Talk:Colon cleansing

Colon hydrotherapy

Colon hydrotherapy version before redirect, for future reference. - RoyBoy 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)

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. - RoyBoy 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. - RoyBoy 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).

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)

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 ChronieGal - 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

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.

• written by an MD
• - quoting a dozen or so MDs, plus NDs
• reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School
• - endorsements by North Carolina MDs and nurse

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)

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)

New sources

[7] 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)