Colon Cleanse Product

On 01 Apr 2004 01:29:46 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Orac said:

In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't even
TRIED to present any evidence to support your assertions?

I've presented this twice now.

And I responded to this. But Toby ignored it. I predict that
Toby is going to claim that she either put me in her kill
file or is ignoring my posts. Just watch.

Here it is again:

Comment: There was no control group to compare results. It
also does not talk about how they determined clinical
symptom improvement. There also obviously was no blinding of
the study.

To make this a decent study one would have one group that
had a real transcolonic irrigation and another (placebo)
group that had a sham transcolonic irrigation so that the
patients would not know which they were receiving. And then
you have the people who rate improvement blind to who was in
treatment group and who was in control group.

Having said that it appears common sense that if a person is
experiencing pain secondary to irritation by something
lodged in diverticula then dislodging it will lead to
improvement. But this is a very specialized situation and
certainly not a reason to routinely do colonics if you are
chronically constipated or for some other reason.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Here it is again:

J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 May;66(5):282-7. A potential
alternative treatment of uncomplicated painful diverticular
disease by trans-colonoscopic irrigation technique: a
preliminary report.

Chen WS, Lin JK. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Taipei
Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University,
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticular disease is a common
disorder in elder patients. Medical treatment was usually
recommended as the first line management for this disease.
However, the recurrence rate of such disorder is still
high. In patients with severe complications such as
abscess or fulminant inflammation, non-invasive diagnostic
examination, abdominal CT scan for example, is
recommended. Its most common symptom is repeated abdominal
pain with disturbance of bowel habit. Many patients are
found to be with diverticular disease only after
colonoscopic examination. The aim of this study is to
introduce a new irrigation-draining method and to evaluate
its efficacy in treatment of uncomplicated painful colonic
diverticular disease.

METHODS: To reduce the risk of recurrence of acute
diverticulitis and other severe complications, we introduce
a transcolonoscopic irrigation technique for patients of
uncomplicated diverticular disease by flushing out the
obstructed fecalith from the diverticular sac in order to
improve the drainage from the obstructed diverticular sac.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease with obstructed fecalith impacted were
treated by this technique. Clinical symptom improved in all
of them and no complications developed during the mean follow-
up period of 46 months.

CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest
that this technique accomplished in the colonoscopic
examination without additional therapeutic procedures. It
provides another potential alternative to the conventional
medical treatment for patients with uncomplicated
diverticular disease. tinyurl.com2s9pyOpen ↗ --Open ↗
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&-
dopt=A bstract&list_uids=12908570

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance

In article <[email hidden]>,

Toby Joe said:

Orac said:

In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't
even TRIED to present any evidence to support your
assertions?

I've presented this twice now. Here it is again:

J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 May;66(5):282-7. A potential
alternative treatment of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease by trans-colonoscopic irrigation
technique: a preliminary report.

Chen WS, Lin JK. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Taipei
Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University,
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticular disease is a common
disorder in elder patients. Medical treatment was usually
recommended as the first line management for this disease.
However, the recurrence rate of such disorder is still
high. In patients with severe complications such as
abscess or fulminant inflammation, non-invasive diagnostic
examination, abdominal CT scan for example, is
recommended. Its most common symptom is repeated abdominal
pain with disturbance of bowel habit. Many patients are
found to be with diverticular disease only after
colonoscopic examination. The aim of this study is to
introduce a new irrigation-draining method and to evaluate
its efficacy in treatment of uncomplicated painful colonic
diverticular disease.

METHODS: To reduce the risk of recurrence of acute
diverticulitis and other severe complications, we
introduce a transcolonoscopic irrigation technique for
patients of uncomplicated diverticular disease by flushing
out the obstructed fecalith from the diverticular sac in
order to improve the drainage from the obstructed
diverticular sac.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease with obstructed fecalith impacted
were treated by this technique. Clinical symptom improved
in all of them and no complications developed during the
mean follow-up period of 46 months.

CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest
that this technique accomplished in the colonoscopic
examination without additional therapeutic procedures. It
provides another potential alternative to the conventional
medical treatment for patients with uncomplicated
diverticular disease. tinyurl.com2s9pyOpen ↗ www-www-Open ↗
.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubme-
d&dopt=A bstract&list_uids=12908570

Apples and oranges. This study does not describe purging,
enemas, or flushing, as advocated by you and other alties.
They did COLONOSCOPIES on all of these patients, an INVASIVE
medical procedure, fer crissakes! During the colonoscopy,
they used the irrigation port of the colonoscope to dislodge
fecaliths under direct colonoscopic vision. The technique
described is NOT the same thing as purges, flushes, or
enemas! It is quite different and involves irrigating only
the diverticulum with the fecalith in it with a relatively
small amount of irrigation. (If you've ever done colonoscopy--
as I have during my training--or seen one done, or even read
a little bit about how colonoscopies are done, you'd know
that.) It is about as un-altie as it gets.

In any case, it's not even a very good study. For one thing,
there was no control group. There is no description of what
criteria were used to determine which patients underwent
this procedure. (The way it should have been done is to
randomize patients with known diverticular disease having
colonoscopy to undergo the fecalith removal/irrigation
versus doing only a diagnostic colonoscopy. Besides, using
the irrigation port of the colonoscope to dislodge feces in
the colon is not a new technique.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article said:

Toby Joe said:

Orac said:

In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't
even TRIED to present any evidence to support your
assertions?

I've presented this twice now.

And I responded to this. But Toby ignored it. I predict
that Toby is going to claim that she either put me in her
kill file or is ignoring my posts. Just watch.

Here it is again:

Comment: There was no control group to compare results. It
also does not talk about how they determined clinical
symptom improvement. There also obviously was no blinding
of the study.

That last one may not be possible in a study of this type.
What makes doing clinical research about procedures or
surgical operations somewhat more difficult than doing such
research on drugs is that it is much more difficult (and
sometimes impossible) to blind the researchers and the
patients to which group they are in.

Quoted message said:

To make this a decent study one would have one group that
had a real transcolonic irrigation and another (placebo)
group that had a sham transcolonic irrigation so that the
patients would not know which they were receiving.

Even that wouldn't be necessary. They did colonoscopy on
everyone, and the irrigation to remove the fecaliths was
done through the colonoscope. The control group would simply
have to undergo colonoscopy without the irrigation (the
patients would be blinded, but the doctors could not be,
unfortunately), and the experimental group would undergo the
irrigation at the time of colonoscopy. As long as the
patients were adequately sedated and not allowed to look at
the monitor during the colonoscopy, the patients would be
blinded to which group they were in.

Quoted message said:

And then you have the people who rate improvement blind to
who was in treatment group and who was in control group.

That is one way of getting around the fact that you can't
blind the doctors to which group each patient is in, as they
will know what they did during the colonoscopy.

Quoted message said:

Having said that it appears common sense that if a person
is experiencing pain secondary to irritation by something
lodged in diverticula then dislodging it will lead to
improvement. But this is a very specialized situation and
certainly not a reason to routinely do colonics if you are
chronically constipated or for some other reason.

Indeed. This study does not address the question of whether
purges, colonics, or enemas "promote colon health." It
addresses a very specialized and relatively uncommon
situation (usually you don't see the fecalith in patients
with diverticular disease when you do the colonoscopy).

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

L Kelly said:

There is research going on now for the effects of
colonics (which have been used in exclusive health spas
for many years).

meridianinstitute.com6 4.htmlOpen ↗

That newsletter is a couple of years old. Did they actually
learn anything? I find it wryly amusing that the only
medical literature article cited in the newsletter is one
that explains how totally useless colonics are.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich.@. said:

Toby Joe said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> In any case, how do you know, given that you haven't
> even TRIED to present any evidence to support your
> assertions?

I've presented this twice now.

And I responded to this. But Toby ignored it. I predict
that Toby is going to claim that she either put me in her
kill file or is ignoring my posts. Just watch.

Here it is again:

Comment: There was no control group to compare results.
It also does not talk about how they determined clinical
symptom improvement. There also obviously was no blinding
of the study.

That last one may not be possible in a study of this type.
What makes doing clinical research about procedures or
surgical operations somewhat more difficult than doing such
research on drugs is that it is much more difficult (and
sometimes impossible) to blind the researchers and the
patients to which group they are in.

This is true but there have been studies in which there has
been real surgery and sham surgery (just incision). In one
case involving knee surgery it was determined that surgery
did no better than sham even though it was thought that the
surgical procedure was efficacious.

It could easily be done on patients in which one get
colonscopy alone and the other colonoscopy with irrigation.
Or one could involve irrigation but not of the fecalith.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To make this a decent study one would have one group that
had a real transcolonic irrigation and another (placebo)
group that had a sham transcolonic irrigation so that the
patients would not know which they were receiving.

Even that wouldn't be necessary. They did colonoscopy on
everyone, and the irrigation to remove the fecaliths was
done through the colonoscope. The control group would
simply have to undergo colonoscopy without the irrigation
(the patients would be blinded, but the doctors could not
be, unfortunately), and the experimental group would
undergo the irrigation at the time of colonoscopy.

Exactly. But the raters could be blinded.

Aloha,

Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 May;66(5):282-7. A potential
alternative treatment of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease by trans-colonoscopic irrigation
technique: a preliminary report.

Chen WS, Lin JK. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Taipei
Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming
University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticular disease is a common
disorder in elder patients. Medical treatment was
usually recommended as the first line management for
this disease. However, the recurrence rate of such
disorder is still high. In patients with severe
complications such as abscess or fulminant inflammation,
non-invasive diagnostic examination, abdominal CT scan
for example, is recommended. Its most common symptom is
repeated abdominal pain with disturbance of bowel habit.
Many patients are found to be with diverticular disease
only after colonoscopic examination. The aim of this
study is to introduce a new irrigation-draining method
and to evaluate its efficacy in treatment of
uncomplicated painful colonic diverticular disease.

METHODS: To reduce the risk of recurrence of acute
diverticulitis and other severe complications, we
introduce a transcolonoscopic irrigation technique for
patients of uncomplicated diverticular disease by
flushing out the obstructed fecalith from the
diverticular sac in order to improve the drainage from
the obstructed diverticular sac.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease with obstructed fecalith impacted
were treated by this technique. Clinical symptom
improved in all of them and no complications developed
during the mean follow-up period of 46 months.

CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study
suggest that this technique accomplished in the
colonoscopic examination without additional therapeutic
procedures. It provides another potential alternative to
the conventional medical treatment for patients with
uncomplicated diverticular disease.
tinyurl.com2s9pyOpen ↗ ncbi.nlm.nih.govenOpen ↗
trez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do pt=A
bstract&list_uids=12908570

Apples and oranges. This study does not describe purging,
enemas, or flushing, as advocated by you and other alties.

You asked for evidence of the person's assertions. Any
assertions I have made have been irt colon irrigation, and
have been to effect that they may be a helpful adjunct,
particularly as a preventative measure.

As well, in that study they are in fact "flushing out" the
obstructing matter (their own terminology).

Quoted message said:

They did COLONOSCOPIES on all of these patients, an
INVASIVE medical procedure, fer crissakes! During the
colonoscopy, they used the irrigation port of the
colonoscope to dislodge fecaliths under direct
colonoscopic vision. The technique described is NOT the
same thing as purges, flushes, or enemas!

Colonic irrigation has the same result.

Quoted message said:

It is quite different and involves irrigating only the
diverticulum with the fecalith in it with a relatively
small amount of irrigation. (If you've ever done colonoscopy--
as I have during my training--or seen one done, or even
read a little bit about how colonoscopies are done, you'd
know that.) It is about as un-altie as it gets.

No, it is very similar to colonic irrigation, in that they
are both washing out the unwanted matter, fecalith or other.

Quoted message said:

In any case, it's not even a very good study. For one
thing, there was no control group. There is no description
of what criteria were used to determine which patients
underwent this procedure. (The way it should have been
done is to randomize patients with known diverticular
disease having colonoscopy to undergo the fecalith
removal/irrigation versus doing only a diagnostic
colonoscopy. Besides, using the irrigation port of the
colonoscope to dislodge feces in the colon is not a new
technique.

None of which counters the fact that the process of
washing out unwanted matter from the colon was found, by
a colorectal surgery team, to be helpful for
diverticular disease.

--
costofwar.comcostofwar.comOpen ↗ www.unicef.org/sowc02/g31.htm

On 01 Apr 2004 03:32:13 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Orac said:

Toby Joe said:

J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 May;66(5):282-7. A potential
alternative treatment of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease by trans-colonoscopic irrigation
technique: a preliminary report.

Chen WS, Lin JK. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Taipei
Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming
University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticular disease is a common
disorder in elder patients. Medical treatment was
usually recommended as the first line management for
this disease. However, the recurrence rate of such
disorder is still high. In patients with severe
complications such as abscess or fulminant
inflammation, non-invasive diagnostic examination,
abdominal CT scan for example, is recommended. Its most
common symptom is repeated abdominal pain with
disturbance of bowel habit. Many patients are found to
be with diverticular disease only after colonoscopic
examination. The aim of this study is to introduce a
new irrigation-draining method and to evaluate its
efficacy in treatment of uncomplicated painful colonic
diverticular disease.

METHODS: To reduce the risk of recurrence of acute
diverticulitis and other severe complications, we
introduce a transcolonoscopic irrigation technique for
patients of uncomplicated diverticular disease by
flushing out the obstructed fecalith from the
diverticular sac in order to improve the drainage from
the obstructed diverticular sac.

RESULTS: Thirty-two patients of uncomplicated painful
diverticular disease with obstructed fecalith impacted
were treated by this technique. Clinical symptom
improved in all of them and no complications developed
during the mean follow-up period of 46 months.

CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study
suggest that this technique accomplished in the
colonoscopic examination without additional therapeutic
procedures. It provides another potential alternative
to the conventional medical treatment for patients with
uncomplicated diverticular disease.
tinyurl.com2s9pyOpen ↗ ncbi.nlm.nih.goveOpen ↗
ntrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do pt=A
bstract&list_uids=12908570

Apples and oranges. This study does not describe purging,
enemas, or flushing, as advocated by you and other
alties.

You asked for evidence of the person's assertions. Any
assertions I have made have been irt colon irrigation, and
have been to effect that they may be a helpful adjunct,
particularly as a preventative measure.

As well, in that study they are in fact "flushing out" the
obstructing matter (their own terminology).

Yes. But "Flushing out" using transcolonic irrigation in
which there is direct visualization of the diverticuli and
localized irrigation is quite different from the flushing
out by colonics that are given by alties. This study
involved an invasive procedure of introducing a long
flexible instrument into the colon and under direct vision
removing some fecalith.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They did COLONOSCOPIES on all of these patients, an
INVASIVE medical procedure, fer crissakes! During the
colonoscopy, they used the irrigation port of the
colonoscope to dislodge fecaliths under direct
colonoscopic vision. The technique described is NOT the
same thing as purges, flushes, or enemas!

Colonic irrigation has the same result.

Colonic irrigation by alties has the same result as those
done by colonoscopy????? References please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is quite different and involves irrigating only the
diverticulum with the fecalith in it with a relatively
small amount of irrigation. (If you've ever done colonoscopy--
as I have during my training--or seen one done, or even
read a little bit about how colonoscopies are done, you'd
know that.) It is about as un-altie as it gets.

No, it is very similar to colonic irrigation, in that
they are both washing out the unwanted matter, fecalith
or other.

Do you have any frigging idea what you are talking about??
Please provide evidence that colon cleanses wash out
fecaliths. The problem with fecaliths is that they are
difficult to remove and require that one provide direct
irrigation of the diverticula until the fecalith is
dislodged. There is no evidence that colon cleanses can
achieve the same thing despite your assertion.

Your thinking is rather bizarre. Both refer to "flushing
out" and you assume that they both work the same way.
They don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, it's not even a very good study. For one
thing, there was no control group. There is no
description of what criteria were used to determine which
patients underwent this procedure. (The way it should
have been done is to randomize patients with known
diverticular disease having colonoscopy to undergo the
fecalith removal/irrigation versus doing only a
diagnostic colonoscopy. Besides, using the irrigation
port of the colonoscope to dislodge feces in the colon is
not a new technique.

None of which counters the fact that the process of
washing out unwanted matter from the colon was found, by
a colorectal surgery team, to be helpful for
diverticular disease.

Yes, but until you can demonstrate that colon cleanses done
by alties can remove fecaliths you are simply talking out
of your ass.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance

<That newsletter is a couple of years old. Did they actually
learn anything? >

Don't know, but I just emailed them to find out.

< Ifind it wryly amusing that the only medical literature
article cited in the newsletter is one that explains how
totally useless colonics are.>

Maybe there was only that one study in addition to:

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
db=PubMed&list_ui ds=12908570&dopt=Abstract.

Can't imagine any big drug company money available for
multiple comprehensive studies. After all, they cannot
patent water or a process that has been used for many years.

I would be interested in the results of the study; heard
from colon therapists that colonics aren't useful so much
as a cleanout but to train the muscles in the colon to work
in tandem to push waste out so dependence on laxatives
would be ended.

The Center for Advancement in Cancer Education, here in PA.,
recommends colonics as part of a detox program for cancer
patients as does Sherry Rogers, MD, who writes prolifically
on environmentally caused diseases, including cancer and
fibromyalgia. prestigepublishing.comabout.htmOpen ↗

Colonics have been successfully used as part of a treatment
program to heal psoriasis. (It is thought by some health
professionals that psoriasis is often caused by leaky gut.)
psoriasis-healing.compsoriasis-healing.comOpen ↗ I met one of Dr. Pagano's
patients.. He was healed in a few months from a case of
psoriasis that looked like flamethrower burns on his trunk
and upper limbs. (Saw before and after pictures). It was
done with diet changes (no nightshades, caffeine, acidic
foods, etc.) two inexpensive herbs and colonics. LK

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:19:10 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

It is common courtesy to "lurk" in a newsgroup for a while
in order to get the style of the posting before jumping
right in and making an [censored] our of yourself.

Good advice. Why don't you take it. I've been here for
years BTW.

Again I ask, do you ever post anything of substance to this
sci newsgroup?

Quoted message said:

This would be good advice for you and after a few weeks of
practice you will be able to thread like real person here.

You seem bent on avoiding my questions with empty childish
rhetoric. It is you who are having difficulties sticking to
the subject with your non-sequiturs.

Quoted message said:

Welcome to the group.

Who's group?

Quoted message said:

<PLONK>

More evidence that you never contribute anything
substantial to this sci group that you have recently
started hanging around?

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:35:13 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Sounds like the same troll no matter how many times I
read it.

Do you EVER say anything worthwhile here?

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:42:27 GMT, Orac <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Toby Joe

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence that flushes, enemas, or
colonics prevent colon cancer? Or are you just
assuming?

I am not assuming anything. I would still like to know
the present rates for colon and similar cancers, and for
related illnesses, particularly chronic ones. Obviously I
can go and search for it if I "really really" would like
to learn more about it, but as others were making
knowledgeable comments, I thought they might have ready
access to some of the info and/or could refer us to
somewhere online that had it.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence that
flushes, enemas, or colonics prevent colon cancer."

Quoted message said:

A quick scan of medline suggests that few _if any_
studies have been done on the topic. (I couldn't
see any.)

And I don't understand why they (c.i.s) have been so
totally ignored by the med community. They are used for
"intra op" procedures, but not as an early stage
intervention to lessen likelihood of need for surgery.

Is there any evidence that they do not or could not be
helpful as a preventative intervention for those who
could be considered at higher risk of developing colon or
bowel cancer, or for chronic diseases of the colon?

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium. See:

infidels.orglogic.htmlOpen ↗

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance."
The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be
true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or,
equivalently, when it is argued that something must be
false because it hasn't been proved true.

Very interesting. I see what it is getting at, but
principles (laws) of physics are only "true" until someone
comes along with one example to the contrary.

On 30 Mar 2004 20:19:29 GMT, Toby Joe <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Moosh:) said:

Toby Joe <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

What percentage are "healthy"?

Ninety-odd?

Is that based on anything, or is it a totally random
figure?

Just many decades of experience. Very few of the folks I've
known have had abnormal bowels.

Do you have numbers that contradict this observation of
mine? The few folks with the commonest problem,
constipation, have exacerbated the situation with overuse of
laxatives.

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:53:21 GMT, Rich.@. posted:

Quoted message said:

This is true but there have been studies in which there has
been real surgery and sham surgery (just incision). In one
case involving knee surgery it was determined that surgery
did no better than sham even though it was thought that the
surgical procedure was efficacious.

That was an interesting study, in that the sham operation
actually had fluid running into a dish so that the locally
anaesthetised patient actually thought washing of the joint
was actually happening when it wasn't. I thought that was a
fiendishly clever technique.

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:02:14 GMT, Rich.@. posted:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but until you can demonstrate that colon cleanses done
by alties can remove fecaliths you are simply talking out
of your ass.

Pun intended, I hope 🙂

In sci.med.nutrition Rich.@. wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
> trieve&db=pubmed&do pt=A bstract&list_uids=12908570

Quoted message said:

Yes, but until you can demonstrate that colon cleanses
done by alties can remove fecaliths you are simply talking
out of your ass.

If diverticular blockages can be removed by a water jet the
chances are that they will be removed by repeated water
bathings - to some extent.

Water is also likely to hydrate, and make more flexible,
material in diverticular regions that's just sitting there
stagnantly. It will also wash out bacteria from them.

Such effects probably explain other successes of irrigation
treatments for diverticulitis - e.g. as reported in:

``Laparoscopic colorrhaphy, irrigation and drainage in the
treatment of complicated acute diverticulitis: initial
experience.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

The medical profession has also experimented with cutting
the patient open before doing the irrigation - which also
seems to work:

``Primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic lavage
vs. Hartmann's procedure in generalized peritonitis
complicating diverticular disease of the colon.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

``Intraoperative colonic lavage in nonelective surgery for
diverticular disease''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

``On-table colonic irrigation in the treatment of left-sided
large-bowel emergencies.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

To me, irrigation seems like something of a no-brainer - for
those with diverticulosis.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

In article said:

In sci.med.nutrition Rich.@. wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
> > Retrieve&db=pubmed&do pt=A
> > bstract&list_uids=12908570

Quoted message said:

Yes, but until you can demonstrate that colon cleanses
done by alties can remove fecaliths you are simply
talking out of your ass.

If diverticular blockages can be removed by a water jet
the chances are that they will be removed by repeated
water bathings - to some extent.

Water is also likely to hydrate, and make more flexible,
material in diverticular regions that's just sitting there
stagnantly. It will also wash out bacteria from them.

Such effects probably explain other successes of
irrigation treatments for diverticulitis - e.g. as
reported in:

``Laparoscopic colorrhaphy, irrigation and drainage in the
treatment of complicated acute diverticulitis: initial
experience.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

Apples and oranges. Besides this study being non-controlled,
it does not address the question of whether the flushes or
colonics advocated by alties can prevent or treat
diverticulitis. It simply asks whether flushes are useful in
the minimally invasive surgical treatment of acute
complicated diverticulitis.

Quoted message said:

The medical profession has also experimented with cutting
the patient open before doing the irrigation - which also
seems to work:

``Primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic lavage
vs. Hartmann's procedure in generalized peritonitis
complicating diverticular disease of the colon.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

This does not address the question of whether flushes or
colonics treat or prevent diverticulitis or diverticulosis
either. The goal in this study is to try to reduce the
bacterial count in the colon sufficiently to obviate the
need for a temporary colostomy in patients undergoing
emergency operation for perforated diverticulitis. The
reason primary anastomoses fail in such situations is
because of the fecal contamination and infection that causes
them to fail to heal and thus leak. The traditional (and
still standard of care) operation in such situations is a
temporary colostomy until the infection is treated and
cleared, followed by reversal of the colostomy in 6-8 weeks.
The idea here is to try to convert the two-stage operation
into a single stage operation by flushing out the feces.

Quoted message said:

``Intraoperative colonic lavage in nonelective surgery for
diverticular disease''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

Again, this does not address the question of whether
flushes or enemas do anything for diverticulosis or
diverticulitis. It addresses the same question as above:
whether colonic lavage can make a primary anastomosis safe
in the setting of emergency surgery for perforated
diverticulitis, a situation where it normally is not safe
and a temporary colostomy is required.

Quoted message said:

``On-table colonic irrigation in the treatment of left-
sided large-bowel emergencies.''

- calorierestriction.orgpmidOpen ↗

See comments for the previous two.

Quoted message said:

To me, irrigation seems like something of a no-brainer -
for those with diverticulosis.

It's only a no-brainer for those who don't understand the
pathophysiology of diverticular disease.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"