Colonics, Quackwatch, and the Scientific Method

[Holly Lisle]

>  
<<http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.htm
 l> claims that  

> autointoxication and the benefits of colonic irrigation are "utter  
nonsense".  


I read what the doctor who put the "Quackwatch" site said the first  
time  Harald pointed out the site to me.  I also went over much of the 
other  information he presents on the site.  I wasn't impressed, but  
my reasons for being unimpressed probably aren't what you might  
think.  


The information presented on the site stands up poorly when  
subjected to  the scientific method.  I'll tell you why in a minute, but  
for those here who  have never had a science-based job, I'm going  
to give a brief overview of  the scientific method.  It was the most  
valuable thing I had drilled into my  head at nursing school, and is  
still something I use every day.  Contrary to  what most folks who  
don't work in science jobs think, it's very simple, pretty  obvious,  
and something they've already been using to keep from getting   
killed daily, but without the formality of the acronym.  


The Scientific Method goes like this:  


Obtain Subjective data, obtain Objective data, Assess the problem, 
 Plan  an intervention, Intervene, and Evaluate the results.  


SOAPIE  


If you want it SOAPIER, you can Repeat as necessary.  <<g>  


For the purposes of scientific methodology, the definition of  
_subjective  data_ is anything you didn't observe yourself.  The  
definition of _objective  data_ is anything you observed yourself.  


The SOAPIE breakdown for a situation most kids face sooner or  
later  goes like this.  


Subjective data -- Mom says, "Don't touch the burners on the stove.  
  They're hot and you'll hurt yourself."  


Objective data -- Put hand on hot burner, experience severe pain,  
look at  hand and see red marks and blisters.  


Assessment -- That hurt like hell.  Mom was right, I was wrong, and  
now my  hand is burned.  


Plan -- I'm not going to touch hot burners anymore.  


Intervention -- Keeps hand away from burners for rest of life.  


Evaluation -- This plan was effective -- I have never burned myself  
on the  stove again.  I will continue with this plan.  


That's the scientific method, and as you can see, it is neither  
mysterious or  difficult.  It is nothing more than a method of keeping  
data organized in an  accepted format so that one trained observer  
can transmit to other trained  observers data in a form that all of  
them have agreed beforehand to follow.   The scientific method  
does not guarantee the validity of the data, the  accuracy of the  
observer, or the usefulness of the testing being done or the   
relevence of the phenomena being observed.  It also does not  
make the  data "objective" -- and this is a very, _very_ important  
point.   


Objective data, in case you missed the definition above, or missed  
the  importance of the definition above, comes from anything that  
you have  observed yourself.  And it is, and can only be, objective to 
 you.  Every  witness to every event is an objective witness.   
Subjectivity only comes into  the process the instant one of them  
opens their mouth or puts pen to paper  and imparts what they have 
 experienced to someone else.  No one, no  matter how impartial 
he  might wish to be, can give you an objective  opinion.  It is  
impossible, because whoever he is, he is not you.  You are  the only 
 source of objective information in the world _for you_ -- and no   
matter how much you care and how much you want to help  
someone else,  nothing you say can be objective to him.  It's all  
subjective.  


So.   That's a long discourse before I get to my point, but it's  
important,  because if everything you hear from every other source  
is subjective, and if  you have no experience with something  
firsthand, how do you go about  deciding which of all these  
subjective bits of data are valuable and which  are worthless?  


The scientific method offers the following method for weighting  
data.  


Firsthand data is best.  In any experiment, the experimenter has to  
do his  own work and make his own observations.  He adds these  
observations to  the general pool of knowledge, but he can't use  
anyone else's result but his  own to derive his conclusions.  He can  
quote the work of others, giving  attributions so that people reading  
his work can see who else has  researched the problem, and can  
compare his results with theirs.  But if he  doesn't do any observing  
on his own, he cannot add anything to the  general pool of  
knowledge.  So it is an accepted given in science that  firsthand  
data is best.  Firsthand data is only as good as its source, which  is 
 to say you.  Its validty is subject to your bias, poor observation,  
flaws of  methodology, oughtright dishonesty, carelessness,  
stupidity, raging  egomania, and all the other flaws of human  
existence, but you have the  advantage of knowing what your  
biases and flaws are, so that you can, to  some extent, work around 
 them.  


Secondhand data is firsthand data at one remove.  It is the RN  
quoting the  words of the patient who is experiencing the  
symptoms.  It is the  researcher reading the paper of a fellow  
researcher in the same line of  work, when that researcher is  
describing his own research.  It is the GP  calling in the surgeon for  
a second opinion on a patient with a difficult  problem with which he 
 has no personal experience.  It is me offering  advice based on  
what I have done with my writing, or my dietary changes,  or my  
experimentation with colloidal silver or cleansing.  Secondhand   
data, like secondhand clothing, is only as good as its source.  It is  
subject  to bias, poor observation, flaws of methodology, oughtright  
dishonesty,  carelessness, stupidity, raging egomania, and all the  
other flaws of human  existence.  It has the disadvantage that it is  
filtered to you through the  senses of one other person, and you  
cannot know all the biases and flaws  of that other person, no  
matter how well you know him or her.  The better  you are aquainted 
 with him, the more accurately you can judge the value of  the 
advice.   The more he can back up things he says with things that 
you  know  to be true from your own experience, the more you can 
assume that   other things that he says are also true or valid.  But in 
the end, any  single  piece of data that you get from any source but 
yourself is  pretty much a  crapshoot.  Science accepts properly 
documented  secondhand data, but  only when it can be backed up 
and validated  by repeatable firsthand  experience.  


Thirdhand data is essentially hearsay.  It is you reading a paper  
written by   a writer who has not done the research himself, but who  
had read things by  other people who have.  It is data that you have  
not experienced and that  the reporter has not experienced.  You  
are getting not only the biases,  errors, and flaws of the original  
researchers, but also the biases of the  person who read them,  
formed opinions based on them that were not  backed up by  
personal research or experience, and passed them on to  you.   
Good science does not accept thirdhand data, even though some  
of  it may contain truth.  It is too far from the source.  Many  
popularizations of  science are written exclusively from thirdhand  
data, and some of them are  okay as a starting point, and some of  
them are crap.  A lot of unathorized  biographies are exclusively  
thirdhand data.  Most of the information in the  National Enquirer is  
thirdhand data (coming as it does from the unnamed  best friend of  
the star's bodyguard . . .) So far, everything I've read on the   
Quackwatch website is thirdhand data.  The doctor who put the site  
 together hasn't tried any of the things he's writing about.  He hasn't   
observed the techniques, he hasn't seen the results.  He has read  
papers  by other people, many or even most of whom _also_  
haven't done the  research.  


Here are a few quotes I've taken from the site.  

"Some proponents depict the large intestine as a "sewage system" 
 that  becomes a "cesspool" if neglected. Other proponents state  
that  constipation causes hardened feces to accumulate for months  
(or even  years) on the walls of the large intestine and block it from  
absorbing or  eliminating properly. This, they say, causes food to  
remain undigested and  wastes from the blood to be reabsorbed by 
 the body [2]."  

>  
<<http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.htm
 l>  

The docter who runs the site asserts that this is not true -- that food  
does  not stay in the colon for months or years.  He is, I can say with 
 absolute  certainty from my own observation, absolutely wrong in  
his assertion.  Here  is my proof from my own research.  It is  
something that you can test for  yourself and prov with your own  
body to your own satisfaction.  

Those of you with sensitive stomachs may wish to skip the next  
paragraph.   It is disgusting even to me, and I have seen things that  
made doctors puke.  

I have not eaten red meat since April of last year.  That is, April  
1998.    That's more than a year ago now.  (I had five bites of sweet- 
and-sour  chicken at Christmas dinner in 1998, so I cannot say that I 
 have not eaten  any meat at all in the last year, but I have not eaten  
red meat.  Not a single  bite in any form at any time.)  On my fourth  
day of doing colonics on myself  and every day thereafter, at home  
(so there is no question of anyone  tampering with my evidence for  
their own profit), I have passed at least  one piece of and  
sometimes a whole handful of undigested cooked red  meat into  
the colander.  I didn't know it was red meat until I had washed it  off,  
of course.  Before I rinsed it, it was covered with the same   
undifferentiated brown stuff that comprises most bowel movements. 
  After I  rinsed it, it was a different story.  How did I know it was red  
meat?   Evidently I do a piss-poor job of chewing my food, because 
 several of  these chunks were still unchanged in shape from the  
moment when I cut  them with the steak knife.  Nice, neat, square,  
smallish (I may not chew my  food well, but I don't take big bites.)   
Some of them have been partially  chewed.  All of them are clearly  
steak, even though they are now grey- green in color and  
unbelievably foul smelling -- after more than a year in a  colon, steak 
 loses ALL its sizzle.  Several of them were encrusted with  pinhead-
 sized white, slightly ellipsoid spheres.  It took me a couple of   
minutes to associate what I was seeing with things I had seen  
before, and  to realize that what I was looking at were parasite  
eggs.  From inside of  me.  They were in there, they were in there  
for _more than a year_, and all  of Dr. Quack's assertions to the  
contrary do not change that fact.  

>From the same article:   

"Some "alternative" practitioners make bogus diagnoses of  
"parasites,"  for which they recommend "intestinal cleansers," plant  
enzymes,  homeopathic remedies. Health-food stores sell products  
of this type with  claims that they can "rejuvenate" the body and kill  
the alleged invaders."  

>  
<<http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.htm
 l>  

Again, the assertion, based on thirdhand data, that the diagnosis of 
  parasites is bogus. <FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param> <FontFamily><param>Arial</param>My data, from firsthand -- I have passed both  
worms  and worm eggs.  They were there, it is horrifying to find  
them, Doctor  Quack doesn't know what he's talking about.  Or  
perhaps he does, but has  chosen to lie.  The third option -- that he  
might be right -- I have disproven.     

Another quote:  <FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param>  

<FontFamily><param>Arial</param>"The popular diet book Fit for Life<FontFamily><param>Courier New</param> <FontFamily><param>Arial</param>(1986) is based on the notion  
that  when certain foods are eaten together, they "rot," poison the  
system, and  make the person fat. To avoid this, the authors  
recommend that fats,  carbohydrates and protein foods be eaten at  
separate meals,  emphasizing fruits and vegetables because foods 
 high in water content  can "wash the toxic waste from the inside of  
the body" instead of  "clogging" the body. These ideas are utter  
nonsense."  

>  
<<http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.htm
 l>  

My own firsthand data aquired from my careful research as a  
trained  observer -- I've lost and kept off sixty-five pounds using the  
information I  got from the book "Fit for Life".  I didn't need diet pills  
like Phen-fen or  amphetamines, I didn't need to have my stomach  
stapled, I didn't need to  join the doctor's weight-loss group.  I  
changed the way I was eating and I  lost weight.  Again, my  
firsthand data directly contradicts Dr. Quack's  thirdhand data.  

Another quote, this from the NCAHF position paper on Colonics,  
which  Dr.Quack footnoted and which I accessed through the site:  

"NCAHF agrees with the assessment of the California Department  
of  Health Services. Colonics has (sic) no real health benefits, but  
does have  a number of serious hazards. Consumers should not  
use colonics, and  should avoid patronizing practitioners who  
employ this procedure.  Practitioners who use colonics are either  
too ignorant or misguided to be  entrusted with delivering health  
services."  

This last is a direct quote from the National Council Against Health  
Fraud's  position paper on colonics, which can be reached from the 
 footnotes on  Dr. Quack's article on colonics:    
<<http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.htm
 l>  

The first assertion is that colonics have no health benefits.  I would  
like to  thank the NCAHF for telling me that I am better off keeping  
putrid meat,  worms and worm eggs inside my body rather than  
removing them.  I am  deeply grateful for their concern for my health. 
  And I will keep this concern  in mind when considering any other  
advice they may have to offer on any  subject.  And I'm sure Keely's  
doctor, who saw Bob's blood pressure return  to normal following  
colonic irrigation -- and _stay_ that way -- will be deeply   
appreciative of their remark on his practice of medicine, too.  

Dr. Quack has an MD, and he provides a lot of nifty footnotes on his 
 site,  and it all looks very impressive.   It doesn't change the fact 
that  he doesn't  have firsthand experience regarding the things he's 
 discussing, and as  long as he doesn't, he has nothing to contribute 
 to the general knowledge  pool.  Nor does it change the fact that a  
number of assertions he makes on  his site are provably wrong, or  
that at least some of his sources make  statements that are  
provably wrong, and that this lack of care for firsthand  data and the  
truth in several of his articles (the colonics one isn't the only  one  
that I read that I have proven to myself with my own research to be   
wrong) calls into question any validity that the entire site might have  
for  anyone.  

Holly  



<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>>   

> Colonic irrigation [...] has considerable potential for harm. The  
process can  

> be very uncomfortable, since the presence of the tube can induce  
severe cramps  

> and pain. If the equipment is not adequately sterilized between  
treatments,  

> disease germs from one person's large intestine can be  
transmitted to others.  

> Several outbreaks of serious infections have been reported,  
including one in  

> which contaminated equipment caused amebiasis in 36 people,  
6 of whom died  

> following bowel perforation. Cases of heart failure (from  
excessive fluid  

> absorption into the bloodstream) and electrolyte imbalance have  
also been  

> reported.  

>   

> [...]  

>   

> In 1985, a California judge ruled that colonic irrigation is an  
invasive  

> medical procedure that may not be performed by chiropractors  
and the  

> California Health Department's Infectious Disease Branch stated: 
 "The practice  

> of colonic irrigation by chiropractors, physical therapists, or  
physicians  

> should cease. Colonic irrigation can do no good, only harm." The  
National  

> Council Against Health Fraud agrees (see  

> <<http://www.ncahf.org/pos-pap/colonic.html>).  

>   

> --   

> C. Harald Koch     <<chk@ve3tla.ampr.org>  

>   

> "It takes a child to raze a village."  

> 		-Michael Fry  



<nofill>
          Holly Lisle --- never give up on your dreams
          --------------------------------------------
       writers' page: http://www.sff.net/people/holly.lisle/
   readers' page: http://elwood.pionet.net/~shangri/holly1pa.htm
 e-mail: HDLisle@aol.com  holly.lisle@sff.net  hollylisle@juno.com