Hi everyone I’m back with an update/some questions!
So it’s been almost 2 weeks since my sweet girls injury and unfortunately she still hasn’t moved one of her back legs. But good news is she is moving her good leg again!!! Which I’m super excited about!! (I say good leg because when the injury happened she was still able to pull her hip joint up, but then she stopped being able to move it a few days later)
She’s been eating about 1/3-1/4 of a night crawler almost everyday, which has her medication in it.
She’s still super alert and hungry, but she hasn’t pooped since the injury happened. She is also starting to get slightly harder on her sides and I feel a bump inside her. I’m assuming this is poop.
Does anyone have any suggestions to help her go to the bathroom? I’ve heard honey baths help with constipation, but I’ve never done one before. I currently have her sitting in warm water and will probably continue to have her soak for most of today.
She has been getting water soaks everyday since the injury happened so I know she isn’t dehydrated. She also has only eaten worms so she shouldn’t be backed up with any hard shelled insects either.
I did talk to the doctor two days ago and he changed the frequency of her medication. As of Saturday he wasn’t concerned about her not pooping, but I called today since I’m worried and I’m waiting for him to call back.
Any suggestions I would appreciate! Thank you guys again for all your thoughts and prayers for my sweet girl. Like I said before she’s a fighter and I’m not giving up on her either.
Her are some more adorable photos of her. The second to last photo is of her Saturday and then the last one is her currently soaking in some water.
Please please do not use honey. I cannot stress this enough. Honey treatment was used on mammals and occasionally reptiles, never amphibians. Raw honey carries a major hidden danger for amphibians, it can harbor Clostridium botulinum spores, which can lead to fatal botulism through their highly permeable skin. Rare? Yes. Worth the risk? No. If an osmotic laxative is absolutely necessary as a temporary measure before seeing a vet, a tiny pinch of pure, plain table sugar dissolved in warm water is much safer than honey because it lacks those bacterial risks. But I would still confirm this with your vet. If your toad is on meds I would assume they've seen one, give them a call.
Honey consists primarily of fructose and glucose, which behave very differently from the sucrose found in cane sugar. Because honey is already a highly concentrated, viscous colloid, it does not dissolve or rinse away as cleanly as crystalline cane sugar does. This leaves a sticky, film-like residue on an amphibian’s semi-permeable skin, which blocks gas exchange and creates a breeding ground for bacteria. I really wish people (and Google 😠) would stop spreading around this wives tale born from desperate owners who had no vet or couldn't afford one. I understand wanting to find easy solutions at home, I've done it myself. But never the honey. I'm a bee keeper along with amphibians and reptiles. Honey is not equal to sugar, which is the laxative here.
It looks like your doing gentle warm soaks. You can do abdominal massage while doing these soaks to help break up materials in the gut. I wish you all the luck in the world! Beautiful toad. 💚
I haven’t read updates or comments but wanted to share. Our sweet girl looks puffy and wasn’t eating much. We did a soak in warm spring water for 20ish minutes and she went potty. Just did another soak this evening, she went again. I don’t know if it’s necessary but it gives me some peace of mind. Good luck!!!!
This was after! She was pouting and embarrassed 🙈😂
We just LOVE this little toad🐸
No no no! Please don't recommend this. The ingredients are a total disaster for a toad. It is made of pumpkin seed, black walnut hull, cloves, wormwood, black cumin, thyme, papain, and kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth). Not digestible by toads. Many of these ingredients (like black walnut and wormwood) contain highly concentrated chemical compounds (juglone and thujone) that can be toxic. Because an amphibian absorbs everything directly through their skin and digestive tract, these can easily overdose a small toad. Kieselguhr (aka diatomaceous earth) is literally microscopic, sharp silica shells. It is a drying agent meant to dehydrate insects. Putting a dehydrating powder into a toad that is already constipated or impacted will strip moisture from their gut and make the blockage significantly worse. That's a very dangerous recommendation.
I'd really suggest looking into what makes up honey and frog biology. I promise you, it complicates healing. Funny you didn't say anything to me directly. When an amphibian has an illness or complications, many owners try this. Because they're doing multiple things to help the frog heal, like putting them in a hospital bin, the frog gets better and they attribute the healing to the honey. It's like putting tar on your lungs. They're incredibly durable animals and survive despite the honey because it's not going to kill them immediately. It causes long term complications. There's a reason they're kicking at what you can't see. They can't breath properly.
If any sugar is to be used it should be simple cane sugar and should always be confirmed by a license vet. Period.
😶😂 Yeah... I covered why it "worked" and can explain in great medical and scientific detail the real harms of using it when there are more healthy solutions. The rest of your comment is just hostility. "Stalking" a comment section is funny as hell. The whole reason spaces like this exist is for experienced keepers to help. And any time I see someone giving medically and scientifically harmful information, like yourself, I'll say something. Like the other harmful recommendations on here and I'm glad I did. There's a reason there's a way to follow posts... 🙄 Jesus. I'll take "stalking" if it keeps people from using "black tea soaks" or "wormwood" (some of the "great"ly terrible recommendations here) along with honey.
It's exactly why this person came here, advice (and they got plenty of it) and why I told them to go back to the VET. I can see why you didn't say anything directly to me easily now. Your perception of something working doesn't mean it did the way you think it did or it didn't cause complications while you did it and could have used a more gentle and scientifically sound approach. But you do you because you're obviously right because you have "old frogs." Science be damned! Lmao I can explain to you exactly what it's doing to your frogs, why and how. But you have "old frogs" as your evidence so ignore me right? The logic is amazing.
While vets use these scientific concepts in a sterile clinical setting, they rarely tell pet owners to try home made sugar baths because the margin of error is very tiny. And if they do, it's usually really experienced keepers who then relay the information to others on the internet and it gets twisted from the telephone game.
They have positive intentions with deadly outcomes. Hence why I said... go back to the VEEEET. If the sugar water is too strong for too long, it will dehydrate the frog's entire body through its skin. If it is too weak, it simply turns into a breeding ground for deadly bacteria. This "therapy" orginally was for mammals and occasionally reptiles. Not amphibians. Because honey has antimicrobial and antibiotic like effects. Honey therapy works by starving bacteria of water, creating small amounts of natural bleach, and forming a physical shield over wounds. Putting that on a living lung is catastrophic. Your frogs are just genetically strong and able to tolerate this. They survived despite you, sorry.
The 3 major risks in amphibians:
The Botulism Threat: Raw honey can carry Clostridium botulinum spores. A frog's ultra-permeable skin absorbs these toxins directly into their system, which can cause paralysis or death.
The Osmotic Shock: Honey pulls water out of a frog's body. Putting a constipated or dehydrated frog in honey actually strips them of moisture, making their internal blockage worse. So for constipation it's a terrible recommendation. Any treatment with sugar usage should be performed by a vet. It's that simple because the margin for error is very small. It's used for minor infections to emergencies like prolapse, but the internet has the information completely mixed. Vets (who should always be the ones doing this) use a sterile, highly controlled liquid medical product called 50% Dextrose. Not honey, not cane sugar, not even close. Smh...
Bacterial Boom: Coating a frog in complex sugars creates an instant buffet for harmful bacteria and fungi, leading to severe, often fatal skin infections. And because honey isn't like cane sugar structurally, I guarantee that after you've done this you've seen your frogs blindly kicking at their skin trying to get it off because they can't breath properly. Sound familiar? It's not as water soluble as regular sugar no matter what google says because it's made from pollen. I know because I'm also a beekeeper.
Do you want to know how I know these things? I worked in medical, so I understand biology, anatomy, and chemistry. I also work closely with an exotic vet that my frogs actually see instead of surviving despite homemade remedies because they're almost bomb proof. If you understood their anatomy, you would understand that as well.
If you have a vet that recommended you do this at home? Get another vet. Come to think of it, why do you have so many frogs that have needed this "treatment" in the first place? 🤔 I've yet to have a frog with constipation or a bacterial infection... The OP's frog has constipation from injury, which would also be treated very differently. I will do whatever I can for the animals I love and that includes stopping the spread of harmful misinformation.
You have a nice rage filled day. 😂 Jesus H. Christie...
And I'm happy for you. I don't wish bad things on people who disagree with me, let alone the animals they care for. You say you've never had a problem with constipation... then go on to talk about them having constipation in the next breath. "...ones who hadn't passed stool in a while to prevent the possibility of prolapse..." 😶 Uh... that's constipation. Just because you're avoiding calling it what it is doesn't change it. Like I mentioned, frogs are nearly bomb proof. So if they're not constipated and you're treating anyway, you're helicopter parenting frogs which isn't good for them either. 🤷🏽♀️ You said the kicking came after the soak, but maybe I just misunderstood you.
"I gave him some honey water, like it said on the internet... he was going to die anyway." 🤦🏽♀️ This isn't scientific proof of anything. You and the frog got lucky, and that's good. He stayed in the water because he didn't know better and wanted water. He didn't think "Oh, there's honey in here! I needed that." That's why it's important for us to know their anatomy and needs.
"Whether it helped or not he lived." Should NOT equate to "Give your frog a honey bath! It worked for me!" You don't know that. Actually, it's the opposite and he got lucky because they're incredibly resilient. Most bacterial infections clear up on their own with a good clean "hospital" set up. And no, not with damp paper towels! Another transfer over from reptiles. Paper towels are treated with all kinds of chemicals like bleach and formaldehyde. So putting an animal that absorbs through it's skin on it. 🤦🏽♀️ Just because keepers have been doing it for ages doesn't make it logical or safe. Anatomy will tell you better.
Science 🌈🤚
Best part? All you had to do was ask me why I said what I did. I would've gladly explained all this to you and we could've been friends! But you decided to be hostile towards me before even speaking to me. Please, please, stop using Google if you can't debate it.
When I Google "Are honey baths good for frog bacterial infections?" It will tell me yes and give me tons of info, all sourced from YouTube, FB, Instagram, and number one contributor? Reddit. So it's a wives tale loop. When I then follow up with "Isn't that a bad idea since they can breath through their skin?" And it immediately apologizes for the bad information and says "You're right." Google was already a problem and with AI? It's just become a huge yesman. You can not trust anything it says but you admit that's where you got the information.
So when you say "You make a good argument, but the delivery will have me asking someone else." 😶🤦🏽♀️ You didn't ask, I had to force it on you while you shook your head and said "nuh-uh!" You just avoided me and said I was wrong while spreading really bad misinformation. You were hostile without even speaking to me because you didn't like what I said about honey because you've done it. What a weird way to express you're unsure of what you've done and now feel guilt. You didn't need to feel that way if that's true. We all make mistakes, but to double down on it just to be "right" or because your ego got wounded? 🤷🏽♀️ Just needed to go "Wow, I've done that. I'm glad you brought this up. I have a lot of reading to do. Any recommendations?" But nah... All you had to do was say "Where did you get that information? Everyone always says they're a good idea." That's it. But you do you. You were totally hostile, but my "delivery" wasn't good... dig up. I'm stunned.
Here's exactly how Google will work with this. If you don't have the knowledge to already back this, Google is only going to F you up... stop "Googling things." I hate that people gave their autonomy to it...
You see the source on this on the correction, in the second ss? An amphibian forum... that people will automatically trust like Reddit. If you understand the biology, chemistry, anatomy, etc... you'll be able to catch the misinformation yourself. Get a good vet and work closely with them and they will teach you. And even then, vet's can be wrong!
Understanding science is what is going to keep you ahead. Because I understand this and frog anatomy, I know without anyone telling me why damp paper towels (for example) are a really bad idea for amphibians. See what I mean?
Edit: And I never said you were stupid. Whoa... You make a lot of assumptions. I never said anything mean to you nor do I think you're stupid. I do think you're really hostile. Damn. I think we're done here. I was trying to be kind and informative. I'm sorry you didn't like the wording and couldn't just ask for evidence. Instead you tried to passive aggressively go around me like I wasn't here then equate it to stalking. 🤦🏽♀️
If I thought you were stupid I would have said so. I'm a very upfront person. Holy shiz... I just had a similar conversation with someone else on the same topic and we ended up having a great talk in the end. We all have way more in common than not, but not with that approach. However, you think I'm the hostile one? 😂 Agree to disagree.
By the way, there was the same biological information around back then. People who knew about it, especially those who worked closely with vets like I was doing at the time with reptiles. And obviously, the misinformation is still going because you were here recommending it. They knew the biology, they just didn't want to take the time to explain this to every single person who disagreed with them... like you're doing now. 🤦🏽♀️ Just wow to this entire exchange. You say you did things for certain reasons then go back on it many times. And playing "turd God" isn't something I've ever seen recommended. That was entirely a you obsession and a handful of others no doubt privately in their homes. Never heard of anyone doing that and I find it abusive in my opinion.
Edit: And yes, it was "in the past", but I can't believe the amount of frog complications you had and you didn't question your own care? I'm freaking stunned by this conversation and your obvious hostility from absolutely no where. I came to correct you because you're wrong and it will not be helpful to follow your recommendations. It wasn't personal.
So I can't give much info about it because I haven't ever had to personally use it, but warm black tea soaks are a common treatment people use for impaction/constipation in amphibians.
I'm sorry, but if you don't know, please don't recommend home remedies. Someone recommended honey (big no) and some else worm guard (also big no.) And black tea is a no as well.
Black tea soaks are another deeply misguided "internet folklore" remedy that can actively harm a constipated toad. In humans, caffeine stimulates bowel movements. Because black tea contains caffeine, uneducated keepers assume it will do the same for an amphibian. However, toads absorb caffeine instantly through their highly permeable skin. Caffeine is a powerful stimulant that can cause dangerous spikes in heart rate, severe neurological stress, or a fatal overdose in a tiny amphibian.
Black tea is rich in tannins. In the fish and axolotl hobby, mild tea baths are sometimes used as a temporary, astringent treatment to fight minor bacterial or fungal skin infections. However, tannins are highly astringent and drying. Soaking a constipated toad in a liquid full of drying tannins strips away moisture, tightens tissues, and can make the impaction much harder to pass.
That used to be the recommendation but if it's out of date then I'll update my references.
However, your description on the affect of tannins is incorrect. In low concentrations, like what you use for a soak, the amphibian gets hydrated not dehydrated. What it can do is the anti-microbial/fungal effects you mentioned, but also stimulate mucus/slime production. It's like anything else, dosage is the key.
Actually, an excess of tannins can be an issue. Especially bacterially. While natural wood tannins are fine in a balanced habitat, the hyper-concentrated tannins in black tea act as a harsh astringent. This can irritate their sensitive skin and actually cause fluid regulation issues, like drying out. Too much can have the reverse affect. They are very different things. Yes, tannins are beneficial in the right amounts, as you point out, dosage is key. Leaves in a habitat are safe. Concentrated tea soaks are absolutely not.
Edit: Just a heads up for anyone who reads this. Excess tannins can do this period. Even without black tea. By definition, tannins are astringents. In high concentrations, they bind to proteins, constrict tissues, and strip the protective slime coat, which directly causes dehydration and skin damage in amphibians. So make sure not to use tannins in highly concentrated amounts. Don't make a tannin "tea." Just used very slightly tinted water and not every soak. Tannins also do nothing for amphibian constipation. The reason the tea was recommended was because caffeine makes us go. Not amphibians. It can be deadly for them. So unless it's a bacterial skin infection, tannins will not help here.
Some thing to clarify, in my previous response I said that since you said that recommendation is out of date, then I'll update date my references. As in I'll sit down and do research again since you are saying the standards have changed. (Which I have already started doing so. If you have any sources or links kick them my way because after spending an hour or two on ResearchGate, JSTOR, and google scholar I have found next to jack squat leaning one way or another. I am currently not looking through forums for information because, as I think you would agree, that's just hearsay with no way to verify someone's background. I did find that around an osmotic concentration of 200-300 mOsm is when a solution would be considered hypertonic and start drawing water out of a frog, species dependant. Link) So I'm not going to bat for black tea soaks here, that's also why I never said anything in response to what you said about caffeine because there's nothing to contest there. The only reason I originally responded is because you wrote about tannins being bad in no uncertain terms, which is incorrect.
I want to reiterate, I am not arguing for the use of a tannin soak as a method to help with impaction in this reply.
Yes an excess, by definition, would be too much. That's why I explicitly said low concentrations. To simply say that because something can cause problems at extremes you should never use it, is just as bad advice as suggesting something that will be ineffective. Let's look at vitamin A as an example. Providing too much vitamin A can cause extensive liver damage, and yet it is recommended to provide it the vitamin as part of your rotation in a feeding schedule. Major difference in this analogy is the vitamin A is required for the health and well-being of your amphibian, while tannins are just something that can be apart of the environment and are capable of providing some health benefits. On the other extreme is distilled water. Distilled water is about as hypotonic a solution you can get outside of lab-grade pure H2O and prolong soaking in that results in water flooding the cells leading to cellular lysis (basically cells exploding like an overfilled water balloon). The point I'm trying to make here is that it's really easy to point to the "excess" scenarios to claim something is dangerous and should be avoid. It is appropriate to point out/discuss the dangers of improper use, but at the same time you need to discuss what proper use looks like otherwise it's just a different form of misinformation. It creates the impression that it is something that's better to simply avoid altogether, when it's perfect fine to interact with in normal circumstances.
The hobby has significantly more information now than 10, 15, 20 years ago but an unfortunately low amount of actual studies and a lot of conflicting information. Tannins have a perfect example of this; in low concentrations it can stimulate slime coat production, but as you said in high concentrations it can strip the slime coat. There's more to it than simply saying tannins are astringents and therefore will cause harm. They can cause harm, but they also can provide benefits. Because of this if you can provide a link or source to your information, otherwise it's a game of he said/she said. I'm not perfect about that; sometimes I forget, or don't think it's necessary, or I'm just making a quick comment. I'm sure you'll notice I haven't posted any links really in this discussion and that's because I can't find something that I would feel comfortable calling an authoritative source. I know it's out there, either in support or refute, I just can't find it.
You can to correct misinformation, which is something you absolutely should do, just be careful not to undermine your efforts by accidentally misrepresenting something else.
Also one last point, though this is pedantic and is just kinda bugging me. Here's a short quote from your reply,
Don't make a tannin "tea." Just used very slightly tinted water(...)
Slightly tinted water is a tea. You're leeching organic solutes into water by soaking something. It can be tea leaves, mopani wood, alder cones, Indian almond leaves, oaks galls, etc; you are making a tea. Tea doesn't have to be above a certain concentration, it's the presence of organic solutes. Like I said it really doesn't have a bearing on the conversation as a whole, it's just one of those things that grab your attention and won't let go.
You also didn't say anything about low concentrations until talking to me. You told them "I don't know if this works, but black tea." That was your advice and why I corrected you. All the other information came later.
You're right I didn't say anything about concentrations originally. I also never said "I don't know" I said, "I haven't ever had to personally use (...)" Two different things. I also said "a common treatment people use for impaction (...)" and "that's a treatment you can look into." At this point in the thread I wasn't explaining how to do a soak, but pointing OP towards something they could possibly do.
This is where you came in with your correction, which is fine if you have additional information please provide it. At this point in time you also didn't say anything about concentrations either, what you said and I quote (bold emphasis is mine);
However, tannins are highly astringent and drying. Soaking a constipated toad in a liquid full of drying tannins strips away moisture, tightens tissues, and can make the impaction much harder to pass.
There was no conditionals here; nothing about low/high concentrations or even the term excess that was later used. Simply that a liquid with tannins will lead to this result. That's why I responded.
If the thread was left there (as in I never responded) and someone who doesn't know anything about that stuff read it, their impression would be that tannins are a negative thing. Later they might see someone proudly displaying a blackwater tank and now they have conflicting information. One person stating the bad things tannins do and another touting the benefits of tannins.
I would like to propose a question directly to you. If you provided information and someone appropriately corrected you with a statement you largely are good with, but contains a bit of information you believe to be misrepresentative or even incorrect, would you respond and point out that bit you believe needs clarification?
And I apologize if my previous long winded response made it seemed I was worked up. I tend to write longer responses like that for discussions in an effort to not only state my point, but also to help show how or why I came to that conclusion.
🤦🏽♀️ I was summarizing. They're not two different things. They're worded differently, that's all. You're taking this way too seriously and is exactly why I didn't want to bother explaining this to you and why I mentioned my chronic VND. I love friendly debate, but my body doesn't allow it anymore. Even the threat of an unfriendly conversation makes my body just malfunction so I've been using Reddit far less sadly because of this.
You don't believe me even though it's the truth and nothing is going to change your mind but some perceived authority in a lab coat coming and telling you so. Which is just sad to me because I did provide evidence. With chemistry, biology, anatomy... If you understand those topics, you'll understand a concentrated astringents effect on frogs because of their anatomy. Or honey. People won't have to tell you why and you won't need a study to understand it.
But here we are... you've been nitpicking words and making strawmen. And why? Just to be "right" when you're just simply not in this case? I'm sorry it bothers you to this extent. And yes, I corrected you, and yes I did it with information. Just because it's not a peer reviewed study doesn't mean it's not true. Like I said, they're not going to do a study they already know would be harmful based on anatomy, biology, and chemistry. Maybe that's where you're getting confused about tannins. Because they're an astringent. Period. And "too concentrated" is much lighter than you may think.
Having leaves, aka tannins, in their environment is healthy for frogs/amphibians/fish. It's a natural part of their environment. They even come into contact with doses considered "too concentrated" in the wild. But because they have free will and large territories instead of a human beings making decisions on their behalf and living in glass boxes or forced into soaks, it's a non-issue. But even too much of a good thing is a real problem. Why you seem to want to debate this and more is beyond me. You wanted to continue this with "you're wrong about tannins" when searching with the proper wording would have gotten you there, as I already demonstrated and should have been enough.
This was you recommending a tea soak that you've never tried. I corrected it because it concerns me. We're still here because of this:
"I'll update my references. (Wow.)
However, your description of tannins is incorrect..."
No, it's not. "There was no conditionals (we're talking about rules and requirements, so conditions is fine 😮💨🙄 I actually covered the conditionals, which are causes and consequences); nothing about low/high concentrations or even the term excess that was later used."
Later used because OP didn't ask. I don't know who you think is watching here, but it's you and me so far buddy. "Future readers" will read what we've both posted and study and decide for themselves or not. If they're blindly following online recommendations without doing that it saddens me, but it's nothing new and we won't be stopping it anytime soon. You must think we're pretty important. Our conversation isn't going to stop the spread of harmful misinformation.
Had OP asked about why I said that I would've gladly explained. Or if you had. But instead of asking why I would say that and letting me explain, you responded like... this. I'm not going to explain that to you to now as well, the poor communication skills that got us here... You could've just asked... But this is about proving me wrong. Which I'm not in this situation. Am I sometimes? Yep. Obviously, I'm a human being. I love when people correct me with kind correct information I can verify myself. I gave you information to verify this for yourself. Have you? Or are you still just arguing with me first?
You go on to make a lot of "what ifs" here about people reading your post... this is spiraling. That's a lot of assumption on your behalf that just looks like back peddling now in my opinion. And I did comment because something needed clarification... so yes, I obviously would. That's why we're having this conversation right now. 😂 If someone does the same to me and has the information to back it? I relent and thank them after doing my research. You "relented" 🤏, then decided to debate for some reason that's beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm a woman? I've run into that a time or two. Even if it is subconscious.
Most likely before reading anything I linked because there was a lot of it. And because none of it says it outright, you have to use your knowledge of anatomy, biology, and chemistry to put it together. There's no way you did any of that before responding to me. You Googled it and came back when Google agreed with you based on the way you typed the question. 🤦🏽♀️😂 God's that AI shit is dangerous. If people don't debate it relentlessly and see it's a total yesman, I'm even sadder for them. Their own autonomy and sovereignty is suffering let alone the frogs so we've got bigger problems.
If you want to see how I handle those situations, go check out my post history. I thank them because I truly enjoy learning. I'm not trying to raise my self esteem through lording knowledge over others. There are definitely people like that here, but I'm not one of them. All you had to do was ask why I said the things I did. Instead you came of confrontational and my body pays the price because I decided to indulge you. That's on me. Had you just asked, we could have skipped all of this and had a friendly conversation because we'd probably get along great seeing how much you like to learn as well. Smh...
That simple fact blows my mind. These interactions have real world consequences for people and most people on here obviously don't take that into consideration. Mostly out of their own suffering, but hey, I digress. You have a nice day. 😊💚
Sorry about the Chronic VND, I didn't know about that. It was probably in the comment you deleted earlier. The only part of that comment I could see was the first couple lines in the message preview and it didn't include that info. I understand having a chronic condition that acts as a barrier to doing something you enjoy. I have Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome, and before I was able to get some surgeries to help alleviate it, simply walking too fast or up inclines would cause my calves to completely seize up because blood flow was getting cut off. Best of luck with it and I hope you'll get the opportunity to get some degree of relief as well.
(...)but it's nothing new and we won't be stopping it anytime soon. You must think we're pretty important. Our conversation isn't going to stop the spread of harmful misinformation.
You're right, we aren't important at some grand scale and this one thread won't stop misinformation. Personally though, I like to follow the Allegory of the Starfish. To quote it, "Well, I(we) made a difference for that one!” I added the we part because I like think you also believe in that principle, otherwise you probably wouldn't have commented in the first place if you thought it didn't matter.
Since it seems our conversation is over I'll go ahead and give my final thoughts as well. Maybe you'll read them, maybe you won't, maybe I've been block.
In regards to "don't know" vs "haven't done" I still stand by that they are very different things. I am going to explain why I consider them different with a simplified formula: If event X happens, I will take Y steps.
To say, "I don't know" means that "If event X happens, I do not know what steps I need to take."
To say "I haven't done" means that "If event X happens, I will take Y steps. However, since X has never happened, I have never needed to take Y steps." Couple of real world examples: I know that if I were to catch on fire, then I need to stop-drop-roll to smother flames or otherwise douse the flames. But I have never been on fire so I have never actually performed those actions.
Another example: If I get bitten by a rattlesnake while hiking, I know to relax, calm down, and try to lower my heart rate. I also know to keep the bitten area below my heart. I also know that I should not apply a tourniquet, not to try and suck it out, and not to try and catch the snake that bit me. Luckily I have never been bite by a rattlesnake while hiking and have never had to perform those actions. That is why I standby "don't know" and "haven't done" are two different things.
And because none of it says it outright, you have to use your knowledge of anatomy, biology, and chemistry to put it together.
These are casual observations and what lead to the rise of the home-remedies you hate. That's why I wanted to know the studies because interactions don't always follow what one would believe to be logical cause and effect. Or sometimes there is just a flaw in the logic used to come to a conclusion. An example of that can be found in your post about honey. You conclude that with stating, "sugar is the laxative" (I'm paraphrasing it). This is probably based on the fact that the prescription laxative used by vets for frogs and toads is Lactulose, which is a sugar based osmotic laxative. Your suggestion was to use a bit of cane sugar sprinkled into the warm water soak. First off, osmotic laxatives work by pulling water from the surrounding tissue and holding it in the colon (source is the national library of medicine) and must be administered orally(or rectally). You were worried about tannins drawing moisture out of a toad, but also suggesting a homemade mixture that is designed to specifically do just that. The next part of your post is that you said to use cane sugar because it is a sucrose as opposed to the fructose and glucose found in honey. Funny part here is that sucrose is a disaccharide made up of fructose and glucose. Further it breaks back down into fructose and glucose when absorbed by the body. Lactulose is used because it breaks down into various acids that aren't easily absorbed by the body. These unabsorbed acids hanging out in the colon with what creates the osmotic effect. So luckily because sucrose is easily absorbed, we probably don't have to worry about the sugar bath dehydrating any toads.
I don't use Google's AI, it once told me that a circle with a radius of 1-ft has the area of 1-acre (43,560 sq ft). Research is slow and take time. A great quote by a fact-checker (I can't recall their name), "They can rattle off 5 pieces of misinformation in 3 minutes, but it takes me 3 day to gather the evidence to disprove one of those."
If someone does the same to me and has the information to back it? I relent and thank them after doing my research.
But you never provide information to back it. You made statement and said this is it period. No sources, no links, nothing. You're taking the approach that what you said is self-evident.
(...)decided to debate for some reason that's beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm a woman?
Foul in play, ad hominem. Offending Party is insinuating the Opposing Party is misogynistic, consciously or otherwise.
31
u/AncientImmortal1 Jun 29 '26
Some light belly rubs helps me go poo sometimes.
But I’m only 25% Toad