Talk:Colon cleansing

Altered sentence indicating that there is no such thing as impacted feces

I edited the following sentence: "No surgeries, autopsies or other observations of colons have discovered any evidence of compacted feces or other evidence to support the theory of auto-intoxication or the need for colon cleansing." to read: "No surgeries, autopsies or other observations of colons have discovered any evidence to support the theory of auto-intoxication or the need for colon cleansing."

I made this edit because the phenomenon of compacted feces is not, in itself, controversial, and is often treated by traditional medical establishments. Here is a related article from the US National Library of Medicine, the first sentence of which reads "Fecal impaction is a disorder characterized by a large mass of compacted feces in the rectum and/or colon, which cannot be evacuated." I will consider ways to use this citation in the body of the article.

It's true that one of the sources cited after the edited sentence, LiveScience, states "direct observations of the colon through surgery and autopsy find no hardening of fecal matter along the intestinal walls." I'm not saying that LiveScience is not a valid source, but an honest look at both the LiveScience article and the NLM article I linked to above will show that the former is essentially an angry blog post, and the latter is a serious piece of medical literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miconian (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Sentence on Frequency of Bowel Movements

I deleted the following sentence from the article

"There is no evidence that frequent bowel movements result in better health or longer life."

Now of course there is no scientific evidence that colon cleansing improves health, but this sentence implies that there is no link between bowel movement frequency and health. While this may be true from a causal standpoint, it is extremely misleading. More frequent bowel movements can be associated (correlation not causation) with increased health. This is due to the fact that fiber and exercise have health benefits and also increase bowel movements. While obviously the increase in bowel movements is not the cause of such health benefits, not having regular bowel movements can be a sign of fiber deficiency and a sedentary life style which are inherently unhealthy. I think the deleted sentence does not make it clear that infrequent bowl movements may be a "sign" of a lack of health. I think the solution is to either leave the sentence deleted entirely or to add a sentence briefly discussing the point above. MATThematical (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it for a moment, I think the sentences original intent was about "artificially inducing" more frequent movements. Great points though, I'll see if I can reinsert with appropriate context. - RoyBoy 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a forum

Folks, keep in mind that this is the talk page for building the article, but the discussions are getting to be more like forbidden advocacy. Also read WP:NOTAFORUM. The repeated addition of a commercial spam link that totally fails WP:ELNO is also problematic. Also read WP:MEDRS which applies to medical claims. Use peer-reviewed reviews (not primary research) for claims that colon cleansing does what is purported. This subject is also governed by WP:Fringe. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Add List Of Ingredients...

Would it be beneficial to create / add a list of ingredients that are traditionally used in the different colon cleansers? This would provide a valuable resource for people that are in the research phase of whether or not they want to make a purchase of a colon cleanse product.

Especially in the face of such varied reports on the effectiveness on sites like: http://www.webmd.com/balance/natural-colon-cleansing-is-it-necessary

This would help people educate themselves and make better decisions. Dr.alex.blair (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that complies with WP:MEDRS, which essentially means a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal. If you have such a source then post it here and we can discuss adding its information. N^oformation ^Talk 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're discussing efficacy &c then certainly a strong source is needed. However, I don't think we should be so strict on sourcing for a statement along the lines of "Common product X contains ingredients Y and Z...". bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, that might work if there was a decent secondary source that asserted the notability of a particular formula or specific ingredients, but I question what type of source would be appropriate based on the subject matter. What I mean is that colon cleansing isn't science, so what, if any, standards of ingredients exist? I really don't know the answer to this, so if Dr.alex.blair or anyone else can find something let's take a look and go from there. I do want to note that Webmd 'reports of effectiveness' are wholly irrelevant N^oformation ^Talk 01:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should we list ingredients for something that doesn't work? It makes no sense whatsoever. Dr. Blair's premise that people make better decision, should end right at the point that the article says....this is junk medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This was essentially my point, though you put it a bit more boldly than I. We should be willing to consider a source if it's introduced, but based on the subject at hand I don't think there is a source that would meet WP:FRINGE standards for inclusion. On one hand, people looking to shove things up their butts might be interested in what ingredients they are shoving up their butts; on the other hand, I don't know if an encyclopedia should cater to people who shove things up their butts :). N^oformation ^Talk 02:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We might have to add that to WP:BOLD... although I note the article also talks about "colon cleansing" dietary supplements...so we're not talking exclusively about products which one "shoves up their butt" N419BH 02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need to discuss the ingredients of gerbils. Oh wait....OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We can be even more confident that blót doesn't "work", but we still describe how it's done. As long as there are reliable sources and it's worded neutrally (ie. we don't favour one particular outlier product), I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think more than anything it would provide a resource for people that I'm not sure really exists anywhere else? Each colon cleanse formula has multiple ingredients and it seems that when you compare several of them together they all start to look the same. This would just give users a place to find out what each ingredient does. Just an idea though - if it isn't a good one I'm okay with that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.alex.blair (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to do comparison shopping. We should state what colon cleansing is, what it's supposed to accomplish, and that it doesn't do anything at all (at least relative to the claims made). Maybe we could mention the most popular ingredients. But to discuss every single one of the products? That's what we should be as an encyclopedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of the common ingredients are inherently notable in their own right then an article on them might be worthwhile. For example, Acai Berry, Ginseng, and Guarana all have their own articles. N419BH 20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why this article only discusses colon hydrotherapy. If it's going to discuss colon cleansing it should be about all aspects of colon cleansing, not just one. What about herbal tea remedies for colon cleansing? Supplements? If this article isn't going to be complete, it should be renamed colon hydrotherapy. Not all colon cleansing involves putting things up your butt and I think this article seems somewhat biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.232.97 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

AMA bias, etc.

This article presents only an American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed view of colonic cleansing. It is also sprinkled with words like "anecdotally" which give the impression that this article is written tongue-in-cheek in order to express how silly the use of colonic irrigation is. There is more recent clinical data about auto-intoxication than a paper from 1919. I would like to see this article kept in POV for the time being while I write some contribution to make it a little more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattfrye (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The AMA opinion of colon cleansing is supposed to be the dominant view since it's the primere scientific medical body in America and this purports to be a medical page. Colon cleansing has been scientifically investigated and turned out to be nonsense, there's no support for it in actual mainstream literature. Colon cleansing is silly, unjustified, prescientific and dangerous, and this is supported by appropriate sourcing. If you are going to tag a page with {{NPOV}}, please indicate the sources that are missing or under-represnted rather than merely conveying your opinion. Template tags are not a badge of shame. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Colon Hydrotherapy FDA Approved LIBBE Device.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Colon Hydrotherapy FDA Approved LIBBE Device.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)