Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)

JP Liz

Any good herbal remedies?

Is Aloe Vera worth taking for this?

I know there is no cure for IBS

dontcallmecrazy

peppermint..

anything with peppermint in it, chewing gum, leaves, oil etc etc

i got great tabs from my doc called colpermin i think, just pure peppermint oil - only side effect is minty breath!

selfbuildkk

Have suffered from this only in the past two years brought on by a car accident, the only thing that i have to to truly help with is is a product called lepicol. It has worked wonders for me. It does something like rebalance the bacteria in your gut. Its basically a powder that you take in water and just gulp it down twice a day for the first week and once thereafter. It tastes fine but doesnt dissolve so texture is a bit wierd. I take mine in a yoghurt now and its perfectly fine. I really couldnt believe the results. For me anyway it has been amazing. Can be got in most health food stores. well worth a shot. let me know how you go.

DrIndy

Its important to always discuss any condition with a GP first to get a definite diagnosis.

Your GP can advise you on other therapies or refer you for other treatment.

selfbuildkk

Ya I certainly do believe in going to see your G.P which I have but the only response to any of my visits was to perscribe lotomil, and dont particularly want to rely on medication day to day and i find lepicol really helps me personally.

JuJuBean

See the post 'IBS Sufferer' in Long Term Illness forum. I've posted a long answer to how I dealt with it.

I personally found peppermint to be no use at all, apart from a cool minty feeling down below when using the facilities

A good probiotic and plenty of soluble fibre should help. You should also try keeping a food diary to determine what causes a flare up and then eliminate those foods for a while.

Dr Galen

JuJuBean wrote: »

You should also try keeping a food diary to determine what causes a flare up and then eliminate those foods for a while.

this is pretty sound advice and something I did myself. It was on the suggestion of my GP that I started this. I was able to cut a lot of things that I didn't even realise caused flare up's out.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though, some serious research into the condition is being done, so maybe in future it will become less of a diagnosis of exclusion as it appears to be now for many people.

It is very important to go get checked out by GP before starting to do anything OP. Other conditions can manifest themselves in the same fashion, and require totally different treatments than you would for IBS.

JuliusCaesar

Linkie might be useful

angeldelight

I don't suffer from it myself and this info is from a quite biased source but when I was speaking to a rep from the company who make Bimuno prebiotic powder he told me that it had been proven to be of benefit to IBS sufferers. He gave me a clinical trial paper on it too which I haven't read yet and also said it is currently undergoing trials in treating C.difficile infections. As I said it's biased but it costs around 12 euro for a month supply so for someone who really wants to try something new it may not be a bad option.

tallaght01

angeldelight wrote: »

I don't suffer from it myself and this info is from a quite biased source but when I was speaking to a rep from the company who make Bimuno prebiotic powder he told me that it had been proven to be of benefit to IBS sufferers. He gave me a clinical trial paper on it too which I haven't read yet and also said it is currently undergoing trials in treating C.difficile infections. As I said it's biased but it costs around 12 euro for a month supply so for someone who really wants to try something new it may not be a bad option.

Post the link, and let the debate roll :P

Dr Galen

is this the paper?

DrIndy

Strength are its double-blinded placebo controlled trial - hence level I evidence, what goes against it is the small population base it is used on (59) and also the functional measure of outcome.

This trial shows that bifido-species are increased - but does not prove that taking this preparation causes improvement in a clinical condition (although I am sure it will follow).

It may be logical to conclude that an increase of bifido-species surely may be good for you - however, reading the detail it also caused an increase of Clostridium perfringens at low dose, but not high dose.

Is this significant? Does it definitely work? Do prebiotics actually increase and only increase the level of "good bacteria" or do they also increase some "bad bacteria" too which goes against its benefit.

The human gut flora is complex and different in different people - hence the best measurement is actually functional improvement rather than quantitative measures and with much larger numbers.

Its a start, but not more yet.

Saruman

I am sure I have read that Aloe can actually be dangerous when consumed. It might be only when taken in a certain form.
Charcoal is supposed to be good, Or at least I took it when I suffered from Ulcerative Colitis along with peppermint.

Capt'n Midnight

samson09 wrote: »

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/09/Natural-Remedies-for-Irritable-Bowel-Syndrome.aspx

Please post links if you are just cutting and pasting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola - anyone could edit this so not authoritive

But the FDA's site is a little harder to change.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/g6034d.htm

Dear Dr. Mercola:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection at your facility at the above address on April 24, 2006. During that inspection, the investigator collected various product labels including, but not limited to, the following products: Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, Momentum Health Products™ Vitamin K2 ™, and Momentum Health Products™ Cardio Essentials™ Nattokinase NSK-SD. In addition, we reviewed labeling on your website at http://www.mercola.com. A review of this labeling found that the products listed above are promoted for conditions that cause these products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C.321 (g)(1)(13)]. These claims on your labeling, including your website, establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act. You can find the Act and FDA's regulations through links on FDA's Internet home page, http://www.fda.gov.

tallaght01

Sanson09, please stop just cutting+pasting from websites. It contributes nothing. posts deleted.

samson09

There are a number of natural treatments that may benefit people suffering with IBS.

http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/content/abstract/55/2/143

I've seen a number of these work for family members and friends. However, the one "treatment" that was common to everyones approach was a change in diet, a switch from ready meals and fast food to a diet with more fresh fruit and veg. What else works? Avoid gluten, at least for a week or two, which is found in wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt. You'll be able to tell in a few weeks if this has any effect on your condition. Get your doctor to check a stool sample for parasites. Increase the amount of beneficial bacteria in your digestive system. This can be achieved by cutting down on sugar/processed food and taking a high quality probiotic (Udos Super 8 are good but slightly expensive, about 20 euro for a months supply). Increase your fibre intake (Lepicol can be taken to achieve this but dont ignore dietary fibre either, which you'll be getting anyway if you boost your intake of fruits and veggies). Finally, learn how to deal with stress, either though meditation, prayer of a technique known as EFT (emotional freedom technique). For more information see:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/09/Natural-Remedies-for-Irritable-Bowel-Syndrome.aspx

samson09

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please post links if you are just cutting and pasting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola - anyone could edit this so not authoritive

But the FDA's site is a little harder to change.
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/g6034d.htm

Dear Dr. Mercola:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection at your facility at the above address on April 24, 2006. During that inspection, the investigator collected various product labels including, but not limited to, the following products: Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, Momentum Health Products™ Vitamin K2 ™, and Momentum Health Products™ Cardio Essentials™ Nattokinase NSK-SD. In addition, we reviewed labeling on your website at http://www.mercola.com. A review of this labeling found that the products listed above are promoted for conditions that cause these products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C.321 (g)(1)(13)]. These claims on your labeling, including your website, establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act. You can find the Act and FDA's regulations through links on FDA's Internet home page, http://www.fda.gov.

Do you not see anything wrong with the above FDA statement? They are trying to classify simple natural substances such as COCONUT OIL as a drug just because somebody stated that they may be of benefit to a person's health. It's common knowledge that a diet rich in olive oil substantially decreases a persons likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases, therefore a person who claims that olive oil may be beneficial to your health is claiming that olive oil is a drug. Bad, bad olive oil. Can you not see the incredible foolishness of such a statement. The FDA is basically saying that it is illegal to claim that any natural food/herb is beneficial to health. The FDA is nothing more than a CRIMINAL organisation and a threat to the health of people worldwide. Even a lot of their own scientists are saying this, dont believe me? Check out:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110-ltr-101408.CDRHscientists.pdf

The FDA also like to approve drugs for public use without even testing them! So much for "evidence based medicine" eh?

From http://www.naturalnews.com/026034.html

"So much for "evidence-based medicine." The FDA has publicly announced that makers of liquid morphine drugs can continue selling them even though such drugs have never been approved by the FDA. Thus, the FDA -- which claims to be protecting the American public from dangerous pharmaceuticals by engaging in rigorous scientific review of potential new drugs -- is really in the business of arbitrarily declaring some drugs to be perfectly safe even without any testing or clinical trial data whatsoever!

If this is the case, why have any drug testing at all? The FDA seems to have pre-decided approval status for most drugs anyway, and the drug trials are mostly just shams. The whole process of going through clinical trials in order to "prove" to the FDA that a new drug is safe and effective is actually nothing more than elaborate theater designed to create the illusion of scientific credibility where none exists".

It is glaringly obvious that certain people on this forum are anti-natural health. I suggest that these people keep an open mind on the subject and stop deleting posts that may actually be of benefit to people. Everyone is entitled to say their piece and it is up to the individual if they want to research any given topic further.

DrIndy

No Samson09 - this is a scientific forum, not a soapbox for 1 persons viewpoint.

If information is presented as authorative - as you try to do, it must be in a scientific format so it can be analysed as I did to Mystik Monkeys paper.

Do not copy and paste from a website as this floods the screen - provide a link.

This is not a conspiracy forum for you to vent your spleen that the FDA/CDC/Department of Health/ Big Pharma/ Illuminati are conspiring to suppress "evidence" of unconventional medicine. There is a forum for that and it isn't here.

We are happy to discuss unconventional medicine here - WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

We have a very easy going style of moderating on this forum - but you have reached the line.

If you continue an antagonistic tone towards the moderators of this forum or do not provide scientific evidence, I will ban you.

samson09

Hypnotherapy can also be used to treat IBS and has had much success, as shown by the following scientific evidence;

Houghton, L.A., Heyman, D.J., & Whorwell, P.J. (1996). Symptomatology, quality of life and economic features of irritable bowel syndrome-the effect of hypnotherapy. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 10(1), 91-95.

"irritable bowel syndrome." Mayo Clinic. Retrieved May 04, 2009 from mayoclinic.com: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ir...

Whorwell, P.J. (2000). Hypnotherapy in the irritable bowel syndrome. Stress and Health, 3(1), 5-7.

For more information and the full story, see:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026218.html

Note to moderators: Is this ok?

DrIndy

Its much clearer - but ideally post the link to the paper which provides this evidence.

Whorwell does publish a lot on IBS - but I cannot find the paper from Stress and Health you quote on pubmed to see how he evaluated hypnotherapy as a treatment modicum.

Posting the actual link allows us to review and fully assess the paper.

This creates proper scientific debate.

samson09

Can't find that paper myself but what about the other two?

Here's a few more:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112409358/abstract

http://antonpsych.org/A_Controlled_Trial_of_Psychological_Treatment_for_the_Irritable_Bowel_Syndrome.pdf

Also, I'd like to hear people's opinion on the FDA allowing drugs to be marketed without any form of testing and also the fact that many of their scientists are currently revolting against them.

Capt'n Midnight

samson09 wrote: »

These claims on your labeling, including your website, establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.
...
Do you not see anything wrong with the above FDA statement? They are trying to classify simple natural substances such as COCONUT OIL as a drug just because somebody stated that they may be of benefit to a person's health.

Please read your post again.

Mercola makes the claims for the products.
Those claims mean the FDA have to be treat them as Drugs, they have no choice in this matter.

He can sell coconut oil as coconut oil
He can't sell coconut oil as a medicine without proof of it's effectiveness.

Also a lot of natural substances are toxic in high amounts. Plants have developed defences against being eaten over hundreds of millions of years. Foxglove is a nice flower. Digitalis from it is used to treat heart conditions. It the past it was used to poison people.

In general consumer legislation is getting tougher on false claims and health and safety is getting stricter on things previously considered of acceptable risk.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

Can't find that paper myself but what about the other two?

Here's a few more:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112409358/abstract

http://antonpsych.org/A_Controlled_Trial_of_Psychological_Treatment_for_the_Irritable_Bowel_Syndrome.pdf

Also, I'd like to hear people's opinion on the FDA allowing drugs to be marketed without any form of testing and also the fact that many of their scientists are currently revolting against them.

Don't just keep publishing links. Talk about what's in them and why it's good or bad evidence, or why it's not.

Otherwise we're going to have to stop you flooding the thread with stuff you're just copying and pasting.

samson09

samson09 wrote: »

Can't find that paper myself but what about the other two?

Here's a few more:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112409358/abstract

http://antonpsych.org/A_Controlled_Trial_of_Psychological_Treatment_for_the_Irritable_Bowel_Syndrome.pdf

Also, I'd like to hear people's opinion on the FDA allowing drugs to be marketed without any form of testing and also the fact that many of their scientists are currently revolting against them.

So does anybody have anything to say about the scientifically reviewed benefits of hypnotherapy in treating IBS? Good, bad or indifferent? And did anybody find it alarming that the FDA approves certain drugs without any form of testing?

Dr Galen

the second paper you quote

A Controlled Trial of Psychological
Treatment for the Irritable Bowel
Syndrome
ELSPETH GUTHRIE, FRANCIS CREED, DAVID DAWSON,
and BARBARA TOMENSON
Departments of Psychiatry and Gastroenterology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester,
England


makes good reading. It's a randomised controlled trial, but does not refer to hypnotherapy? Have you not noticed this? It does refer to psychotherapy, the patient group had a total of 7 interviews, and the therapy mostly dealt with the issues that were causing stress and problems in their life, thus, treating some of the emotional triggers that cause a bout of IBS to flare.

The population size is big enough, certainly better than many other trials/studies into the area. The authors make several references to other papers, and particularly some of the critiscms levelled at othr studies into IBS, and they attempt to deal with these within the study design, analysis and discussion of the paper.

One paper does not mean that we should all be adopting it though Samson09. Certainly it's positive in it's findings, and thats to be welcomed, but more work into the area needs to be done. I'd be interested to see what else has been done since this paper, as it was written quite some time ago now.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts though on that paper I've just read?


The other paper I can't get access to, but I'll try google scholar later on.

SomeDose

samson09 wrote: »

And did anybody find it alarming that the FDA approves certain drugs without any form of testing?

You're not giving people the full story here, and the Natural News article is typically sensationalist and economical with the truth, to say the least. Firstly, the FDA has not "approved" the drug (concentrated morphine oral solution) without any form of testing. It has granted a temporary reprieve for this product to remain on the market on compassionate grounds so that palliative patients can continue to receive appropriate medication in a seamless manner. Whether or not they should be transferred to a more suitable "approved" drug is a separate argument and not relevant right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm no great admirer of the FDA, and their stance on opioid medicines is often misguided to the point of paranoia. They won't allow diamorphine (heroin) on the market, for example, even though it's very effective for certain indications. Anyway, I digress.

In this case, the product may or may not have been approved at some point in the past. From the FDA website:

"FDA is taking this action as part of its continuing effort to ensure that drugs marketed in the U.S. have the required FDA approval, and that they are safe, effective, of good quality, and appropriately labeled. Companies that market these unapproved products have not demonstrated to FDA that their products are safe and effective and that they meet current standards for manufacturing and have accurate and complete labeling."

Now, we don't know exactly why it doesn't meet FDA approval. But I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that the FDA, rightly or wrongly, figured there were safety issues with this product getting mixed up with lower strength preparations, and/or that it was more likely to be abused. And they probably also figured that there were equally effective products available with less chance of incorrect dosing or abuse potential. Big deal. This happens regularly in the world of medicines regulation. But I can guarantee you one thing: it is (or at least once was) a licensed medicinal product made under strict GMP conditions, tested and deemed safe and effective for human use and authorised for release accordingly. And here's another thing about liquid morphine, something which can't be said about many things promoted on Natural News:

It works.

samson09

"But I can guarantee you one thing: it is (or at least once was) a licensed medicinal product made under strict GMP conditions, tested and deemed safe and effective for human use and authorised for release accordingly".

Show me the evidence to support this statement! Sounds like opinion to me.

Most of what is reported (not just promoted) on NaturalNews has been shown to work via scientific testing. Show me the evidence that the items you are talking about don't work. If you are confident saying this, then surely you'll be able to back it up.

Dr Galen

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

One paper does not mean that we should all be adopting it though Samson09. Certainly it's positive in it's findings, and thats to be welcomed, but more work into the area needs to be done. I'd be interested to see what else has been done since this paper, as it was written quite some time ago now.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts though on that paper I've just read?


The other paper I can't get access to, but I'll try google scholar later on.

you may have missed this reply samson09

SomeDose

samson09 wrote: »

"But I can guarantee you one thing: it is (or at least once was) a licensed medicinal product made under strict GMP conditions, tested and deemed safe and effective for human use and authorised for release accordingly".

Show me the evidence to support this statement! Sounds like opinion to me.

Yes it is an opinion, but one which is based on experience and knowledge of the pharmaceutical licensing process. It's not clear exactly why the drug is not approved to be marketed (this word is important, I'll explain later) in the US, but you can browse the various criteria for approval here. Are you familiar with how medicinal products are licensed and approved for sale? Many drugs, whilst perfectly safe and effective, are unlicensed (be it for a particular indication, route of administration, formulation etc) and therefore cannot be marketed. We use them on a daily basis, in fact they are invaluable in many cases. In practice, it simply means a manufacturer's sales team is not permitted to promote or even speak about these. But we know they work - be it through legitimate trials, case studies or even just good old clinical experience and expert consensus. This drug, before being released by the manufacturer, would have been thoroughly assessed for quality and safety by a Qualfied Person. That person is legally responsible for release and if the product was not safe and of acceptable quality, there's a strong chance that person would face criminal charges. Despite the impression these reports are trying to convey, this is not some potion cobbled together by some cowboy back-alley chemist. I'm sure you'll have researched this story further and seen that the FDA have given a 180 day stay of execution for these products - do you honestly think that this would have happened if these products were blatantly unsafe?

samson09 wrote: »

Most of what is reported (not just promoted) on NaturalNews has been shown to work via scientific testing. Show me the evidence that the items you are talking about don't work. If you are confident saying this, then surely you'll be able to back it up.

Ah, the old "prove it doesn't work" argument. Sorry, but that's not how things work around here. I picked a random condition, pulmonary embolism, to see what herbs/natural remedies can "heal" it. http://www.healingfoodreference.com/pulmonary_embolism.html

Chocolate, apparently. Interesting list of references to back it up, and note the disclaimer underneath. Now how about you show us the scientific testing that proves chocolate can treat or "heal" PE. But hey, who wouldn't prefer a Dairymilk to repeated heparin injections and warfarin treatment?

Now take a look at a book the site is advertising, how to "cure" NIDDM: http://www.truthpublishing.com/haltdiabetes_p/yprint-cat21267.htm
"Just one strategy revealed here utterly eliminates the need for insulin in 70% of diabetic patients." Hmmmm. Does anyone have figures for the proportion of NIDDM patients that in fact don't actually require and are not on insulin therapy in the first place?

"In that time, I learned that organized medicine never teaches people how to prevent or reverse diabetes." FFS, somebody give me a facepalm. I guess the billions spent on health promotion regarding heart disease and obesity has all just been a charade.

Seriously, look at the claims been made. And even if we ignore these, misleading information, intentional or not, is not good for anyone.