Talk:Master Cleanse

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Contradictory?

"As a result of these deficiencies, individuals on the diet may experience dizziness, delirium, and fainting in the short term, with possible damage to the body occurring in longer-term applications.[5]"

"Others have claimed that one benefit of the Master Cleanse is that it helps patients re-examine their lifestyle and embrace healthy eating.[5]"

The first statement appears to not support the diet, while the second does. Are they really both from the same source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.112.67 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ed Zimney's website and references removed

While a doctor's opinion is normally welcome I've removed the references to his website as it is not neutral or trustworthy. I have made multiple posts on his website and 2 have been deleted. My posts were objective and provided only scientific information about the Master Cleanse. The information I provided contradicted Dr. Zimney's claims and this is why they were deleted. I made other posts on his site that didn't delve into the science behind the master cleanse and they were left alone. His website does not allow objective scientific debate. Anything that plausibly challenges his opinion is deleted. It is therefore not neutral which breaks one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Example: Dr. Zimney's claims that sugar is sugar. I posted a rebuttal stating that maple syrup is the perfectly balanced sugar unlike refined sugars that cause the pancreas to secrete insulin. This was deleted. My post was completely objective and only provided information. The only reason it was deleted was because it contradicted Dr. Zimney's opinions. Dr. Zimney is a board-certified licensed physician with more than 21 years in the pharmaceutical industry which maybe be the reason for his bias opinion, as the Master Cleanse is all natural. [ http://www2.healthtalk.com/go/bio/ed-zimney-m-d-vice-president-and-medical-director ]

new changes

i just did a series of changes. i think we're wikified now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Needsleep99 (talk • contribs) 19:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Further Information and Citations Added

I aAdded a citation to Peter Glickman's Lose Weight, Have More Energy & Be Happier in 10 Days book and corrected the description of the Master Cleanse because saltwater is not drunk after the lemonade and the laxative tea is required. I also added citations for the above statement.

I then corrected the wording of the statement that the Master Cleanse is said to eliminate "waste" in the body to Burroughs' words "toxins and congestion" and added a citation to the above statement.

I also added citations to competent authorities who believe fasting is beneficial and a short history of fasting as described at length by Dr. Joel Fuhrman and clarified one of the problems mentioned in the Criticism section is the Master Cleanse being recommended as "only' a weight loss program rather than focusing on detoxification.

I removed the word "alledged" when referring to the Master Cleanse's detoxifying properties. Perhaps someone can suggest a more neutral word than "alledges", which violates NPOV and clarified that the Dr. suggesting the benefits of the Master Cleanse were due to the placebo effect had not actually done the Master Cleanse himself.

Finally, I added the two books on the Master Cleanse as References and deleted pseudoscience as a category because that violates NPOV.

Peter Glickman, author of Lose Weight, Have More Energy & Be Happier in 10 Days 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter. Thank you for your contributions. I appreciate the clarifying edits you have made, but wish to caution you against possible conflicts of interest you might bring to this article. That said, I think most of your edits bring value to this article, with one exception: what you added about the placebo claim. Stating that the scientist who made the claim never tried the diet is totally irrelevant and not supported by citation. Everything else is very well done, thank you for helping improve the article. Some might argue with the removal of the pseudo-science category. I'm not one of those people - yet. BFD1 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, upon closer examination. It's not clear to me what "Socrates, Plato, Hippocrates (the Father of Modern Medicine and originator of the Hippocratic Oath, which is still taken by our modern medical doctors), Mahatma Ghandi and Dr. Herbert Shelton." have to do with the "history of fasting". It seems like you are wanting to say that these individuals espoused fasting - but what for, and why? This could use some clarification, please. BFD1 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I just cleaned up the article a little bit more, moved it from "Master cleanse" to "Master Cleanse", added a few cats and a link. I'm going to remove the orphan tag... --nathanbeach 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre 01 December 2006 Discussions

This seems like instructions, not information. I think the article needs to be rewritten to be objective and factual.

Are there criticisms? Factual backup? history behind the master cleanse? quoting Boroughs make the article less reliable especially sine there is no reference to the first name... -- (Unsined comment from 151.191.175.220)

I suspect a copyright violation. The page looks like a verbatim copy of [1]. -- Gridlock Joe 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is highly suspect. First off, it seems to be instructions, and not information. Second, the complete lack of medical support makes me very uncomfortable, because it seems that wikipedia has an article which enables unhealthy habits and/or masked eating disorders. If you follow the external link, you find the journal of a slim woman who does the diet beyond the 10 days and then complains that she still needs liposuction. The pictures show her as a woman with no need for weight loss surgery. Overall, I think this article is irresponsible and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

For what its worth, i have done this and it is certainly not a mask of an eating disorder for everyone who does it. It is the most common, and from what i understand the safest, fasting method around. Seriously, you would be amazed what comes out of you after 6 days on this. Seriously though, the lemonade recipe is correct, but this is certainly not a complete set of instructions to do the master cleanse. You know, if someone will go over what i submit so it fits within guidelines i could easily improve this article. Contact me! Dogmatix2 11:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article was lacking some important contextual information. I've added to it as much as I can for now, and would encourage others to seek out additional sources for criticisms and responses to criticisms.BFD1 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted this edit

I reverted this edit, which was summarized as " rm paragraph that basically boiled down to saying "it doesn't work as a weightloss regmimen", citing an inappropriate authority (Beyonce!?), and giving no reason why it doesn't work". Rationale:

Beyonce is mentioned earlier in the article, and her notability to this topic is well established. Hence, her comments are relevant and should be included.
Yes, the paragraph boils down to saying it doesn't work as a weightloss regimen. What's wrong with that, exactly?
"Giving no reason why it doesn't work" -- good point. I will improve the article by adding to it, not by scrapping whole sections which are not developed to everyone's fullest satisfaction. BFD1 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about advocacy.

Major POV, pro-fast, defensive and dismissive of the fast's critics. --63.25.15.201 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely one-sided and little more than praising of the book & diet. I expect more from WikiPedia. --75.80.12.119 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree this article is still really POV, pro-fast. The "criticisms" section (which I thought wikipedia was supposed to be moving away from, instead incorporating criticisms directly under their relevant topic), is barely critical, with every criticism followed immediately by a defense, sometimes in the same sentence! This article needs to be more neutral, IMO. Thx1200 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]