Normally, I wouldn’t consider as “news” something that is clearly a “Dear Pharmacist” column. However, the Chicago Tribune website labels this as one of its “Top Stories” so if they want to call it news, we’re going to fire away, ridiculous as that labeling may be. The screenshot below shows how the story appears on the Tribune site’s search page.
“Coffee enemas can help you detoxify,” screams this “Top Story” headline. Former stalwart Tribune reporter Trine Tsouderos jumped all over that on her Facebook page, writing:
“My goodness Tribune, what on earth are you running this pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo for? For the record, there is no scientific evidence that coffee enemas are safe or effective. This is as evidence-based as treating infections with mercury or ingesting eye of newt to cure cancer.”
Note at the bottom of the Tribune “story” that it says: ” Copyright © 2013, South Florida Sun-Sentinel.” So the once-great Chicago Tribune is calling a “Dear Pharmacist” column from another newspaper a “Top Story.” Shovelware.
Meantime, the Science-Based Medicine blog this week posted a response, headlined, “Ask the (Science-Based) Pharmacist: What are the benefits of coffee enemas?” Excerpt:
“Coffee enemas are considered unsafe and should be avoided. Rare but serious adverse events like septicemia (bacteria in the bloodstream), rectal perforation, and electrolyte abnormalities have been caused by coffee enemas. Deaths from the administration of coffee enemas have been reported. Coffee enemas are based on a pre-scientific idea called “autointoxication”, the belief we are being poisoned by toxins because we are not digesting and eliminating waste products from our colons. This concept is not new, and has roots as far back as our records of medicine. Autointoxication as a concept was discarded over time, as the scientific basis for disease was discovered. …
I’m very sorry to hear about your chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia. Science-based medicine lacks a good understanding of this illness, and there is a lack of effective treatments. Unfortunately, that can make patients with these illnesses targets to those that profess certainty and offer dubious and unproven treatments, like coffee enemas. A decision to undergo any treatment needs to consider the risk and benefits. And treatments need to be investigated to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks. With coffee enemas, the evidence is clear. Given the lack of benefit and potential harms, there is no plausible justification to undergo these treatments. You should ignore any medical advice from anyone that recommends coffee enemas to you.”
Consider that a coffee enema caveat emptor.
Addendum less than one hour later: The column has now been taken down from the Tribune’s Health page. It doesn’t seem to turn up through the website’s Search page. The link provided above, though, still works.
————————————-
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like