Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine)

Contradictory and poor article

I suggest the current article be taken down and replaced with one by an expert in the field of alternative medicine, and allow the medical politicians to link in a critical, opposing perspective. This article contains a lot of biased, unproven opinions from the traditional medical camp that detoxification is bad science, unproven and a waste of money. These opinions should be stated in a different and separate article perhaps titled, "Conservative Medicine's view of Alternative Medicine." The opinions show a lot of ignorance of the topic and a lot of highly selective perspectives and reports that diminish detoxification. This is not the proper place for a debate or bias. Instead, report what is known about detox and link in a separate article with the anti-detox perspectives that include the selected medical studies. In fact, a lot of what is said is inaccurate ... so much so that it is a waste of time to try to point out all the errors. Thus, it should be taken down and replaced. Very disappointed in this article. ~~User: Christopher Aune~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraune (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Verbal and WLU have reverted a cleanup tag and requests for clarification in the text, so presumably they think this article is in a good state. I really can't see how - it's a mess. It's self-evidently contradictory. For example "Most doctors contend that the 'toxins' in question do not even exist". Then "alternative medicine proponents frequently cite heavy metals or pesticides as the source of toxification". I fail to understood how heavy metals or pesticides can fail to exist? It's the closest the article comes to defining what it's on about. Or are we postulating some new physics here? How can such a logical fallacy remain unexamined and unquestioned? The article fails to define what "body cleansing" is. It alludes to colons and detox diets, but all in such a scattered, illogical way that it's impossible to understand what it's about. Compare this to the homeopathy article. It begins "homœopathy is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that attempts to treat patients with heavily diluted preparations. Based on an ipse dixit[1] axiom[2] formulated by Hahnemann which he called the law of similars, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given as the treatment for patients exhibiting similar symptoms." There, at least everyone knows what we're talking about from the intro. How does this one begin? "Body cleansing or detoxification is a alternative medicine intervention which proponents claim rid the body of "toxins", accumulated harmful substances that are alleged to exert a negative effect on individual health. Body cleansing is not supported by science, with no medical benefits demonstrated, and is based on questionable or disproved scientific claims." There's no discussion of what these interventions are supposed to be! Greenman (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As an alt med concept, it's not based on science, theory, logic or biology. Alt med practitioners claim "body cleansing" can "detoxify" - they may just say "toxins" or they may specify "pollution" (which isn't really an improvement over "toxins") or "heavy metals" (which ones?), or "pesticides" (again, which ones?). It's not science, it's incoherent and based on little more than bad diets and placebo interventions. There's no reason to believe that simply fasting, or adopting an all-juice/vegetable/vegetarian/fruit/grapefruit/lemonade/maple syrup diet will necessarily remove specific "toxins" (such as lead, mercury, "pollution" or "pesticides") from the body. Homeopathy is a well-defined (if magical-thinking-based) discipline with a recognized set of (flawed, implausible) principles and disciplined approach. Body cleansing doesn't have that. It's based on auto-intoxication, which does not fit with a modern understanding of the colon, digestion, biochemistry, etc.

Frankly, good luck finding a definition - with no research base to draw upon, every single product and shill (and it really comes down to an incoherent crowd of salespeople shilling dubious products) has a different definition of what a cleanse is, what it should involve, what it does, etc.

I'll add a brief mention of what the interventions are - dieting, fasting, herbs, juices. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, the article is a little better now. However, the definition of "body cleasing" is still too loose to be useful, and the broad attempt here results in accuracies. Take for example the statement "The premise of body cleansing is based on the Ancient Egyptian and Greek idea of autointoxication, in which foods consumed or in the humoral theory of health that the four humours themselves can putrefy and produce toxins that harm the body." Now look at this link, a particular approach. Presumably not based on an Egyptian/Greek theory, yoga contains treatments and poses that could be described as "body cleansing", but is based on an entirely different system. It seems to be based on "logic" (a relatively cohesive system of thought) and "biology" - how well, if at all, it's been verified, I can't say in this case. But the point is that this article, to be useful, either needs to become much longer and more detailed, covering the whole gamut of activities that are described in this way, or disappear entirely, becoming a list of links to the individual articles, such as "colon cleanse", "water fasting", etc, where each can be covered in the appropriate detail. Greenman (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Random sales sites are not reliable sources, nor are they secondary sources. We can't synthesize all possible pseudoscience and produce an article based on that. The principles of "detoxification" fail generally on their basic science. There are numerous criticisms in appropriate mainstream and parity sources like Quackwatch that generally address it. Per WP:UNDUE, these fringe theories should be given little weight - the weight should be on the mainstream opinion that they are bunk. It is inappropriate to go into exquisite, loving detail over each little theoretical bit of nonsense. Listing them, addressing their general failings as addressed in appropriate sources, is where we should go, and stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that the example is not a reliable source :) I am using it as an example that indicates that this article is incorrect. It states that all body cleansing is based on Egypian/Greek theory? Do you disagree that this is false? Greenman (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But the article is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth. I think most body cleansing is based on misunderstanding, arguments from authority and profit motive, but what matters is that there are sources stating the idea comes from Egyptian roots. There's a limit to what sources we can use, what we should use, and what we can say about them. There are thousands of nonsense articles that we could cite if we discarded MEDRS, the point is we shouldn't, and we don't have to since we have Ernst's article to draw on. Unlike an evidence-based medical claim, there's no coherence to draw upon here, just a series of evidence-free claims circulating on the internet that occasionally get a new spin attached to them. Can't deal with them all, and we shouldn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So to summarise, the article does not need to attempt to define what body cleansing is, since they're all a load of nonsense. The resulting article is incoherent and false, but that's OK, since it's verifiable. And the article is in such great shape it needs no cleanup? Greenman (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No response? So can the cleanup tag go back? Greenman (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What else do you want to say? What reliable sources have you found about this fringe theory that give due weight to the scientific majority opinion that body cleansing is useless? Alternatively, what secondary sources sufficiently reliable to verify the medical claims made about body cleansing can be used to justify the alt med nonsense spewed about it? Body cleansing is nonsense, incoherent nonsense, based on discredited, or unbelievable statements about the body and how it works, about "toxins" and other pseudoscience. We can't use the sales-site "sources" to expand the page. There's little written about it in the scientific press. What do we have to further expand the page? What specific claims do you think are currently inappropriate? What further sources can you present to improve things? Without sources, the page pretty much stays as it is. It's not wikipedia's fault that the alt med fringe nutters are incoherent and base their claims on ideology and scientifically irrelevant theories. We base the page on reliable sources, and the reliable sources don't bother slowly teasing apart all the nonsense that exists about this. It just relegates it to the dustbin of pseudoscience. I'm not sure what else you want to do with this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop preaching and wikilawyering and try address the issues in the article. The article is contradictory nonsense. The ARTICLE. Unless the article can make sense, it's worse than useless. The point is not to try foist work onto me to search for sources, but to point out where these are needed in the article. There are no coherent claims made about what body cleansing is. This is not because no coherent (albeit flawed) claims exist, it's because this article is incoherent. The comment about toxins is contradictory since the only description of what these toxins are in the article is that they are heavy metals, which you've so far failed to convince me don't exist. How anyone sensible can think this jumbled mess is a good article is beyond me. Whenever I point this out you start wikilawyering in a way that completely misses the point. Perhaps you should calm down, take an objective look at the article, and decide again whether you think it's a good article. Is it coherent? Does it help the reader understand what body cleansing is supposed to be? Maybe we can start simply with a single point. Do heavy metals exist or not? The article implies they don't. Greenman (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to find, and summarize, all the reliable sources available in a way that you believe addresses the problems in the article. I simply don't consider it important or amusing enough to waste much of my time on. Rather than complaining to me, you could fix it yourself. My extensive citation of policies indicates why I don't believe some of the sources you have suggested are necessarily accurate, as well as setting the context regarding the kinds of sources that are applicable and useful for this particular article. You may call it wikilawyering, I see it as a set of necessary guides to the editing process, to ensure the kind of junk and nonsense that alt med practitioners pimp in order to fleece their clients is not found in the article. In other words, to give due weight to the mainstream scholarly opinion. The contradictory nonsense comes from the nonscientific and nonbiological claims made by practitioners.

Body cleansing doesn't deal with heavy metals in a medically or scientifically meaningful manner. As Quackwatch says, "The "Urine Toxic Metals Test" is used to trick people into thinking that they have lead or mercury poisoning. The heart of the process is "provoked" testing in which a chelating agent is given before the specimen is obtained. This artificially raises the levels of lead, mercury, and/or other heavy metals in the urine. The test report, a copy of which is given to the patient, states that its "reference values" are for non-provoked specimens. However, if a test level exceeds the reference values—which it usually will—it is reported as "elevated" even though it should be considered insignificant. The patient is then advised to undergo "detoxification" with chelation therapy, other intravenous treatments, dietary supplements, or whatever else the practitioner happens to sell [7]. This advice is very, very, very wrong. No diagnosis of lead or mercury toxicity should be made unless the patient has symptoms of heavy metal poisoning as well as a much higher non-provoked blood level. And even if the level is elevated—as might occur in an unsafe workplace or by eating lead-containing paint—all that is usually needed is to remove further exposure." Heavy metals obviously exist, and can obviously cause health problems. However, that is for the heavy metal (chemistry) article, which deals with real science and research, not this one. Doctors don't treat "heavy metal poisoning", they treat specific symptoms and causes of toxic exposures of specific substances. The question isn't whether heavy metals exist. It's whether the people who come to quacks for treatment actually need heavy metals removed from the body due to excess exposure causing ill-health. Since most don't show actual symptoms of heavy metal poisoning, it's quite possible the answer is "no, but thanks for your money".

I consider my reply pretty calm and detailed. I'm seriously asking you what you think the article needs, what sources should be used, and what else needs to be done. Rather than a vague tag, consider editing. I've added quackwatch. Do you think anything else needs to be done? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my original edits, which were reverted, made clear what the article needs. It needs a cleanup, and it needs clarifications. There have been some improvements since then, but I still think you are missing my point, as if you are trying to convince me about the dubious merits of body cleansing. I don't need convincing on a talk page, I'd like the article to state things more clearly and coherently. The article simply doesn't make logical sense. It claims that "toxins" don't exist and that they're heavy metals. Attempting to point out to me in a talk page that certain techniques have no effect on heavy metal levels in the body doesn't help the article. The main problem is that the article covers too many different techniques, and by not making enough of an attempt to differentiate between them, invalidates the criticism that can be applied to these techniques individually. If technique A claims toxins are humours, the article can point out that these don't exist. However, technique B claims toxins are heavy metals, and the same criticism obviously doesn't apply. Then, as you say, the discussion needs to be around whether the technique has any effect on the heavy metals. So, to reiterate, the article either needs to be a page listing and linking to individual techniques that can be discussed adequately and accurately, or it needs to do a better job of synthesising in this article. At the moment, the article doesn't hold together because it tries to cover too much, and does so incoherently. My contribution to this article is not going to be to find and summarize all sources available. I don't have the time or interest to do this. I am simply pointing out that this article, as it stands now, is in serious need of improvement. I would like to point this out on the article page, with a cleanup tag and some requests for clarification so that others who do have the time or interest can make improvements. I am happy to do this one tag at a time in case any one clarification tag is deemed too controversial :) Is this acceptable? Greenman (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that if you are so concerned about the article that you spent the time editing it rather than suggesting that everyone else need fix the problem. Few of us have the time to spend looking up reliable sources on such a biazrre subject. Gillyweed (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the ease with which I am finding these sources, I'm inclined to agree. The information is there. I've made 11 edits in the past two weeks regarding your objections, adding two new sources and expanding the use of several others. There is plenty to expand upon and rather than continuously making suggestions and pointing to the apparent holes in the current page, it would almost certainly be quicker for you to review the plentitude of basic sources and address the page's failings yourself. Most are quite brief and written at a very readable level. I would recommend starting with quackwatch, it has myriad sources and internal links that will be quite useful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillyweed, that's how the process started - my contributions were reverted, and much time spent explaining that the article is in no need of a cleanup, hence my reluctance to contribute further in the article space and the need for this tedious talk process. WLU, thanks for your changes. However, Wikipedia doesn't mean you get to ask others to do the work for you. I'm not asking you to do anything, and you don't get to insist I do anything either :) My contribution is pointing out the huge holes in this article. Again, I am asking to do something constructive, which is mark the holes I've discussed in the article space. There's a reason for the cleanup tag! It flags an article as in particular need of attention by editors, as well as warns the reader that the article is a mess, both perfectly reasonable in this instance. Greenman (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia only gets better when someone steps up and actually edits the page. I have. I've pointed out why the holes there. I've now finished. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

the sources are lame. im sure if you found something from scientists refuting the use of body cleansing, a better sources could be found than articles from the Guardian and co. LAME! This isnt an article about politics. Im sure the actual scientific article(s) are available online if not than in short form somewhere. I have been appalled more often than not by the amount of bad copy pasting, key word changing, and misquoting by journalists, main stream or not. find real sources, not slow news day filler. maybe instead of the entire article being a criticism of body cleansing and including a criticisms section as well (hello redundance??), an attempt should be found to find an appropriate balance. maybe with a massive criticism section to keep everyone happy. If people editing and admin-ing this article like the "mighty unquestionable modern science view", i expect that kind of effort in finding sources. full sources. I know, i write papers with disgusting amounts of footnotes, etc to support my conclusions. yes it takes work and on the internet, guardian and times will show up long before some obscure scientific journal or university research department statement does. sorry but when i see articles obviously written and edited with a slant my work mode turns on and i turn hypercritical in the devils advocate way. If there is a lack of sources, studies, etc that should be openly stated as i consider that to be a common failing of modern medicine and science. A subject is condemned until a mountain of research is done for a subject. i usually expect somewhat balanced articles on wikipedia. blistering criticism from a scientific or medical view IN the CRITICISM section or from alt-med of bias or lack of research from the mainstream. but this article fails on all fronts. wow, this article was bad. TWO thumbs down. If this is how an article is supposed to work on wikipedia, there should be a lot fewer entries and most should be rewritten. (re: UFO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.185.209 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). There aren't any scientific sources that I'm aware of but if you find some, feel free to integrate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WLU, your position is getting more ludicrous. You raised no objections to my last comment about the cleanup tag. You insist I "do it", but remove a cleanup tag. Opposing a cleanup tag means you think the article is great as is. Your objections amount to rants about quacks, and don't address the article's weaknesses. Wikipedia is about working together to improve an article, not demanding one editor "does it". This one is obviously a poor article, as I've patiently and slowly explained to you. Should I do so again, more slowly? Line by line perhaps? All to add a cleanup tag? Greenman (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I see the comment above is addressed to the anonymous editor, but you haven't responded at all to my last comment, just removed a cleanup tag without discussion. Greenman (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is poorly written. Please see my comment under the mercury fillings dispute on this page for my reasoning. Thank you. I believe this article should be flagged for lack of objectivity and use of biased sources. If that is not part of the process it should be. An encyclopedia should not be a area where a biased source gets touted as fact repeatedly. I only write my comment here to get involved because I came to Wikipedia hoping to get the best information from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, thinking it would be a reliable place to do research. Unfortunately I have been sorely mistaken when it comes to this article. Please find sources from both arenas.71.3.101.247 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have some specific concerns, please share them. General complaints don't really help. Which words are problematic, and how can they be improved using reliable sources? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

The documentation page for {{cleanup}} states "this generic template should only be used when a more specific tag is not suitable. Because this tag is very general, be sure to identify the specific problems on the article's talk page. If other editors can't figure out what needs to be cleaned up, then they can (and should) remove this tag." So let's start over. What problems exist on the page. Since the first tag was placed, specific alleged body cleansing modalities have been added, quackwatch used extensively as a citation, and now basically every statement has a source. Looking back to the original tags, it looks like {{fact}} would have been a better tag than {{clarify}} since they were all unsourced statements. Yes, they were all nonsense statements, but that's because the approach is nonsense - it's not the fault of the critical sources that the nonsense practice is pseudoscience and incoherent. I can't figure out what's the problem now, so please restate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Page move

A better move for this page might be to move the page to Detoxification (alternative medicine) since that's the main term used to describe the practice overall. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

mercuy section= neutrality disputed

Im not sure how to do it, but this page should have the neutrality disputed. While some of the detox methods discussed may in fact be bogus- I would beg to differ that having mercury amalgam fillings removed is just a pointless scam! Mercury is not funny stuff, its very serious. It doesnt not belong in fillings or anything else that goes into ones body. Even microscopic amounts can seriously harm you. You can Call it original research, but I had all my mercury fillings removed, and I felt much better. Of course theres no accounting for all the mercury that leaked out into my vital organs during the years before I removed those horrid fillings! please rewrite the mercury filling section to be less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.130.199 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Less biased? Your anecote about feeling better after having your fillings removed is just about as biased and unscientific as it gets. There is no science that backs up the claim that amalgam fillings release dangerous levels of mercury into the body, or are unsafe in any way. Nor is there any evidence that people with amalgam fillings have higher levels of mercury in their bodies than people who don't. That is not bias, that is science. Jessiessica (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Science is based on observations. The above comment about how a person feels after their fillings removed is therefore part of a scientific process that that person has conducted for themselves. I also agree hat the article is heavily biased. Not because I have any anecdotal evidence myself but because the article does not objectively describe what detoxification is. Instead it primarily focuses on discrediting any belief in the practice. If we were to do to the religious articles what has been done here there would be an uprising. 71.3.101.247 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the scientific method does use observation, but anecdotes are considered the poorest and weakest form of evidence due to their uncontrolled and personal nature. We use reliable sources here, not anecdotes. If you have some reliable sources, and a suggested way to use them here, we'd like to see them. Maybe you can help improve the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

In the final para of the Criticism section, Bonadea has reverted my added comma with the comment "Actually, 'astroturfing' modifies 'companies or individuals'." However the article doesn't actually say "astroturfing companies or individuals." It doesn't use the word "astroturfing" anywhere and probably shouldn't because many people will not know the word. I didn't. If it had I would have looked up the meaning and then understood. The article says "disguised employees companies or individuals..." This I thought was an error needing either an apostrophe ("disguised employees' companies or individuals...") or a comma ("disguised employees, companies or individuals..."). I chose the latter. Either way it needed and now still needs editing. I'll leave that to you Bonadea. Spathaky (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I was looking at the wikicode and not at the article text. The Wikilink to Astroturfing was renamed (piped) to "disguised employees" which meant that the sentence without a comma made no sense, and I should have noticed that. I read the sentence as saying "astroturfing, companies or individuals creating false anecdotes" which was not grammatical, but of course that's not what it said at all. I still believe that the sentence makes more sense if it reads "astroturfing companies or individuals creating false anecdotes" than if it reads "disguised employees, companies or individuals creating false anecdotes" since companies are not sentient and employees are individuals, and I took the liberty of rewriting it as such - but I'm not going to complain if anybody changes it back :-) --bonadea contributions talk 15:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

I have a problem with this statement.

"Body cleansing is not supported by science, with no medical benefits demonstrated, and is based on questionable or disproved scientific claims."

It uses a biased study. There are 4 references of the same exact study. Wikipedia:Citation overkill

"Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for his or her edit."

Is this saying, sweat does not detox? Avoiding artificial flavors and colors are not detox? It says tap water is all that is needed, when it needs to be un-chlorinated. Drinking un-chlorinated water is not detox? Getting rid of tapeworm is not detox? Getting fresh air is not detox? Someone should have not let this biased POV in sooner. I'm changing this. It's one thing to say someone is trying to make money off of detoxification, its another to say it is not supported by science whatsoever. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not supported by science whatsoever, mainly because it's not based on science to begin with. Ludicrous. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem with POV in this article. I see it as being overly critical, and too quick to label everything as "pseudoscience" and "unscientific". It's a problem. There is actual quackery but there are also some fairly extreme people want to apply quackery labels to practices which may be partly or wholly valid and not actually pseudoscience. There is a tendency i've seen within Wikipedia for a lot of editors to go far to the extreme of labeling everything that deviates from the "mainstream Western medicine" as "pseudoscience" or "unscientific" or "fringe". So i voice my concern here in addition to the above user. SageRad (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Another violation of WP:TPG from you. If you want to whinge about reality-based editors, go away and do it off-wiki. Here, please confine yourself to reasonable proposals for article improvement based on our WP:PAGs, not on personal issues you have with the supposed views of other editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, accusing someone of a talk page violation is a pretty serious thing. Because i add my voice in saying that i see bias in this article, and outline what i see as the nature of the bias, you tell me to be quiet and sit down? It's not personal issues -- it's POV issues that i have with a trend that i see in Wikipedia, and this article is one that seems to have this issue. Explaining the nature of the POV bias that i see is indeed part of a discussion about how to improve the article. Diagnosis of issues is a first step toward improvement. I'm finding this rather unfriendly on your part. Please, allow me to edit in peace. Allow me to use my voice as an editor, equal to other editors, and to contribute to the balancing of the encyclopedia according to WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article is crap - it makes no attempt to differentiate between, say, some foot detox product and eating healthily, and in tone implies that ingesting large amounts of pesticides is harmless, while warning about the deadly dangers of diet changes. But it would help if you didn't take aggressive and unhelpful comments personally, and made some specific suggestions as to what to improve - broad complaints don't really help improve things. And if you really plan to help improve this swamp of an article, lots of patience will be needed too :) Greenman (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Natural News

I recently reverted some edits that use this as a source. Note that Wikipedia has very specific guidelines for reliable sources at WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Natural News is a very fringe site that promotes conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and vaccines causing autism. It has no professional editorial oversite, no affiliation with any credible professional organization, is not peer-reviewed, and generally does not meet any of the guidelines established in the above two links.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead

I've had a look at one of the citations in the lead. There's a better article, which is actually linked from the BBC site in question, which gives much more specific names, quotations and sources. I'm going to suggest using it and make an edit accordingly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4616603.stm <-- that's the link. I specifically want to remove the non-specific weasel word "Many" from the lead. This is the text I want to quote from:

• Roger Clemens, professor of molecular pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Southern California and Dr Peter Pressman, an endocrinologist at private medical firm Geller, Rudnick, Bush and Bamberger say many have reported detoxing worked for them.

• They write: "There are thousands of testimonials that describe experience of less bloating (actually the result of eating less food), clearer skin (improved hydration) and decreased headaches (reduced alcohol and caffeine)."

• But they say the benefits people feel are not due to their body getting rid of excessive toxins.

• "The suggestion that elimination of noxious agents is enhanced because of this regimen is categorically unsubstantiated and runs counter to our understanding about human physiology and biochemistry."

• They say the improvements detoxers see are instead due to changing from what is likely to have been a "poor" diet.

• And they stress the body is designed to "detox" itself.

• "Healthy adults, even overweight adults, have been endowed with extraordinary systems for the elimination of waste and regulation of body chemistry.

• "Our lungs, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract and immune system are effective in removing or neutralising toxic substances within hours of consumption."

• They warn that detoxing can be dangerous for groups such as teenagers or pregnant women, who cannot afford to deprive themselves of food groups.

• 'No definition'

• Ursula Arens, a registered dietician and spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association said: "'Detox' is a meaningless term that is used all the time.

• "And because it hasn't been defined, it's impossible to say if it's worked or if it hasn't."

• She added: "All food is made up of chemicals, and all our body does with food is a chemical reaction.

• "The body is set up to deal with the chemicals it doesn't want, and excrete them."

• Claire Williamson, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, added: "No single food can provide all the nutrients that the body needs, and therefore it is important to consume a balanced and varied diet in order to obtain adequate amounts of energy, protein, vitamins, minerals and fibre required for good health.

• "Cutting out complete food groups in the long term, may have adverse effects on an individual's health."

Edahsh (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As the suggested edit I made was reverted I would like to address this sentence here: "many researchers agree that there is no clinical evidence that such diets are effective"

• "'Many researchers' sounds weasly to the casual reader, I realise that there are citations, but since we have actual names of specialists in the field, I'd rather use them in the article's text"
• "The researchers cited did more than simply question the efficacy of the diets, they also provided genuine reasons why practitioners of these diets may experience beneficial effects."

My suggested edit is: "Roger Clemens, professor of molecular pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Southern California and Dr Peter Pressman, an endocrinologist at private medical firm Geller, Rudnick, Bush and Bamberger state that while many have made positive reports about the effects of detoxification, the reported health benefits are typically attributable to a reduction in dietary intake, improved hydration and caffeine and alcohol cessation. They say that people adopting detox diets are likely changing from a poor diet, emphasizing the fact that the body is able to detox its self" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edahsh (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Losing body fat will reduce the quantity of lipophilic substances in the body.

It will also reduce the body's ability to absorb lipophilic molecules.

I'm surprised this mainstream concept is not in the article.66.64.72.10 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Be bold and make an edit if, and only if, you have reliable sources to back it up. Alternative medicine websites are generally not reliable sources under Wiki policies for medically related articles.12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

FRINGE concerns

I don't recall looking closely at this article before, and now that I have I'm wondering if it would be best to get some more eyes on it. Because the article doesn't look like it follows FRINGE in the lede or body, I've brought it up at WP:FTN. To me the article looks to weigh alt-med sources and pov's over others.

I don't recall seeing vox.com discussed as a source for alt med topics, but http://www.vox.com/2014/12/31/7438565/detox looks like a fairly good introduction including the history. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Potential refs

While some of these may not be reliable themselves, the references they use are worth identifying and reviewing as well: --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.vox.com/2014/12/31/7438565/detox

  Brief introduction that includes the history. Mentioned above. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.ebm-first.com/dietary-detoxification-detox.html

  List of articles. Looks very useful. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-it-and-how-to-avoid-it/

  "“Detox” is a case of a legitimate medical term being turned into a marketing strategy – all designed to treat a nonexistent condition." --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Truth of Toxins

This is a terrible article full of skeptic newspeak, skeptic links to happily debunking "detoxing" and without much good science, secondary sources or any sort of balanced view on this matter.

Toxins are a fact of life, the environment is full of man made chemicals. This is undeniable. Most people are not able to test themselves for these toxins as the tests are too expensive. Here are two article from two eminent publications which explore this issue.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2009-10/personal-chemisty

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/chemicals-within-us/#page=1

Instead of pushing the skeptic newspeak line, "what are these mysterious blasted toxins anyway?" and "the body detoxes itself!" and "these detox promoters are frauds", it would be worth looking into this on its own terms.

For one thing, it doesn't seem that most people's bodies detox themselves when people's bodies are discovered to be full of chemicals.

This article is a response to the Guardian article "You can’t detox your body. It’s a myth" (linked therein)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-greenfield/is-detoxing-really-a-myth_b_6385924.html

I think this is a sensible article which puts this contentious matter in perspective!

Honestly, I have no idea where to begin to edit this article, it is a big mess and I'd probably recommend just deleting it! I can't see how it is useful and it receives comparatively few views.

Probrooks (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Our Detoxification article is about legitimate detoxification; this one is about detox diets and other BS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised to not find this review article by Klein and Kiat (2015) in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics used in this article. General sense is that there are some indications that some things work in some ways but in general there is "very little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets". SageRad (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Or to quote from the conclusion: "At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management or toxin elimination". Not a surprise! Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In the above reference, my point was that it's not a total consensus either way, that it's all bunk and certainly not that it's all genuine. I think my point may have been missed above. Anyway, i do agree somewhat with the original comment in this section that the article seems to be a brochure from a Skeptic Movement convention, essentially, and this recent edit just seals the deal. Guy with a podcast says X so let's report it in the article, right? Person Z calls himself a "skeptic" and some editors declare this topic is "fringe" because "it's obvious" and therefore normal sourcing considerations of Wikipedia are suspended and anything uttered by someone who self-identifies as a "Skeptic" and says the right combination of memes on their blog becomes a reliable source. Now i understand how Wikipedia works in practice, through observation of what actually happens. Allow me to quote the whole of the abstract of the review article i cited above:

Detox diets are popular dieting strategies that claim to facilitate toxin elimination and weight loss, thereby promoting health and well-being. The present review examines whether detox diets are necessary, what they involve, whether they are effective and whether they present any dangers. Although the detox industry is booming, there is very little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets. A handful of clinical studies have shown that commercial detox diets enhance liver detoxification and eliminate persistent organic pollutants from the body, although these studies are hampered by flawed methodologies and small sample sizes. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that certain foods such as coriander, nori and olestra have detoxification properties, although the majority of these studies have been performed in animals. To the best of our knowledge, no randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of commercial detox diets in humans. This is an area that deserves attention so that consumers can be informed of the potential benefits and risks of detox programmes.

There is little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets. That's true. That is lack of crucial evidence. However, there is some evidence that certain foods have detoxification properties. This is an area that needs more research, according to the above review article. It doesn't automatically conclude that it is 100% complete bunk. And i do sense that bent in this article in agreement with the original comment in this section, to a degree. A likely problem with NPOV is what i'd call it. SageRad (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make a medical claim for us to assess, or make arguments based upon such claims, point out the MEDRS sources.

The entire idea of "detoxification" in the context here is pseudoscience. FRINGE (and the associated ArbCom decisions) place a very high bar on presenting pseudoscience as something else. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That which I quoted is a MEDRS source. SageRad (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In this dif you have starkly mischaracterized the conclusion of the source PMID 25522674, which is: "At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management or toxin elimination. Considering the financial costs to consumers, unsubstantiated claims and potential health risks of detox products, they should be discouraged by health professionals and subject to independent regulatory review and monitoring." as Alexbrn already pointed out to you... yet you persist in the mischaracterization. Thank you, however, for bringing the ref. I have deployed it in the article in these 2 diffs. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)