Enemas are TOOLS.

I have saved real PEOPLE with enemas.

Always have enema buckets at home for any emergency.

I am the family healer and enema knowledge is a MUST.

Enemas I have used to heal people:

Water enema
Sugar and Salt enema
Oil enemas (VCO, Olive oil)
Coffee enemas

TOOLS are no different from having a HAMMER, a COMPUTER, etc.

From the trend of your questions... it seems you want to know if enemas are recommended as a mainstay of a healthy life style?

My answer would be in the same tone as most of the long timers here... NO... not for a long term healthy lifestyle.

I only recommend enemas as TOOLS.

Strive to live a clean and healthy life... keep enema knowledge and equipment for emergencies.

This is how I think about them. They can be used in the case of severe constipation or intestinal blockage?

You are missing the point. The point being that the mother in a tribal community of c.1,000 shares so many genes with others in the tribe that killing her own child is no big deal, no real loss.More importantly, these women HAD to kill their children or face starvation and eventual death if they kept on sparing them. They did not have contraception in those days. Strange though it might seem, people, in desperate circumstances, or even wild animals, will inevitably kill their own baby if that means they survive and are thus able to have children in the future. Wild animals also sometimes  kill their children even if they are healthy. so, meaningless...A case in point are some birds which deliberately feed the older chick(the  first one out of the shell), so that, if they have more chicks than just one, the others die even if they are ultra-healthy.

Again, they would not willingly and happily kill their own children to benefit other children in the tribe/band/group/whatever, it doesn't matter how small the difference in genetics is, there's a difference.

And you keep failing to recognize that a mother in paleo times did not provide herself with all of the resources required for survival, she's not a bear. H-G humans lived in groups and shared resources in a communistic style. Which is why communism is so attractive for people who don't understand economics and don't understand that the paradigm shifted 180 degrees with the development of agriculture and civilization.

If they are gods to us, then their impact on Earth would be devastating. The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

More anthropomorphism... Or worse, you only grant them the worse human qualities in these terms. You often argue against destroying the Earth,  that means you must believe humans have the capacity to not destroy the Earth. Then an infinitely powerful and infinitely wise being would be infinitely able to do this as well (infinite in relative terms to our power and wisdom)

The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

Most people have seen UFOs. By definition, anytime you've seen something moving across the sky and you don't know what it is, you've seen a UFO. Personally I've seen many, and 2 in particular I can't explain in any other way than a superior intelligence, or a hidden technology so far beyond my understanding that it seems like a superior intelligence. Either that, or they might have been hallucinations. I obviously can't tell.

The ashkenazi jews iq studies were highly flawed. They were too small and were hopelessly biased, being accused of not being truly representative of that population, and called "bad science".

Haha, you obviously haven't encountered many. The difference is so big that once you've met a few dozen of them at random, you immediately realize it's true.

Indeed, I read once that the  average IQ of  Israelis is a mere 94 IQ, which makes more sense in the light of inbreeding.

Askenazis only make up 30% of Israel's population, and in fact they are much less inbred in Israel than they are anywhere else in the world, since in Israel they frequently mix with non ashkenazi jews, whereas in other parts of the world, they don't do it as much (at least the religious ones), simply because they don't live in close proximity to other jewish groups in large numbers. Other jewish populations have roughly the same IQ as the broader race they belong to, it's only ashkenazis that have much higher IQ.

So yes, an average IQ of all Israeli people is irrelevant when calculating the ashkenazi IQ, and even a study of ashkenazi IQ in Israel should be taken with a grain of salt.

And of course, your claim that inbreeding to a mild extent like that seen by these groups decreases IQ and longevity is again disproven.

As regards the Amish, they have numerous genetic diseases as well, but, perhaps because of their healthier, ancestral diet(raw milk etc.) are less inclined to have the more modern diseases.

So even though they're genetically much worse off, they're much healthier. Then your claim that most of human ill health is caused by inbreeding is again proved to be nonsense.

A quite stupid remark, in view of the fact that a tribe of a 1,000 individuals are so related to each other, that the elimination  of a few offspring by 1 mother means absolutely nothing re removing that mother's dna. Absurd!

Not a stupid remark at all, if you understand that whosoever in the "tribe" (using your definition) manages to provide their offspring with the best conditions among all relevant members of the group, and if such knowledge and ability is passed on to their offspring, either through learning or through genetics, will have a genetic makeup that, over time, becomes more prevalent within the given relevant group. So even if everybody else shares most of your own genes they don't share all of your genes, nor have them in the same combinations you do, so you still have a biological incentive to be selfish. It's only via culture that you can pretend to go against this, and usually it's just for show, to gain benefits.

Here is more info on mothers eliminating their offspring in the wild:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811

Do you even read something before you link to it? Horribly formatted site, super small font and long text saying nothing except everything I've already been saying - animals kill young of their own species for three reasons: 1) Because they're not THEIR offspring, but someone else's. 2) Because they are too ill and will soon die anyway, and to spend resources raising them instead of having more offspring who have a better chance of survival and reproduction would be a waste. 3) Because they already have other offspring to take care of, and can't manage to care for all of them, so they choose the least fit and eliminate them. Or if the mother is starving and calculates it's better to eliminate her offspring now, so that she can survive and have offspring in the future which have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

Quite remarkable ignorance! More numbers does NOT imply superiority. The fact that there are no genuine aliens, implies that Fermi's Paradox is correct, meaning that humans will eventually become extinct. Once that happens, as I have shown, all domesticated plants and animals will either become extinct, or , in a very few cases, evolve to become like their wild counterparts.

Nonsense based on a ton of assumptions with no evidence to back up any of them.

What if life as we know it is much more rare than we think? What if the development of high intelligence like that of humans is much more rare than we think even in planets where life exists? (it apparently took 3.5 billion years to develop on Earth even after life got started, which apparently took another billion years)

What if the Universe isn't as old as we think? What if interstellar travel at a near or faster than light speed is physically impossible?

What if the aliens have already been here but they don't necessarily want us to know about them? We could even be their ant farm for all we know (think: God)

No, YOU are showing a complete lack of understanding of what I am saying. My point was that there are a lot of severely inbred populations, which are NOT interbreeding with others in a big way, such as Fundamentalist Middle-Eastern Muslims, Hasidic/Orthodox Jews, the Amish, which are exploding in numbers.

Even these populations are much less inbred now than they were before. But your claims were that the general decrease in health in the human population was caused by this, not only in particular groups. (and by the way, most of those particular groups usually have way better health than the average for the human population)

Err, dumbass, there are reports of damage to the bones via tools etc.:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-were-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought-180957819/

Typical. You start to see your arguments fall down so you start calling names. You're making a good job at showing who, if any of us, is the dumb one.

I wasn't aware that in butchering and eating animals, you wouldn't damage their bones with tools! Especially to get to that tasty bone marrow inside. In fact when you are trying to kill an animal of a much larger size than you, attempting to break or damage its bones is a terrible idea. What you do is target their organs and vital areas, or to a lesser extent at least the soft muscle. Even after removing all of the skin and meat, breaking a mammoth's bones with stone age tools would be a challenge. Attempting to do so as a means of killing the animal would be idiotic, if not suicidal.

To be clear, I never said humans didn't hunt mammoths. Just like I never said Neanderthals didn't build ships.

The problem with you is that your main, deluded, philosophy is that modern humans are superior, no matter what. The (raw) palaeolithic philosophy is that ancient humans were (mostly) superior, and modern science has shown this again and again.

You don't even define a loaded word like "superior" and still use it to talk about what you think I think.

The raw paleo philosophy is that humans have evolved to thrive on a raw paleo diet, and so a raw paleo diet is our natural diet and the diet we do best on. If you will, it's the superior diet for us.

So if you're talking about health, then yes, obviously, paleo people were superior to us. If you're talking about power, achievements, intelligence or morality, then we are.

In any case, we are what they became by succeeding at what they did. Some of that is great. Some of that needs to be improved upon. some of that needs to be flipped around 180 degrees.

All absurd, and incorrect:-

1) A tribe would not have the resources to feed endless  numbers of children in the Palaeolithic era. That is why there was mass infanticide(c.80% of all newborns killed) in the palaeolithic era. Plus, the tribe was simply not large enough to support every healthy child and let it live.

I didn't say otherwise.

That is what the mothers were for. For example, from ancient times, the Romans and even until the end of the 19th century, women would routinely throw their babies into the flowing Tiber river, because they did not have effective contraception and could not support their children - society, in those days, also refused to support such children, which is why premarital sex was frowned upon.So, wrong, the women made the decision as to whether a child lived or died, whether in Palaeolithic times or not.

We've gone through this before, you obviously refuse to learn anything. A mother would only kill their own baby if she had other babies to feed and feeding that one would starve the others. This doesn't happen anywhere else in nature. It goes against every basic tenet of behavioral biology. In H-G tribes the baby was killed by the tribe, not the mother. And if the mother killed the baby it was because the tribe ordered her to do so. As even if resources were scarce, it's not genetically advantageous to kill your own offspring so that the offspring of others in the tribe can survive.

2) Wrong again, and a classic sign of human hubris.

LOL let me know when you discuss something with a non-human.

Take domesticated animals for example. Scientists have pointed out that domesticated species are so badly inbred, so inflicted with ill-health etc., that, if, say, all humans died out, and the domesticated species were left alone to themselves outside the fences, then almost all would die out very quickly, with a tiny few gradually reverting back to wild status. So, a few dogs would eventually become wolves after a few generations, a few pigs would become wild boars etc. This is unsurprising, as the domesticated animals survive only on food handouts from humans. Without them, subject to natural selection, the vast majority would have no chance. Only exception are wild hogs in recent years, but even those are being exposed to natural selection, and will eventually become wild boars.After all, the presence of humans prevents  the rise of the  sort of predators that would keep the wild hog population in check.

Of course they would die out, but not due to inbreeding, but due to the fact that we've bred them to be fit for OUR purposes, not to survive in the wild. The evolutionary advantage of such beings lies in the fact that via becoming symbiants with us, they became much more fit to their environment, and their environment is one where being useful to humans is the way to be fit. If that means they stand no chance against predators, so be it.

Humans have all sorts of health problems derived from inbreeding. Jews, Amish, and Muslims have all sorts of genetic defects which cause a myriad different health problems. Even, closer to home, people can have issues. Take me, for example, I endured decades of ill-health, and would have died, simply because I have a rare genetic ill-adaptation to dairy(raw or otherwise), which causes gradual inflammation all over my body. With increased exposure to junk food, infertility is rising inexorably, and, in terms of brain-size/intelligence/physical strength etc., we are a very poor example compared to our healthier, superior ancestors in the Palaeolithic era.Read E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" to see how technology can turn us all into sickly imbeciles.The film Idiocracy focuses on an inevitable future drop in average human intelligence.

The human species has never been more outbred in all of its history. Nowadays people from one continent can and often do breed with people from other continents, and this trend is increasing, with many so-called "rebels" rejecting their own natural desire to breed with their own, and preferring instead to breed with people as different from them as they can find. And yet, as you pointed out, all of the signs of disease have skyrocketed. How you manage to blame this on inbreeding is not just beyond me, it's pure unadulterated nonsense, with a gigantic dose of BIAS that you refuse to even acknowledge. (the most dangerous type)

The size of modern HG tribes is unlikely to have been much different from Palaeo ones. More to the point, palaeo HG tribes were skilled at killing megafauna and would migrate and hunt herds of such megafauna. Not something that a tiny band of 10-50 people could achieve, especially when the number of men physically capable of hunting such megafauna would be no more than a small handful  in a band of 50.

Hard to say how many healthy, cunning and strong paleo men it took to bring down a mammoth. It's possible they were simply made to run around until exhaustion. In any case, this was not the basis of the human diet. Deer, zebras, seals... Those were the main staple in most of the world. I suppose it also depends on how you define megafauna. Is a bison or a wildebeest, megafauna? Because clearly there's a huge difference between killing a bison and killing a bear or a rhinoceros, let alone a mammoth.

Also, there are big differences in modern tribes because most engange in various forms of trade that didn't exist before. They also live in a context where there is very little competition for resources, as the number of humans living off wild animals and plants has been reduced enourmosly, much more than the proportional reduction of wild land that has taken place. The only exception is wild fish, but even most of that is taken from the deep ocean, where paleo humans could never have ventured out.

Actually the main problem tastewise with cold meat is that it's too bland - it doesn't really taste like much of anything. When it gets warmer, the flavor intensifies.

Also, "room temperature" in some areas and climates could be pretty cold. Not to mention, paleo people didn't have "rooms". They might find a cave if they were lucky.

Wrong again. Palaeo-era HG tribes were c. 150 in number on average:-

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180313-the-stone-age-answer-to-your-desk-job

150-200 is the MAXIMUM and is derived from Dunbar's number, not any sort of archeological research. It's not the average. Most were 20 to 40 individuals, usually closer to the lower number.

You are clearly not using logic or any reason at all. For example, Occam's Razor tells us that when we have 2 possibilities, then the simpler one is the one we should logically choose. Making boats as a route to Crete is far easier a process to conceive of  than swimming into nowhere, with no astrogation/knowledge of where one is going, with no chance of mass-swimming happening. The swimming isn't plausible, while olympic swimmers might swim 100s of km with an accompanying boat, GPS etc. gadgets to ensure no storms appear and that they always swim in a relatively straight line , these technologies were not available to Neanderthals.200,000 years is less than 10,000 generations, nothing much.

You don't know how to properly apply occam's razor.

There is no indication that they had the knowledge or ability to produce anything more complex than simple stone tools.

You keep repeating this "astrogation" term, I have no idea what that is. Perhaps you're referring to a compass? You can use the stars as a guide. There's much we don't understand about how different animals keep track of things. Homing pigeons, for example, will travel back home when released, even if they were transported inside a cage that had no access to a view of the sky or the terrain, they will know their way home, and nobody knows how they do it. Even insects such as wasps learn to recognize patterns in their surroundings to find where their nest is. Bees remember even the time of day at which a particular flower will open, so they time their foraging accordingly to visit each flower at the correct time of day.

*sigh*:- I gave the example of the inbreeding of the habsburgs in spain, which led to extinction of their line.Once you allow uncles to marry nieces etc., it just gets worse. And you clearly know zilch about genetics. Quite clearly, if you have brother and sister mating(who have c.50% same genes on average), then it gets worse with each further generation, as long as there is not frequent intermixture with non-related individuals from outside."

Only insofar as those genes are damaged and harmful. And no, it doesn't get worse with each further generation, because you can then mate cousins, cousins twice removed, thrice removed, and so on. As the generations move down, after the initial number of generations, you start getting less related, not more related.

"The isolation of a small population for a period of time can lead to inbreeding within that population, resulting in increased genetic relatedness between breeding individuals." taken from:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

I mean proof that a population started from adam and eve must die out within a few generations, like you claimed. One example is not proof

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

And I didn't say otherwise.

After all wood rots to dust eventually so traces of boats would be nonexistent.

Of course, I'm aware of that. But likewise, evidence of absence is not evidence of evidence... "because they would have rotten out" does not imply that there must have been such artifacts, just that if there were, we likely wouldn't find them today.

As regards swimming into the middle of nowhere without astrogation  is absurd, as is the notion that 1 couple would simply swim out into the middle of nowhere, hoping eventually to reach land,

Again, you keep confusing what is probable with what is possible. And I didn't ascribe any motives to them.

And again, we don't know if they were better or worse than humans at swimming.

not counting the levels of inbreeding which would swiftly kill off any such inbred descendants within a few  generations(check the habsburgs and how 1 line became extinct due to infertility etc.)

So because in one example they all died out rather quickly (and you assume it's because of that alone), it means that it's impossible for something else to occur? As far as geneticists is concerned, a society starting from adam and eve is only a problem insofar as they both have the same copies of a number of damaged genes that hamper survival, or if each has a large number of such damaged genes. As you go down the generations, the degree of close inbreeding can be reduced as you have cousins, then second cousins, third cousins, etc. If the adam and eve did not have such same copies of a number of damaged genes that were harmful, or a large number of damaged genes that were harmful, then there's no reason why it could not work. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, they did die out in the end, so even if what you're saying is completely correct (which I highly suspect it's not), that still doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in that way.

Regardless, and overall, you don't seem to comprehend that we're dealing with 200 thousand years here for any and all experiments and situations to occur. And if something is at all possible, chances are it happened.

Idiot breeding with your own race does not automatically equate to inbreeding. 
All animals are naturally programmed to not race mix and usually only do so in captivity when forced.

So I'm an idiot but you claim that a group is simultaneously heavily inbred and heavily race mixed. Keep on being a genius.

* sigh". I suggest you look at the statistics of  the consequences of interbreeding with brothers and sisters. It gets even worse over subsequent generations.

You can't compare interbreeding in current environments where most people have plenty of damaged genes, to a pristine situation where very few genes would be damaged.

People did not exist as isolated couples, they lived as part of a tribe of c.150 people. Isolated people would have a very low life-expectancy in palaeo times.

...

Again, it doesn't matter if it was the norm or not.

And most of the low-life expectancy had to do with the fact that an isolated couple could not compete with other established tribes and other predators without being killed or starving. Having all of Crete to themselves would significantly increase the couple's life expectancy, and that of their offspring.

They could not have deliberately travelled the shortest possible distance between mainland Greece and Crete unless they had excellent astrogation and knowledge of geography, which they didn't.

You keep missing the point. It's not necessary that they knew where they were going. All it takes is for one couple to go out into the sea for whatever reason and by a strike of luck, find an island. You're dealing with a period of 200 thousand years, it's certainly a possibility.

As regards the fish, I have eaten  raw mussels and raw oysters which were absolutely soaked in seawater. Even after squeezing them in a glass to get rid of some of the saltwater, plenty of saltwater remained in their flesh.So, I'd imagine the innards of the fish would also be similiarly soaked in seawater in the gills etc. etc.

You've never eaten fish?

Fish meat is a low sodium food. Their bodies work hard to keep all that salt from staying in their bodies, as otherwise it would kill them. Their meat is about 0.05% sodium by weight. Few organisms can survive with a high sodium level in their bodies. Like Iguana said, shellfish is about 10 times saltier than beef, at around 0.4-0.7% sodium by weight. But when you taste a super salty oyster or mussel, most of that salt comes from seawater that wasn't inside the flesh, but was just hanging in the animal's mouth/stomach. They feed by filtering microorganisms from seawater, so of course you'll find sea water in them, but you can just as well throw that water away before eating them. Seawater is about 3.5% sodium by weight.

Crete is at least 160km away from the mainland.

Not according to google:

Eating raw fish for water isn't a good idea given the salt-content, which is dehydrating.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, fish meat is even lower in sodium than most domesticated land animal meat such as beef, pork, chicken. It's comparable to wild venison. In any case, none of these are high sodium foods.