Coffee Enemas!!

[Valentijn]

It's not the single SNP, it's the combination of that one with others forming a dynamic. Genetics is a systems science, not a singular causal one. A SNP is a factor, not a cause.

What are the other factors? In the case of the CBS gene regulation, it is other CBS SNPs. There are no known harmful up-regulations, and only known pathogenic major down-regulations. And it is known that these CBS SNPs don't cause problems.

So at best you are left with an infinite number of outside possibilities which essentially reduce the involvement of these CBS SNPs to 0. In which case, it's still not a CBS problem, and certainly not attributable to those specific SNPs.

So I seriously question the motivation of anyone trying to imply someone's experience is not valid because the science is imperfect.

No one has questioned your experience. What is being questioned is your assumption about the cause. Your assumption about the cause is being questioned both because it is illogical (everyone has those SNPs), and because it is contradicted by the published research.

Treatments for sulfur intolerance may produce benefits for a myriad of reasons. There might even be dozens of such reasons which are plausible. But it doesn't make sense to pick a cause which contradicts the scientific research showing that the SNP has a tiny effect, especially when heterozygous.

One can comment on a forum to try to help others or provide useful information, and one can comment simply to baselessly dismiss others. Why is this forum so full of the latter?

Misinformation is not useful. Whereas a debate regarding the accuracy and reasonableness of claims can be elucidating for all.

 

[da2020]

Both of their claims are based on Yasko as a source, who is also quite bad at interpreting research. Her claims are completely baseless.

Regarding Dr Jockers being heterozygous, the so-called "risk" allele has a 30% or higher allele rate in Caucasians. 42% of Caucasians are therefore heterozygous for it, and another 9% are homozygous for it. Prevalence rate for aggregated ethnic groups are only marginally lower.

So over half of Caucasians "have" that CBS SNP. And if we add in the other two very common CBS SNPs which don't do anything, I'm sure we can bring that up to around 90%.

Does that mean 90% of the world have ammonia issues? Not even close. But if any random patient with sulfur intolerance or similar symptoms walks into the clinics of one of those doctors, odds are very good that they will have a CBS variant - because nearly everyone on the planet has those variants.

If these clinicians were doing research, they'd see that the healthy non-symptomatic controls have the same variants at the same rates. And to reach even their "clinical" conclusions, they are ignoring and/or contradicting both the existing research into the effects of those SNPs, as well as the known prevalence rates of those SNPs in the general population.

Blaming those SNPs for symptoms is nearly as pointless as saying that having 10 fingers causes the same symptoms. Those CBS variants don't indicate dysfunction ... they just indicate that the patient is a standard human being.

I should also mention that aside from questioning your motivation, I believe your "facts" are wrong.

 

[da2020]

What are the other factors? In the case of the CBS gene regulation, it is other CBS SNPs. There are no known harmful up-regulations, and only known pathogenic major down-regulations. And it is known that these CBS SNPs don't cause problems.

So at best you are left with an infinite number of outside possibilities which essentially reduce the involvement of these CBS SNPs to 0. In which case, it's still not a CBS problem, and certainly not attributable to those specific SNPs.


No one has questioned your experience. What is being questioned is your assumption about the cause. Your assumption about the cause is being questioned both because it is illogical (everyone has those SNPs), and because it is contradicted by the published research.

Treatments for sulfur intolerance may produce benefits for a myriad of reasons. There might even be dozens of such reasons which are plausible. But it doesn't make sense to pick a cause which contradicts the scientific research showing that the SNP has a tiny effect, especially when heterozygous.

Misinformation is not useful. Whereas a debate regarding the accuracy and reasonableness of claims can be elucidating for all.

You'd have to provide useful links that substantiate your points. I'm not really getting anything substantial to go on other than you disagree.

 

[Valentijn]

I should also mention that aside from questioning your motivation, I believe your "facts" are wrong.

CBS C699T allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs234706
Minor allele frequency (MAF) in general populations is 27.63%. That means 7.6% of the world's population is +/+. Approximately 565 million people are +/+ for this SNP. 40.0% of people around the world are +/- for this SNP, which works out to nearly 3 billion people. In total, 47.6% of people are +/- or +/+ for this SNP, or 3.6 billion people.

For a study of the impact of this SNP upon folate/homocysteine-associated birth defects please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366099/. +/- and +/+ status resulted in a mild reduction in risk.

CBS A360A allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs1801181
This SNP has a MAF of 33.82%. 11.4% of of people are +/+, or approximately 846 million people. 44.8% of people are +/-, or approximately 3.3 billion people. In total, 56.2% of people are +/- or +/+, which is 4.1 billion people.

It is also a synonymous variant, meaning it is in the coding section (exons) of a gene, and it doesn't matter if the + or - allele is present, because it behaves exactly the same in either case. Studies involving this SNP have shown it has no effect on homocysteine levels (an upregulation would lower homocysteine).

CBS N212N allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs2298758
This one has a variant which is a rare missense mutation, but Yasko has named it and is looking for a different rare variant which is synonymous. If it's synonymous in the coding section, it has absolutely no impact. No one's talking about it or buying supplements based on it anyhow, because it is so rare.

All of the nih.gov links above contain links to the relevant research for those SNPs, if you hover over the highlighted light blue box on the map view. I've read them, and am very confident that there is no support for Yasko's claims in them, and that they provide substantial evidence which contradicts her claims.

When we tried to track down the source of Yasko's CBS hysteria, the closest we could get was a study where half of the entire gene was lopped off. Naturally, it actually has nothing to do with CBS C699T or the other CBS SNPs she lists, so it seems her claims are ultimately inexplicable.

 

[da2020]

CBS C699T allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs234706
Minor allele frequency (MAF) in general populations is 27.63%. That means 7.6% of the world's population is +/+. Approximately 565 million people are +/+ for this SNP. 40.0% of people around the world are +/- for this SNP, which works out to nearly 3 billion people. In total, 47.6% of people are +/- or +/+ for this SNP, or 3.6 billion people.

For a study of the impact of this SNP upon folate/homocysteine-associated birth defects please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366099/. +/- and +/+ status resulted in a mild reduction in risk.

CBS A360A allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs1801181
This SNP has a MAF of 33.82%. 11.4% of of people are +/+, or approximately 846 million people. 44.8% of people are +/-, or approximately 3.3 billion people. In total, 56.2% of people are +/- or +/+, which is 4.1 billion people.

It is also a synonymous variant, meaning it is in the coding section (exons) of a gene, and it doesn't matter if the + or - allele is present, because it behaves exactly the same in either case. Studies involving this SNP have shown it has no effect on homocysteine levels (an upregulation would lower homocysteine).

CBS N212N allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs2298758
This one has a variant which is a rare missense mutation, but Yasko has named it and is looking for a different rare variant which is synonymous. If it's synonymous in the coding section, it has absolutely no impact. No one's talking about it or buying supplements based on it anyhow, because it is so rare.

All of the nih.gov links above contain links to the relevant research for those SNPs, if you hover over the highlighted light blue box on the map view. I've read them, and am very confident that there is no support for Yasko's claims in them, and that they provide substantial evidence which contradicts her claims.

When we tried to track down the source of Yasko's CBS hysteria, the closest we could get was a study where half of the entire gene was lopped off. Naturally, it actually has nothing to do with CBS C699T or the other CBS SNPs she lists, so it seems her claims are ultimately inexplicable.

Regarding http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366099/
That article is about "Folate and One-Carbon Metabolism Gene Polymorphisms and Their Associations With Oral Facial Clefts" and I never said I have oral facial clefts, so yes, I totally agree with that one. No facial clefts here, thankfully! But wow that's quite a misreading of my symptoms.

I have to go to work now so I'll have to get to the other ones later.

 

[Valentijn]

That article is about "Folate and One-Carbon Metabolism Gene Polymorphisms and Their Associations With Oral Facial Clefts" and I never said I have oral facial clefts, so yes, I totally agree with that one. No facial clefts here, thankfully!

It's a reflection of the impact of that SNP upon the methylation cycle. It has a mild and beneficial effect.

 

[Hip]

@Hip there never was a study on coffee enemas and Gluthathione.

There is such a glutathione study: it's quite new, published in 2012. See this earlier post.

If i recall correctly they fed rats coffee beans and it raised gluthathione.

Yes, that's the study the coffee enema literature often refers to, and apparently in that study they found mice eating coffee beans had greatly raised glutathione S-transferase (not glutathione). Glutathione S-transferase is an enzyme that helps glutathione work. Apparently this raising of glutathione S-transferase levels is due to the palmitic acids in coffee, rather than the caffeine. See the following:

COFFEE ENEMAS By Dr Lawrence Wilson

3. Palmitic acids. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, researchers in the lab of Lee Wattenberg identified salts of palmitic acids (kahweol and cafestol palmitate) in coffee. These act as potent enhancers of glutathione S-transferase which is an important enzyme in the liver. It is part of a major detoxification system that catalyzes the binding of many toxins from the blood stream to the sulfhydryl group of glutathione. For this reason, the glutathione S-transferase system is an important mechanism to get rid of cancer causing chemicals.

Adding coffee beans to the diets of mice enhanced glutathione S-transferase 600% in the liver and 700% in the small bowel. A similar stimulation by coffee of glutathione S-transferase in humans is probable.

Dr. Max Gerson, MD, a major proponent of the use of coffee enemas, wrote that:

“Heubner and Meyer of Goettingen University, Germany had shown in animal models that rectal administration of caffeine would dilate bile ducts and promote bile flow. Theophylline and theobromine, major constituents of coffee, dilate blood vessels and counter inflammation of the gut.

The palmitates of coffee enhance glutathione S-transferase, which is responsible for the removal of many toxins from the blood. Finally, the water in the enema stimulates peristalsis or the movement of toxic substances from the duodenum or upper intestine, through the intestine, and out through the rectum.”

From the above, it seems that it is not just caffeine which has an effect in coffee enemas.

But given that eating coffee beans works to raise glutathione S-transferase, it's not clear why you would need an enema; why not just eat coffee beans instead?

I think i will try it. However in my experience adding salt to a plain enema made it very difficult to expel compared to plain water, however i have IBS-C.

Instead of using physiological solution (= 9 grams of salt per liter), you could just make up a solution containing say 4 or 5 grams of salt per liter; that should still reduce the osmotic shock on intestinal cells to a degree, but might make it easier for you to expel.

 

[Hip]

Thinking about this, I don't know how beneficial CE's are for IBS. I was diagnosed with that about 15 years ago but removing gluten and taking a lot of iodine and soil probiotics got rid of it. I think of CE's as being for the liver.

Interesting. Did you have IBS-C or IBS-D, or mixed constipation / diarrhea IBS? I have IBS-D, and am interested in anything that might improve this.

I can't find much online though about coffee enemas helping IBS, and I am sure if they did, you would get lots of reports about it.

It's true that distilled water is acidic, whether it comes from a store-bought jug or a distiller at home. The acidity occurs because carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the water, creating a very dilute solution of carbonic acid. Distilled water in a container that’s been sitting open for a while could have a pH in the range of 6.
http://www.drdavidwilliams.com/distilled-water/

I missed your above comment earlier. That's an interesting bit of info, that carbon dioxide can dissolve in the distilled water, creating a very dilute solution of carbonic acid. I never thought of that.

I found some more info about this here:

Pure water, whether from a still, deioniser or reverse osmosis system, is an excellent solvent and will dissolve carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to form a very dilute solution of carbonic acid with a pH below 7.

The reason tap water is not similarly acidic is that the buffering effects of the other contaminants in the water mask the effect of the dissolved carbon dioxide.

In a water still, this solution can form as the steam liquefies in the condenser, resulting in a distilled water output with a pH which may be as low as 4, although pH 5.0 to 6.5 is more usual.

Given the above, it seems like if you live in a hard water area (where your tap water is a bit alkaline), it might be better to use tap water in your coffee enema, as this will tend to neutralize the acidity in coffee; whereas the acidic distilled water that comes from a water still would only further add to the acidity of coffee (though I should think that distilled water bought in a pharmacy will be CO2-free and at pH 7).

Or perhaps just use sodium bicarbonate to buffer the coffee solution to pH 7.

 

[da2020]

Interesting. Did you have IBS-C or IBS-D, or mixed constipation / diarrhea IBS? I have IBS-D, and am interested in anything that might improve this.

I can't find much online though about coffee enemas helping IBS, and I am sure if they did, you would get lots of reports about it.

They just called it IBS then as far as I know. Anyway I guess you'd say mixed.
Other than going gluten free (I am ++ on that genetic profile, not that I'm inviting attack from anyone on mentioning that..). Iodine and berberine are my winners. Maybe not at the same time, I don't know. Berberine is the most amazeballs botanical I've ever come across for lots of reasons. Thorne makes a good one that's powerful. Look at PubMed for studies with berberine on IBS-D. They're out there. I think there are around 3000 studies on PubMed on berberine. It's the new non-pharmaceutical wonderdrug.

 

[da2020]

It's a reflection of the impact of that SNP upon the methylation cycle. It has a mild and beneficial effect.

I guess in the sense that it might have protected me from getting an oral facial cleft. Hooray for that.

 

[Aerowallah]

da2020, a slight digression, but do you find Caledonia's SNPs interpretation Guide useful, or the protocols based on Yasko and flawed?

I see some IBS success stories with CEs, but I think your experience healing IBS before using CEs is instructive.

Jengowin, unless someone could prove my IBS was caused by mercury I would leave metals alone for now, and maybe CEs, too. Will be surprised if tinkering with pH makes any difference, unless you've got some very acidic water.

 

[da2020]

CBS C699T allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs234706
Minor allele frequency (MAF) in general populations is 27.63%. That means 7.6% of the world's population is +/+. Approximately 565 million people are +/+ for this SNP. 40.0% of people around the world are +/- for this SNP, which works out to nearly 3 billion people. In total, 47.6% of people are +/- or +/+ for this SNP, or 3.6 billion people.

For a study of the impact of this SNP upon folate/homocysteine-associated birth defects please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366099/. +/- and +/+ status resulted in a mild reduction in risk.

CBS A360A allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs1801181
This SNP has a MAF of 33.82%. 11.4% of of people are +/+, or approximately 846 million people. 44.8% of people are +/-, or approximately 3.3 billion people. In total, 56.2% of people are +/- or +/+, which is 4.1 billion people.

It is also a synonymous variant, meaning it is in the coding section (exons) of a gene, and it doesn't matter if the + or - allele is present, because it behaves exactly the same in either case. Studies involving this SNP have shown it has no effect on homocysteine levels (an upregulation would lower homocysteine).

CBS N212N allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs2298758
This one has a variant which is a rare missense mutation, but Yasko has named it and is looking for a different rare variant which is synonymous. If it's synonymous in the coding section, it has absolutely no impact. No one's talking about it or buying supplements based on it anyhow, because it is so rare.

All of the nih.gov links above contain links to the relevant research for those SNPs, if you hover over the highlighted light blue box on the map view. I've read them, and am very confident that there is no support for Yasko's claims in them, and that they provide substantial evidence which contradicts her claims.

When we tried to track down the source of Yasko's CBS hysteria, the closest we could get was a study where half of the entire gene was lopped off. Naturally, it actually has nothing to do with CBS C699T or the other CBS SNPs she lists, so it seems her claims are ultimately inexplicable.

I believe what's going on here is actually a logic and critical thinking problem.

As I said before, I believe the type of CBS I have is a factor. No genetic component is a singular cause of anything. They're all factors that depend on other factors (environment, other genes, stress, etc). It's very possible that the CBS ++ type I have increases ammonia but most people simply filter it out. I already said I also have a phase 1/2 liver disorder. So it's quite possible that's also a factor. But I know from my health history it's not the singular cause of this specific ammonia issue either.

Look at it this way. Sugar is a factor in getting diabetes. It's not a singular cause though. The vast majority of Americans eat sugar but the vast majority don't get diabetes. Some people at risk can cut out sugar and prevent the development or worsening of the disease but for others it makes no difference. One could argue (and the sugar industry has) that sugar is therefore not the cause of diabetes. Correct, it's not the cause. It's a factor. It would be unwise to rule it out simply because it's not a singular cause and say "statistics have proven that sugar is not the cause of diabetes, so just ignore anyone who says it has anything to do with it."

Or vaccines and autism is another example. The scientific community has dismissed vaccines wholesale as "not the cause" of autism. That is correct, they're not the cause. But are they a factor? Is there a collection of factors including genetics that they're a part of? Maybe there are 50 factors in interrelationhip. Now that would really narrow your type of generalized statistics way way down. It's quite possible that they are a factor, but since they've been eliminated from the data pool based on linear logic criteria, we may never know.

This is what you're doing here. Trying to eliminate a valid factor (that has a lot of people validating it based on experience and that has sound theory behind it -- I'm not saying proof, I'm saying sound theory) because it doesn't fit into a totalizing linear logic (and simplistic statistics).

Some diseases are like solo sports, some are more like team sports, where all the players have to be present to have a game.

I don't believe that the current paradigm of science, as linear as it is in its logic, is able to account for multi-factorial systems analysis. But I believe it is precisely genetics that will force us to start thinking in this new way. It also requires a level of advanced computation that hasn't been integrated into medicine yet.

Part of what's great about forums is that people can compare experiences to find connecting and coinciding factors. This is not a scientific community whose job it is to be the final authority on what is or is not a cause of disease, especially when the criteria for that is based on a faulty and outdated logic.

 

[Hip]

CBS C699T allele data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs234706

Minor allele frequency (MAF) in general populations is 27.63%. That means 7.6% of the world's population is +/+. Approximately 565 million people are +/+ for this SNP. 40.0% of people around the world are +/- for this SNP, which works out to nearly 3 billion people. In total, 47.6% of people are +/- or +/+ for this SNP, or 3.6 billion people.

I don't really know that much about SNPs in general, but I assume you are arguing that because 7.6% of the world's population are +/+ for the CBS C699T allele, and because the sulfate/sulfur problems that @da2020 experiences are rare, CBS C699T +/+ cannot be the explanation for these problems, otherwise 7.6% of people would have them.

But along the lines that @da2020 argues in her post above, might CBS C699T +/+ only come into play within certain contexts, such as the context of a chronic viral infection, or within the context of a disease like ME/CFS? In other words, perhaps CBS C699T +/+ and various other problem SNP remain relatively harmless, except in certain contexts.



As an aside, perhaps the observation that certain SNPs such as CBS C699T +/+ appear to cause problems in conditions like ME/CFS could help throw light on the biochemistry of ME/CFS. You could start asking questions like: why do people with CBS C699T +/+ only appear to suffer problems from this allele after they have developed ME/CFS? That is of course assuming that there is evidence to show that those with both CBS C699T +/+ and ME/CFS do have a higher incidence of sulfate/sulfur problems.

 

[da2020]

da2020, a slight digression, but do you find Caledonia's SNPs interpretation Guide useful, or the protocols based on Yasko and flawed?

I see some IBS success stories with CEs, but I think your experience healing IBS before using CEs is instructive.

Jengowin, unless someone could prove my IBS was caused my mercury I would leave metals alone for now, and maybe CEs, too. Will be surprised if tinkering with pH makes any difference, unless you've got some very acidic water.

Oh I've seen Caledonia's name a lot but not sure I know the guide, I'll look for it, thanks.

One of my main issues with Yasko's protocol is her tendency to "blend" substances in single formulas, and then throw like 50 formulas at you (then another 50, then another 50). It's technically impossible to figure out what is doing what. I had a terrible reaction to her All in One that's supposed to work for "everybody", and another of her impossible-to-know-what-it-is-exactly supplements made my hair fall out (it caused a sudden onset selenium deficiency - my thyroid burned in pain 10 minutes after taking it sublingually. Selenium (my own) fixed it, so it's fine now.)

In the 30 years I've been at this game it's most often the cheapest, simplest things that make the biggest difference. The fancier and more expensive treatments get, often the less effective they get.

I think Yasko's research has real value though, including on the speculative level. Science needs hypotheses and she's full of some great ones. She's a real groundbreaker on that level. Too bad she's such a terrible writer...

 

[Hip]

They just called it IBS then as far as I know. Anyway I guess you'd say mixed.
Other than going gluten free (I am ++ on that genetic profile, not that I'm inviting attack from anyone on mentioning that..). Iodine and berberine are my winners. Maybe not at the same time, I don't know. Berberine is the most amazeballs botanical I've ever come across for lots of reasons. Thorne makes a good one that's powerful. Look at PubMed for studies with berberine on IBS-D. They're out there. I think there are around 3000 studies on PubMed on berberine. It's the new non-pharmaceutical wonderdrug.

Are there gluten intolerance-related SNPs? I had gluten intolerance for many years (but for some reason, the symptom I get from eating gluten, rapid-onset depression for 6 to 8 hours, disappeared after I developed ME/CFS).

The last time I took berberine, several years ago, I remember I had some problems with it, but I can't recall the exact details. I know berberine has lots of good properties: it is good for leaky gut and IBS, it boosts interferon beta, but it is also linked to neurotoxicity — see here.

Oh I've seen Caledonia's name a lot but not sure I know the guide, I'll look for it, thanks.

Caledonia's methylation links are here.

 

[da2020]

da2020, a slight digression, but do you find Caledonia's SNPs interpretation Guide useful, or the protocols based on Yasko and flawed?

I see some IBS success stories with CEs, but I think your experience healing IBS before using CEs is instructive.

Jengowin, unless someone could prove my IBS was caused my mercury I would leave metals alone for now, and maybe CEs, too. Will be surprised if tinkering with pH makes any difference, unless you've got some very acidic water.

Caledonia's guide is excellent! Jeez if I had seen that before it would have saved me a ton of research on my own. It's an excellent distillation of a lot of the very confusing info that's out there.

 

[Aerowallah]

In the 30 years I've been at this game it's most often the cheapest, simplest things that make the biggest difference. The fancier and more expensive treatments get, often the less effective they get.

Wow, I could not agree more!

Glad you like the Guide. I'm just starting some of its protocols.

 

[da2020]

Are there gluten intolerance-related SNPs? I had gluten intolerance for many years (but for some reason, the symptom I get from eating gluten, rapid-onset depression for 6 to 8 hours, disappeared after I developed ME/CFS).

The last time I took berberine, several years ago, I remember I had some problems with it, but I can't recall the exact details. I know berberine has lots of good properties: it is good for leaky gut and IBS, it boosts interferon beta, but it is also linked to neurotoxicity — see here.





Caledonia's methylation links are here.

Oh very interesting berberine reference, I did not know that. Maybe just for short term use then and/or depends on the individual.

Yes there are celiac SNP's. DNAfit analyzes them as part of their service (via 23andme or standalone) but probably other places do too for cheaper or maybe even free. I actually had mine done like 15 years ago, I paid a fortune and I couldn't find a doctor back then who knew how to interpret the results. Now I have DNAfit version too. They only look at like 10-15 things but it's interesting, if expensive.

 

[Hip]

Yes there are celiac SNP's.

Just found this list of 8 SNPs linked to celiac. A quick check on 23andme finds that I have 3 out of 8 of those SNPs (two as -/+ and one as +/+). But does this relate to gluten intolerance? One study found that there is an immunological difference between the celiac and gluten intolerance: in gluten intolerance, only the innate immune system in the gut responds to gluten; whereas in celiac, both the innate and adaptive immune systems respond to gluten, and it is the latter that causes intestinal damage.

 

[jengonwin]

@Hip I guess the idea of the coffee enema is to rapidly dilute the bile ducts to allow toxins to clear the liver faster and lower the burden. If you just ate coffee beans it is not very in and out like an enema.

For example if you were having a herx from killing a pathogen and your liver was overloaded with toxins poisoning your body you cannot just eat some coffee beans and quickly dilute the bile ducts to flush the toxins through. I think that where the enema works. Also being an enema it flushes to colon too which is the main exit path of toxins.