Colon Cleanse Product



Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Unfortunately many people just assume that colonics will
>> get rid of toxins and improve ones health, reduce one's
>> chances of getting a serious disease. For all you know
>> colonics may *increase* the chances of getting colon
>> cancer.
>
> Can you give any possible scenario or framework within
> which that would be the case?

I'll bite; frequent colonics would be likely to remove the
mucus normally secreted by the lining of the colon. Now to
most "natural" believers that would be a good thing, because
they believe, incorrectly, that a healthy body doesn't
produce mucus, for no reason other than that they consider
mucus "gross." But in fact mucus serves to protect mucuous
membranes, such as the lining of the colon, and removing
that protection could make the cells of the colon lining
more vulnerable to damage, damage that would require the
cells to divide faster to be repaired. And anything that
increases the rate of cell division would have the potential
to increase the formation of malignant cells.

BTW, I seem to remember that some years ago researchers were
working on a screening test for colon cancer that was based
on the fact that cancerous colon cells *don't* produce mucus
whereas normal colon cells do.
 
Rich.@. wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, but people may think
> that they are constipated when they really are not. It is
> a very subjective symptom.

Life's pretty subjective for some of us :)

Some people wouldn't know where their colon is! If the
person with the symptoms described below also had a lumpy,
solid mass down the left side of their abdomen, which the
docs all said was "normal" but which just sat there and
never really shifted, and felt sore sometimes, - that's the
descending colon isn't it?

> >Maybe the person also feels congested most of the time,
> >has difficulty thinking as clearly or swiftly as they
> >once could, has less energy despite a regular exercise
> >regime, has bad breath despite good teeth and no
> >infections... (Remembering I am not any kind of
> >practitioner whatsoever and am just answering this
> >without checking any med details - just as an ornery
> >person.)
>
> The above might suggest that the person is depressed.

And that depression just might clear after a series of
colonics..

> >And they have been to their family doc who checked them
> >out and found nothing wrong, just prescribed laxatives;
> >then they went to their cousin's doc who did blood tests
> >and other check ups just to be sure and also found
> >nothing, and suggested the person take a break from work
> >and "Stop worrying" (possibly good advice, but the person
> >wants to do something more to get things back to working
> >order and also can't take time off from work).
>
> Again this sounds like some psychological problem. Psycho
> logic problems can manifest with physical symptoms (like
> constipation for example).

And which causes which, Rich? Chicken or egg? And
psychological probs cannot be helped by lifestyle and other
health changes???

> >> Unfortunately those who push colonics have a vested
> >> interest in creating fear in the mind of the
> >> prospective client that they have toxins that must be
> >> eliminated.
> >
> >And those of us who want to be healthier longer have a
> >vested interest in finding all possible ways of
> >facilitating that.
>
> I certainly am interested in that myself. I am not sure
> how your statement followed from mine. It appeared to be a
> non sequitur.

It's the other side of the same coin. The colonicist or
other therapist
- - - - the person visiting them.

> "Toby", do you believe that colon cleanses rid the body of
> toxins?? If so do you have evidence of what toxins are
> removed and how this was measured??

I don't know about "toxins". I do believe that colonics can
be helpful in some situations. No, I haven't researched the
yukky issue, so I don't know what evidence is out there.
Maybe the Tim T. guy does?

> >> If one uses colonics regularly for "maintenance" it is
> >> likely that the person's bowels will become dependent
> >> on the colonics for evacuation of the feces. This is a
> >> very bad situation except for those who are raking in
> >> the bucks from the colonics.
> >
> >I meant, say, once a year or so, for those who feel they
> >need it.
>
> Oh, once a year probably will not be likely to cause
> problems. I am concerned about people who have these
> colonics or other cleanses several times a month to rid
> their body of "toxins".

It varies from person to person. A 20-something year old tri-
athlete training for Athens who's already on a super charged
diet isn't likely to need one. Nor most fit, healthy,
youngish people who are already in top health.

But people in sedentary city lives who've been too long on
junkish diets, who are lethargic despite being cheerful, get
more than their share of headaches and congestion, who don't
sleep as well as they used to, who are just not bouncing
back to the health they once had, may want to try something
extra to help get things into gear again. Colonic irrigation
is NOT any be-all or end-all, it is just one more thing that
might help make a difference sometimes. And without
accompanying dietary and other health/ lifestyle
improvements, whatever beneficial effects it may have will
likely only be temporary. imo.

--
"I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
and multiply." R. Serling
 
Eric Bohlman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Toby Joe <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > However, colonics are rather more natural than surgery,
> > more natural than resection, more natural than most drug
> > meds, more natural than radio or chemo, more natural
> > than a colostemy..
>
> Logical fallacy of petitio principii (begging the
> question): your argument hinges on an unstate premise
> (that colonic irrigation can substitute for, or eliminate
> the need for, cancer treatment) which is in as much need
> of proof as the conclusion.

Eric, First, I am not saying or thinking that colonics alone
could prevent colon or other cancer (much less cure it).

I think that it could have a role as a complementary
therapy, within a wider health/ alt health framework, as a
preventative (read deterrent, if that is preferable). To be
of value, it would need to be used in conjunction with diet,
exercise, and whatever supplements and other components of
the health program.

Irt your comments, someone else had noted that using
colonics is not exactly "Natural". My response to that was
two-part: a) the lives we are living are not exactly
"natural", and b) if we do nothing at all, when there is a
possible preventative program available, then the end result
of doing nothing _may_ be the need of rather less natural
treatments yet again.

(Does that 'work' as a logical argument?)

> > Also, we are living a way of life that is not natural.
> > Sedentary living, processed food, even our
> > bathrooms/toilets are not as would be if we were
> > entirely "natural".
>
> "Natural" here simply means "the way things were in the
> past" (in reality, "the way things were in the past for
> some people and some places; most nostalgic visions of the
> past presume that if one were to live in the past, one
> would live as a member of the aristocracy. I remember an
> anecdote where Isaac Asimov, in his early career when he
> was teaching, had a student who was going on about how far
> civilization had gone downhill since classical times.
> Asimov sat the student down and gave him a rather detailed
> description of what his life would have been like as a
> slave in classical Athens.).
>
> The fact is that by all objective measures, people in the
> West are healthier than they were in the past. Yes, some
> "diseases of excess" like type 2 diabetes and other
> conditions associated with too many calories and too
> little physical activity are rising, and are occurring
> more often than in the past, but that increase is more
> than offset by the reduction in morbidity and mortality
> from many other conditions.

Well, that is another question..

I was just answering the objection that colonics is not
"natural". Relative to some other treatments, it is closer
to natural than many.

--
"I happen to think that the singular evil of our time is
prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow
and multiply." R. Serling
 
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:49:27 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]> wrote
>or quoted:
>> "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gas-
>tro.html]
>
>> > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
>> > quacks spout what they know nothing about?
>>
>> You might notice something there that is lacking in most
>> of the posts in this newsgroup: references.
>>
>> So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
>> provide evidence where the folks at Quackwatch are
>> incorrect?
>
>For starters...
>
>Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened feces
>accumulate on the intestinal walls"
>
>...and yet there are *hundreds* of studies on MedLine about
>"fecal impaction". A sample:
>
>``Fecal impaction: a fatal cause of cardiac tamponade?
>
>``Fecal impaction has been an instigator of various
>morbidities and mortalities.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=14972239
>
>``Fecal impaction: a cause of isolated small bowel
>dilatation on abdominal radiographs''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11673007
>
>``Faecal impaction: older people's experiences and nursing
>practice''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11904547
>
>A study in rabbits showing fecal impaction:
>
> http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=3437752
>
>``Diagnosis and treatment of chronic recurrent caecal
>impaction''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11202386
>
>``Observation of impacted fecal stones''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12378923
>
>Barrett says the auto-intoxication theory is proven wrong -
>and yet there's an extensive medical literature on gut
>dysbiosis on MedLine.

That's not "auto-intoxication".

>...and Barrett criticises fasting - when there's an
>extensive literature showing health benefits from
>regular fasting.

Only in the overefed. Respite, you know.
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:IMM8c.30087>
> I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they did
> do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not birds,
> our digestive systems are decidedly different, and so are
> our diets.
============================
What I believe he observed is the preening act where the
bird rubs it's bill or beak on the oil gland on it's tail,
above it's anus - then preens the oil through it's feathers.
This makes the feathers shine and waterproofs them. No water
is *shot* anywhere.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> David Wright <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> > I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they did
> > do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not birds,
> > our digestive systems are decidedly different, and so
> > are our diets.
>
> This is true - of course.

It isn't true. It's utter nonsense.

> I was addressing the comment:

> ``What can be more UNNATURAL than a colon cleanse?''

> Colonic irrigation is in fact very natural - for some
> creatures.

No it isn't.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:09:55 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
<[email protected]> posted:

>
>"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]> wrote
>> or quoted:
>> > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastr-
>> o.html]
>>
>> > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
>> > > quacks spout what
>they
>> > > know nothing about?
>> >
>> > You might notice something there that is lacking in
>> > most of the posts in this newsgroup: references.
>> >
>> > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
>> > provide evidence
>where
>> > the folks at Quackwatch are incorrect?
>>
>> For starters...
>>
>> Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
>> feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
>>
>
>Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
> accumulation of hardened feces on the intestinal walls;
> it is a severe form of constipation. While the impacted
> stool may be "hardened," it does not adhere to the wall
> of the colon, and is not something left behind after
> evacuation of the bowel. To attempt a purgative
> "cleanse" while fecally impacted would be harmful, and
> possibly fatal. What's more, fecal impaction is often
> the RESULT of the misuse of laxatives and enemas.
>
>Dr. Barrett's essay at:
>
>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ga-
>stro.html
>
>(http://tinyurl.com/2v6bc)
>
>is insightful, thorough, and truthful, and only the
>most rabid anti-science, anti-medicine nuts would find
>fault with it.
>
>Do your colon and your health a favor and avoid "cleanses,"
>purges, laxatives, and enemas altogether. Eat a balanced,
>varied diet which includes plenty of fiber and water, and
>move your bowels when your body tells you it needs to, and
>stop worrying about "toxins" and ****.
>
>Oh, and never get your health advice from a website that
>has credit card symbols on its homepage.

Excellent post, Rich. I like the succinct advice in your
last sentence. Spot on!
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote
> or quoted:
> > This is total BS! We have herons, ducks, cranes and
> > gulls here and I
see
> > them all the time. You're listening to pure nonsense. No
> > animal or
bird
> > gives itself an enema.

> Stick your fingers in your ears and sing the La-La song,
> then - since this is well known.

Where is it well known? In your world somewhere? I lived by
the water all my life and held a permit from the Dept of the
Interior as a wild-bird rehabilitator. I handled all kinds
of birds including many water birds. NONE were known to try
and shoot water into their cloacas. Their necks do not fold
in such a way that they can do this in any case.

> ``As a matter of fact, I have seen herons and other
> similar birds in Florida stand by a river or pool of
> water, fill their long beaks, and inject water into
> the rectum

This is physiologically impossible for a bird to do. It's
like claiming you saw a man insert his elbow into his ear.

in order to give themselves an enema
> or colon irrigation. I never asked these birds what
> school, college or university they attended or who
> taught them this principle of internal lavage.''

Well you better ask them because you're dreaming.

> Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema: http://www.mne-
> mosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon1551_087

This is clearly a drawing of a bird PREENING itself as all
birds do. In fact they do it from above usually, and not
from UNDER their wings as this drawing shows.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Wright <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> >
> > > I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they
> > > did do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not
> > > birds, our digestive systems are decidedly different,
> > > and so are our diets.
> >
> > This is true - of course.
> >
> > I was addressing the comment:
> >
> > ``What can be more UNNATURAL than a colon cleanse?''
> >
> > Colonic irrigation is in fact very natural - for some
> > creatures.
>
> I don't know about the bird example. Somehow that doesn't
> quite, er,
wash..

I assure you it is not true. Even if a bird wanted to give
itself an enema their necks do not fold in such a way that
they could insert their beaks in their cloacas.

> Also, we are living a way of life that is not natural.
> Sedentary living, processed food, even our
> bathrooms/toilets are not as would be if we were entirely
> "natural".

I agree.

--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis
> giving herself a douche'. Is there really a need to lie
> about birds to promote enemas?
===============
He is indeed lying. This is a drawing of a bird preening
using itself as all birds do. It has nothing to so with
shooting water up it's cloaca.
--
Kim The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:35:13 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]>
posted:

>Sounds like the same troll no matter how many times I read
>it.

Do you EVER say anything worthwhile here?
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:21:42 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
>wrote or quoted:
>
>> I challenge anyone to come up with a single report of a
>> "poison" that has been found in the human colon AND been
>> shown to be removed by a "cleanse."
>
>A "cleanse" washes out *most* of the material in the colon.

So does a morning ****!

>The question of whether there are any undesirable
>substances in these seems rather trivial

Especially as they can't be absorbed.

>- since the body has hallmarked the *entire* contents for
> excretion - and it inculudes a whole bunch of undesirable
> substances taken out of the blood by the liver, and a
> slew of products of bacterial fermentation.

What by the liver?

>Getting rid of them via irrigation is rather like having an
>exceptionally good ****.

Presacktly!!! I have on EVERY morning, why don't you try it.

>As with a good dump, you often feel much better for it
>afterwards.

Ayup. I'll tell you which is healthier and more convenient.

>> Also, I challenge anyone to produce any example of a
>> "waste product" "building up" in the human colon,
>> excluding simple constipation, bowel obstruction, and
>> diverticulosis (three medical conditions that can NOT be
>> effectively treated with "cleanse" purges with the
>> possible exception of constipation which can be treated
>> far more safely with gentler methods.)
>
>Bacteria and parasites. These often like the "stagnant"
>area at the bottom of the ascending colon best - and can
>cause appendicitis and other problems.

Cobblers. This is just scare tactics. Most inflamed
apendices are not infected.

>On what grounds are you asserting diverticulosis (and
>diverticulitis?) and obstruction cannot be treated by
>irrigation?

Ask a doctor.

>You are aware of some demonstration of its ineffectiveness
>- or are you saying we just don't know?

Standing on your head going Woo Woo Woo scares away the
elephants. Have I got a demonstration of the ineffectiveness
of this practice?

>> It is a well established fact that the regular use of
>> laxatives is damaging to colon health. "Cleanses" are
>> laxatives in the extreme, and to use them to purge non-
>> existent "toxins" and "waste buildups" is an unhealthy,
>> self-destructive practice.
>
>Washing your skin every five minutes isn't good for you
>either - but it doesn't follow that you should not do
>it at all.

BBBbbbut your bowel shouldn't be "dirty" requiring washing.

>Laxatives have to go through your whole digestive system.
>They are less of a localised treatment - and have a
>different effect.

Most irritate the nervous system, eventually desensitising
the nervous/ muscular system involved in peristalsis.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:42:48 GMT, [email protected] (David
Wright) posted:

>In article <[email protected]>, Kim
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]>
>>> wrote or quoted:
>>> > Just as nature (or god) intended. :) What can be more
>>> > UNNATURAL than
>>a
>>> > colon cleanse?
>>>
>>> In ancient times the practice was known as "Basti".
>>
>>Because it's ancient doesn't mean it's natural. People
>>believed in any number of things in the ancient past.
>>
>>> ...and of course animals squirt water into their colons
>>> from their mouths:
>>
>>Since when?
>>
>>> ``If you stand long and still enough near rivers, lakes
>>> and ponds where herons and similar long-beaked birds
>>> fish and feed, you will notice a curious habit.
>>
>>I LIVED by the water all my life and still do! In fact we
>>have several ponds on our property.
>>
>>> From time to time, a heron will suck up a beak full of
>>> water, twist its neck around and insert the beak into
>>> its own anus, squirting the water deep into its bowels
>>> to flush out the putrid debris and other residue from
>>> its fish-based diet.
>>
>>This is total BS! We have herons, ducks, cranes and gulls
>>here and I see them all the time. You're listening to pure
>>nonsense. No animal or bird gives itself an enema.
>
>I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they did
>do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not birds,
>our digestive systems are decidedly different, and so are
>our diets.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
> standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Guinea pigs and rabbits and lots of other animals practice
refection.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:40:46 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote
>or quoted:
>> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> > From time to time, a heron will suck up a beak full
>> > of water, twist its neck around and insert the beak
>> > into its own anus, squirting the water deep into its
>> > bowels to flush out the putrid debris and other
>> > residue from its fish-based diet.
>>
>> This is total BS! We have herons, ducks, cranes and gulls
>> here and I see them all the time. You're listening to
>> pure nonsense. No animal or bird gives itself an enema.
>
>Stick your fingers in your ears and sing the La-La song,
>then - since this is well known.

some scientific references, perhaps?

>``As a matter of fact, I have seen herons and other similar
>birds in Florida stand by a river or pool of water, fill
>their long beaks, and inject water into the rectum in order
>to give themselves an enema or colon irrigation. I never
>asked these birds what school, college or university they
>attended or who taught them this principle of internal
>lavage.''
>
> - Dr. Norman Walker - in Colon Health: The Key To A
> Vibrant Life!
>
>Picture of in Ibis giving itself an enema:
>
>http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon1551_087

Well that proves it. A poor drawing.... Could be picking
parasites out of its butt, or perhaps just having a good
scratch. Sheeeesh!
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:43:56 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>David Wright <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
>> I'd never heard of that one either. But even if they did
>> do it, that doesn't mean humans should. We're not birds,
>> our digestive systems are decidedly different, and so are
>> our diets.
>
>This is true - of course.
>
>I was addressing the comment:
>
>``What can be more UNNATURAL than a colon cleanse?''

[for humans]

>Colonic irrigation is in fact very natural - for some
>creatures.

[for humans]

Evidence please that any creatures do this.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:11:27 GMT, Tim Tyler <[email protected]> posted:

>In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
>wrote or quoted:
>> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
>> > wrote or quoted:
>> > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gas-
>> > tro.html]
>> >
>> > > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
>> > > > quacks spout what they know nothing about?
>> > >
>> > > You might notice something there that is lacking in
>> > > most of the posts in this newsgroup: references.
>> > >
>> > > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
>> > > provide evidence where the folks at Quackwatch are
>> > > incorrect?
>> >
>> > For starters...
>> >
>> > Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
>> > feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
>>
>> Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
>> accumulation of hardened feces on the intestinal
>> walls; [...]
>
>The feces are certainly hardened, accumulating and static.

It's called chronic constipation.

>> it is a severe form of constipation. While the impacted
>> stool may be "hardened," it does not adhere to the wall
>> of the colon, and is not something left behind after
>> evacuation of the bowel. To attempt a purgative "cleanse"
>> while fecally impacted would be harmful, and possibly
>> fatal. [...]
>
>*Even* conventional medicine uses enemas to treat the
>problem.

Or even surgery. But this does not mean that this is
appropriate for everyone -- just the tiny number of
afflicted persons.

>Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and the
>material is then manually manipulated.

Of course.

>Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is normally
>preceded by an extended period of constapation - during
>which the time of passage of material through the colon is
>slowed down - and the fecal material has time to dry out.
>Since the problem is partly caused by dehydration, applying
>water is an obvious form of first aid.

Yes

>> What's more, fecal impaction is often the RESULT of the
>> misuse of laxatives and enemas.
>
>Fecal impaction is rarely the result of the misuse of
>laxatives and enemas.

It certainly is. These screw-up the muscle tone and
peristalsis strength.

>Here is a list of the most common causes:
>
>``Patients at risk include those who:
>
> * Take certain drugs:

primarily laxitives.

> * Any type of narcotic pain medication

These slow peristalsis. They are usually countered by
appropriate treatment when administered by a doctor.

> * Methadone maintenance treatment for narcotic addiction

Same as above. You are not going to list all the narc
drugs I hope.

> * Anticholinergic medications

Narcs and other things.

> * Antidiarrheal medications

Usually narcs.

> * Have decreased mobility

Yes, that's what it is.

> * Have a limited diet (especially one that is low in
> fluids)'

Yep, a healthy diet is always advocated.

And laxitives, especially the irritants, screw up
peristalsis

> - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/0002-
> 30.htm
>
>Note that it is not laxatives that are mostly to blame -
>but constapation-inducing drugs - such as opiates and
>antidiarrheal medications.

But most folk don't take these regularly. Most chronic
constipatiion is caused by abuse of laxitives. Has been
for decades.
 
In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> "Toby Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > I was addressing the comment:
> > >
> > > ``What can be more UNNATURAL than a colon cleanse?''
> > >
> > > Colonic irrigation is in fact very natural - for some
> > > creatures.
> >
> > I don't know about the bird example. Somehow that
> > doesn't quite, er, wash..
>
> I assure you it is not true. Even if a bird wanted to give
> itself an enema their necks do not fold in such a way that
> they could insert their beaks in their cloacas.

*All* birds?!?

This is evidently mistaken:

http://www.auduboninstitute.org/press/images/flamingo-
egg.jpg

...should illustrate that clearly enough.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message

> > No, no, I beg to differ. That's a picture of an Ibis
> > giving herself a douche'. Is there really a need to lie
> > about birds to promote enemas?
>
> He is indeed lying. This is a drawing of a bird preening
> using itself as all birds do. It has nothing to so with
> shooting water up it's cloaca.

The illustration's caption reads:

``An ibis uses its beak as a clyster to give himself
an enema''

- http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_bon1551_-
087

Another one:

``An ibis about to use its beak as a clyster to give himself
an enema''

- http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/showillu?id=embmne_mig1591_-
087

These captions make clear that the bird in question is male
;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In sci.med.nutrition Kim <[email protected]> wrote
> > or quoted:

> > Stick your fingers in your ears and sing the La-La song,
> > then - since this is well known.
>
> Where is it well known? In your world somewhere? I lived
> by the water all my life and held a permit from the Dept
> of the Interior as a wild-bird rehabilitator. I handled
> all kinds of birds including many water birds. NONE were
> known to try and shoot water into their cloacas.

Watching an Ibis is how the Egytpians were believed to have
discovered the enema.

> Their necks do not fold in such a way that they can do
> this in any case.
>
> > ``As a matter of fact, I have seen herons and other
> > similar birds in Florida stand by a river or pool of
> > water, fill their long beaks, and inject water into the
> > rectum
>
> This is physiologically impossible for a bird to do. It's
> like claiming you saw a man insert his elbow into his ear.

A photograph of a heron with it's beak a centimeter or so
from its backside:

http://www.rlephoto.com/birds/00GBheron002.jpg

The heron's kneck is remarkably long and flexible.

Another illustration of a heron's neck:

http://www.helsaple.com/images/Photos/Nature/Birds/Great%-
20Blue%20Heron/Preening_1.jpg

After looking at these, I don't doubt for a moment that it
could reach round.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> Watching an Ibis is how the Egytpians were believed to
> have discovered the enema.

Some records reporting on the issue:

``I do not claim to be the discoverer of this method of
internal purification, for it is in reality of ancient
origin, as we have it on good authority that it was
practised by the ancient Egyptians, who, it is believed,
acquired their knowledge from observing a bird called the
Ibis, a species of Egyptian snipe. The food of this bird,
gathered on the banks of the Nile, was of a very
constipating character, and it was observed, by the earliest
naturalists, to suck up the water of the river and using its
long bill for a syringe, inject it into its anus, thus
relieving itself. Pliny says this habit of the Ibis first
suggested the use of clysters to the ancient Egyptian
doctors, known to be the first medical practitioners of any
nation, not excepting the Chinese. [See Naturalis Historia,
Lib. VIII., Dap. 41, Hague 1518.

Another writer, viz., Christianus Langius, says, that this
bird when attacked with constipation at some distance from
the river, and not able to fly from weakness, would be
seen to crawl to the water's edge with drooping wings and
there take its rectal treatment, when in a few minutes it
would fly away in full vigor of regained strength. [...]''

- http://www.top-referers.com/sitemap/file0997.htm

It isn't just Norman Walker who has reported witnessing the
phenomenon.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.