it's hairsplitting. And the source does not seem to back your point, but does explicitly state that they are a waste of money. So I added that. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually WLU it was a question, not an accusation. You are being defensive when there is no need - I am merely pointing out a clear error in the copy which you seem reticent to adjust. Having pointed out the error several times, and this resistance continues, why that be the case does start begging a few questions don't you think? I certainly do not make accusations regarding intelligence levels to people I don't know, nor to people generally. Is it hairsplitting - maybe - but it is an error which is misleading. Stranger still that you have made the decision to add the 'waste of money' claim, now attributing that too to the FDA - where is that one coming from WLU? Melissa has not stated that the FDA said that - she just tagged it on to the next sentence - her words I suspect. Your interpretation here of her journalistic style (what a great source!) seems to be out of place here. As the FDA has approved the devices used in colon hydrotherapy for medical use, albeit for very specific ones, it seems fairly unlikely that they would have said that. At some point a little burden of proof also falls on both sides of the argument here - all the more so with the disputable consensus and NPOV. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Oh, and by the way, apologies for the username typo - it was not intentional. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Latest FDA section edit has become, again, misleading and inaccurate, and rather difficult to read. Not sure why the previous edit has been modified to this, but maybe you could shed some light WLU. Maybe you should use the FDA as a source here, rather than taking second hand info from Tennen. Accuracy and verifiability ... but truth is also possible here as it is referring to federal legislation at the present time. I will dig out all the direct links to FDA approval for manufacturers of hydrotherapy equipment. --Antoniolus (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one link to FDA which gives an overview from FDA standpoint. [7]

All colon hydrotherapy manufacturers in the US similar FDA approval formalities (there are a few manufacturers in the US), here is one [8] - others can be found on the FDA web and all say pretty much the same thing. Hope that proves useful, and provides you with the appropriate wording with regards to FDA approval of use and classification. --Antoniolus (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

New sources

[9] WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, go ahead and add it. I'm just checking the article out now so I will hopefully have some comments to make. I am also trying to catch up on recent comments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is insisted upon to put in dubious sources by journalists which are unreferenced and based on yet another health writers opinion, it will be time to widen that scope of sourcing to include not solely 'anti' articles - there are many of those out there by healthwriters too. FACTS! --Antoniolus (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you guys are awesome. *thumbs up* - Roy Boy 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I was included in the thumbs up RoyBoy, but either way - thanks! Maybe I am just a pain in the backside - pun fully intended - it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it. You going to hop back into this discussion sometime? And yes, respect to you both WLU and ChronieGal - just FYI. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Having various viewpoints is always a good thing, and can benefit an article in unexpected ways. While I am heartened by your good faith and obvious passion, you should familiarize yourself further with Wikipedia's best practices. For example NPOV does not force articles to present both sides equally. What it requires is an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. If practitioners only have anecdotal evidence of the alleged benefits, while we may note that, in the end it has not been demonstrated to be true.

Time constraints limit my participation. - Roy Boy 00:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I am suggesting this PubMed article as a source: Shevchuk NA - Hydrotherapy as a possible neuroleptic and sedative treatment. Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(2):230-8. Epub 2007 Jul 20. Doing so will of course also mean that the auto-toxemia invalidity arguments will need to be modified. This is a 2008 article so must be considered 'up-to-date' knowledge, and falls into the 5 year old research criteria suggested in WP:MEDRS. As it specifically mentions colon cleansing in its abstract it seems more than appropriate to be included here. --Antoniolus (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not obligated to change the entire page based on a single publication which does not have a basis in science. That's a theoretical piece. Is it highly cited? Is Medical Hypotheses well respected? The journal does not use a peer-review process, meaning there is no reason to believe it supports the mainstream position. Without a peer review, it's very simply a single person's opinion. I do not think there is any reason to believe this is worth changing the page over, and even were it to be admitted, at best I would sumarize its abstract as "it is believed theoretically possible that colonic hydrotherapy may be useful in the treatment of psychotic symptoms". But without support, citations in actual peer reivewed journals, some indication of impact on medical research, it would seem undue weight to give any emphasis to the publication. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources used in this article are not peer reviewed. I think a medical researcher may hold a little more weight than the cacophany of health writers as sources for the article. Just my common sense POV. The autotoxemia 'debate' is far from closed - I suspect in time it will reemerge in a more refined and medically validated model (there is already much reseach out there which is pointing in that direction). But as mentioned before - this article is supposed to be about colon cleansing, not about autotoxemia. Stick to the facts. --Antoniolus (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses is more or less explicitly dedicated to publishing fringe or non-mainstream ideas. In fact, the appearance of colon cleansing claims in Med Hypoth is sort of de facto confirmation of its fringe status and of the rejection of the claims by the mainstream, but I won't push that too far. In any case, support in Medical Hypotheses is hardly reason to overturn or rewrite mainstream expert opinion that colon cleansing claims are unfounded. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW: did you notice that reference #33 of the Medical Hypotheses article cites... Wikipedia? Just saying... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some further references for perusal:

Prospective study of colonic irrigation for the treatment of defaecation disorders.Koch SM, Melenhorst J, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG. [10]

Tap water irrigation and additives to optimize success with the Malone antegrade continence enema: the Indiana University algorithm.Bani-Hani AH, Cain MP, King S, Rink RC. [11]

Constipation, critical illness and mortality: gut-derived toxidromes--real and now imagined.Garrett RE, Bar-Or D. Unable to read this one, but I suspect it will be interesting either way. [12]

Definitions, epidemiology, and impact of chronic constipation.Talley NJ. [13]

A Gap in Our Understanding: Chronic Constipation and Its Comorbid Conditions.Talley NJ, Lasch KL, Baum CL. [14]

The association of constipation with childhood urinary tract infections.Giramonti KM, Kogan BA, Agboola OO, Ribons L, Dangman B. [15]

Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B possibly associates with pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis.Yang PC, Liu T, Wang BQ, Zhang TY, An ZY, Zheng PY, Tian DF. [16]

The influence of caecostomy and colonic irrigation on pathophysiology and prognosis in acute experimental pancreatitis.Sulkowski U, Boin C, Brockmann J, Bünte H. [17]

Colonic irrigation for defecation disorders after dynamic graciloplasty.Koch SM, Uludağ O, El Naggar K, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG. [18]

Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances.Briel JW, Schouten WR, Vlot EA, Smits S, van Kessel I. [19]

Rectal irrigation and bowel decontamination for the prevention of postoperative enterocolitis in Hirschsprung's disease.[Article in Spanish]Núñez R, Torres A, Agulla E, Moreno C, Marín D, Santamaría JI. [20]

As the principal contention by those practicing colon cleansing is that constipation is an issue for health, wellbeing and quality of life, these references are of interest. Some of the links there are also concerning the value of colonic irrigation in treating fecal incontinence. There are many more. This article concerns colon cleansing and is not destined to be a POV platform regarding autotoxemia, whether real or imagined - though it does need mentioning. Most of the above links are of course regarding the gastroenterological uses of colonic irrigation, whether to treat constipation or other conditions. The links regarding ulcerative colitis are there to add some input into the discussion re toxicity within the intestinal tract and pathogenesis. --Antoniolus (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. You're leaping to conclusions, that I'm not reading. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not leaping to anything at all. Merely pointing out some sources based upon research which is possible to find through PubMed. It is certainly not my place to assume that they are making leaps of faith, despite the fact that medical research in my experience frequently does with regards to conclusions. Many of the above cited articles specifically mention colonic irrigation in their abstracts - could you clarify what conclusions you believe me to be leaping to? --Antoniolus (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Having read the WP:SYNTH guidelines, it seems like the previous edits of this article were loaded with contentious synth errors, as well as with misquotes from sources. I have attempted to clear some of those up with my last edit using the sources currently cited in the article. --Antoniolus (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone out there provide a little insight as to the validity of Wanjek's citation? All sounds like a fairly rabid account without any supporting evidence or references - one guys opinion again, but throwing around all the usual stuff, and should be considered anecdotal if only for its absence of referencing and its gratuitous opinion-spraying. If this kind of zero-science citation is to be allowed, where is the neutrality in sourcing? I do appreciate that one has to step outside the scope of purely published medical research for this article, but this is a little poor. There are many positive sources out there which could be provided as anti contenders to some of these - some of which are equally unscientific, and some of which aren't. I for one don't believe that that would be a useful exercise, nor will it benefit the tone of the article, nor the purpose of WP. Of course Wanjek's article is so over the top and vitriolic that most readers who bother to pursue the citation links may well view it with the skepticism it deserves. --Antoniolus (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All those sources seem to say is that enemas help with issues of the digestive tract - primarily constipation. Which isn't exactly amazing and is appropriate for the enema page. Your previous edits added a lot of weasel wording and continuously diluted the wording to make it sound like mainstream practitioners just haven't really made up their minds, when it's much closer to having rejected the idea that there is medical benefits to colon cleansing nearly a century ago. You are civilly pushing as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up weasel wording - another rule page I was unfamiliar with. It seems like the current and previous edits were / are doing exactly that. I have been trying to extract weasel wording out of the article in my last edit, and to bring some factual information into the piece. I don't say it was perfect, far from it, but looked to me like a step in the right direction. Maybe you could clarify where I was weaseling so I can ensure it doesn't happen again in edits that I make. With regards to weaseling, the attribution of the 'gastroenterology' position to the Mayo source seems to fit that bill - this is the view of one gastro, but is being inaccurately attributed. Many mainstream practitioners haven't made up their minds, neither in the US, nor globally - that is my point - and I have provided ample evidence of that, whether they constitute RS or not. Latest edits are continually providing weasel support to one or two unreferenced POVs from what I can see, and support by refs that don't meet WP:RS standards is not making it any better. It should not be difficult to sort this article out - replacing words like 'mainstream' with 'many within the ..' is not weaseling when it is unsupported I think. Please provide evidence of your mainstream POV - it is clearly not good enough for editors to make mainstream assertions based on personal POV. --Antoniolus (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

General commentary

This page is coming very close, if it not already there, to be considered an 'attack page' under WP guidelines. There is no evidence here really at all of NPOV. --Antoniolus (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the page very clearly supports the mainstream position that there is no scientific support for colon cleansing. There are numerous very high quality sources that state this explicitly. To place any emphasis on manufacturers claims would be undue weight. We are not obligated to portray every single position in equal measure - we are bound to work within the mainstream position and we are not obligated to give weight to a fringe position, which this page is. Attack pages are concerned with people, not products. In any case, since there is no support for the idea anyway, there's no reason to portray it as actually beneficial without exceptional sources, when the best sources we have clearly state that there is no benefit. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This alleged mainstream view which keeps on being alluded to seems to be very elusive indeed. A few citations from the mainstream criticising the modality does not a mainstream position make. Other sources coming from MD backgrounds have already been presented to this discussion which also state the opposite. There is obviously no right or wrong here as neither side are based on scientifically verifiable research, and is POV on both sides. Clearly if you wish to insist that only MD / medical science sources are credible, then MD sources which are contending the claim made regarding colon cleansing's benefits are equally valid to those that are contending the opposite. Have we seen an opinion poll lately across MD's and gastros regarding whether they 'feel' (as they don't have the research to back up their position) colon cleansing has no benefit? --Antoniolus (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and the subsection WP:UNDUE. If you wish to make the claim that this is not a fringe topic, do so at the fringe theories noticeboard. A claim by the extremely prestigious Mayo Clinic, as well as Quackwatch, The New York Times, The Straight Dope, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and the American Council on Science and Health that the topic is not good science, pretty much seals the deal for me. I don't need peer-reviewed pubmed sources to say something is fringe (though in this case, I've got one [21]). Further, the manufacturers' websites and doctors' testimonials are not, and will never be, the reliable sources required to make any claim that there is merit to colon cleansing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No issue with any of that. Though not being able to read the full article by Ernst, I cannot possibly comment on it - though looks to be a literature amalgamation article from the abstract. I also don't dispute the prestige of the Mayo - I dispute the weight given to the link used as a source when it is unreferenced in any way and it the opinion of one gastroenterologist - there are many in Picco's field who disagree, not least those medical researchers who have investigated it. Journalistic articles are what they are - journalistic - good copy for filling a paper / epub with, but hardly scientific in rationale, and mostly based on points of view. As mentioned before, the debate regarding fringe status may be better placed perceived as one which is disputing some of the outlandish claims made by some therapists - no doubt through ignorance. That in itself does not dismiss 'colon cleansing' per se - the 'fringe element' is making all sorts of claims re 'autotoxemia'. Clearly using colon hydrotherapy as, for example, a procedure for cleaning the bowel prior to colonoscopy is far from fringe - even the FDA has ruled on that one, and is fairly well researched and used in that regard. Bringing some subtlety into the article rather than tarring the whole modality with the same brush based on the contentious claims by some alternative therapists would seem to be in order. Colon cleansing is not 'alternative medicine' in its own right, it is a tool used on both sides of the divide - some with scientific validation, and some with anecdotals. --Antoniolus (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing as far as I know is a tool used to see clearly the patients insides, yes by a GI. This article is considered fringe, sorry. As someone who has to 'cleanse' for multiple testings you would understand that what the refs say are true and not just an opinion. It takes me weeks to try to get my gut balanced again after having to get cleaned out. Just had to add this, sorry for going off topic a bit. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point it is up to you to demonstrate that the topic is not fringe. This isn't just one gastroenterologist by the way, six agencies, plus all the journal articles, are quite clear that the topic has no mainstream support. The articles are mutually supporting of the idea that there is no merit to colon cleansing. If there are many who disagree with Picco, present the sources. It's not merely Picco's opinion that supports the idea, it is also the huge prestige of the Mayo Clinic. Cleaning the colon before a colonscopy is an enema, it's not colon cleansing. If you want to talk about pre-medical test evacuation of the bowels, go to talk:enema. That is indeed well-supported, because it is a simple procedure which does not claim miracles of treatment. If you have scientific evidence that there is any benefit to the procedures, present it. I'm getting sick of the endless debate. As far as I'm concerned, the sources have spoken and my time is being wasted. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear where you are coming from Crohnie. However, I imagine you are required to use the standard medical bowel cleanse preps, which is somewhat of a different topic, though technically falls under the heading of 'colon cleansing'. Out of interest, that topic is not actually represented in the article, though maybe it should be if one really wants to put all eggs in the colon cleansing basket. A healthy discussion about the use of chemical laxatives may be in order too in that regard - but it will start making the article rather longwinded. Refs 1 and 2 kind of go hand in hand - Barrett is involved in both - though not disputing validity, though the QWatch article is a little suspect for reasons already discussed. Ref 3 is unreadable other than a brief abstract - one would really need to read the article. 7 and 8 have no links, so not terribly useful. 15 and 16 are repetitious being articles about the same incident in the late 70's - one ref will suffice. Perforation ref is fine - no one is suggesting that there is no danger, though it is being misused as a reference when it actually concerns one particular type of self-inserted hydrotherapy instrument, and does not represent the whole topic of 'colon cleansing' - maybe the text to which it is referring could be revised to read more accurately. (Let's not forget that by far and away the greatest risk of intestinal perforation occurs with orthodox pre-endoscopy air insertion into the bowel, not that I suppose that has any relevance.) Deaths with coffee enemas is possibly relevant as the page contains refs to enemas, though strictly speaking coffee enemas are not used as a means of colon cleansing, but are purported to aid in liver detoxification and are used as such - colon cleansing is a side effect by virtue of putting any liquid into the bowel. The health writer refs, though interesting, seem a little far-fetched to be used as medical references - are they WP:MEDRS? - they are certainly being used that way. Using Picco as a statement of the Mayo position seems a little faithful, though otherwise a good source. Mainstream support in the form of MDs has already been quoted above, not going to waste time in re-presenting them, just scroll up. There are already a fair few citations above which are concerning mainstream use of irrigation in a GI setting, though not specifically concerning 'colon hydrotherapy performed by non MDs' - but are clearly valid to the article. You are quite right, this is all beginning to waste far too much time, especially when credible sources have already been presented here, but are being dismissed for reasons which have not been made clear. Call me stoopid, but I thought this page was here to discuss inclusions and edits - doesn't seem to be happening much, just massive non-discussed reverts (whether electronic or manual - the sense of the text hasn't changed). The article title is about colon cleansing - maybe it should be renamed colon cleansing and autotoxemia if that is what you wish the article to be about. And FYI I believe you will find that your definition of 'colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy is an enema' is not entirely correct, though there seems to be little point in splitting hairs about that - please look up my last article edit for some more accurate definitions. Accuracy and verifiability seem to be being misconstrued here - it would be pretty easy to clean this up and bring in a modicum of neutrality and let the facts speak for themselves. The needle is starting to sound a little stuck... --Antoniolus (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is clearly a fringe topic. Fringe topics don't require MEDRS for criticisms, only for claims of efficacy. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." - from Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Reporting on the levels of acceptance. The academic community has weighed in, several times. We're done here. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

mdash

Just a note, the mdash sucks! {{ndash}} is beet-tar! - Roy Boy 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man... I love the mdash. I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ndash controversy. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like I need to rally grassroots support. - Roy Boy 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

I'm getting frustrated and have posted on Fringe theories noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

External link(s)

The article growth has been solid, now I want some external links here. The Hydrotherapy article had this one link in it. I'd ideally like a few more. Issues, suggestions? - Roy Boy 06:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ has a relevant page, the i-act is legit per WP:EL, but WP:UNDUE is a concern - both are essentially "pro" colon cleansing and this leaves the page with no critical ELs (also note - the DMOZ has the i-act page on it already). I'd say just the DMOZ, particularly since a lack of links isn't reason to add more. Though the DMOZ does have a page on quackery as well... WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure its a concern, but if we can validate it as a prominent (authoritative?) link then it should go in. Quality find though, I've generally erased the DMOZ from my memory because of lackluster experience, now that I think about it my first steps in collaborative editing were taken there. - Roy Boy 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean adding the i-act.org site? I would think it redundant due to its presence in the DMOZ; also, being an authoritative link on a quack topic doesn't mean much to me. If we're talking about the same thing? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested, here are links to some of the colon hydrotherapy equipment manufacturers. Just in case the illusion that enemas are colonics is still in place. These are not sources as they would infringe upon advertising regs, but they are here for the talk page as you requested to see them WLU. Only putting in US links here, but please remember that the US is only one country on the planet, and WP is not solely supporting the US view to my knowledge.

Closed systems: Dotolo[22]; Specialty Health [23]; Clearwater [24]

Open systems: Angel of water [25]; Libbe [26]

This list is not exhaustive, there are several other manufacturers outside of the US. Both of these types of systems are used for colon hydrotherapy treatments. They are clearly considerably different, and may even be considered to be different enough that the type of therapy they are performing is substantially different. But this is not the place to go into the pros and cons of different colon hydrotherapy systems. These are not equivalent to enemas, though arguably the open system design has more in common with high-enemas than closed systems. FDA direct links have been provided above. --Antoniolus (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not link to manufacturer or sales sites, WP:ELNO #4 and 5, unless it's a wikipedia page for that company. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that WLU - they were only posted on the talk page to show you the difference between an enema bag and a colon hydrotherapy machine. I can't remember who requested those, but one of you did. Antoniolus --121.218.80.149 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Passing opinion as fact

"Colon cleansing is considered quackery, with no basis in science or gastroenterology". Who considers it quackery? This is an opinion, and as such needs attribution. Further, can we get a better link that QuackWatch for this claim? DigitalC (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

References 2 and 3 both verify this, as well as the second paragraph in the history section. The status as a fringe topic means the sources we need to justify this don't have to be JAMA, Quackwatch is considered adequate for expressing the medical status quo and in this case is buttressed by several other references in both the lead and in the body text. If you review the sources linking to the Beth Israel center, the Mayo Clinic, the New York Times, LiveScience, The Straight Dope, the American Council on Science and Health, they all say the same thing - there is no benefit to colon cleansing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the opinion, however the text states that it "is considered quackery". This is an opinion, and therefore must be attributed (ie - who considers it quackery). Further, Quackwatch is a very low quality source. If we could get a better source for this, it would be beneficial. DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for that 'source' to state that the official position by the medical associations either in the US or elsewhere consider this quackery. It should be well and truly evident by now that there has been virtually zero direct medical research into this modality, and that's not because it's quackery - it is simply because there is no money to be gained by researching it, and obviously the right altruistic source hasn't come along yet. However, there has been much research over the years in Russia, but regrettably I cannot read them - maybe someone else can. Seems like the anti-sources are being well and truly used to create a strawman by throwing a few citations together, throwing in Barretts usual contentious tone (which has been accepted as fact by some editors, as well as medics it seems). And then of course trying to call this fringe so that anti-sources can provide most of the very weak citation sources here by medical writers, whilst pushing for peer-reviewed studies of efficacy to support it. The Pope (Barett) has declared the world to be flat - so therefore it is. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Antoniolus (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, OK. The thing is, research money is generally not spent looking into claims which run counter to basic biomedical knowledge. In fact, spending all-too-limited resources investigating such claims (rather than on more promising avenues) would be unethical.

Drop the pharmanoia. It's not that people can't make money off colon cleansing - in fact, as a brief visit to the alt-med webosphere indicates, plenty of people are making money off of it. There's no active research here because most or all credible experts think these claims are scientifically unfounded.

Please don't go down the "evidence of absence" road; it's totally misguided here. Health claims which are promoted despite an absence of evidence are called... wait for it... quackery. MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case it would be more like the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, the thirteenth Imam, Ganesha, Ahura Mazda, Raven, Coyote trickster, Ptah, Buddha and Confucius agreeing that there's no real reason to believe demons cause schizophrenia. Barrett is used seven times. Five of those are as part of multiple citations to the same text (i.e. he's clearly agreeing with other sources). The other two uses are in "History" to state that it was orthodox medical doctrine in the 19th century (probably easily replaced or another citation added) and in the "FDA" section to state that the FDA has issued several warning letters, a matter of basic fact that I think quackwatch is reliable for. I don't see quackwatch being used to verify anything extreme, I think it handily summarizes the mainstream position on colon cleansing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

There's a couple {{fact}} tags that I wonder could be resolved. In the lead, they're used twice in the second paragraph - "Colon hydrotherapy uses enemas to inject water, sometimes mixed with herbs, or other liquids, into the colon using special equipment.[citation needed] Oral cleaning uses dietary fiber, herbs, dietary supplements or laxatives.[citation needed]" Per WP:V, we only need sources for info likely to be challenged, or being challenged - does anyone disagree that this is what colon hydrotherapy and oral cleansing are not summarized by these methods? Is anyone going to challenge or remove these sections? Though I've idly looked for a reference to this, I've not found any, but I also don't think its' crucial. The third reference is for "Colon cleansing lacks scientifically validated medical benefit for the claims made by alternative medicine practitioners.[citation needed]" I think the sum total of all critical references essentially agree on this point. Otherwise, a bit more reading through the sources will probably support this. The fourth is "This was part of orthodox medical doctrine up to the end of the 19th century,[2] as were the purported benefits of colon cleansing.[citation needed]" in History. I can see simply taking this phrase out if needed. Otherwise, another careful review of the sources will probably turn up something worthwhile as a reference. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon hydrotherapy uses enemas to inject etc' this sentence is misleading, and placing multiple therapeutic modalities in the same basket, when they are clearly different. The sum total of current references are pretty thin, especially if you discount the opinions of journo's as sources of truth, verifiability and wisdom. The whole lead in is overly negative as opposed to giving some depth and understanding to this broad WP entry. The clear public consensus amongst members of orthodox medicine is - they just don't know... --Antoniolus (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I replied on my user talk page to your post about this, hopefully you saw my reply. Antoniolus, what is misleading about the statement about Colon hydrotherapy using enemas? The definition of an enema is introducing a liquid into the rectum. DigitalC (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I did see it, but I haven't gotten 'round to fixing the tags yet. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that there's no good reason to not use footnotes in the lead. Without footnotes it is too easy for bold claims to slip by unsourced, or sourced questionably. In a controversial article this is even more important. There's no disadvantage to it, and there's actually a benefit, in that the most important sources should often be cited in the lead, which provides a quick overview of the most important sources at the top of the references section. If the problem is that no one source really makes the claim, but all together do, then there's potential original research. For things like "there's no scientific validation", you should use the most authoritative source, or if no sources are all that great, use a couple decent sources. II | (t - c) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE has been updated since last I checked - we are now enjoined to come to a consensus here. Relatively simple or noncontroversial articles may omit lead citations (except for potential BLP issues) in favor of presenting citations where the material is treated more generally, but I agree with User:ImperfectlyInformed's reasoning for citing everything here. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Refs found and used; though it would be nice if they would be limited to cover entire paragraphs; and/or controversial sentences. Being placed on every sentence is overkill and aesthetically poor. - Roy Boy 08:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In a controversial article, it really isn't overkill for each sentence to be referenced. It would be preferable if we could find good sources for the topic, so that multiple sentences in a row could be referenced by the same source, but it isn't necessary. DigitalC (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer tackling controversial articles at Wikipedia, so high density referencing isn't new to me, but relatively speaking colon cleansing is a kitten on Valium. The amount of referencing is overboard given the 3 main references can cover 90% of the article and be placed at the end of paragraphs. (in my ideal wiki) - Roy Boy 19:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it, and I'm very appreciative of RoyBoy for taking the time to tidy these final loose ends. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort RoyBoy, it is appreciated. DigitalC (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of colonic irrigation or colon cleasning products, but...

If you think there's nothing at all to colon cleansing I suggest you go to the following Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecaloma . I'd say the great decline in the incidence of appendecitis is due to changes in our diets. To wit, we don't eat as starchy a diet as our grandparents, so we get fewer fecaliths - the primary cause of appendecitis. Instead we eat a high protein and fat diet, which give us circulatory diseases instead.

It should be clear from the onset of general tooth loss at the beginning of civilization that grains are not good food for us and lead to numerous medical problems, among them, constipation and hardened feces. This became a lot worse with finer ground flours, porridge, and the reduction of fibrous plants in our diets a few hundred years ago.

216.194.2.241 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The title of the page should be "Anti-Colon Cleasing"

This article isn't about colon cleansing, it is an ideologically (scientism) based arguement against colon cleansing.

The scientism of Wikipedia is overwhelming. The science-as-fact rather than science-as-ideology mentality rules here. It is quite typical to see scientific methodology presented as "fact" and other worldviews either dismissed outright or with words like "purported" or "allegedly" sprinkled on them, something few scientific assumptions get bombarded with.

It might be worthwhile if this article presented the perspectives of proponents rather than treating scientific studies as the final word. You can design scientific studies to confirm whatever bias and agenda you want. The campaign of conservative scientistic medicine again alternative therapies reminds me of the campaign by bible-bashers agains gays. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have some kind of information which can be presented from Reliable Sources which can be Verified, please edit it into the articles. If you dislike the scientific method, please find a different forum for discussion. The reason scientific methodology is presented as the path to factual information is because it's based on evidence and demonstrability, much like Wikipedia. Fictions and fairytales have their place, but they don't belong alongside science and observations of reality— at least, they should not be presented with equal weight when writing articles. Until you actually give us some sort of verifiable evidence from reputable sources, we will continue to delete the fantasy-based anecdotal hogwash from articles, and we will continue to label it as such. "Scientism" is just an epithet which is tossed around when people don't have any evidence to support their fantasy-based opposition to the evidence-based body of knowledge.[27] ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Words such as "purported" and "allegedly" have actual meanings. They refer to claims that have been made, without actually having been demonstrated. (you know - "evidence") These words are used correctly in this article. Therefore I'm not quite sure what your complaint is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a depository of opinion. Would you prefer that the article lied, and said that these claims HAVE been demonstrated as true, even though they have not been? Are you expressing your displeasure that the nature of reality is not reflected in your beliefs about it? Would you prefer that anyone could make any claim they want on Wikipedia, if they "feel strongly" about it being true?

It's also a bit ironic to argue that science is a "world view" while using a computer to make this point. It would be like my telling you telepathically that psychic powers don't exist.

And yeah, I totally see how making factually truthful claims about the complete absence of evidence for certain (not all) unscientific claims is the same as people using mythology to claim that gay people are immoral. Totally the same. Just like triangles are the same as the concept of happiness. Or apples are the same as the number 7. Etc. 74.12.182.220 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that articles need to be based upon evidence. However POV evidence should not masquerade as fact. I am attempting to highlight the ideological bias of the article, and its one sided nature. Although I am familiar with colon cleansing I do not feel qualified to edit the article, so someone with authority in the theories and practice of alternative medicine needs to be consulted in this case, and in the meantime the scientism of the article should be watered down to be less matter-of-fact. (p.s. I have contacted someone I feel qualified and asked them to evaluate the article).

Scientism is not an epithet, but rather a description of the use of objectivist methods to show "fact" when it is actually showing opinion. You cannot separate an observation from its observers and their beliefs, definitions and presumptions about what it is that they are observing, with the judgements that result. Observation is subjective, not "reality". The article reflects the ideological biases of scientism where preconceptions set the tone of the subsequent assessment.

For example, you can ask the Republican party to make an "objective" assessment of the Democratic party's policies, or vice-versa and ask these assessors to cite sources and evidence which plenty of think-tanks would be happy to provide, but to claim that such an assessment would be fair is absurd. The same principle applies in this case. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am on the fence about the benefits of colon cleansing. It is the lack of a neutral POV in the article and many like it on wikipedia that I am highlighting 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are really seeing the purpose of adhering to a Neutral Point Of View. The purpose is not to present all sides equally, as that would be quite fallacious. For example, some people tell us that the Moon is a large rocky object which orbits the Earth, while other people tell us the Moon is a large object made of Green Cheese. So clearly we can't present those viewpoints with equal weight. If absolutely necessary, we can mention the humorous discussion of how some people poetically describe the Earth's satellite in terms of cheese, but we don't treat it with the same seriousness which we would give to the information provided by astronomers and physicists.

In the same vein, there are quacks and charlatans who fervently believe their colon cleansing techniques and products must be promulgated; but doctors and scientists tell us that those techniques and products have no proven benefits. Therefore it would be extremely improper to present the colon cleansing quackery with the same seriousness as we present the factual medical information. Until you actually provide us with Reliable Sources which we can Verify wherein some kind of evidence justifies these outlandish claims of "[supposed] medical benefits of colon cleansing", we must continue to refer to the quacks in the same way which we refer to the Green Cheese.

I've kept this article on my WatchList because of my own personal interests in a clean colon as an aspect of the topics surrounding anal health, and healthy anal sex. This article could serve a very useful purpose of being informative to people who are interested in anal health, and it helps to dispel some of our culture's taboos about the discussion of healthy anal sex. But none of that has anything to do with crackpot theories about magical medical benefits of colonic irrigation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am finding it frustrating that you cannot see the bias of the article. I am not suggesting that scientific studies or lack of them shouldn't be mentioned, I am suggesting that the article shouldn't be an attack site. You don't seem to perceive this because you could possibly be having trouble seeing beyond your own ideological biases. I think that equating my POV with the moon-is-made-of-green-cheese comparisons is something of a straw man argument. Since there is little evidence for or against this proceedure, condemning it as quackery and the like could be argued to be use of weasel words. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP can dismissed out of hand for a simple fact: The IP editor doesn't understand a fundamental concept behind science. The IP states "You cannot separate an observation from its observers and their beliefs, definitions and presumptions about what it is that they are observing, with the judgements that result." In fact, you can. Reproducibility of results and methodology is a cornerstone of science. The statement the IP makes would require that reality is fundamentally altered in it's nature by what people believe - a reality of consensus makes water wet - and so Science is really nothing but a secret cabal who force belief onto the masses, telling them what to think with their authority, and so reality conforms itself to that view. If the IP can't grasp that science works precisely because a result can be predictably reproduced, then no amount of talking will help. Further, the denigrating 'scientism' term used to consistently attack the POV the IP opposes shows that the editor isn't here for anything but that subtle line of action between The bully pulpit and the bridge. Stop wasting your breath. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method provides great rewards, if the industry conducted objective tests proving the practice valuable. Lacking a publisized initiative showing evidence cleanzing works since the time of the pyramids, the discussion supporting colon cleanse fails scientific method.I suggest an appeal to "The Skeptical Inquirier" if the industry would like scientific method applied. Until scientific method appeals to the contrar, the industry relies on pseudoscience and protests of an unfair standard applied to its practice. My interest pertains to my own personal search for answers and solutions suggested by my friends and acquiantances. After much research and my own experimentation, exercise, proper diet, and oral hygene do more than any allopathic or alternative health care for restoring energy, vigor, clear thinking, reduced pain, weight loss and avoiding illness. I agree stop wasting your breath until you can cite evidence by scientific method.

Respectfully, Thank you Wikipedia for separating the scientific from the alternative pseudosciences. And respectfully, there is pseudoscience I continue to watch recognising, one day, a discovery or test will validate colon cleansing's benefits. In the meantime, I exercise and eat right. Ricochet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it frustrating to have this discussion on a site dedicated to colon cleasing - a practice which has not been studied greatly in recent times. The research on it and the opinions displayed by mainstream medical organisations is not based on study but on the multiple reproductions of one limited opinion. Because this opinion has be cloned and reproduced hundreds of times by mainstream organisations does not change the fact that they are reading from the same single limited source.

The contempt, i.e. terms like pseudoscience, moon-is-made-of-green-cheese, quackery, etc. shows the mentality of those editing this article. The fact that hard-core fundamentalist materialists are sitting on this article reinforces the criticisms made of wikipedia and its fake NPOV. The fact that hard core dogmatists think their opinions are facts is nothing new, be they of religious or scientistic nature.

The article is an attack site. Why not settle with the fact that colon cleansing is an unexplored therapy not embraced by mainstream medicine, rather than becoming an attack site "proving" its bullshit-ness. This page is not the Skeptical Enquirer, so why should it reflect the hard-core dogmatic fundamentalist views of such a site. I am sure that such people think their opinions are "the truth", but that makes them no different to nutty Christian fundamentalists who think the same. I am tired of materialists presenting their ideology as fact and claiming that those who don't share their views are stupid and deluded.

I hate it when people preach about "observations of reality" as if these are some how independent of method, ideology and bias and agenda. I particularly hate it when these "factually truthful claims" are not based upon observations of reality from a scientific point of view, but an ideologically charged single opinion replicated by hundreds of organisations which have done little study of their own but are instead reading from the same memo. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You admit that scientific consensus and the medical establishment are against colon cleansing. Why would you expect wikipedia to take a different line? Why do you say it is unexplored, when it has been studied and found ineffective or damaging? Verbal chat 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there is hardly any scientific study, if we are looking simply from a scientific POV, but rather a single biased report from what I have researched, reported hundreds of times, with these hundreds of reports based upon repetition of the same source, not on study. This is also an alternative practice, so of course mainstream medicine is going to dismiss it. If the medical establishment don't like colon cleansing then it is fine to report that, but have you read the article? It is an attack site, which also ignores the practitioners of an ALTERNATIVE practice. This is why I have said it is like Republicans reviewing the policies of Democrats and claiming it is NPOV. It hasn't really been studied recently, and therefore to claim it is ineffective or damaging is just POV, not fact. Up until a few years back it had lots of proponents, but these are largely ignored or dismissed. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it is bogged down by editors stranded at stages 3 & 4 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. No wonder it comes under so much criticism, particularly since its editors can't stand diverse opinions, and since they attempt to banish or silence those who dissent. This mentality is a disaster for any article claiming to elucidate upon non-conventional topics in any sincere way. I REFUSE to lay down and surrender Wikipedia to such people. I will challenge this attitude. This is especially so since Wikipedia is placed at the top of Google searches and presents itself as an "encyclopedia". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"No" scientific evidence?

The article states the following: "No scientific evidence supports the alleged benefits of colon cleansing.[3]" and cites an American Cancer Society article. Yet this mayo clinic site: [[28]] says that there is little scientific evidence to support or refute the benefits of colon cleansing. This wikipedia article clearly seeks to refute colon cleansing.

Also footnote no.2 ^[1] links to Quackwatch. Do you really think a link to a pathological skeptic site is a reliable source for a NPOV? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. What, pray tell, is a "pathological skeptic"? Somebody who asks questions until charlatans stop braying? And yet you had the audacity to suggest "charlatanism and quackery" are related in any way to Weasel Words. Please, next we'll have an entertaining chat about how Night is Day, Down is Up, and Mystical Chicanery is a branch of scientific inquiry. I laughed so hard, i almost cleansed my colon. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've at least found a reference to "pathological skepticism"[29], which (if anything) merely gives me more ammunition with which to debunk charlatanism. Also, a quick review of 121.73.7.84's Contributions show a pattern of attempts to skew articles with a Non-Neutral Point Of View indicative of wishful thinking which promotes fantasy-based rather than realistic editing. The simple solution for this, as in most cases on Wikipedia, is to insist that you edit with Reliable Sources which can be Verified. All edits which fail to follow these practises will be ruthlessly corrected. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting quackery. Just because something can't get published in a scientific, academic, or otherwise reputable medium, does not mean that it can be inserted into Wikipedia as an alternative. Wikipedia isn't as rigorous as most medical journals and university publications, but there is no shortage of educated editors monitoring articles to prevent the charlatanism from being insinuated. Don't even bother. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 08:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix, it appears that I am pressing up against some fundamental pillars of your worldview which are invisible to you. You don't seem to understand where I am coming from at all. You also seem to be prescribing to some idea that you have an non-ideological ideology. Ridicule and name calling is also a strategy employed by pathological skeptics when their other methods of debunking are not getting their desired result. Please tell me: How can you know something independently of your theories, observations and definitions of what that thing is? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't pretend to have no bias. I do understand where you are coming from, but until you have information from WP:RS which is WP:V, i will continue to be dismissive of emotional argumentation, and will continue to insist that you merely present some evidence. Heck, i've even been trying to do that for you (see Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, it's part of my usual practise.) Also, please note that i am not calling you any names, i am using the terms of charlatanism, quackery, chicanery, etc to refer to the proponents of beliefs which have no evidence. I'm far too wary nowadays of WP:No personal attacks to waste time on insulting somebody personally around here; instead i direct my vituperative criticisms toward the proper targets. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 09:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Review on history and positive evidence from Meridian Institute

According to this site [[30]] the mainstream "consensus" against colonics as presented by this wikipedia article seems to have an element of a knee-jerk reaction. After some cases of serious illness were reported in the late 1970s from a single clinic using contaminated equipment, mainstream medicine came out strongly against colonics. Apparently little actual data is available either in support of or against colonic irrigations. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the onus is not so much to prove that it doesn't work, but show the studies that it does. There are hardly any reliable and published studies that support that colon cleansing works. And your website is typical of the pseudoscience crowd: everyone is conspiring against the pseudoscientific idea. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Meridian Institute appears to be one of the better AltMed research organizations, and they've published a paper on colonic irrigation, which is available free: Colonic Irrigations: A Review of the Historical Controversy and the Potential for Adverse Effects. The paper is rather reasonable and balanced and should be incorporated into the article. II | (t - c) 21:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that colonics enjoy popularity in some segments of the alternative-medicine community. The Meridian Institute's paper could certainly be used as a source to support that fact. It is not a suitable source to "prove" that colonics "work", of course. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, sorry. I just read your source [31] and it actually proves exactly what User:SciMedKnowledge just said, which is that there are no reliable published studies supporting medical benefits of colon cleansing. In fact, there was a very suspicious absence of discussion of scientific studies in that report, and the only "study" it mentioned had no more than 17 participants. Given the fact that millions of people engage in the activity, but nobody can point to a study with even so many as a few dozen participants, it actually seems like your source is merely further proving the point that there is no established benefit, aside from whatever trivial issues of hygiene and anal-sexplay comfort might be the aims of people who cleanse their colons.

Furthermore, the information which you offer is coming to us from the Meridian Institute whose owners state they are focussed on "spiritual" aspects of the study of medicine, physiology, et cetera. So i'm afraid there really isn't any reason whatsoever to take their "information" with any seriousness, as they are clearly not interested in scientific investigation unless it jives with their "spirituality", which is why they are forced to refer to it as "alternative" medicine— because it is not real medicine. I believe this is what we call quackery. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

SciMedKnowledge says that he believes that the onus is not so much to prove that it doesn't work, but show the studies that it does. Since this site doesn't take a NPOV but refutes colon cleansing then the onus IS on the article to prove that it doesn't work or otherwise take a NPOV 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pshaw. You're wrong, but i'll entertain your nonsense anyway: all you have to do is read the References at the end of the article. There are sources from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, the Mayo Clinic, HealthAtoZ.com, and especially the Journal of clinical gastroenterology. They report: "Colonic irrigation and the theory of autointoxication: a triumph of ignorance over science." Meanwhile, you've still failed to present any reliable sources to contradict the scientific viewpoint. You say you don't want Science to have "the final word." Well, there is no such thing as a "final" version of an article on Wikipedia. So please: present some Reliable Sources with pertinent information, edit the article by utilizing that information, and then you'll have nothing about which to complain. Meanwhile, no amount of wishful thinking has any more right to be presented in this article than does a story about Green Cheese.

Then you attempt to conflate Scientism (which is mostly applicable to contexts of sociology, psychology and anthropological studies) with simple Scientific Method, which is appropriately employed here in a discussion about technical, medical, physical practises. Apples and oranges.

It's very typical of charlatanism to evade requests for evidence by crying about being oppressed. In this particular case, i am disgusted by your odious attempt to equate a simple intellectual argument with the bashing of gays. As a person who has survived gaybashing in real life, i am appalled at your suggestion where violence is trivialized by such a juvenile argument of comparison. If you have a complaint about the way you're being treated, take it to the appropriate authorities. But please, don't dare to equate dismissal of quackery with actual bashing of humans. That pathway to Godwin's Law is both childish and insultingly disproportionate. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you've started to personalise this debate, secondly your arguements seek to distort mine. Thirdly you should not be editing on the basis of NPOV when you seem to think that people who don't share your ideology are stupid. How did my comparison of the opposition of conservative Christians to gays suddenly turn into a discussion of physical bashing of humans??? As for trivialisations, i've taken the arguements presented here seriously, you have been the one to trivialise other people's perspectives as charlatanism, nonsense, juvenile arguement and quackery. There is nothing childish about pointing out clear bias which is, I believe, the purpose of this discussion page.

As for scientism, you are displaying exactly the mentality I am talking about - treating an ideology as if it was fact rather than evidence loaded with the biases inevitable in its collation and the first principles that it operates from. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You falsely claim "you seem to think that people who don't share your ideology are stupid." This is incorrect, you don't know what i think. Your comparison mentioning bashing and gays (in contrast to the dismissal of charlatanism) is a trivialization of a real-world horror; and as i have seen your comments where you identify yourself as a gay man[32] i am terribly disappointed. But it's not my business to judge members of the gay community, i'm just voicing my concern at such a repugnant type of argumentation.

You are correct, "there is nothing childish about pointing out clear bias". Here's a mirror. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 08:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you think that the observation of physical phenomena is objective you should read up on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Conclusions about observations are also interpreted based upon theories and definitions of what is being observed. You cannot remove the observer and their psychological/philosophical biases from their evaluation of observations. If you think otherwise, that is scientism. It is also reminds me of the psychology of those who treat the bible as fact. Different subject matter - same mentality. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a scholarship to Fermilab for the summer between high school and university. Have fun trying to use Heisenberg to justify mysticism; i've heard much sillier, i don't have a problem easily dismissing such twaddle. Again, your cries of "scientism" are misplaced; all you need to do in order to strengthen your argument is to provide information which can be verified from reliable sources, and edit it into the article. To be honest, i think it would be wonderful if there were any actual "detoxification" (or similar) benefit to colon cleansing, as that would provide me with a delightful side-benefit of a practise which i otherwise find to be nothing more than personal hygiene. In the interest of writing for the enemy, i've actually spent quite some time this weekend searching the internet for some information which might support your contentions. I'm curious about whether there might be something useful i could (accidentally?) learn along the way. But alas, i've had zero success at this endeavor. If you find anything from a reliable source to bolster claims, please, by all means, bring it here. Until then, you are subject to the same restrictions as all of us editors: verifiable reliable sources are necessary, without exception.~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 09:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your above remarks are telling Teledildonix314~. I didn't introduce the subject of gay bashing, you did. The fact that you keep veering off subject matter and inventing alleged comments means that your ego is obscuring your reason. Whether someone believes in colonic cleansing or not I stand by my position that the article is overtly biased. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who used "bashers" and "gays" in the same sentence.[33] Sorry if i misinterpreted that as a pathway to Godwin's Law. It's easy to misinterpret remarks when they are based on arguments appealing to emotion rather than to intelligent rationalization.~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 09:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Teledildonix314: You are correct, "there is nothing childish about pointing out clear bias". Here's a mirror. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 08:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You are right, I cannot avoid bias. All perceptions and interpretations share this reality. My point is that information is inherently biased and idea that the scientific method is not biased is scientism. This article's biases are all one way. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You say "idea that the scientific method is not biased is scientism". Perhaps you fail to understand the beauty of the scientific method, which is that it gives us a way to continuously improve our understanding and refine our knowledge, mostly by discarding the ideas which have no credible basis. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the scientific method and the philosophy of science. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Teledonix: "You are the one who used "bashers" and "gays" in the same sentence". Actually I used the term bible-bashers - not the same thing at all. You are attempting more straw man arguments. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, until you have something to contribute to the improvement of this article about Colon cleansing, i think we've done quite enough of exposition of our opinions.~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 09:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First, to be open about my opinions on this I do have a strong POV about this. So with this being said, I think that the debate above is in need of WP:RS that can be WP:V by the IP stating this article is bias. Like others before have said, if you have sources to show that can be added to the article under the projects policies then please cite them for discussion here. If not. then there really isn't anything to discuss. My knowledge about colon cleansing is quite well having Crohn's disease. Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to put their bodies through a colon cleansing for other reasons other than for procedural testings. (My POV, as I state at the beginning.) But that being said, if you have reliable sources that show that people should do this procedure for whatever reasons that help the article, I'm all ears. If not, then this long thread is really moot isn't it? I would like to say also that the article isn't bias in my opinion. We are supposed to give reliable sources and state what the sources say. This is done here though the article needs more work as most articles do. This article has been improved a lot in the past 6 months or so. So in closing, got referrences to show your POV should be in the article, please by all means, post them so we can all see them. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough said

I feel that teledidonix and me are not adding anything further to this debate and it seems to be turning into a flame war. Both of us have put forward our POV, so perhaps it is time to let others decide whether the article is biased or not. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not biased, but you are, 121.73. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difficulty here: if there was any merit to the claim/theory that "sludge" accumulates over time in the colon, that the human body is incapable of evacuating it, and thus necessitating some manual external "cleansing" procedure to do so, then wouldn't a simple examination of the colons of a large enough sample of corpses either confirm or deny the theory?

I ask this question rhetorically, because I'm guessing that such examinations have already occurred more than once.--Macraig (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's done thousands of times every day in hospital emergency rooms and operating suites, mortuaries, during autopsies, and medical school dissection laboratories. Such proposed accumulations of gunk are the rare exception. Anderson's mucoid plaque idea is pseudoscientific nonsense, without basis in known facts. It's a nice marketing device for making money: create a product that creates a rubbery cast of the intestine, and then claim the product is actually causing the body to eliminate this same rubbery cast, which he calls "mucoid plaque". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is actually covered, in the article - colon cleansing#history; check out the references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits

As requested, here are my proposed edits to reduce bias - firstly to the introduction. Constructive feedback anyone?

Intro...

Colon cleansing (colon therapy) encompasses a number of alternative medical therapies intended to remove fecal waste and unidentified toxins from the colon and intestinal tract. Colon cleansing may take the form of colon hydrotherapy (also called colonics or colonic irrigation) or oral cleansing regimens. Colon hydrotherapy uses enemas to inject water, sometimes mixed with herbs, or other liquids, into the colon using special equipment. Oral cleaning uses dietary fiber, herbs, dietary supplements or laxatives.[1] Alternative medical practitioners believe colon cleansing removes accumulations of feces from the walls of the large intestine which are believed to putrefy, harbour parasites or pathogenic gut flora to cause nonspecific symptoms and general ill-health (referred to as "autointoxication"), a hypothesis based on medical beliefs first recorded at the time of the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks. The procedure has fallen out of favour with contemporary mainstream medicine. There has been little scientific research to either support or refute the benefits of colon cleansing when used as an alternative therapy [[34]]

I propose that the following should have its own section in the main body of the article:

There is a lack of scientific studies to either definitively support or refute the benefits of colon cleansing.[[35]] [[36]], and it is outright opposed by some authorities[3] From the mainstream perspective the bowel itself is not dirty and barring drugs or disease, cleans itself naturally without need for assistance.[4] Some types of colon cleansing present potential hazards; the equipment used during colon cleansing has caused damage to the rectum in a small number of individuals, and caused amoebiasis when improperly sterilized. Certain enema preparations have been associated with heart attacks and electrolyte imbalances. Frequent colon cleansing may interfere with the proper functioning of the colon and can lead to dependence on laxatives or enemas to defecate. Some herbs used may also interact with or reduce the effectiveness of prescription drugs[5] This current attitude of conventional medicine towards the therapy may date from cases of serious illness that were reported in the late 1970s from a single clinic using contaminated equipment. Scientific studies have not been conducted since and drugs and surgery have replaced colonics as the favoured method for treating bowel-related conditions. [[37]]. The value of colonic irrigation attributed by historical sources has either been forgotten or ignored. So while modern advocates make claims for the safety and efficacy of these treatments, the modern medical literature continues to take a very negative view of colonics ^[2]

121.73.7.84 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your first Intro Paragraph is good, except for the very last sentence: you write "little scientific research to either support or refute the benefits of colon cleansing when used as an alternative therapy". This is incorrect, as the current citations clearly show: "that was discredited in the early 20th century". If you remove the "discredited" portion, then you are causing it to be biased. It should perhaps read instead:

There has been little scientific research to either support or refute the benefits of colon cleansing ~~when used as an alternative therapy~~, and it has been largely discredited since the early 20th century.

If you include the term "alternative therapy", it sounds like there is an attempt to give it some veneer of legitimacy because "therapy" is a word associated with actual medical practises. This is hokum, and must be excised, because there are no supporting sources in any citations.

The subsequent paragraph which you propose is highly problematic for a number of reasons, but not insurmountable. If you will consider my points, you might find a way to make useful changes. First of all, you use the phrase "This current attitude of conventional medicine towards the therapy", but this is improper. Please read Wikipedia:WEASEL and examine the admonitions against improper anthropomorphisms. Also, please do not set up a false dichotomy of "conventional medicine" versus "alternative therapy" because this is an attempt to give them equal weight, when in fact the former has dozens of Reliable Sources while the latter has nothing but hogwash from the Meridian Institute.

This leads to my second point, which is your inclusion of material from the Meridian Institute. They are prima facie an inappropriate source to be using for any kind of attempt to support or argue in favor of a medical practise or procedure, because they declare from their very front page to be about "mind-body healing and spiritual transformation". This is balderdash, meaningless drivel, and is not a substitute for evidence-based study. In fact, i can imagine they take the their name "Meridian" from the bogus traditional views of meridian points of the human body, which is more tomfoolery as there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. Don't even bother trying to use that Meridian Institute resource as a counterargument against anything scientific; the only possible usage that resource could have in this article is in the context of mentioning traditional archaic beliefs, which we have already clearly established as unsupported by any evidence-based research. Come back to the table with some citations from a reliable source, and then we might have something better to support your contentions.

The sentence in which you wrote "This current attitude of conventional medicine towards the therapy may date from cases of serious illness that were reported in the late 1970s from a single clinic using contaminated equipment" is not only a violation of WP:WEASEL, it is also a violation of WP:NEUTRAL and WP:No original research because it says "may date from cases... reported... from a single clinic using..." and that is clearly an unacceptable WP:SYNTH. You need to show us a citation from a reliable source which makes this connection, you can not propose it yourself, you must have external research which already makes the claim for you to summarize. So you will need to completely rewrite that sentence, or delete it entirely.

The same goes for your next violation of WP:SYNTH here: " The value of colonic irrigation attributed by historical sources has either been forgotten or ignored." You must provide a reliable source from which you can derive this summary, otherwise it is your original synthesis, and is expressly forbidden in our Wikipedia editing policies. Please understand, i would be very happy to include a sentence like this if you can please give us a citation from a reputable publication. If you find an author who makes that claim, you can put it here. Otherwise, it is your claim, and is not allowed (WP:NOR).

Thank you for making a great effort to continue to improve the article. I'm sure that if you are unhappy with what you believe to be "bias" in the current version, all you need to do is come up with some sources which provide us with additional broader viewpoints, and they can be incorporated properly. I've already spent at least three hours this weekend doing various keyword searches on Google and Yahoo, trying variations on spelling and grammar, scanning through hundreds of pages of search-engine results, and i have not found anything substantial (yet!) but maybe you will have better luck. ~_{Teledildonix314}~[[User Talk:|^Talk]]~_4-1-1~ 21:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi teledonix, yes I share your frustration with the dearth of information on this subject to be found online. As I state earlier on in the discussion I do not feel equipped to re-write the article as I am not an advocate of the topic nor experienced with editing on Wikipedia.

I do have issues about a opposition worldview being applied to the subject matter being evaluated and then claiming that evaluation to be neutral. Since this is an alternative medicine page then equal weight should be given to this subject matter. Wikipedia's NPOV recommends presenting the perspectives of both advocates and detractors. I feel the Meridian Institute represents an advocate's side of the debate.

Also, if QuackWatch is a reliable source with its clear agenda, then so is the Meridian Institute. It is a concern that wikipedia's policies as I understand you are explaining them advocate a positivist POV as real and other worldviews as conjecture. If so Wikipedia needs to abandon its claims to NPOV or otherwise risk becoming another FOX News.

The POV you are advocating seems to read something like this: Yes, this is a page "about" an alternative medical procedure, but since we know that is is bunkum to begin with, anything that advocates the position of the subject at hand is by definition not credible from the outset nor should any source that represents them be included. Since the subject is bunkum from the outset, despite this page saying it is "about" colonics, the only POV that is valid is one that refutes the subject.

Wikipedia is not being neutral if, using an analogy, it uses a radio to take photographs and then claims the lack of photographs is because of the subject not the method.

121.73.7.84 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You say you are "not an advocate", but your writing says otherwise. That you have a POV on the subject, even an advocate's POV, is itself not a problem. We all have POV. It's when it causes you to perform original research synthesis violations, and without reliable sources, that the problem becomes evident. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the article, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a fringe subject that is covered by our fringe theories guideline:

In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

That's why articles like this are treated differently than articles about proven ideas. In articles like this, mainstream sources (like Quackwatch) are given preeminence over fringe sources, and mainstream POV is also given preeminence over fringe POV. NPOV requires that all significant POV are presented, but fringe POV, being unsupported by scientific evidence, take a backseat to mainstream POV. Proven and unproven ideas are not given equal weight. Promoters of fringe POV should be glad that their ideas are even allowed to be presented here. It happens because Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but it must be done using verifiable and RS. If it isn't documented in such sources, and is only presented in fringe sources, then it gets very little, if any, coverage here. That's the way it works here. If you want to change that, then take your concerns and questions to the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Good luck in your future here. There's alot to learn, and learning to edit here according to our policies and guidelines is an education that will benefit you in many ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, I will freely admit that I am out of my depth when it comes to editing practices on Wikipedia and that has become more apparent as this discussion has progressed. My advocating against the biased tone of the article does not mean that I am an advocate of colonics, as I am on the fence about this therapy. My issue is with people who operate from first principles hostile to the topic claiming their POV and methods are neutral. There are too many ideological assumptions operating here that seem to be completely invisible to those who hold them. The methods being used to frame the discussion of alternative therapies contain systemic bias against this area which I feel suffocates the debate.

I feel this is a healthy epistemological discussion to have, but as you have pointed out, this page is probably not the best place to debate this issue. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whom you have encountered before me, but make no doubt about it, I am well aware that I, as an individual, am not neutral or unbiased. I'm well aware that I have a POV! It's when it comes to editing article content that we all need to learn to "tame" our personal POV and try to reach the NPOV ideal, which is a pretty high one. I'm still learning how. The only way that we can really produce good quality NPOV articles is when editors who hold opposing POV can collaborate and work together. We all come with our different ways of seeing things and awareness of different sources, and we thus can contribute in ways that our counterparts cannot. We then come to the talk page with our proposals and often end up with compromises that still get the "whole story" told. If both sides aren't totally comfortable with the contents, then NPOV may well have been achieved ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered Teledildonix314 before you 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I understand the "claiming their POV and methods are neutral" when they are clearly not. However "neutrality" in the Wikipedia sense is presenting the subject by the consensus of mainstream experts. An editor hostile to colonics, is indeed writing according to WP:NPOV if they are presenting that mainstream consensus.

Now a reply to this consensus can be given in short by the minority, or extensively if the reply is of equal weight. For example, a proponent of colonics can be given equal weight if their evidence/reasoning comes from a scientific source; ideally a source without a conflict of interest. However, saying things such as "lack of scientific studies to either definitively support or refute" isn't the way to go, first off its hard to "definitively" say much when it comes to health; but... if colonics was of verifiable value there would be scientific evidence to show that.

The lack of verified evidence puts it squarely in the disadvantage, and that accounts for the poor perception of colonics by science; which we have to present in the article accurately, in doing so we seek to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. - Roy Boy 04:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)about

That seems to be central to my point. Mainstream medical opinion is being used to judge alternative medical practices which creates systemic bias and forgone conclusions masquerading as neutral. I refer to my earlier comparison of the Republican party making a "objective" assessment of the Democratic party's policies and claiming that such an assessment would be fair. The same principle applies in this case.

Call it a wikipedia policy, but don't call it NPOV. That is suffocating the very area that is purportedly being "evaluated". I think is intellectual dishonesty to advance ideological assumptions under the guise of neutrality, especially when the very subject matter being dabated is not operating under those assumptions. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require equal inches of print, it requires a fair representation of the coverage in reliable sources, with attention to the proportion of sources and the proportion of interest. There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims out there about Colonbombs, and some solid science debunking it. It may be that you find more websites promising it's great, but so what? people like trying to get rich quick, and scientists can't run out daily and RE-refute the same claims they made before. We've got RS on the 'it doesn't work, we've got self-interested claims that it does. We trust scientists because we know that their statements are more checkable and more reliable for that reproducibility. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(Replying to IP121.73.7.84): i'm all for "freedom of speech", so i'm not going to tell you to be quiet. You very politely proposed your editing suggestions here on the TalkPage, rather than inserting them into the mainspace against consensus, and i am sincerely grateful for your behavior in that respect. I wish more editors would be that way (WP:BOLD as a rule of thumb, but cautiously polite when necessary). However, i am looking at each of the paragraphs you've added to this talkpage during the past few days, and i see them as repetitive, despite a number of diverse voices of other editors trying to explain where the boundaries are (e.g., WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE etc). So as much as i welcome constructive conversation, i need to ask you to please give us citations to prove what you say, or else please don't just repeat it. Failure to understand this request will be deemed dangerously close to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which i highly recommend you read before further chivvying about elimination of "scientism", "positivism", or any of the other isms which are bothersome in your attempts to defy standards of objective analysis or encyclopedic presentation. Free speech, but not the same speech every time, please. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am becoming repetitive it is because I keep coming up against the same ideological assumptions being repeated as neutral fact. I accept that much of the article meets with wikipedia's editing rules. I am seeking to point out the systemic biases in those rules which, unless wikipedia decides to become a cult with a closed system of belief, is probably the purpose of this talk page.

I am aware of why the information presented is there in terms of the wikipedia rules. But when I elaborate on how those rules are distorting the information or the way it is evaluated and block fair treatment of the subject matter, this message doesn't seem to be getting through. Since I believe wikipedia seeks to purvey information rather than propaganda I am trying to provide a POV different from the one that predominates here, biases which seem to be genuinely invisible to people such as yourself. Since you are overseeing the editing of this and similar pages that is a problem.

In my proposed edit I didn't eliminate any of the previous references and left the anti-argument in, I just sought to present it in a tone that was less biased in a single direction. People keep saying add new references (i've added two new sources) or say no more, yet i'd like to deal with the tone of what is there now. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:TALK, which governs what is allowed on talk pages. Advocacy is not allowed and if it gets out of hand, can be deleted by other editors as a policy violation. Keep the discussions focused on improving the article and you'll all be fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To the User talk:121.73.7.84 I have to agree with the suggestions made by the above editors to you. You need WP:RS and the one you gave doesn't pass policies. Please suggest some sources for all of us to discuss. Repeating what you are is becoming WP:TE to some, I'm sorry to say. According to policy we use reliable source to write an article, and because this is an alternate medicine article, there are policies and guidelines that help give the article information. The balance you say is needed needs to shown in sources and not by WP:SYN, WP:OR or any other method as stated above. Thanks again for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that colonics isn't widely embraced by the medical mainstream and the article should indicate that. However, here are some links to advocating physicians and analysis of scientific studies about the benefits of colonics:

Anti-colonics studies unscientific and anecdotal: http://www.jonbarron.org/detox/bl110805/intestinal-cleansing-issues-current-events

The Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657670/

COLONIC IRRIGATIONS: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/reports/colonic1.html

Enemas for treating poor mucosal coating: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10210339

Once again I believe the mainpage comes across as an attack page and excludes the perspective of the entire colonics field which is treated in a contemptuous manner. A also believe that Wikipedia's circular reasoning means that because these sources support colonic therapy, they will automatically be dismissed as "unreliable sources". Wikilawyering will inevitably follow to justify this exclusion.

HansNZL (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that fair presentation of alternative medical practices, which are by their very nature often subjective, theoretical or protosciences is not possible under the wikipedia guidelines. Maybe we need an AlternWiki??? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of other websites and wikis for that purpose. If you want to edit here, you'll need to abide by our rules. You don't like the rules here, so if you want to change them, go to the talk pages of the policies you feel are defective and make your proposals there. If you are careful, eloquent, and don't push your own POV, you might make a dent. If not, you may end up getting blocked as disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Brangifer. Although this article reflects the distortions created by wikipedia policies, there are places better suited to discuss those distortions. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article quality

I think this article is a bit better than the typical Start article. - Roy Boy 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Increasing Commercialization

As of 2010, I have noticed some U.S. television ads increasing for products to be used in this practice. I have not rigorously analyzed the increase. I assume these vendors are also increasing magazine and internet advertising. This is why I reviewed the article. I suggest some work in the article on this commercialization of the dubious stuff. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I started this article in response to more radio commercials on products. This trend is noted in the article with "practice of colon cleansing has undergone a resurgence in the alternative medical community". But it can certainly be expanded with the right reliable source noting your point above. I'll have a quick look. - Roy Boy 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done with Marketplace ref. - Roy Boy 02:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actual medical uses

The actual medical uses of cleaning out the colon prior to medical procedures such as colonoscopy, usually accomplished by drinking a regulated solution, might well be a part of the article. As a start, I have included the Wikipedia article Colonoscopy to the "see also" list. And the preliminary header. Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've incorporated the Wikilink into the see also, and a section leading to whole bowel irrigation which is the medical procedure. Colon cleansing is a related but consumer level colon intervention done for its own sake. - Roy Boy 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest round of POV-pushing

The latest round of POV-pushing has been reverted. There is no medical evidence that supports the use of colon cleansing. Colon cleansing isn't the same thing as an enema for constipation, or a laxative. Colon cleansing is designed to "detoxify", a nonmedical term which has no mainstream meaning and is used only in alternative medicine circles, and is a fringe theory on wikipedia. That the FDA has permitted the use of colon cleansing equipment does not mean colon cleansing is suddenly accepted and has demonstrated benefits. The continuous insertion of "in normal circumstances the colon does not need cleansing" is weasel wording to shoehorn in the idea that large numbers of people need colon cleansing. This isn't supported, there isn't adequate reliable sources to support this, and the changes should not be replaced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Autointoxication in the lead twice?

While we are on the topic, why would we want the lead to state pretty much the same material twice using some of the same sources? I can see an argument for putting the beliefs of proponents before the methods, but please discuss it here first. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where there is an obvious redundancy in the lead. - Roy Boy 15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism?

I'm glad to see an article written from a scientific viewpoint instead of a crazy homeopathic viewpoint, but I'm wondering if this, uh, "poopooing" goes a little too far.

The article seems to make these arguments, which I'm skeptical about:

The rationale for colon cleansing is based on an ancient theory of "auto-intoxication"
- This seems like a strawman argument to me. If this were true, I'd expect to see mention of these theories on proponent websites, but I don't. How many of the people recommending or using colon cleansing have even heard of Mechnikov? It sounds like Quackwatch is putting words in proponents' mouths so that it can more easily refute them, and the Wikipedia article is just mirroring the Quackwatch article.
Auto-intoxication is bunk, therefore colon cleansing is bunk
- Does this really follow? What if there are other good reasons to do it not based on ancient theories? Argument from fallacy
The colon cleans itself, and therefore cleansing is not necessary
- Is this really true? If the colon naturally keeps itself clean, then why do colonoscopies and other procedures require it to be cleaned first with similar techniques to colon cleansing? Also, there are, in fact, diseases like fecal impaction caused by things building up, and the treatment sounds a lot like colon cleansing. If it doesn't build up deposits of old crap, then what the hell are all these absolutely disgusting ropey black things that people take pictures of after doing colon cleansings? http://www.colonblow.com/pooppics.htm http://www.google.com/images?q=colon+cleansing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.72.125 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. Some good comments, some not so good. "poopooing" :"D, nice! I'll try to address them now:

Commonly "colon cleansing" is sold in the context of new / new age medicine and is a logical solution to scientifically identified problems. I wouldn't doubt many proponents are unaware of auto-intoxication, regardless this is the historic context of why true medical professionals from the past did advocate the practice. Several sales pitches do use the angle colon cleansing is an ancient (and/or foreign) medical technique/practice for curing what ails you, without naming it, they are implicitly referring to auto-intoxication.
There are good reasons to clean the colon, but not because of generic ailments, lack of energy, toxins, losing weight etc used by colon cleansing product commercials.
Yes, the colon cleans itself. The Lead already mentions the exceptions of "disease or mechanical blockage", how did you miss that?
Your example occurs in the situation of "chronic constipation", which isn't normal and the root cause needs to be treated by a doctor; colon cleansing in that context is simply a treatment, not a cure.
The ropey black things are partially digested food and some colon lining laced with good bacteria that help us fully digest, which people have prematurely evacuated from their digestive system. So not only have they removed food from their body, they have potentially caused significant disruption to their digestive tract by removing large populations of helpful bacteria that take time to repopulate the colon.

- Roy Boy 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As made clear in the sources, the idea of colon cleansing is often based on "toxins", which are imaginary, and draw from the idea that food rots in the bowel (which it doesn't) poisoning the blood, which is based on the Egyptian notion (which is wrong). The people who promote colon cleansing aren't exactly big on theory, science or history in general, so it's no surprise they'd fail to invoke ancient Egypt. But the crazy toxin gambit is a frequent sight.

An enema is used as a specific treatment for a specific problem. Sometimes constipation (which can exert mechanical pressure on the bowel, which can in turn interfere with mental and physical function - but this has nothing to do with "toxins" or "cleaning", it has to do with the bowel being distended), sometimes for a medical procedure, sometimes the bowel will rupture and spill into the abdomen. But these are acute medical problems, with specific diagnoses. Not a general treatment that's useful to the population at large.

The colon is clean and does clean itself. It naturally extracts nutrients from food and excretes indigestible products on a regular basis. The fact that it's not 100% clean all the time is of no surprise, as food must be processed by the body. In addition, this is sourced.

Those disgusting black ropey things are essentially advertisements - during many types of colon cleansing, people are given clay, fiber (soluble and insoluble) and god knows what else. These absorb water, bulk up, and are excreted. Particularly since people aren't supposed to eat clay, and often aren't used to eating that much fiber, it ends up looking and feeling weird. This is covered in mucoid plaque. They look dramatic, but they aren't actually "toxins" - they are indigestible ingredients deliberately given to patients. If I'm a cynic, I say so they get a dramatic-looking 'result'. If I'm being kind, I would say the practitioners are just ignorant of chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology and nutrition and don't realize the effects of their regimens on their patients. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Toxins are imaginary - This is consistently disputed by medical science and research on our modern environment and effect of chemical toxins including carcinogens (asbestos among many others), DDT and other pesticides which are found not only in foods, but in water, mammals and fish as well as mercury in fish, perchlorate build-up on the thyroid found in drinking water which was leaked into the ground via rocket fuel spillage. These are merely a handful of toxins found to be harmful to the human body. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control has been using biomonitoring for around 30 years and have found in the last report (2009) an average of 212 chemicals in the human body, 75 of these were never found before. These are the toxins that are being stored and not leaving, which is the gap in health that colon cleansing is attempting to help people cope with.

Re: The colon does clean itself - The colon is designed to eliminate waste. Unfortunately this is not the only area that colon cleansing is attempting to clear. It is the build up or lining of an excess mucosal buildup in the small intestine. Just as the blood flows constantly yet the arteries can still be subject to a plaque buildup of calcium; the intestinal tract is also subject to a buildup of excess mucous. Consider the amount of waste that is passing through but not as constant as blood flow and you can see how this is not such a far-fetched claim.

The body does clean itself, however it cannot keep up with modern day foods and consumption. This is best illustrated by the rise in obesity. To say that "the body can eliminate what it does not need" is not true. If that were the case then we could eat anything we wanted and our bodies would eliminate the excess calories and fat. However, we know that when we overeat, the body does not eliminate or cleanse it - the body stores it instead. The above combination of environmental toxins and the fact that when overburdened the body stores instead of eliminates excess is indeed "waste and toxic buildup." --Coloncleanse Expert (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has said toxins are imaginary. There is historic perspective on misguided ideas of what constitutes toxins, and how colon cleansing supposedly helped. Can you clarify what actual evidence there is that colon cleansing deals with mercury or the many cancerous chemicals now in our environment.

Just as with examples already given in the article, excess mucus can be an indication of serious problem (Crohn’s disease) to get help from your doctor with. While cleansing can alleviate the symptom, changes in diet and actual medical treatment will address the problem(s) and make your intestine happy again. Cleansing will not, and could further upset your already inflamed/sensitive digestive tract.

This is correct, the body cannot keep up with modern processed foods, especially if eaten in excess. People should therefor exercise self control and stop eating it... rather than throwing money into a quick fix that makes them worse off. It's hilarious as major chains now offer healthy options at competitive prices, there is pretty much no practical excuse to binge on bad food; but I will concede MSG can be hard to resist, especially with those awesome Doritos commercials! - Roy Boy 04:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There can be little doubt that toxins are real, but I'm skeptical about the alt-med concept of toxins: That they form the vague omnipresent threat causing diverse woes, which your body caches and will only release under a low-tech procedure performed by somebody whose main qualification is a 1-week training course on how to shove a hose up somebody's bum. It's unfortunate that the boundaries are blurred between so many different toxins - and, alas, other alt-med practitioners will tell you that the toxins are stored in your blood or in your fat, according to whatever treatment they specialise in. I don't know whether trepanning continues in the 21st century; but if it does, there will be practitioners out there with white coats and cordless drills who are quite convinced that the vaguely-understood toxins are best removed through a hole in the skull. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You can go beyond skeptical. I didn't mention it previously, but toxins (especially mercury) are stored in fat cells and the kidneys/liver (filters of the body). Colon cleansing doesn't address this, not even close. People who say it does should be publicly humiliated as this is important. - Roy Boy 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Toxins are imaginary: Here is the quote from above; "As made clear in the sources, the idea of colon cleansing is often based on "toxins", which are imaginary...". Toxins are not "misguided ideas" but real, tangible compounds proven more each day by science, medical research and the CDC, as already stated. One not need to decipher this toxin from that. It is well-known that toxins refer to foreign chemicals, bacteria, virus, parasites or other compounds that may be toxic to the human body; toxic meaning harmful or poisonous.

To understand how a cleansing program helps the body detoxify and remove toxins, you must first understand that your body is made to detoxify and cleanse itself. Just as your body knows how to convert beta-carotene into vitamin a without your research, your body can also neutralize/detoxify toxins without a manual. However - because we are inundated with chemical pollutants, pesticides, preservatives, additives, etc. on a daily basis, the body is over-burdened and needs help with the use of proper diet and supplements. The colon cleansing program is designed to help the body as the extra nutrition and practices are necessary to add strength where it is needed.

To say "exercise self control" is an insult to all who have tried self-control only to fail. It is unfair to say that that the entire population of overweight people are merely undisciplined, weak people. According to professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco, David A. Kessler, M.D., "These additives stimulate the brain to produce dopamine, which fuels the urge to eat, and opoids, which make it virtually impossible to stop." The additives in this statement refer to additives used in processing of many common foods. In other words, food does become an addiction and merely stopping the behavior is not as easy as one might believe. As for healthy alternatives - please provide evidence. If you are referring to foods such as those that contain aspartame for sweetening then, again, you are misguided for that is not a healthy alternative.

Quote from above: "excess mucus can be an indication of serious problem..." Yes, it can be but not always is. There is no "medical treatment" for excess mucus in the small intestine. In addition, there is no medical treatment for the buildup of toxins in the liver. This is because these are not considered medical conditions but "normal." However, note that normal does not mean healthy. Medicine is meant to treat disease. A buildup of toxins or waste (excess mucous or toxins in the liver) are not treated until a disease forms, which then may require medical treatment.

At this point, many people are refraining from "medical treatment" due to the high rate of side-effects from pharmaceuticals, surgeries and other treatments that may leave the patient worse off than when started. (See Journal of the American Medical Associates Volume 284) This is why we have choices about our personal health care. Medicine is simply not the answer for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloncleanse Expert (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, to say that "your body caches and will only release under a low-tech procedure performed by somebody whose main qualification is a 1-week training course on how to shove a hose up somebody's bum" is an excellent example of being misinformed. This is because it sounds as if you are calling a "colonic" a colon cleanse. It is not. A "colonic" is merely a therapy used during the process of a colon cleanse if one wishes to, just as a "phlebotomy technician" with 2 weeks of training draws blood for a medical procedure.

Colonics or colon irrigation itself is only part of a cleansing program. To say this is the cleanse itself is the basis for much skepticism against cleansing. However, a colonic is no more the cleanse itself than taking one diet pill is the entire weight loss program. As far as safetly, according to WebMD, 5,600 colonics are performed every month in Britain without serious side-effects.

When one understands that a colon cleanse program is the process of a particular diet, supplements and possibly body modalities to aid in the removal of waste/toxins, one is more able to apply common sense to see that it is possible to use this practice to allow the body to naturally remove these toxins/waste... unless, of course, you do not understand the role of the organs of detoxification and elimination. Then it is appropriate to not ask for "evidence" that the removal of toxins and waste take place via the bowel, but more appropriate to inform yourself as to the workings of the liver, small intestine and colon and how they work together in the removal of waste and toxins, for these are the natural organs of detoxification and elimination.

To say that these organs do not need help is ignorance in itself. If these organs were as efficient as meant to be - they would easily remove excess waste and buildup without our help. In other words, we would not need to diet or eat right. However, eating right is an example of removing burden from your body thereby allowing it to remove waste and buildup - or in other words cleanse and lose weight. Excess weight in itself is an example of waste buildup that your body needs help removing. Just as dieting is helping your body remove excess weight, cleansing is helping your body remove excess waste; stored as weight and toxins in fat which may be released during weight loss.

Royboy stated: "toxins (especially mercury) are stored in fat cells and the kidneys/liver (filters of the body). Colon cleansing doesn't address this, not even close." The liver must neutralize and dump toxins to the small intestine via the bile duct. These toxins along with other waste are mixed with bile and carried out via the large intestine or colon. This is the natural process of detoxification and elimination. When the small intestine is backed up or sluggish, it is a fact that the liver becomes sluggish, as well.

It is also a fact that the body works as one unit. It is only with the advent of medicine that we have broken up the body into parts believing each works individually. It does not. Your body works as one unit and when one area becomes over-burdened or weakened, the rest will eventually follow suit. As one organ becomes over-worked your body will attempt to eliminate via another organ, causing more burden on that one, eventually.

This is how colon cleansing helps the entire body. This is why it is called "holistic" or wholistic health. However, it is true that deep toxicities such as mercury may require more aggressive protocols, which is why there are medical groups such as ACAM or American College for the Advancement in Medicine, a group that advocates more aggressive therapies for the removal of mercury and other metal toxins.

It is also a misleading to state that "alt-med practitioners will tell you that the toxins are stored in your blood or in your fat, according to whatever treatment they specialise in..." This is stated by health practitioners only because research shows this, they are not creating the story but merely informing the public. It is not the practitioners who decided that toxins are stored in the body, it is science that proves it, which is why the CDC has been monitoring environmental chemicals in human blood for 3 decades. One study states that "infants are born carrying hundreds of chemicals in their bodies," which was found through testing of blood from the umbilical cord. Most holistic practitioners are attempting to help people cope with the onslaught of toxins such as this on the human body. To say that these do not affect the body is also ignorance since, according the Environmental Protection Agency and the CDC itself, only a small fraction of chemicals used today are tested to find their effects on the human body.

Lastly, it is a belief of millions of people that environmental toxins and pollutants are detrimental to our health. I am one of those people and I now understand the practices I do have healed me and kept me healthy. At the same time, I know that had I turned to drugs/pharmaceuticals instead, I could only ward off disease, not get healthier. I once had Hepatitis C and was very sick with it. I, too, was once ignorant enough to ask "what does my colon and cleansing have to do with my liver and being sick?" as I waited for my doctor to come up with an answer and I got sicker. Eventually I studied, researched, informed myself and did what I needed to do, which is why I am here today. --Coloncleanse Expert (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Toxins imaginary, I stand corrected on no one saying it; though WLU's context is pretty clear that generic/non-specific toxin cleaning is a myth, and remains so as far as I'm aware. This stands for your 2nd paragraph.

self-control/addiction: I am aware of additives (ie. MSG) are addictive, that's why I went out of my way to mention Doritos (full of MSG). The fact these foods are convenient AND addictive does nothing to undermine my original point, if you can't do it alone, get help! Don't insult people by pretending it isn't manageable; especially if you are from the U.S., this country put a man on the friggin moon, and yet cannot properly teach kids about food? This isn't a point you have any defensible position on. Stop smoking, stop over drinking, stop over eating. Saying it simply doesn't ignore the fact it's hard and/or involves deep issues such as socio-economic difficulties / corporate profiteering dynamics; as to artificial sweetners, no I wasn't referring to substances that fool your body into thinking you had calories when you actually didn't... then it craves those missing calories encouraging to eat more!

mucus: I'd consider understanding why excess mucus happens, preventative treatment. I guess one can argue that's not medical, but that's splitting hairs; I have friends with digestive issues, doctors helped them manage it.

medicine: I agree over medicating is a problem, particularly in the U.S.. Alternatives are great! If proven to be effective. Feeding kids less pop, instead of medicating for ADHD, GREAT! Colon cleansing for X, Y, Z... uh, doubtful, and I'm being civil by saying that.

more toxins/intestine issue: Yes, pollutants exit the liver into the intestine, and this is cleared out naturally. As to "small intestine is backed up or sluggish", well then cleansing can absolutely help! However, again, the article makes clear the intestine cleans/clears itself fine unless there is an issue. I'll chance it again and say, no one disputes this. But even then, this does not require an alternative specialist or one of the dozens of overpriced supplements, fiber and some medical/nutritional advice will usually do the trick.

holistic/alt medicine: I like both. This does not mean a blank cheque to blatant quackery hidden within. As mentioned just now cleansing can help with specific symptoms, but this article addresses the prevalent misconceptions and snake oil sales techniques to market it to anyone and everyone as a cure all / detoxifier. It's patently ridiculous, drinking strong real green tea I'd wager is more effective. Thanks for your detailed reply. - Roy Boy 06:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"is pretty clear that generic/non-specific toxin cleaning is a myth, and remains so as far as I'm aware." You cannot have it both ways; agreeing that toxins exist as already proven by the Centers for Disease Control along with other science, and then saying to clear it is a myth as already verified by science as shown on medpagetoday. Constant research and science point to the fact that "toxins" do exist and the body does store them as well as attempts to eliminate them. It was already clarified that toxins are not generic/non-specific for if one would list every toxin that the human body comes into contact with, the list would literally have to include the thousands of chemicals in use today that are found in our environment.

"I'd consider understanding why excess mucus happens, preventative treatment. I guess one can argue that's not medical, but that's splitting hairs;" It is not splitting hairs - it is reality. The buildup of mucus is a defensive mechanism in the body in response to excessive foreign "toxins." Your body excretes excess mucus to protect you from the invading toxin or chemical. It is a response mechanism and perfectly natural and happens to most people on a daily basis, allowing no time for the body to shed this excess as nearly every food consumed by many contains at least some form of additive, preservative, pesticide, etc. It is the goal of holistic health practitioners to help the body eliminate this excess before disease takes hold.

"this does not require an alternative specialist or one of the dozens of overpriced supplements, fiber and some medical/nutritional advice will usually do the trick." Supplements and fiber are not overpriced compared to the high expense of drugs/surgery/medical office visits. Please consider an average "colon cleansing" supplement with fiber of $40 vs an office visit to your doctor (from $40 co-pay up to $150 or more for office visit), and the prescription for medications, which will vary due to type of drug prescribed. In either case, the office visit will be your most expensive and that does not include testing, which will range more in the thousands of dollars.

Re: "self-control/addiction" The fact is being ignored that this is not only due to MSG in Doritos and other junk foods. These substances are found in everyday foods that people consider healthy such as high fructose corn syrup in breads and cereals as well as so-called "diet foods." People should have more choices other than expensive medical treatments. When you say "if you can't do it alone, get help!" then why should an expensive medical doctor or over-priced psychiatrist be the only answer? Many people do not want drugs or surgery as therapy, which is why they "get help," via alternative practitioners.

It is manageable, "Don't insult people by pretending it isn't..." What do you mean by this? It is manageable yet drugs will not manage it. It is manageable with the right diet and help to eliminate cravings by eliminate the chemicals that contribute to them. Yes, nutrition should be taught in schools but it is not. So-called diet foods are not healthy when loaded with fake fats and chemical sweeteners. People seek the help of weight loss clinics, personal trainers, and nutritionists to help them learn about and manage their eating and some choose to cleanse their bodies, which is not far removed from a weight loss regimen. Some people choose to eat right while using colon cleansing supplements instead of choosing to eat right and taking weight loss drugs.

"this country put a man on the friggin moon, and yet cannot properly teach kids about food? This isn't a point you have any defensible position on." This is the basis of the entire holistic health movement. Yes, we put people on the moon while feeding children ketchup and calling it a serving of vegetables. It is time to stop insulting these people by categorizing everything as lack of discipline, and realize that a different kind of help is needed since obesity and disease are still on the rise in spite of modern medicine. Colon cleansing is not snake oil and the people that sell it are not scam artists any more than the doctors who promote potentially deadly surgery to put a band around one's stomach to stop them from overeating. Colon cleansing is learning how to eat right, taking supplements to help your body eliminate waste, and some people choose other modalities such a colonics because that is their personal choice.

"this article addresses the prevalent misconceptions and snake oil sales techniques to market it to anyone and everyone as a cure all / detoxifier." No, this article does not address anything except lumping all colon cleansing programs together as "snake oil" without giving specifics. Yes, there are plenty of over-zealous salesmen. Yes, there are many marketers selling fibers or supplements and making money... but I am sure they are not making nearly the money that pharmaceutical salesmen make.

As far as a "cure-all," this is merely predicated on the basis that your body works as one unit, as stated above. When given the right tools, helping your body by consuming foods and herbs that provide nutrition while helping your body eliminate the built up waste at the same time, your body knows what to heal. You don't need a manual to learn how to convert beta carotene into vitamin A, your body just does it. And due to this your body is smart enough to use the compounds to create healthy skin and hair. This is the basis of colon cleansing and all holistic health; good stuff in, bad stuff out. Colon cleansing merely expedites the process while providing certain compounds (such as green tea or chlorella) that literally helps your body move things along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloncleanse Expert (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Holistic health has been and will always be a valid solution and those who work holistically deserve to make an income as any other profession. Holistic doctors and practitioners make a lot less money than any medical doctor or pharmaceutical company. To insinuate that holistic practitioners are in it only for the money is a mind-set that ignores the fact that many young doctors get into that business for the money as well, knowing they will make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (eventually). To say that all holistic practitioners are "snake oil" salesmen would be to say that all doctors are scam artists because of some plastic surgeons or doctors who over-prescribe medications causing death in their patients. To insinuate that people are too ignorant to take care of their own bodies or to make decisions for themselves and to require only "medical advice" takes away our choices for our own health.

We have and deserve choices in our own health care, which includes holistic health for many. Holistic health works while at the same time the medical industry is hurting patients and the economy through over-priced and unnecessary surgeries, companies being forced to pay expensive medical insurance, families not being able to afford medical insurance and over-priced prescriptions drugs (of which many may be unnecessary if one adopted a holistic healthy lifestyle).

My point of this discussion is that colon cleansing is valid and works for many. Most skeptics do not understand colon cleansing, have never done such a program and even confuse the program as being simply an enema or taking laxatives. My goal is to clarify reality once and for all so people understand the choices. No - colon cleansing is not for everyone, but then again neither is surgery.--Coloncleanse Expert (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully request that "Royboy's" discussion be kept separate from mine. Thank you. --Coloncleanse Expert (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the number of points involved I hope you don't mind if I embed my answers. Yes toxins are numerous and can be in large part responsible for cancer increases -- please understand -- what is at issue here is idea colon cleansing can address this in any meaningful way.

Well what I was getting at is excess mucus is usually caused by being gluten intolerant / celiac disease; not actually toxins themselves, but yes the body treats gluten as though it were a toxin. And to your credit the case has been made by researchers, increasing rates of gluten intolerance is caused by increased pollution/toxins in our environment causing digestive tracts to be more sensitive. (similar to air pollution spurring asthma)

To be clear, supplements are overpriced. Fiber of course is not, confusion caused by my punctuation, I should have used a semi-colon to delineate that fiber is good; most colon cleansing supplements sold online/on TV are not.

Ignored by whom, general public, yes; by me, no. I will not write a book here to cover a complex topic. While it wasn't my intent to say psychiatrists, they indeed can be far more essential than even the best alternative/mainstream weight loss practitioner. You skimmed over the fact, that especially for the morbidly obese deep psychological issues routinely need to be resolved before any treatment, conventional and/or alternative can be effective.

This is getting ridiculous, I didn't say/think "drugs are the answer", "diet foods are good"? I grow impatient by foolhardy attempts to put simplistic and obviously incorrect mainstream assertions in my mouth. "What do you mean by this?" and leave it at that, permit yourself the restraint to actually not know what I'm thinking. Is being holistic involve unnecessary attempts at mind reading?

What I meant was very direct and shouldn't be confusing in the least for you. I told people to exercise self-discipline, you said this was insulting to those that failed; ironically you promote the same thing while promoting your "holistic solution". Self-discipline is necessary either way, but you're making "additive" excuses for people, I'm guessing to sympathize with them before offering your solution. Wise/shrewd, but a complete waste of our time... and yes yes, I know your solution seeks to expedite the removal of those additives... but again, not needed if people start eating healthier.

That's almost a suggestion for the article; however it is an anecdote. Do you have any research of note to demonstrate the effectiveness of the regiments you believe in versus surgical options; which are invasive, on the rise, and unfortunate. But they do work, that's why they aren't scam artists. As to the quip of modern medicine, if followed it is MORE effective than alternative therapy; complete solutions exist in the mainstream, but as with alternatives you promote, they involve multifaceted solutions and discipline by the person involved.

"Yes, there are plenty of over-zealous salesmen. Yes, there are many marketers selling fibers or supplements and making money... but I am sure they are not making nearly the money that pharmaceutical salesmen make."

Agreed. So are you going to give specifics?

One unit, body heals, not exactly revelatory / inspirational; and already said in the beginning of the article saying that the body cleans itself if there isn't a significant problem. Good stuff in and bad out does make one healthy. Still not sold on colon cleansing being necessary to expedite anything. - Roy Boy 06:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"To insinuate that people are too ignorant to take care of their own bodies or to make decisions for themselves and to require only "medical advice" takes away our choices for our own health."

I didn't say that, are you intentionally being confrontational? And I didn't insinuate that in the least, I did say if people can't handle losing weight they need help. You're the one making "addictive" excuses for peoples very poor choices, and medical advice helps gives people certain options, just your "holistic" advice would; both narrow things down to some courses of action they see as effective. (neither is perfect, as perfect would be people choosing healthy food and living)

Yes, and? Again, I fail to see anything reasonable to put in the article. And to be clear, I think there can be some alternative sources that provide comprehensive solutions. And by comprehensive I mean colon cleansing is a practically a footnote to how to better ones life, and is therefore not exactly needed in this article as a result. Because the research I've seen indicates colon cleansing has little impact on health.

"My point of this discussion is that colon cleansing is valid and works for many." The point of this Talk page is to give reliable sources -- not anecdotes -- to improve the article, or to find things in the article that are incorrect that we need to address... rather than guessing on what I'm thinking and trying to disagree with it; or pouncing on the fact I won't write essay length answers to cover all items/toxins.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia further before taking up more of our time. You get a mulligan as you clearly have good faith to improve peoples health, however your next post needs to be brief and make specific suggestions to improve the article with reliable sources. I can be a fan of changing the tone of the article, but only if there are verified results! Repeatedly telling us your opinions on big pharma and surgical solutions are of no importance here -- regardless of their truthiness -- unless they can be contrasted on efficacy in a study comparing them against your alternatives.

It is hardly surprising that people who take more active control of their diet start feeling better, but this can be easily explained by living/eating healthier! Rather than prematurely evacuating their colon from time to time. - Roy Boy 06:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Quackwatch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Ernst was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Quackwatch-1] Cite error: The named reference Quackwatch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Ernst-2] Cite error: The named reference Ernst was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]