Talk:Coffee enema

Reliable sources

Is it just me or is INeedCoffee.com used too much in the article? Is it supposed to be a reliable source? Reinis^talk 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very doubtful that this procedure has any real benefit and the article does not mention the dubious nature to these claims. I would suggest adding info about the lack of peer reviewed scientific evidence that there is any benefit and the history of 'snake oil' like excess associated with this genre of "medicine". Mfeldkamp (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also added that the citation for the Merck Manual does not state how coffee enemas were mentioned in the manual. My edit was removed. The citation for this should not be a web site claiming same, but more accurately a link to an image of the page in said manual or something more authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.245.228 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just found this which cited the actual 1972 Merck Manual: "Up to and including its 1972 edition, the Merck Manual did recommend coffee as one type of ingredient for occasional use as a retention enema, the purpose of which was to "soothe or lubricate rectal mucosa, to apply absorbable or local medications, or to soften feces" (613). No mention was made of the use of coffee enemas to remove toxins from the body. " This was found here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/OTA/ota03.html The (613) in the quote is an end note reference the the actual 1972 edition of the Merck Manual. If there is a mention of the fact that coffee enemas were in the Merck Manual, then it should be noted how it was mentioned (it would be interesting to note why it was dropped from later editions). Otherwise it is confusing to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.72.179 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the article currently says:

"History --- While the idea of rectal cleansing dates back to the Ancient Egyptians, the notion of caffeine as an enema-related substance is relatively new. It was conceived in 1917, and first appeared in the Merck Manual in 1972.[3]"

Does anyone know which it is - "up to and including its 1972 edition" as stated in the comment above or "first appeared in the Merck Manual in 1972"? I would be very surprised if the coffee enema was first mentioned in 1972 as it's such an old fashioned, and thoroughly debunked, procedure.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Few are aware that from 1899-1977 coffee enemas were included in the Merck Manual, a compendium of orthodox research techniques. Coffee enemas were not removed from the Manual because of their ineffectiveness, but rather to make room for newer material. Cleansing enemas are used to promote bowel evacuation by softening the feces and stimulating peristalsis

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, researchers in the lab of Lee Wattenberg identified salts of palmitic acids (kahweol and cafestol palmitate) in coffee. These act as potent enhancers of glutathione S-transferase which is an important enzyme in the liver. Glutathione S-transferase is part of a major detoxification system that catalyzes the binding of many toxins from the blood stream to the sulfhydryl group of glutathione. Adding coffee beans to the diets of mice enhanced glutathione S-transferase 600% in the liver and 700% in the small bowel! Coffee contains forms of selenium and zinc that are very well absorbed through the rectum. This is a primary reason for the enzymatic activity of coffee upon liver detoxification pathways. Coffee enemas can assist lymphatic drainage which occurs in something called “the Peyer’s patches”. These are extremely important lymph glands located along certain areas of the small intestine. Although the coffee solution does not reach this far, the coffee enema may assist the Peyer’s patches due to reflex effects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) 

Accuracy!

Re, "Coffee enemas are the enema-related procedure of inserting coffee into the anus to cleanse the rectum and large intestines.". That is not what they are for at all!!! They are also dangerous when used in isolation. Now, are you going to refer to the medical and scientific papers that explain what they _are_ for, how to do them safely, and why they work? If not, why on earth not? This article seems as if only about 10% of the research has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.229.227 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make the corrections, 86.29.229.227. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Gonzalez study

I have removed the following: "In the pilot for a current ongoing study, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez has shown that coffee enemas have more than tripled the 5-1/2 month life expectancy of pancreatic cancer patients on standard treatment.[1][2]"

The cites do not show that coffee enemas did anything. First, yes, it is a pilot study (all of 11 patients). One study result does not show much, other than what happened in those particular cases. A pilot study shows even less. More to the point, the study is open label (i.e., not blind, much less double blind): the patients know what they are receiving. The study is not randomized. Instead the patients chose which they would receive, the standard chemotherapy or the investigational protocol. Finally, the protocol is not coffee enemas. It is coffee enemas plus pancreatic enzymes, magnesium citrate, Papaya Plus, vitamins, minerals, trace elements, animal glandular, a moderate vegetarian metabolizer diet, skin brushing daily, skin cleansing with castor oil, salt and soda baths, a complete liver flush and a clean sweep and purge on a rotating basis.

Additionally, one of the cites is used to quote what Gonzalez says coffee enemas do. The editor adding this ignores the content form the same source which includes the general consensus on coffee enemas: "Barrie R. Cassileth, chief of integrative medicine at Sloan-Kettering, told the New Yorker last year. 'But the coffee enemas are ludicrous. He ought to just get rid of them.'" As such, I'm removing both. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, Quackwatch has a lot more info on Gonzalez's "radical new" approach. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the crap out of removing that information. That's a Discover news story from 2002 before his protocol was tested in a RCT, and a clinical trial shouldn't be linked - we don't know the results, they may never be reported, and it gives inappropriate credibility to the "method". SummerPhD's rational is extremely propos and perfectly in line with the WP:P&G. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine

An editor has removed the claim of caffeine overdose risk. While I agree that the risk can be removed, I disagree as to why. The claimed risk is uncited, so removing it is fair game. However, the comment the editor adds as a ref is not: "Risk of caffeine overdose is low as the LD₅₀ of caffeine in humans is dependent on weight and individual sensitivity and estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass, roughly 80 to 100 cups of coffee for an average adult taken within a limited time frame that is dependent on half-life.<ref name="ld50">{{cite journal|title = Factors Affecting Caffeine Toxicity: A Review of the Literature|last=Peters| first=Josef M.|journal = The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of New Drugs|year= 1967|issue=7|pages=131–141 |url = http://jcp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/3/131}}"

The source cited to make claims about coffee enemas and caffeine overdose discusses caffeine toxicity in isolation, not discussing enemas or overdose. I'll leave out the overdose risk claim and remove the low risk claim as well.

Oops. That was my edit at 17:01, 16 March 2011. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• What should be mentioned is that cancer is a systemic disease and typical treatments such as chemotherapy are far more harmful than coffee enemas & cause significant long-term side effects. Not to mention the financial costs. Chemotherapy, radiation & surgery target symptoms and specific areas and destroy the healthy cells along with the cancer cells, which means a decreased immune system. The most important thing to avoid and cure cancer is a healthy immune system. Alternative treatments and diet that promote detoxifying the liver, gall bladder and blood, as well as increasing the function of the immune system, are far more beneficial and safe than expensive, toxic chemicals. The cancer is in the body and the body is a network; a system. Therefore if we treat the body as a whole we are more likely to heal all areas of the body. Just like acupressure on the feet heals pain in the head. Granted the reasons these more beneficial treatments are called "alternative" & not mainstream is that if we heal everyone from these diseases who makes money off of them?

That "Granted the reasons these more beneficial treatments are called "alternative" & not mainstream is that if we heal everyone from these diseases who makes money off of them?" is the same old claim for any so-called alternative "remedy" that has no solid research to back it up, isn't it? Anonymous poster, please show me your peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate your claim that "detoxifying the liver, gall bladder and blood" with coffee, of all things, cures anything, much less cancer. Meanwhile, I'll go with the above Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center quote that coffee enemas are "ludicrous". Also, show the research on how "accupressure on the feet heals pain in the head". Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Robin Quivers

Robin Quivers of the Howard Stern Show swears by it. I think this deserves mention. She attributes it to her extreme weight loss, reduction in hunger, better feeling, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.209.200 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First, you'd need a reliable source to document that. But, even if you did, it wouldn't belong in the article, anyway. The opinion of one celebrity w/o medical training has zero value for an encyclopedic coverage of that topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless she's a medical expert, you're essentially suggesting that the article on aspirin should include a huge section listing all of the "celebrities" (of whatever unrelated notability) who have ever said aspirin was helpful. What are her opinions on fusion power, the heat death of the universe, transgenic crops and life after death? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't take medical training to know what works for your body. As a cancer survivor I know my body far more than my doctors do, and the alternative treatments & diet changes that I've chosen to make have healed me better than Western Medicine. The only gain anyone gets from denying the benefits of coffee enemas and other healing treatments like them is financial. And it maintain credibility in doctors who know very little about true health. Eight years in medical school and still eating cheeseburgers does not evoke trust in the opinion of a doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.132.207 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, not anecdotal stories. Please provide sources. Yobol (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The first citation

The first citation is about colon cleansing, not specifically about coffee enema. Sure, the article is very critical (to put it mildly) and if you don't believe in colon cleansing you sure don't believe in coffee enemas. Still it doesn't really jibe well with me, how that scientific article is cited in this article. --90.129.145.113 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Granted, the abstract does not mention coffee enemas. The full article, however, does: "Coffee enemas are a hazardous derivative of colon therapy. As part of an unorthodox anticancer diet , a coffee enema is administered on a 4-hour basis 'to help relieve pain, nausea and other symptoms accompanying detoxification'. Its proponents claim that caffeine is absorbed in the colon and leads to a vasodilatation in the liver, which in turn enhances the process of elimination of toxins. None of this is proved, nor is there any evidence of the clinical efficacy of coffee enemas. Coffee enemas are associated with severe adverse reactions, and even its proponents speak of a "healing crisis" that occurs in many patients." (Sorry, I can't find a free copy online.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm doing this right, this is available with out subscription/credentials. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This citation doesnt say scientifically why its harmful and the mention of "healing crisis" is not a direct medical observation but rather a general statement cherrypicked from "proponents" implicated only by the author to be cuased by coffee enemas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously

Does this need to be its own article or can it just have a sentence or two in Coffee? A bold statement I know. 68.55.255.27 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

With substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, there is more than enough for an article here. This article is about an absurd, dangerous practice used by many as an alternative to health. Heck, should we merge Water boarding into Water? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Klismaphilia

Why is this not just seen as what it is, a ridiculous pretext for klismaphilia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.18.132 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Because we don't have reliable sources saying anything of the kind. Instead of wondering why no one else thinks it's sexual a better question might be: Why are you inclined to believe an unusual (but not rare) alternative-to-medicine practice is sexual? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Deadly?

The wiki entry on coffee enemas is half baked. It claims they can be deadly but never really points to any proof except a redacted listing to a website that is not the FDA. It mentions nothing why those who claim it works and their references, only a fear based artcle with litte facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as deaths go, "Deaths related to coffee enemas" in JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association seems to be a reliable source. To my knowledge, the Food and Drug Administration generally does not report individual deaths from fringe practices. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the following reference from the JAMA, the deaths reported to have been from coffee enemas were severely ill patients with stage 4 terminal cancer that conventional chemo and radiation failed. They began the described treatments and supplements severely frail, health deficient and already near death. They were using the Gerson Therapy for terminal cancer as a last ditch effort. Citing the 2 deaths is out of context in warning healthy average people of “deadly coffee enemas” when the deaths were from already dying cancer patients where possibly a water enema would have been just as deadly. There is even no mention of the mode of action on how coffee enemas supossedly “Kills” - just that 2 patients died from coffee enemas. Reliable science worthy of citation includes detail, demonstrable or provable outcomes especially when it comes to preventing human deaths. Perhaps thats why there are no other references of "Deadly Coffee Enemas" available.

"“JAMA. 1980;244(14):1608-1609. “Two deaths are reported among patients treated with 'naturopathic' remedies, which included natural foods, bile salts, calcium, phosphorus, lecithin and minerals, and coffee enemas given as often as every 2 h; findings post mortem and laboratory studies indicated that death was related to the coffee enemas.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Colonic irrigation, no matter the substance used, can be deadly.[3][4] Hey, I have an idea: Let's give them to seriously ill people and use coffee. What could go wrong? Well, as the sources confirm, lots of things, some of which (amebiasis, electrolyte imbalances inducing heart failure, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, intestinal perforation, septicemia, etc.) can lead to death.[5][6][7] Death kinda sucks.

Demonstrated risks / no known benefits = not safe and effective.

If you would like the add the claims of some practitioners, you will need to cite reliable sources (spoiler alert: WP:MEDRS sources are going to are unproven and/or bogus). If you would like to say the FDA was "redacted"(?) and that "no such coffee enema specific deaths substantiated" (contrary to the cited source), you will need to cite a reliable source that says that. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Get it right, I said the cited website (#18 in references) claim detail is redacted. Check it yourself. And no, I don’t need or want "to add the claims of some practitioners", I'm seeking science, proof and evidence on both sides. Judging by the sarcastic exaggerated and biased tone, even if I did locate scientific proof from a peer reviewed journal in favor of Coffee Enemas, it would only be censored and I, further ridiculed and met with bitter scorn for agitating your ideology of your specific determined reality.

Just in case there is still some misunderstanding, when one reads the wiki entry on coffee enemas, the proof as to their harm is not adequately outlined. The only “death” reference leaves out the rest of the fact that they were already dying of stage 4 cancer. The other known dangers of enemas in general (amebiasis, electrolyte imbalances inducing heart failure, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, intestinal perforation, septicemia, etc.) are NOT "coffee enema" specific and is misleading, perhaps intentionally. Again, this is not a specific scientific reference to support toxicity of coffee enemas. I'm not debating or even care about the supposed benifits for now. Show the confirmed science specifically, how coffee negatively interacts in the rectum, colon or nervous system that causes harm, that does NOT change the subject entirely to discuss the topic of unsanitary equipment, tainted solutions, scalding fluid, grossly exsessive use contributing to major fluid loss and somehow in god’s name, poking holes in the rectum with the transmitting device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, you were seeking to add some practitioners' claims: "Modern day advocates claim..."[8][9][10], unless your distinction is between practitioners and advocates. I assume those who practice something advocate it. Whatever.

Yes, we consider the AMA a valid reliable source for biomedical articles.[11]

No, the "detail in the reference" was not redacted.[12] No, the "listing to a website that is not the FDA" was not redacted.[13] No, the "cited website ... claim detail" was not redacted.[14] So what was redacted? Well "...the trial’s consent form 'did not list the risk of death from coffee enemas.' The OHRP listed several other violations at that time, but 'redacted' them..." "Several other violations" were redacted. OHRP (part of United States Department of Health and Human Services) noted that the consent form failed to list the "risk of death from coffee enemas". Why should a consent form list the "risk of death from coffee enemas"? Simple: there is a risk of death from coffee enemas. OHRP ruled the consent form needed to "{refer) to deaths following coffee enemas"[15] because there have been deaths following coffee enemas. Why did OHRP decide to pick on coffee enemas that are merely one part of the bizarre "Gonzalez Regimen"? Simple: There have been deaths related to coffee enemas.

Yes, perforation of the colon, various infections, electrolyte loss, etc. are possible with most such irrigations. Unless using coffee somehow prevents perforation of the colon, these are risks of coffee enemas as well. Yes, some idiot using hot coffee caused serious burns. (Apparently, he missed that day of med school. Of course, the overwhelming majority of coffee enemas are administered by people who missed every day of med school by not going to med school.) Such are the joys of pseudo-medicine practiced by "this guy" your friend read about somewhere. Deaths from hyponatremia and dehydration have been linked to coffee enemas. An outbreak of Campylobacter sepsis was caused by coffee enemas in a Mexican border clinic (conveniently close to wealthy Americans, conveniently out of U.S jurisdiction). An outbreak of amebiasis in Colorado came from coffee enemas. But there is no proof coffee enemas can be deadly? Wow, do tell.

You ARE correct that the majority view is not always the correct view.[16] However, in WP:MEDRS articles dealing with WP:FRINGE claims, we do not go out of our way to attempt to spin the scientific consensus to weaken reliably sourced statements that deaths were related to the fringe practice. How do we know they were related to coffee enemas? We don't "know". We can verifiably state, however, that "post mortem and laboratory studies indicated that death was related to the coffee enemas" because that is what the source says.

You haven't been arguing that we need to better reflect what the source says, you've been arguing that we need to give extra weight to details the sources do not give weight to or "leaves out"[17] and that the source does not prove what it says post mortem and lab studies showed because it does not demonstrate the specific mode of action.[18] Unfortunately for your view, we give weight to majority views. We say the Earth is not hollow, germs cause many diseases (including HIV), the Holocaust was the deliberate murder of millions of Jews (among others), humans have landed on the Moon, etc. When the majority view is that the British royal family is a race of human/alien hybrids, we will give weight to that. Until then, the fringe claim is on the margins. That's where fringe belongs.

The source is reliable. The source says what it says. If you don't think it is reliable, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to include things that the sources do not say, you will need to provide sources that say those things. Saying we will not accept material from sources you have not presented is pointless. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, settle down and stick to the topic of coffee enemas. It looks like there is some 1st time critical thinking in your reply activated by my comments. Glad to be of service. Though the following is a total fail: "To clarify, yes, you were seeking to add some practitioners' claims: "Modern day advocates claim" If I was seeking to add practitioner claims, wouldn’t I specify an actual practitioner? What I was actually saying - and maybe you should write it down this time, is a continuation to the present from the historical past reference as to the usage of coffee enemas in general . The ironic thing is the article mentions "a practitioners claim" Dr. Max Gerson but I guess only wiki is authorized to do that and no, I’m not implying that I want to be able to mention any practitioner claims or that doing so is good or that I don’t understand the sensible reason as to why they are not permitted. Oh and I love your self professed truth on the web search verification of coffee enema deaths that are from sanitation and dehydration - all of which can cause death if consumed by mouth or by saline enemas. Could you at least point to your sources, the actual web sites so we know you are not bending the truth for argument sake? I love your sense of authority on the matter gained after a 20 minute web search, lol! And yet still no science as to how coffee in the rectum causes death – because it doesn’t. Dehydration and infections are not death sentences. And the wiki article implies so when it comes to coffee enemas. But by far the icing on the cake is the cheap, cheap reference to other sensational topics like the Holocaust or HIV etc. in order to disregard the topic of coffee enema rather than to do so with extensive scientific evidence, that is more than just a website you read, a single journal reference, a single agency advisement, that is a wider body of published research (OF THE DANGERS ) especially when it comes to human deaths and not just a 20 min web search. Maybe that’s why more people are putting less and less trust when reading anything on wiki these days and your cheesy unprofessional replies are not helping. You are not getting my little $3 in the yellow strip donation advert!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk • contribs) 21:03, January 14, 2015‎

If you want to add claims from advocates, practitioners or anyone else, you will need to cite a reliable source. If you aren't trying to mention any practitioner claims, don't. If you are trying to add advocate's claims, cite a reliable source.

Reliable sources for my claims are in the article.

If you have anything you'd like to add, change or remove in this article, please explain what. If you wish to remove material that cites a reliable source, you will have an uphill battle. If you'd like to add material that does not have a reliable source, as you have previously done, it probably won't happen at all.

This is a biomedical article and WP:MEDRS sources say it can cause a variety of bad things, including death. That's what the reliable sources say. That's what Wikipedia should say. Fringe beliefs do not get an easy ride here because, as I stated, there are countless bizarre ideas floating around. Undoubtedly, a few of them are correct. The overwhelming majority of them are simply wrong. We are not here to decide which is which. Instead, we strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. In the present case, the topic is a fringe medical claim. The scientific consensus is coffee enemas are unproven, rash and potentially dangerous. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but cherry picking the worst data to support a view, highlighting the extremes and associating other negative effects from dirty equipment etc (guilt by association) is just not science enough to prove coffee enemas are deadly or in effective. The same could be done just the same as making the case with "deadly water". It may cause drowning, people have even died from drinking too much of it - written up in in a peer reviewed journal but since it doesn't reverse cancer, that's not as likely to happen on the pages of wiki anytime soon. Completely disallowing all the supporting medical journals and science is not very scientific as well. There are plenty of peer reviews showing the scientific methods of its action. This is also a problem too.. "That's what Wikipedia should say. Fringe beliefs do not get an easy ride here because, as I stated, there are countless bizarre ideas floating around." you cant Oppress the opposing science and brandish a definitive final verdict and call it scientific reality. The references here supporting the article need updating anyway. Some links are outdated and others when you really read them, generalize and do not discuss the bad specific effect on coffee in the rectum, only infection or dehydration which are not specific to coffee contact in the rectum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Big Pharma Reps. Any chance the People can ever take back this page and provide actually unbiased information on it? Properly performed coffee enemas have been used in scientific research before without adverse effects here and here. If poorly-done examples of coffee enemas can be considered "scientific evidence" that coffee enemas are dangerous, then overdosing on your lovely painkillers and dying can be considered scientific evidence that Ibuprofen and Paracetamol are toxic and very dangerous to human life. Please... please leave us one page of "folk medicine" to provide BOTH sides of the story on? Coffee enemas are not going to hit your profits too much, are they? 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdawn (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Effects and dangers.

"The use of coffee enemas has led to several deaths as a result of severe electrolyte imbalance, hyponatremia, dehydration, pleural and pericardial effusions.[8][16] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled that study participants must be warned of the risk of death from coffee enemas in studies that use them.[17][18]"

Dehydration isn't the only untoward effect of enemas. I realize that this is an unsubstantiated anecdote and it was a clear water enema without added coffee: I had a Registered Nurse friend who was hired by a high-priced spa to administer colon cleansing on her days off. She didn't buy into the procedure, but did it only for the money. One day, a spa client had a severe vaso-vagal reaction and went into cardiac arrest. Fortunately, she was able to resuscitate him and sent him off to the local hospital in an ambulance to ICU. Thoroughly shaken, she quit on the spot. The same thing can happen with any enema, but for it to happen during an medically unnecessary procedure is alarming. If I ever come across a source that discusses the risk of a vaso-vagal episode and enema, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, be assured that it can and has happened. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dangers mentioned, though somewhat vaguely:

Read the last two sections. I don't know if this site is considered a reliable source, but it seems to give real information: http://www.md-health.com/Enema.html Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge.

I think that this is such a simple topic, that it should be merged, as a brief paragraph, into Colon cleansing or Enema. Premise: Gerson says it does X, Y, and Z. Outcome: There's no scientific evidence to back that up and it's dangerous to boot. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the link to other ineffective cancer treatments since coffee enemas are only associated with cancer treatments because of Dr. Max Gerson rather than a rapid liver de-toxicant. To date, there is no evidence that Max Gerson prescribed coffee enemas as a means to directly effect the active cancer tumors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

@Milesaway0 and Roxy the dog: It seems you have a disagreement on some recent edits. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Milesaway0 has boldly made good faith edits, and Roxy has reverted them citing the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Milesaway0, the last part of the cycle is for you to discuss your suggestions here. I hope the two of you (and other knowledgeable editors) can civilly discuss here. GoingBatty (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help GoingBatty...My internet connection has been very unreliable so I guess some posts I made never actually posted. My sources are listed in the same journals as other references on the same page, they are also qualified as legitimate studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesaway0 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy's reasons given for revision include: "bull removed,oh dear me,fantastic and POV", none of these are qualified grounds for revision besides POV but pov has no grounds since only facts from references are added.

By disallowing qualified references the page is made biased.

Bradv banned me from editing for edit warring without a warning after I followed another veteran help desk members advice exactly.

I just read all the rules on edit warring and it shows "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions."

First off they didn't contribute they just deleted information, therefore I technically can't override their contribution because they did not make one.

Second , I didn't delete any information that wasn't previously there before, therefore I only added to the work.

Third I'll admit that I did revert to my preferred version and that but I always gave reason for my contributions , they never gave valid reason for reverting my contributions, just vague comments about not following general guidelines when I've read the guidelines and understand published and reviewed, reverters seem to use POV as an argument when I have done no study or have any affiliation with this, I only posted information backed by qualified references.

Fourth it shows a user reverted my comment because the others accounts have more contributions than my account, but I have other accounts and have done several years of work at universities regarding articles similar to these for pharmaceutical reasons.

Fifth I was not given a warning, I followed the rules and posted on talk page and I messaged the other user a few times but they did not reply directly.

what grounds are you using for removing additions with good scientific proof and references?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesaway0 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Milesaway0: The first time you tried to edit the article, Roxy reverted and asked you to discuss here. Instead, you attempted to edit the article seven more times, and were reverted seven more times. I understand that you're frustrated. Maybe you should take a break from this article for a bit - there are millions of other articles that need help. When you're ready to try again, I suggest you focus on sharing your information on this talk page (with the reliable sources), and maybe expand on why you think it would be an important addition to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand, I did try to discuss this subject with her a few times but not on talk page, I was confused, roxy apparently did not Reply to me, roxy also did not discuss on talk page and still has not...roxy did not give a valid reason for removing my additions either. Roxy also was not suspended! Roxy reverted first and has more revisions and much less addition, apparently roxy has friends that are breaking rules and suspending people, bradv and another account, I hope they stop or get banned permanently, to remove my valid references because you claim your point of view is better than admin taking the side of the person who is using point of view over facts is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesaway0 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy, coatracking.

This article appears to have been researched inadequately. It is trivial to find cites for medical use of coffee per ano well before the 1917 claimed; if you use the word “clyster” instead of “enema”, even google books will get you cites well over a hundred years before it.

This was a legitimate technique in modern medicine, which had gone by the wayside because of economics as much as anything else. In an era of cheap disposable needles, injection and intravenous makes sense even in mass casualty situations. I say “had gone by the wayside” because there have been a couple of papers pointing out that, for less developed areas, rectal rehydration may make sense; coffee may not be that far behind

Next, it ascribes solely to coffee enemas something which the cited source suggests strongly was due to other aspects of a dubious medical regime. It hideously exagerates minor risks which are common to the procedure, for whatever reason it might be done. The article is, in fact, really a (probably quite justified) attack on some bad medical theory and practice. Coffee ain’t gonna cure cancer, by most accounts, and the theoretical underpinnings of this regimen are at best long superseded, and at worst wrong from the begining, yup. But it wasn’t unproven, rash, and potentially dangerous to use it the fight shock or counteract poisoning 70 years ago. Qwirkle (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably was. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How does this relate to the Tags Of Shame you keep editwarring into the article? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This was a perfectly normal, mainstream medical procedure which died off, or down, because better methods of introducing stimulants to an unconscious or vomiting patients, and because of advances in ...or, rather, better availability of.... antagonists for opioids. This was something routinely used well into the post-war era.

The fact that some kooks have latched onto since does not change that.

This is also relatively safe, as much so as any enema which involves formerly heated liquids (and kooks administering them.) The real risk to the public isn’t the minor ones exaggerated here, but that someone with a serious medical condition might ignore real treatment to indulge in something which, however promising it may have once looked, has neither current theoretical underpinnings, nor a reputation for efficacy. It doesn’t seem to work for cancer, and there is no real reason it should. Wikipedia should not promte this, but neither should it lie about other parts of its history. Qwirkle (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of unsourced opinion there. Seems dubious, and we certainly don't want drive-by tags stuck at the top of the page. Please present any relevant sources with proposed text for consideration. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This provides a representative example. Notice that it is modern, but well before 1917. Qwirkle (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary source that mentions coffee as one among many enemas. That doesn't support your argument. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. An instructional text is not a “primary source” in this context. It supports, completely, that the idea that coffee was first...indroduced?...in this way in 1917 is absolute, complete crap, and that whoever made this claim is a very, very sloppy researcher or writer. Qwirkle (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

For use to make statements about the history of enemas, it is a primary source. The claim that coffee enemas started in 1917 appears to be unsourced, and should probably go. For a historical treatment of the topic of coffee enemas, if any decent sources exist, maybe a sentence or two might be added to Enema#History. This article is about the widely documented modern quackery as popularised by Max Gerson etc. Looking at histories of medicine, I am drawing a blank. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Were [the article] to claim it originated in ‘97 or whatever, that would be a misuse of it as a primary source. So, if we have an unsourced, and inaccurate claim, that makes the article’s accuracy suspect, right?

...and we have an article supposedly about one thing, but actually about another...which makes it a coatrack, yup. Qwirkle (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You make no sense. We have an unsourced statement. The article otherwise seems reasonably well-sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. You have obvious evidence of usage before Gerson, and unrelated to Gerson. Focusing the article entirely on Gerson’s failed ideas, and quackery built on them, is coatracking. Qwirkle (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We reflect the weight of sourcing as it exists in reliable sources, which so far as I can see is being done here, with many sources cited. OTOH you have produced no usable source. So I disagree; let's see what others say. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, was it mainstream? Sure, the article said it appeared in the Merck Manual until 1972, but the source for that was Ralph W. Moss, who is a cancer quackery shill. Guy (help!) 18:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the drunk-under-the-lampost approach is always popular here, yes, but merely looking at, say William Murrell’s book What To Do in Cases of Poisoning or any writing by of about John Benjamin Murphy and his use of drip proctoclysis will tell rather a different story. Boringly normal procedure right up til IV became common. Qwirkle (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, did you have a chance to look at those? Qwirkle (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to have gotten off-track. The claim that this practice started in 1917 was not supported by a citation, and has been disputed. I have therefore removed it per WP:V. It must not be reinserted unless it can be supported by a reference to a reliable source. --Srleffler (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be cited to document this as a "perfectly normal, mainstream" historical medical procedure, then that should be covered in this article. The topic of the article, per its title, is coffee enemas, not the "modern quackery as popularised by Max Gerson". If Alexbrn wants to narrow the scope of the article, he/she should propose a move to a narrower title. On the other hand, given the controversial nature of this topic, any information added regarding mainstream historical use of this procedure needs to be rigorously supported by reference to reliable sources.--Srleffler (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, a boringly normal cite, a nursing text developed from a mainstream hospital, was provided above. One can find as many as one wants, really, because, within a certain era, this was normal practice. (Just set to “books” 1890, say to 1940.) One can find cites for usage in WWI and WWII...with the latter often noted as “old fashioned” or words to that effect. Qwirkle (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this article is predominantly the "modern" (i.e. post 1920) quackery as popularised by Max Gerson because that is what the vast predominance of sources describe. In past times pretty much everything imaginable was squirted up the bum, including coffee, but historically it seems rare (not mentioned as a enema sustance in old British pharmacopoeias e.g.). If there is any usable source for expanding the History section, that would be good but as Srleffler says "any information added regarding mainstream historical use of this procedure needs to be rigorously supported by reference to reliable sources". I would also add the source needs to be WP:DUE, not obscure some primary source trawled up by search engine. Are there any such? Medical history books would be a good place to start; I have looked, but drawn a blank. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yes. I'm not opposed to a history section that discusses that, but the overwhelming mahjority of current real-world discussion is about the cancer quackery. Guy (help!) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

After a morning looking at sources, I agree. Most (all?) sources talk about the modern quackery phenomenon with at most a passing reference to history. By having a similar balance, our article strikes a good WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS - to do

It's not super-urgent as they are aligned with secondary sources, but we really should replace all the unreliable non-WP:MEDRS primary sources with sourcing that is MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (Add) I have now done this, using an up-to-date source from CRUK as a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)