Hi Doug.To save time since this stupid dialup line may decapitate me at any moment, let us assume that you have been worked up by a GI doc properly and using the standard differential diagnosis they cannot find any organic disease...(yet)..."yet" should now be the amendment of all such statments because the probability is that there IS an organic basis for the symptoms you experience but the tools being used are not sufficient to find it.The probability, for patient suffering significant symptoms of an IBS symptom set which includes diarrhea, is that there is an organic basis for the symptoms. Many people have shown over the years, especially recently when it bagan dawning on people to start studying the small intestine not just the colon, that these patient suffer from abnormal reactions of the immune system (immune cell types) which interface with the GI tract. For some reason, and there are several underlying possibilities, this subpopulation (of what is presently called the "entire IBS population" if you collected all the people who have been "diagnosed with IBS" )immune system starts reacting to various things they eat (and it is different things for different people NOT the same things for everyone) as if it is a pathogen, not something safe. This should not happpen. This starts in the small bowel where digestion is proceeding and the immune system has mechanisms for looking at what you eat to spot pathogens, and react to them.Now, there are multpile ways by which this symptom generating meachnism can be caused, "loss of oral tolerance" is one phrase used to describe the problem in simple terms, only a few of which have been considered and even fewer demonstrated and even fewer isolated enough to develop an absolute way of assessing it. You can tell now that it is happening, and you can tell what provokes the response so you can avoid it, but that is as far as we can go as of yet with absolute certainty.In this population, while there is speculation from some sources that this mass-immune dysfunction could be the consequence of some neurologic primary dysfunction, it does not look like that is often the primary source, just bcause it could be, if you take into account both the exact mechanisms and the patients history. It appears more likely that ofetn there is another organic basis for this dysfuntion, such as a predisposing infection or other such trauma which provoked activation of the cellular immunity (and even the humoral immune system) in some, others it seems to be probable it is dysbiosis from one of many possible causes (dysbiosis in general tends to disrupt the normal digestive process which in turn can lead to dysfunction of the gut-systemic immune interface). So the amplified effects of the way in which the peripheral nervous system sends information to the brain, and the brain processes it and then responds with instructions, and the way in which the gut neural network operates autonomously...the dysfuntions oberserved in those systems are just as likely to be secondary to the effects of chemical mediators released by the immunocytes. The system is a closed loop, though, so its like a nuclear reactor...once activated it is self-perpetuating and can be ratcheted up if you move the rods' position in the reactor core.After a period of time, though, one has to consider learned behavior, anticipatory behaviors, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the like as being sources of further amplification (or attenuation of the symptoms if you can blunt the consequences of these behaviors with therapy) as a complicating factor in trying to assess the chicken-or-egg question.So this is a source of debate, as there are different investigators with different backgrounds and credentials and focus looking at it from (often) divergent perspectives....sort of like an Englishman and an American discussing the American Civil War: the facts of the events are the facts...but what one views as fact and the other views as fact will of necessity be colored by thier perspectives...they interpet what they see in the context of their own experience. So if someone wants to get closer to the plain facts alone, when listening to how the two each interpret what they see and how they form beliefs, examine it objectively. The one will arrive at a more balanced view.This is just the way it is with so called IBS research and clinical therapy....it is also natural as the evolution of understanding of any syndrome proceeds.On the flipside you have patients with mild symptoms. It is also clear from the literature that this is the group where it would be just as likely that symptoms could be traced to a primary dysfunction involving the central nervous system and systemic nervous system and the organs innervated as it is they could be traced to a modest organic problem. There is certainly a population of people whose natural reactions to anxiety and distress, and how they activate different systems which alter organ function, can produce sysmptoms of various types through whichever organs are affected. It is also possible that this patient could have a mild primary pathology....be it infective or "organic"...eliciting symptoms.This is the challenge to the practitioner presented with these patients of the various populations of people who come forth with mild to severe symptoms we associate with what we now, for the moment, call "IBS".At what point does the practitioner stop seeking the root cause of the dysfunction and symptoms and simply write it off as a "functional disease" (which is just a term the medical profession has used to conveniently and cleanly explain that for the most part they have not advanced their knowledge enough at that given moment to be able to find the causal basis for the symptoms...or that the practitioner assigning the diagnosis has exhausted his or her personal knowledge base).Some beleive in going farther than others. The advocates of symptom-based diagnosis draw a line much sooner than certain others who are advocates of exhausting all possibilities in a search for a causal basis of the symtoms. In any event, the upshot of this brief essay is that while it is possible that some symptoms can have a pure "mind-body origin" just as some therapies can produce treatment which is of a purely "mind-body origin" it is not so easy as some would have us beleive to discriminate clearly that symptom or dysfunction which is primarily attributable to that source from one which is purely pathologic/pathogenic/patho-whatever.Most of the time, the best word I can think of is that the problem is blended-origin as these systems are fully integrated bodily systems and it is nigh impossible to segregate their interaction and interdependency.Hey. I did not gett disco'ed for aa whole 10 minutes...wowMNL