Talk:Detoxification

Iniital comments

I changed "none have" to "none has" in the Methods of Detoxification section because "none" is singular rather than plural (i.e. "not one has" or "not a single one has"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.187.187 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article previously ommitted to include the gut as an organ of detoxification so I included the phrase 'lower gastrointestinal tract' early in the piece. However, the description of the gut's role is so significant in detoxification much more needs to be written here on the subject. Adam 14 January 2007.

i was searching for information about "detox" and came to this article. prima facie, the tone of the article sounds biased, but i don't know better. can someone more knowledgable (and objective) tidy it up a bit?

I fail to see where this article is biased...

I think that the word "quackery" might be a little biased.

The body can accumulate various toxins, so despite a healthy sceptical viewpoint, I dispute that! --MacRusgail 14:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, which toxins were you referring to? More importantly, have any detox diets/products been shown to remove the toxins you're thinking about? Most of the people who support these "body detox" plans don't know enough about biochemistry to understand how the body removes toxins, and most people who sell them don't care, as long as they make money.

I don't think this article is unfairly biased, though I agree that quackery is a strong (but perhaps appropriate) word. The article uses the POV of accepted medicine, as it should. It's true that certain chemicals can build up in the body, including dioxins, heavy metals, PCBs, radioisotopes, and plenty of other stuff. The problem is that the products/diets/laxatives advertised for "detox" cannot remove any of these. So unless someone can post some hard evidence that these do anything other than waste money, I'm unconvinced - but I'm willing to entertain any evidence that shows otherwise.

I also suggest we remove the POV warning. ZZYZX 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Detox also refers to a natural detoxification of the body in which a person stops eating processed foods, meats and dairy products in an effort to cleans the body. I don't know whether or not it works, but in its truest form, detox does not involve chemicals or pills.

I've done some serious detoxing myself and written a book on it now and can honestly say that it does work. The primary thing that gets eliminated from the body is old mucous, which contains harmful substances consumed in the past. Much of the food people consume leaves an acidic residue in the digestive tract and the body is forced to secrete mucous to protect the delicate lining of the intestines, when a person does this everyday the pancreas doesn't have a chance to dissolve and remove the mucous (using the enzyme pancreatin). This mucous then becomes hard and difficult to remove, digestion becomes inhibited, parasite have a place to live etc. Check out this detox and cleansing website for a more thorough explanation.

What a load of twaddle. Mucus is not "forced" to be secreted to deal with food residues - it is secreted on a continuous basis as a perfectly normal process to lubricate the oesophagus, protect the stomach from attack by its own acid secretions and lubricate the intestines. The water content is largely readsorbed in the large intestine and the residue combined with faeces or used to lubricate the colon and anus. The pancreas secretes a variety of enzymes (NOT "pancreatin", which is a man-made mixture of enzymes used to aid digestion in people with some forms of pancreatic malfunction) to digest food. It is not designed to dissolve mucus. Anyone who has seem a colonoscopy will confirm that the inside of the colon is pink and well lubricated with no sign of "hardened mucus". The website you referred to is pretty well complete nonsense from beginning to end, with the entire purpose being to part you with your money for their largely useless and possibly dangerous products —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.177.157 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Detox, in any form, involves chemicals. Chemicals are our friends.155.178.180.5 (talk)

And what parasites might those be?207.172.222.90 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just had a friend do one of the cleanses spoken of on the website and he feels much better now, back problems gone, more energy etc.

I've been around too long to assume that because there are no double-blind, randomized controlled trials, that there are no benefits. I've seen entirely too many cases of claims (of anything) being debunked simply because the prevailing opinion in the field (that this is quackery, which it is, in that the majority of the practicioners don't really know what they're talking about in a medical sense) or the circumstances, prevent 'respectable' people from *doing* trials (though a turkey with a piece of paper is still a turkey). Then, of course, there's researcher bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that there's no quackery here, I'm only pointing out that the absence of trials only proves that trials haven't been done. It's very possible to cling to an assignation of the burden of proof until you're simply ignoring the blatantly obvious, like, for example, the fact that by far the majority of North Americans are deeply invested in a dangerous, potentially fatal eating regimen (including me, by the way). It's hardly worth arguing that eating food that is actually good for you for a week or more is going to help, and quickly, and noticeably, making you feel better, more energetic, etc. Perhaps we should be careful in our rush to assign accusations of quackery that we are not defending the incredibly unhealthy practises and unhealthful foods that we routinely eat, and which are undeniably endangering our health. If that's what we're doing, are we really defending or helping anyone? Wasn't there a hippocratic oath once upon a time? Sigma-6 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who receives a doctorate takes the Hippocratic Oath, so purveyors of pseudoscience wares can have real doctors (non-physicians) peddle spurious cures.

Your argument against American Eating habits have little bearing on the whether or not these detox practices work. It’s a straw man. 155.178.180.5 (talk)

Well lots of interesting POVs there. Thanks Sigma for bringing in a reality check - much needed. I have performed many a cleansing and detox regime on myself, and know that I feel better for it - much better for it. Does that prove anything - not really, just that when I do it, I feel better. However, there is a wide range of historical use of various cleansing regimens, which though that doesn't support the whole debate, it certainly means that it should not be dismissed out of hand by those that have either never tried, or just don't get the concept. We all understand denial, and where the SAD is concerned, it leaves a lot to be desired by anyone's imagination. With over 30,000 chemicals now currently used routinely in agriculture alone, the vast majority of which have no counterpart in nature. And that is before we add all the other various toxic chemicals in our processed foodstuffs, in our homes, in our general environments, exposure to petrochemicals etc etc - the list goes on. I guess at some point a little common sense has to come into the equation to recognise that this huge chemical assault on our body systems is probably not going to be beneficial. If it were to be beneficial, no doubt it would be made clear to us all! The usual arguments by the orthodoxy are that we possess a liver, bowel, kidneys, skin and pair of lungs to excrete waste products - so obviously they must do the job as we aren't dropping like flies in the street. Or are we? The rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, iatrogenic death, environmental illness are going through the proverbial roof - maybe, just maybe, there could be a link there?? All the FDA studies to grant licenses on all these chemicals are based on toxicity studies of one kind or another - making the HUGE assumption that 'what won't kill you will make you stronger' it seems. I.e. you kill a rat with a certain dose, then you reduce the dose till the rat doesn't die and proclaim that 'At this dose the rat doesn't die, therefore at this dose it is not toxic!'. Well that is the biggest assumption of all is it not. Just the mere fact that they are 'toxicity studies' should switch on a few light bulbs. Clearly at fatal doses the substance concerned is very toxic, at less doses it is 'non-fatally' toxic - doesn't mean that it is not toxic, just less so. Detoxification routes in the body are many (thankfully) so we by and large don't keel over that easily - praise be to the inherent dynamic strength of biological physiology. However, the body's primary detoxification organ (the liver) has only so many means to detoxify substances, some of which it codes for genetically through specific enzyme pathways, and some through non-specific pathways, and through a two stage detoxification process. All these pathways are nutrient dependent steps (to manufacture the enzymes in the first place), so if the nutrients aren't there to support the manufacture of the enzymes necessary for detoxification of these substances in the first place, what happens to them? Oh, of course, they either get urinated out, breathed out, sweated out, or pass innocuously through the bowel without being assimilated and end up in the toilet bowl. Now that's magic! At least to those that believe in that. And those that can't get out by such methods - maybe they just 'disappear' conveniently? Or maybe they get stored for a rainy day? We do know that fat stores a lot of fat-soluble toxins if it cannot process them immediately. What about if it can NEVER process them because it is physically incapable of doing so, either because of specific nutrient deficiencies or because of genetic inadequacy to process those compounds? Well what happens then? THAT is what the whole discussion re detoxification is all about from what I can see - but hey, that's just my point of view. Talking about the burden of proof, there comes a point where a little common sense comes into question - i.e. the medical orthodoxy accepts the need for drug, alcohol, and the detoxification of various chemical substances. Are we to bury our heads so deeply into the proverbial sand that we are to believe that these are the only substances on the naughty list? Natural point of view, and common sense have a role here. Just because it hasn't been 'proven' by the 'acceptable standard' doesn't really mean anything in itself - more often than not it simply means it has not been investigated, or under investigated. As medical science now recognises the concept of 'drug interaction', I am assuming that it recognises 'chemical interaction' - after all the only difference between a drug and a chemical is that a drug has an investigated and demonstrable physiological use. Do 'chemical interactions' EVER get investigated? I don't think so, though it is quite clear from a basic understanding of biochemistry that synergistic relationships exist between drugs, herbs, chemicals, and nutrients. And yes, for those that will say that such investigations could never conceivably take place as the combinations and permutations are quasi-infinite? Yep, that's the problem. Maybe it is time we resort to a simpler life - I mean, we managed without all these substances for a very long time.... And no, I am not anti-progressive - but I do question what is 'progress' and what is not. I hope that provides some useful additional input to this discussion. Till next time... Antoniolus

Page move

I propose moving this article to detoxification and having "detox" redirect there. It is the proper name and consistent with other titles like drug rehabilitation rather than "rehab". OneVeryBadMan 12:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose moving this article to detoxification

That bit sounds good.

and having "detox" redirect there

Rather than that, I suggest making Detox a disambiguation page as the list of other meanings - Detox (Treble Charger album), Detox (album), Detox (House episode) - is starting to look cumbersome. Tearlach 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion happened two months ago, but nothing's been done. If there are no objections, I'll move this article to Detoxification tomorrow. Amp 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

This page leads to the norwegian version 'Narkomani'. 'Narkomani' and 'Detoxification' are two very different things, the fact that the norwegians page doesn't link back suggests it too. I suppose I should have editet it, seing as I am from norway, but I honestly can't figure out a good word for it and I'm definitely sure there doesn't exist any article regarding this subject in norwegian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.167.250 (talk • contribs)

There may not be a wikipage for it on Norwegian wikipedia; best would have been to remove it. I'll do so. WLU 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the exact same thing with the Danish and Swedish (perhaps others). This article links to the articles "narkomani", which translates to "drug addiction" (an article the Danish article links back to, not "detoxification"). I also suggest the removal of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish interwiki links. --apoltix 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Kay, done. WLU 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Citations

Some of the statements may be erroneously requiring citations. This is because the burden of proof rests on the positive assertion. Some of these statements are negative assertions. Additionally, since these statements are based on assumptions that are widely held across sciences (regarding burden of proof), I think these {{Fact}} templates should be removed.155.178.180.5 (talk) I signed above Oobyduby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)