Flux,OK perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot here, that was never meant to be the case. I have read what you have to say on several matters and I do think you have very valid points, and obvioulsy have the literature to back them up, and as a scientist I respect that. Now you have got me thinking, and chewing over things you have said in this thread, mostly:-"No, IBS is a diagnosis based on symptoms not on a specific motor physiology. In general, specific dysmotility is something that scientists have not been able to associate with IBS. Even visceral hypersensitivity doesnï¿½t show up in all cases: hence the reason the diagnosis is based on symptoms and the reason the term "spastic colon" was dropped. Once a specific motor problem is found then that is the problem and not IBS."and"No, IBS is a term invented by doctors based soley on symptoms, and it covers what are almost certainly many disparate disorders. In many cases, there is no physical motor correlate in the gut. Once something like "spasms", whatever that really is, is detected, the diagnosis should be changed."Now both the Manning and the Rome criteria for IBS definition refer to pain:-(Manning) Onset of pain linked to more frequent bowel movements(Rome) 3 months of continuous or recurring symptoms of abdominal pain or irritation that May be relieved with a bowel movement, May be coupled with a change in frequency, or May be related to a change in the consistency of stools.Now my questions are what are your thoughts on the pain ? If that pain is brought about by a sudden contraction of the muscles in the gut (a 'spasm') then do you not think that a spasm IS (or should be made) a symptom of IBS (assuming that definate physical recording of the spasm can be made). I realise that pain and 'spasm' on their own would not be sufficient to warrant a 'diagnosis' of IBS, as there are plenty of other criteria to also fill. Do you feel there are other reasons for the pain often associated with an IBS 'diagnosis' ?"Once something like "spasms", whatever that really is, is detected, the diagnosis should be changed.", do you have any suggestions as to what that diagnosis should be changed to ?I would sincerely value your opinionsIainP.S. Stace, as to your comment about misinformation, flux does tag onto his posts:- "I am not a doctor, nor do I work for profit in the medical/pharmacological field, but I have read scientific and medical texts, and have access to numerous sources of medical information that are not readily available to others. One should always consult a medical professional regarding advice received." so you should not assume that what read from flux (or anyone else) is gospel and 'as it is' flux (like myself) read scientific journals and have to form our own opinion on data that we read there, that opinion maybe flawed or any logical assumptions maybe made on flawed original data, so I would say be careful when you are being given misinformation, as I think that would imply a deliberate act, and I don't think anyone would say that flux is being deliberately misleading.