Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine)/Archive 1

=Body cleansing=

criticism
I'm removing the reference to the non-quackwatch website from the criticism section. If someone thinks it belongs there, discuss it here.

2/9/09 I'm removing the phrase starting "Most doctors" because both of the references given were neither written by a doctor nor published in a peer reviewed journal. While it may be true that "most doctors" do not recommend body cleansing, it is your responsibility to provide a source if you wish to write that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.136.57 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This is an advocacy piece in favor of "body cleansing." We need some sources here. --causa sui talk 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call, I've gutted what I could without leaving a blank page or just criticisms. It'd be nice to have some sources for a description of the goals.  WLU (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd strip the rest out too, until someone comes along with some sources. Sometimes observable reality just doesn't favor a given pov. Cozret (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

--Clearly it is mostly anti-detox. What makes the least sense is that the actual specifics that the article does discuss appears to be what doctors basically recommend you eat and drink (+fruits/veggies, -alcohol, caffeine, processed food). Then it goes on and on about a few doctors who think this is dangerous (maybe they have some reasons, but as the page flows, this seems absurd) while pro-detox references have been taken off lest you advertise for "quacks".

So, the article is unbalanced anyway, but beyond this it seems to give a good picture of what a detox diet is and then focuses on criticism. This looks unbelievable. If this is not fixed, I might start making changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.52.109 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Until someone defines the so called "toxins" that these products remove. There stands a lot of evidence that these products are purporting false health claims so I believe article neutrality is no longer an issue. It's not an "anti-detox" article; it states referenced sources questioning the efficacy of the product. Why are we having issues or article neutrality when the rules of No Original Research applies. These people who claim to have seen miraculous benefits need to present us some sort of method of action, how exactly does the product differentiate between a "toxin" and regular gut flora when no one has defined what a body toxin is. I think someone needs to present physical evidence as to how where and why they're accumulating in the body. Safez (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which products, Safez? What miraculous beliefs? To the reader, this article seems to lump together everything from eating healthily to detox footpads, and tosses in various un-contextualised criticism. This article doesn't define or contextualise, so the criticism of course reads as POV. Greenman (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The product is body cleansers/detoxifiers. The beliefs are that you are eliminating harmful toxins with the substances the detoxifying products contain. Apparently there is some efficacy to the claim (see our so called medical herbalist below)of plants containing certain agents that work on liver enzymes that handle the detox process and if true by all means cite them into the article. The fact that such a wide range of detoxifying products are mentioned is irrelevant as there purported method of action remains the same so therefore the criticism is in context.

There still remains the issue of classifying a "body toxin". Safez (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, toxins, as used by the various forms of body cleanses, needs to be defined. The article barely mentions any products though, mentioning colon cleanses, humoral theory, dietary restrictions as well as herbs, supplements, homeopathic preparations, etc. They are not all products, and don't presumably claim to work in the same way, so the criticism needs to be contextualised. A criticism of a homeopathic preparation may be meaningless as a criticism against a colon cleanse. In other words, the article needs to introduce the topic of body cleansing in all its varieties before any criticism can be applied, otherwise the criticism is meaningless and easy to dismiss. Greenman (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article's NPOV could be assisted by confining the article to generalities and providing sections specific to the various methods of body cleansing and discussing their method of action. Various modalities of body cleansing are currently employed, ranging from physical treatments (e.g. colon cleansing), to dietary restrictions (e.g. avoiding foods) or dietary supplements. Some variants involve the use of herbs and supplements that purportedly speed or increase the effectiveness of the process of cleansing. Several naturopathic and homeopathic preparations are also promoted for cleansing; such products are often marketed as targeting specific organs, such as fiber for the colon or juices for the kidneys.

For example, just from the above excerpt from the background we can identify, colon cleansing, dietary restriction, dietary supplement, naturopathic and homeopathic remedy as potential body cleanses. Safez (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

=Detox diet= Merged from Talk:Detox diet

Toxins within Fruits and Vegetables
"it is known that fruits and vegetables actually contain more natural toxins than substances such as meat or fish" --User:67.102.158.90 Well known? I'd like to see some references or some actual data here.
 * Might I suggest you put up a Fact tag? To be fair, has it been proven that all these other foods contain more toxins than fruits and vegetables? Nope, but that is certainly taken for granted --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of semantics. Fruits and vegetables (usually) PRODUCE more toxins than animals, but they don't necessarily CONTAIN more toxins.  Also keep in mind that in terms of detox diets, "toxins" generally refer to any harmful substances which are to be purged.  These substances aren't all necessarily "toxins" by the strict definition of the word. --VeryGnawty 08:00, 31 January 2006
 * I'm a bit confused, if they produce them, wouldn't they be contained within the food? In evaluating toxic status, I think what is being asked for is proof that the 'toxic' things in certain maligned foods are more difficult to purge and more damaging than natural foods. Tyciol 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, plants do produce lots of toxins, and they are contained in the food. My point was that plants don't necessarily contain more toxins.  Animals can also produce toxins (some animals even produce lethal toxins).  Animals also contain toxins that have been ingested (often FROM plants).  So saying that plants CONTAIN more toxins is fallacious, because it disregards animal diet and lifestyle, both of which have a huge impact on the amount of toxins in meat.  VeryGnawty 01:45, 2 February 2006
 * Oy... there's me not reading again. For some reason I shifted meat and fish into grains and refined products or something like that... anyway, you do have a point in the diet of these animals being a factor in their toxin levels. Especially considering that the higher on the food chain you go, the presence of contaminants seems to be a lot higher (high mercury in big fish and so on). In fact, that would say to me that animals, being consumers of fruit and vegetables (or animals consuming them), would have to have higher levels.
 * Even so, critical of this, I offer one idea... we do have natural detox methods for clearing toxins from our foods. Animals have this too, so even if fruits and vegetables have toxic contaminants, the animal's digestive system could have cleaned them, leaving them solely with good clean meat to eat. Plants need to use toxins as a defence mechanism, but animals normally don't (with some poisonous exceptions to be exempted), instead relying on speed, claws, etc. to defend themselves. So perhaps we leave it as it is but add in an exemption for animals that are poisonous or higher in toxins (blowfish, snake... etc.) Tyciol 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These are all just theories. I think someone is trying to revive the meat market. If fruits and vegetables contained toxins. Then what are those toxins. Provide proof that "x" and "y" toxins occur in "a" and "b" fruits. The only toxin or rather poison a fruits contains would be in the seed. But it is known fact that the cyanide in the seed does not affect us. Another this is methanol but it is proved that it metabolises differently in the body so it does not affect us. The only other toxins apart from that would be pesiticides that are sprayed on fruits. SO we cannot cite that as a negative thing because we can always go in for organic foods.

BTW speaking on the topic of "defense mechanice" of plants. It is true but humans long ago already knew that. That is why all pulses and cereals should be soaked for atleast two hours if not overnight before cooking. But nowadays nobody follows that. This deactivates the phytic acid. I never have problem with beans(gas problems) when prepared at home because in our house we soak beans overnight. But if i have it in a hotel I have problems it is obvious that they do not soak it in water and prefer adding some baking soda to it to help it cook faster. Detox diets has shown visible benifits. This seems to be like the research done by other "scientists" on vitamins. They proved that vitamins only gave you expensive pee. But real world has proved otherwise and many people have benifited from vitamin supplements over the years. There is another research that says that vitamins should be taken with meals or else they might not be absorbed by the body. But these "scientists" dont want to tell us that as they are funded by the pharma giants, who now realised that vitamins make people healthy and that is "bad for business". I am sure this research on detox also is some similiear disinformation being spread.

Gwaeraurond's Case in Regards to the nature of Toxins in Foods
Meat bought in a store, and if not certified organic, may contain added chemical preservatives. Fresh fruits and vegetables may also contain trace amounts of chemical pollution through the soil, acid rain and air quality (e.g. roadside berries absorb toxins from exhaust fumes). All of these factors contribute to the quality of the food, and certified organicfoods have air and water polution considerations unless grown in hydroponics. The argument for and against either is very difficult to address. My reason to choose fruits and vegatables over meats is content. Meat is mostly fat and protein, where fruits and vegetables have much more vitamin and antioxidant content. These, even including trace toxins, are simply better for detoxing because it includes nutrients good for a body going through detox.

A view I feel carries a lot of weight is the belief the way an animal lives and dies affects the quality of it's meat. Under this concept, if an animal is raised in cramped conditions and then dies in a very painful way (animal cruelty) then there would be a trace "energy" transferred into the person who eats it. Although this has no scientific value, because it is a concept applied by many who perform the detox diet (myself included), I feel it has value in the argument. On the opposite side of this theory, I once met an organic chicken farmer who believed that if the animal was raised with love, and killed with prayer and respect, the quality is actually better than in plants because of a positive transfer of energy. (see Reiki, and Metaphysics) although the same could be said singing to plants benefitting their food quality. Although energies have no scientific weight, what does is that when stressed, certain chemicals are released into the body which may not be good to have or to eat, while when happy the opposite occurs. Cows have been demonstrated to produce more milk when in a good mood, chickens lay healthier eggs, and in one study performed by Myth Busters, plants really do respond to emotional voices, be it anger or song, and from a phsychological point of view when we are happy we deal with our physical health better than when depressed, and obviously a healthy animal yields healthy meat. From this perspective then, one may conclude that the emotional state of what we eat directly relates to the amount of toxins found in the system, and in turn relates to how good or bad it may be to consume. However on that regard, more studies would need to be performed but the value of the belief in itself holds value in discussion simply because it accepted and practiced. Gwaeraurond 3-3-2006, 7:17PM EST
 * I had to edit what you said a little bit to make it easier for others to read (and for uncluttering the talk page a bit), hope you don't mind. Anyway, regarding the 'energy' concepts, that's largely a religious consideration probably already included in the vegetarianism article. This article is focused on the concept of detoxifying actual theoretical physical toxins in the body through a diet, not negative energy. If there's more than what's included in the vegetarianism article, you could do something on de...negafying your energy body or something like that. I heard the thing about stress hormones in animals in a yoga book, but I really don't think it has any scientific basis. The function of hormones is to trigger various gene responses, and these are slightly different species to species. If this were a concern, it would have a negative effect upon carnivores but this has not been observed, so it's different when digesting foods rather than injecting animal hormones directly. Tyciol 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. The same is essentially said. In regards to the energies? It isn't a matter of vegetarianism, because as I stated it is applied by both meat eaters and plant eaters. The reason I feel it fits here is because it is a motivating factor that drives certain people to prefer the detox diet. In my own case, I was more concerned about the vibrational imprint on the physical matter. But this isn't even a religious concept either because there are supported studies. Since this is an important matter, I did my research, and here is what I found:
 * How the Mood of Cows effects Milk Production:
 * How Mood of Chickens effects egg quality
 * According to these studies, stress directly relates to cholesterol levels. Obviously then a stressed animal has higher cholesterol than one that is happy.
 * Stress effect on the immune system
 * In this study on stress, it shows how stress affects poor choice in food. If an animal is stress, it may be inclined to eat in a not so healthy way, and this would affect the quality of it's meat:
 * In this study, drumming was shown to increase the producting of cancer-killer cells, which relates to the physical effects methods of removing stress has on out bodies.
 * I could not find any conclusive studies on stress chemicals on the value of the meat, but found how stress can relate to diet and biochemical levels which may affect the quality of a meat, drawing a clear line. Obviously. I will continue to research the matter on my available time, and post again later when I find something more specific. My assumption is that, just as in humans, stress chemicals are released into the meat and stored in the body. Eating the meat causes it to be absorbed into the system, and contributing the the toxic levels of the bodily tissue.
 * And since I made a scientific claim in regards to "energies" I did my research. I think a better way to apply the concept of energies would be the vibrational effect on the cells, or resonation. My assumption, which I will continue to research and post later, suggests that the state cells are in when an animal dies, when consumed, affects our systems in a similar way. If Sound can affect cells, than this claim can be supported. However, it is very difficult to research that information, but I do remember reading about a case study where amino acids were placed in conditions that would cause genetic Molecules to form, when exposed to classic music during those conditions, specific known human genome patterns would repeatedly form, which suggested that music, or vibrations, have a specific effect on genetics and cells. This would be an explanation for the study by Myth Busters where PLants responded to sound, even though they have no ears. And on that regard, since I did not recall the actual issue where that was demonstrated, I found these:
 * Braam, J. and R. W. Davis. 1990. Rain induced, wind-induced, and touch-induced expression of calmodulin and calmodulin-related genes in Arabidopsis. Cell 60: 357-367. [Talking Heads music at 60 db for 1 minute did not induce expression of touch-sensitive genes]
 * Daedalus. 1991. Green music. Nature 351: 104. [explains fancifully how music might be used as an herbicide, claims Charles Darwin played the bassoon for Mimosa pudica]
 * Davis, R. and P. Scott. 2000. Groovy plants; the influence of music on germinating seedlings and seedling growth. J. Exp. Bot. 51: 73. [sketchy abstract-only that concludes that music does make seedlings grow faster, but the response is quite species-specific]
 * Subramanian, S. et al. 1969. A study on the effect of music on the growth and yield of paddy. Madras Agr. J. 56: 510-516. (Paddy is indifferent to daily 30-minute exposures to recorded South Indian oboe music)
 * Weinberger, P. and M. Measures. 1979. Effects of the intensity of audible sound on the growth and development of Rideau winter wheat. Can. J. Bot. 57: 1036-1039. [a variety of sounds at 90 db had little effect, but plants subjected to 105-120 db showed reduced growth]
 * The effect music has on people and even plants
 * The basis of the study by Myth Busters was actually not so much about Music, but by emotional sounds. Singing to plants, talking nice to them, improved growth while yelling at them caused them to grow sickly. This also in support of my statement about energies. Sadly, It is very difficult to obtain information off your average search engine, as there is allot of junk to shift through (I sent over 2 hours gathering all this), but hopefully I will track down more specific sources shortly when I have the time. Although this all may seem a bit off-topic, I feel that understanding how foods can carry toxins, and what forms of toxins are in practice removed has a significant impact on choice of detox diet.
 * Gwaeraurond 3-5-2006, 1:20 PM EST
 * Did some formatting on that again (view changes to see improvements), and I'll read it now. This talk, along with your special Detox diet, are getting quite large. I would like to suggest we move part of them to your user page or in a subsection of your talk page, to make this more easily navigatable, or possibly host them on a website as then they could be listed as 'External links' Tyciol 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sory, but I think I may have said something wrong. This is more about the nature of the toxins in foods under certain conditions, than a preference for one or another food. If it was about that, than I agree, it should have been placed in a Vegetarian discussion but that isn't the case. I feel that a good detox diet should condider what sort of toxins are in our foods, so we can choose what is best for our bodies. A Plant in poor conditions would be woorse than an Animal raised in Good conditions, and vice versa. A typo O followers of a Blood type diet, for example, who wants to detox, would obviously prefer to detox while still eating meats. Understanding how choice foods in a given food selection can contain toxins would help in making the proper choice.


 * This discussion has become large because it is very difficult for me to clearly get my point across, but I don't really have much else to say so there is no need to move it. Also note, that the links I provided are not the best. A few even seemed to go in the wrong direction, so when I find the right links, I will change the links above to reflect this.
 * Gwaeraurond 3-6-2006, 7:15 AM EST
 * Oh... okay so what you're trying to say is that on average, the way vegetables are treated are somewhat better than the way most meat is treated? That could definately be true, I just got distracted by all the energy and hormone stuff :p Tyciol 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

MythBusters is fun to watch but isn't great science AFAIK. I'd have to guess plants benefit from any sort of talking over no talking because this would result in exhaling air with a larger percentage of carbon dioxide in it near them. As to whether singing/praising helps versus yelling hurting, there are so many variables there - does the body exhale different percentages of gases in these ways, does the force of expelling air make a difference, what might the sound waves be doing, etc. Possibly an article about Talking to plants could be interesting, although without sources that would likely go straight to AFD. Шизомби 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of a specific detox diet rather than being inclusive of all detox diets
This seems to be a rather specific example of a detox diet. Would someone care to expand on this, reflecting the various uses of the term? Dforest 01:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a detox diet at all, but more like an unhealthy starvation diet. I thought a detox diet was supposed to eliminate toxins and/or expose allergens. That means, no dairy, no sugar, no wheat, no booze, no dope, no chemical additives and weird ingredients that people didn't eat 200 years ago. There will be no Healthy Choice or Cup O' Noodles (blecch!) or anything in the supermarket marketed as "diet". There are different detox diets that target various organs (liver, intestines, lungs, stomach, etc.) SatanicYakuza 23:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a definate good example, you guys should add stuff like that to the article. I made some changes to make it less specific but it definately needs a lot more work and while my interest in this is high, my knowledge of the various kinds sucks. --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Gwaeraurond's Detox Diet!
Said article is not a Detox Diet, and the conclusions are assumptive. Although, yes, the body is more than capable of taking care of Toxins on it's own. Certain Organs and Fat do store up Toxins, some forms of Detox diets are specifically for releasing this build-up. The Form of Detox I personally use, is done once a month or so, and not really a lifestyle. My Detox Diet:
 * (Note: On each day, I take Garlic Oil for Blood-sugar balance, Noni to Reduce the Inflammation resulting from the lack of Food, Bilberry for it's known beneficial effects on capillaries, which will be needed while the extra toxins are released, and Milk Thistle and Dandelion Root to help detox the Liver deal with the released toxins)


 * Day 1: I Reduce my eating to lite Foods, Drinking Plenty of Spring Water. The Purpose of this day is to ease my way into day two, as it is unhealthy to make any sudden changes to diet.
 * Day 2: On this day, is Fasting. My only Intake is Water, and said supplements. Sometimes I will take another day or so of this, but my first time was only half a day becuase my body was not used to it.
 * Day 3: I do the same thing as day one. It is important not to make Sudden changes in Diet, but to gradually move into and out of change.

This Diet Follows the concept, as outlined in the article, that when blood-sugar is low Toxins are released from the body. The Purpose of the lite Foods is only to give the body a step-down to Fasting, for Health Reasons. Some of the Supplements are used to help the Body Cope with the Change, while the Specific Detox Herbs are Used to Detox the Organs that have to deal with the amount of Toxins released, so it does not simply settle back in.

This is my idea of a Detox diet. I don't believe that it is Good to live like this all the time though, because the body needs a wide varity of Nutrients. For this reason, when not detoxing, I eat many different foods and enjoy the health of Balanced living. It is a diet I made for myself due to my own lifestyle. Other people will find other methods of well being, because each body is different. -Gwaeraurond 1-8-2006, 11:57 PM EST

NPOV?
I've added a tag as this article seems far from neutral as it stands - mostly it's anti-detox, with unverified claims made. sheridan 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article actually seems very pro-detox to me. The claims unverified seem more on the detox side. There's a wealth of information out there to be sourced, it's less an attack on detox than a request for a link to such information. I know this is very popular among health practice, drug recovery, yogis, vegans and all that, so I'd love to see it, and links to these sources. --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I look forward to future discussions which can resolve any disputes of neutrality. Once we get this plant vs meat toxin discussion up top settled, are there any other issues I can aid in resolving? Detox diets are very popular and I'd like to expand on this concept. I'm betting I could find some similar ideas in a vegan or yoga article or something. Also, I'm going to link to the warrior diet because it is an example of a diet that uses detox principals within it. I have also been experimenting with categories, and I think I can tie this in with other diets. Categorizing is a beautiful way to find connected information, much better than inter-links for other wikis and 'related topics' and so forth. In fact, once categorizaiton is fully utilized and understood on wikipedia, I predict 'related topics' will all disappear. Tyciol 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the article in an attempt to make it more NPOV; and removed the tag. Must admit this was more by being vague than doing proper research and citation (badly needed!), but I think it's an improvement. I commented out a couple of statements I thought couldn't appear without citation, so "View Source" if you want to see. Tranzid 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've looked over your rewrite and it seems to make sense. I admit, I had a horrible time following it, Wikipedia needs to fix that bug where adding a tag moves EVERYTHING down, making it totally impossible to figure out what else was changed in the process without analyzing every bite of it. Anyway, in regard to the stuff you commented out, I agree that as written the protests are indeed in violation of NPOV and stuff so it was good to comment them out. I still think they are getting just criticisms in some cases though, so perhaps I can try and represent them (I would have done them better in the first place had I authored em) in a method that is more conservatively worded. Perhaps a criticism section, sections make more sense. Tyciol 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work :-) this article has definately improved. Tranzid 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks much better. But it does need something. Why not give mention to examples of a number of different forms? For example, you stated that Fruids and vegetables are usually preferred. In this example, you might write about what different forms of diets apply it and why, with remarks for and against. The best articles I have read are one that step aside, giving many views together in an informative way, allowing the reader to make their own choices. Articles that leave any "absolutes" are the only ones that are ever really critized, which can be observed in the previous form of this article where it was mostly "absolute" and so attracted allot of attention. However, articles that do not are always the most interesting to read. -Gwaeraurond 3-3-2006, 6:35PM EST

Definition of toxin
Having looked at the discussion above, it's clear that "toxin" is being used to mean anything from "physiologically injurious species of molecule" (the exact species not being specified, with the exception of a mention on the article page of mercury - and I'm not sure that fasting is the recommended best practice for mercury poisoning) to "bad karma" or similar. It'd be nice to know if there is a consensus of what is being talked about when the term is used, and what the reason is to think that restricting one's diet for a period should have an effect - whether it's based on empirical (and hopefully non-anecdotal) evidence or on theoretical principles, and what evidence there is in turn for those principles. Pseudomonas 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

elimination through metabolism
Critics point out that the human liver, kidneys, lungs and skin have evolved to adequately expel environmental contaminants and are perfectly equipped to continue to do so unassisted.

Generally, this is true, but not in all cases. There are substances which are known to accumulate in the body, e.g. fluoride and retinoids, etc. Whether these substances can be eliminated over time through diet regimens is disputable.--Dan Asad 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am a busy medical herbalist and am regularly encountering solid factual scientific evidence supporting the action of herbs to be able to enhance liver detoxification systems by modifying the cytochrome P450 enzyme systems, enhancing glutathione production, providing powerful antioxidants such as super oxide dysmutase, enhancing complement systems and natural killer cell activity. Stimulating diuresis, defaecation, diaphoresis - sweating, expectoration - phlegm expulsion among other effects helps to boost the body's own elimination pathways. Modern science, clinical experience and history all support this viewpoint. The exact mechanisms will no doubt be explored further and further in future as a natural progression of what we already know. The idea of freeing the body's resources from detox metabolism by enhancing those systems through intervention is akin to hiring a cleaner to come and do your housework once a week, giving you time (and the body free resources) to focus on sorting other issues that may have been neglected. This explains why the body may well throw off a chronic infection after a herbal detox that it just could not shake before, or perhaps recover from a bout of chronic inflammation. The abstinence from red meat is well documented down to very specific enzyme systems influencing prostaglandin metabolism by containing arachidonic acid that favours the production of inflammatory chemical messengers, as opposed to omega 3,6,9 oils found in seeds etc which are anti inflammatory in effectSee Udo Erasmus Fats that Heal Fats that Kill. Not to mention the heavier load place on the kidneys by purines from meat protein.

There is always a tendency by the mainstream to rubbish the minority and treat it as 'Guilty until proven innocent' furthermore the complexity of interactions within herbal remedies does not lend it to research based on isolated constituents, here in the UK 150 people die a year from Aspirin use but, it is considered a 'safe' drug. How many die of Milk Thistle etc? Furthermore in clinical trials test subjects much abstain from St Johns Wort, Seville oranges, pineapple, poppy seeds, grapefruit, caffeine etc before ward admission. These are all naturally occuriing but which are known to influence liver enzymes and speed up drug clearance from the body, yet, still people say there is nothing to this 'charlatans facade' there are double standards here and people putting forward ignorant opinions without scientific basis. Where is the proof that Seville Oranges or Grapefruits do not alter toxin metabolism? You will not find it because they do.

As for the 'most doctors agree that...' comments here is an example of one of numerous Dr s who are aware of this issue

http://keyboard-culture-health-and-wellness.com/2009/02/how_to_raise_glutathione_gsh_levels_part_5_more_supplements_touted_to_raise_glutathione_gsh_alpha_li.html

Some References to look at that i can find without hardly any effort at all, i know there are even more specific ones out there too as i have used them before.

Curcumin or Saikosaponin a Improves Hepatic Antioxidant Capacity and Protects Against CCl4-Induced Liver Injury in Rats

Salmi H, Sarna S. Effect of silymarin on chemical, functional, and morphological alterations of the liver. Scand J Gastroenterol 1982;17:517-21

Interactions of herbs with cytochrome P450 Authors: Shufeng Zhou, Yihuai Gao, Wenqi Jiang, Min Huang, Anlong Xu, James W Paxton

Effects of the active components of some Chinese herbs on drug metabolizing-enzymes Authors: Xiu-fen Yang, Nai-ping Wang, Fan-dian Zeng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.150.20 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Critics point out that the human liver, kidneys, lungs and skin have evolved to adequately expel environmental contaminants and are perfectly equipped to continue to do so unassisted.

That this part was added shows that whoever added it didn't do their research. More exact specification needs to be made since most detox diets are juice or water diets, the eventual goal of which is to enter into a ketogenic state, thereby burning residual fat and releasing the toxins contained therein. Example A: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/ddtchem.html -- DDT is fat-soluble and people who have had inordinate exposure are warned against fasting because doing so releases a flood of built up DDT into the system. Thus... toxins being removed. DDT is an extreme example in this regard, but there are many fat-soluble toxins the body absorbs over time. The problem with the above-mentioned statement is that while the listed organs are (generally) good at detoxifying, they aren't all inclusive. The lungs do expel toxins, but they do not burn fat to release fat-soluble crap, so while the above statement is correct, it's also largely irrelevent. And while the liver is responsible for converting stored fat into fatty acids and ketone bodies (ketogenesis), it doesn't do so until the last meal has been fully digested AND the half-a-day reserve of glucose the liver stores is used up, so while the liver is able to detoxify (and does), it doesn't do so in the relevant sense until a fast is experienced. In conclusion, can someone rewrite the above statement? It's irrelevant, misleading, and any relevance it DOES have is far too vague. FinalStrife7 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Herxheimer reaction
It is my understanding that Herxheimer reactions require a pathogen, and thus I see no relation to detox diets. I have removed unsourced references to them. Headwes 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaise
Quote: "if low blood sugar levels force the body to begin rapidly metabolising large amounts of fat, then these toxins will be released into the bloodstream. Symptoms often mentioned are headaches, sore muscles..." Has any evidence been published in a _real_ journal that release of 'toxins' accounts for the slightly-lousy-all-over feeling that accompanies the early stages of fasting or 'detox'? Notreallydavid 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:99.244.49.244
I'm looking at the edits by this user, and some of it seems destructive. Compare now and before. In particular, the criticism section has had all its references removed, had most of the more serious criticisms removed (particularly, any mention of the body's natural mechanisms for dealing with toxins, and indeed any discussion of toxins whatsoever), and feels even more weasel-wordy than before. It feels as if someone's built a straw man in the criticism section. Some of the stuff added elsewhere seems beneficial to the article, so summarily reverting would be unreasonable, but I think a lot of what's been done to the criticism section should be undone, although I wouldn't want to do anything like this without some sort of community support. Opinions? James pic 10:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Woman left brain damaged by detox
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7520756.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.254.199 (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * of course, the left side of the brain is the one traditionally associated with logical thinking... one wonders if it was actually fully functioning even before she injured herself. --86.148.57.140 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why was this added? This article is simply evidence that an ignorant woman didn't follow her practitioner's directives. She didn't suffer damage from a detox diet (e.g. malnutrition). She suffered it from water intoxication (as the article states) which is unhealthy regardless of the diet. Move to delete. This belongs on the water intoxication page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinalStrife7 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed References
This article do not contain information I expected. I was expecting more detail on detox diet when visiting this article but it only provide definition and reference to detox news. I would propose reference to site such as http://www.juice-detox.com/ and REMOVED that will guide users to various topics directly related detox diet.
 * Those references wouldn't be considered reliable. Please see Reliable sources.  Deli nk (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was extremely disappointed to find this article didn't really have any information about detox. It is frustrating that anything believed or reputed but not with a published scientific paper is being excluded from Wikipedia. I would expect a statement along the lines of "some claim benefits of detoxing to be (x, y, z)" or "examples of detox diet types are (blah)". Referencing sources (rather than desmissing them as "quacks") is appropriate and informative; removing useful references is unnecessary censorship based on your own biased views. Obviously the references should be notable in their field, well established, etc. I have had this problem on Wikipedia with almost anything I have tried to look up and overly restrictive science-heads seem to be spoiling it's informational function. Fine, include criticisms, warnings, "some sources say that detoxing is pointless" or whatever you want, but don't just strip out all of the information and cultural richness that's out there!!! From an angry person who doesn't really use this site because she's sick of such self-important attitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.2.88 (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, "some claim benefits".- Check "Some Argue" on Google. Also avoid Weasel Words please. Thank you, remember this is an encyclopedia, rumors, myths and common beliefs aren't included here. --200.66.3.112 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Promoting Quacks?
The Further Reading section lists a number of detox diet books. Do these actually add anything to the article, or are they just providing advertising for a number of quacks? Unless the books are notable, I'd suggest deleting them all.78.149.84.205 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh what the hell, I've decided to be bold. I've moved the list here if anyone thinks any should stay:78.149.84.205 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

* Detox in a Weekend: An Easy-To-Follow Diet and Health Plan: Lose weight and improve your health the fast but safe way with a unique three-day meal planner ... in more than 250 color photographs by Maggie Pannell (2008), ISBN 1844763528 * The Two-week Detox Diet: Cleanse and boost your system in just 14 days by Maggie Pannell (2008), ISBN 1844764648 * The Detox Diet Cookbook (Healthy Eating Library) by Nicola Graines (2007), ISBN 0754804739 * The Great American Detox Diet: Feel Better, Look Better, and Lose Weight by Cleaning Up Your Diet by Alex Jamieson (2006), ISBN 1594864845 * The Raw Food Detox Diet: The Five-Step Plan for Vibrant Health and Maximum Weight Loss by Natalia Rose (2006), ISBN 0060834374 * The Fast Track Detox Diet: Boost metabolism, get rid of fattening toxins, jump-start weight loss and keep the pounds off for good by Ann Louise Gittleman (2006), ISBN 0767920465 * The Lemon Detox Diet: Rejuvenation Sensation by K.A. Beyer (2006), ISBN 0955322901 * The Rice Diet Solution: The World-Famous Low-Sodium, Good-Carb, Detox Diet for Quick and Lasting Weight Loss by Rosati and Rosati (2005), ISBN 0743289838 * The Detox Diet: A How-To & When-To Guide for Cleansing the Body by Elson M. Haas (2004), ISBN 1587611899 * Patrick Holford The Holford 9-Day Liver Detox (2008)
 * I agree. Because this is a topic that attracts such a large number of self-promoters with no level of scientific rigor, I think that we should be really cautious about anything we list as "further reading".  I would actually not like to have a "Futher reading" section--I think if a book is mentioned, it should be described in third-party sources and there should be a sentence or some prose describing what the book is and how it has been received.  I agree with you that putting the books as-is reads as an endorsement and is problematic.  Cazort (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I detoxified this article
I removed the following statements.

"Some detox foods are even able to treat food allergies [6]

A detox diet, based on veganism and raw foodism, when combined with a proper program of colon cleansing has been the basis of successful treatment of disease for over 50 years as referenced in the "Hippocrates Health Program," by Dr. Brian R. Clement.[7]"

--74.78.116.93 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently they got added back. I was just going to let them stay, slightly clarified, but since someone else has already done this, I'm taking them back out. The food allergy thing is junk. The source is a doc shilling his own detox cure in an interview. His only mention of "curing" allergies involves eliminating them from the diet. He mentions no formal research. So that needs to go.


 * As to vegan+raw+enema=treatment of disease, I'll need to see a better source than that. The book is clearly a doctor selling a program, not a third party analysis of detox. I also don't have the book (ISBN 0962237302), and worldcat says only 5 libraries carry it . While I'm impressed you have access to such a rare book, please try harder.
 * Josephholsten (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, grow up. Angry user from above again. I'm sure somebody'll delete this anyway. Oh what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.2.88 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I've merged this page with the Detox diet since the two articles were largely redundant (especially the criticism sections); and the two together make a much better page than either one separately. I've condensed some sections and eliminated some overlap, but the new article maintains virtually all the content and most of the references (although I cut out quite a few of the old external links, most of them survive as citations). LSD (talk)

Weight Loss
The article purports to be about body cleansing, described as ridding the body of harmful substances, presumably toxins. Later on this section pops up: ''Highly restrictive detox diets such as Water fasting or the Master Cleanse are not the safest form of weight loss. These diets, if done improperly or for too long, may result in nutrient deficiencies. Of particular concern is lack of protein, which may result in wasting of muscle tissue, due to insufficient amino acids for repair. With less lean muscle tissue, the body's metabolic needs decrease, which hampers weight loss efforts unless calories are lessened further in the diet.[19]'' This is the first mention of weight loss, and seems to have nothing to do with anything. While of course some diets claim weight loss benefits, that doesn't seem to be what's being discussed here. I suggest this part is removed. Greenman (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No comments, so I've removed this. Greenman (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This material is relevant, restored. Body cleansing involves detox diets, and optimum health often involves weight change. Verbal chat  14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Humoral theory of health
The article states: 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. I cannot access the source, but this seems a ridiculously broad claim to make. The real problem is that this article is quick to list criticism, but hasn't defined what it's criticising. Making a broad claim that all body cleansing is based on the above seems ridiculous, and the claim should go. Greenman (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of new links/examples
Hello, Could I please request an able wikipedian to add a Colon Cleanse section to this article with an excerpt and link to that particular articles main page? Would it also be appropriate to elaborate on the various methods of body cleansing with links to their respective pages? I mean so far we have Detox Diets and not much else... I would really like to see this article improve even further to give people are more informed decision on the pros and cons and different methods of body cleansing. let us know. Cheers! Safez (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Sourcing: Eliminating & Improving
This article is misleadingly referenced. The following references:     are all based on this single press-release:  from Sense About Science. Four articles are sourced and the weasel word "critics" is used without identifying who the critics are. I changed this to "Sense about Science"...since it's a single organization, I would say more sources are needed to establish a scientific consensus.

I propose eliminating all these duplicates (i.e. all news articles) in the way they are used, unless people would like to cite specific.

Also, there's a better and more detailed source from Sense About Science that is not referenced and probably should be--the report that these news articles are about! It can be found here: Sense About Science - The Detox Dossier Cazort (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

History & science of detoxing
Human history is rich with practices of fasting for the purpose of purification. In the Bible Mathew 6:16 is one of many references to fasting. Many of the worlds religions include some form of fasting in their practices or at least in their history - Muslims (Ramadan), Christians, and Jews come to mind.

Today, fasting is used as one of many forms of "detoxing" or "purification". The questions here are: Does detoxing work? If they do, which forms? Which forms are safe? What is a toxin? And I would also like to add: Is the double blind placebo controlled trial really the golden standard to determine these answers? After all, there are no double blind placebo controlled trials that prove the parachute saves lives Lack of studies to prove efficacy does not mean the same thing as proof that they don't work.

Does detoxing work? This depends on what is meant by "toxin" and which detox method is being evaluated. There are many studies (mostly animal) coming out about the detoxification and chelating effects of various herbs:

Turmeric (Curcuma longa) - chelates non-transferrin bound iron and aids the effects of the drug deferiprone Increases absorption as well as excretion of water soluble oxolates reduces damage from arsenic toxicity Blocks free radical formation Protects the lens of the eye from damage caused by selenium Prevents triglycerol deposits in the liver Protects against high lipid damage caused by smoking and drinking

Echinacea, in one study, was protective of the liver against the toxic effects of Cyproterone Acetate

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) has demonstrated that its fiber content is effective for detoxification of certain chemicals such as chlorazanil hydrochloride and that how well a carcinogen (1,2-dimethylhydrazine or DMH) was bound to the fiber depended on pH Alfalfa was also helpful in the treatment of streptozotocin diabetes (a toxin to insulin producing beta cells)

Garlic (Allium sativum) promotes excretion of arsenic in the urine

Just these few examples demonstrate that while our bodies are well equipped to deal with detoxification, what we choose to put in our bodies can also influence this process, for good or ill.

Is it safe? Water fasting alone is not safe. It causes mucosal damage, reduces antioxidant levels, and impairs defense systems according to animal studies.

What is a toxin? Toxins include a number of categories. One is the chemicals that exist now that didn't some 200 years ago. These include the prescription drugs (some of which are mentioned above (with references), but environmental chemicals too, such as pollution, herbicides, pesticides, food colouring. Many of these chemicals are showing up in cord blood (of newborns) that never was before, according to this small study

Then there is the tinkering around that mankind (scientists) has been doing in recent years with genetics. Genetically modified food is a concern when it comes to toxicity. Last year an article came out that genetically modified (GM) corn was toxic to the liver and kidneys among other organs. Which organs were affected depended on which variety of GM corn was evaluated

Heavy metals are considered a toxin by many, lead being the most obvious one, but mercury, arsenic and others are included here

Pro-oxidants are often considered another form of toxin, and many references to this are in the references I provided for the herbs. However, it should be mentioned that pro-oxidants exist also as a product (or byproduct) of normal cellular metabolism. Which would explain why the human body has been so well equipped with the ability to detoxify through organs such as the liver, kidneys, skin, etc.

I agree with many of the writers here that not all detox methods are healthy and that many are probably an opportunistic grab at the hard earned dollars of susceptible people. However, let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater". As shown above, there is merit to the idea of detoxing, but there is a lot of information and disinformation, science and pseudoscience, to sift through. 4learning (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)4Learning
 * That's a big combination of synthesis of primary sources (many about rats, not humans) to reach a conclusion and a whole bunch of unreliable sources (like Wikipedia). Body cleansing is a CAM approach with no mainstream support.  This is not the basis to rewrite a page.  The liver and kidneys are the primary detoxification organs, and they deal with real toxins, not made up ones.  Until there are reliable, secondary sources that indicate there is real benefits, in humans, to "detoxification" (with an operational definition) that doesn't involve actual heavy metal chelation (and real chelation - to remove lead, in a medical procedure) please don't bring advocacy to the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

=From detoxification foot pads=

Initial comments
I am not a promoter of detox foot pads. I came to Wikipedia looking for information on them and when I found nothing, I added the page. Whether they are a hoax or not, they deserve an informative article. If they are in fact a hoax, then that information will be in the article. It is very hard to find legitimate information on detox foot pads, which is why I came looking for information on them on Wikipedia. Since this is an article that is attempting to describe what these are and the medical research on them, it does not meet the criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerhag (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 January 2008.


 * As the article is currently written, it reads like a clear advertisement for detoxification foot pads, and regardless of your original intentions in the manner (which I assume to be good), it should be deleted in its current form. Also note that the topic you are writing on may not deserve an article due to Notability, which stresses that subjects must have significant coverage from secondary sources in order to have articles on them. Unless such sources are provided, the article may be deleted in the future even if the speedy deletion request here is denied. However, as you said, it is difficult to find such information, which may point towards the article not satisfying the aforementioned notability guideline. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a cultural phenomena and does have secondary sources. You need to give this some time for them to surface. They can't show up when you keep deleting the article and don't give it any chance for development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerhag (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then show them. It's a matter of them being present in the article to assert notability. If you cannot, then the article should be deleted until sources surface. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; ergo, you cannot simply claim that notability exists in the future. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a recent warning from the FDA. Happy now? Computerhag (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Better. You might also want to convert the list of ingredients and usage into prose, as it will make it look less like an advertisement. Finding more sources for asserting notability will also help. Best of luck. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just took all that hype out altogether. I found an experiment on a website that shows the same 'gunk' that appears can be brought out with water. I really hope to develop this article so that the tv news shows that are certain to start reporting on this product will have some real information and evidence to report on. This is always the first place they check. With all the claims of 'numerous Asian studies,' I can't find a single one. I work at a college library and asked for help from the medical reference librarian. There is NO MEDICAL DATA on these pads. While that might seem like a reason to delete this article, it really just perpetuates the myths on TV. This little crap stub I've pulled together tonight is now the easiest to find and most informative REAL information on this holistic quackery. It's only a matter of weeks before something comes out in Time, Newsweek, WebMD or other somewhat credible source. Computerhag (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this Wikipedia page fairly non-informative without test results we should refrain from opinions and using words such as quackery until it is proven. I understand how people might not beleive but Wikipedia is not a wepage to form opinions.

There was one major error. The skin is permeable. Although the use of Foot Pads is not proven, errors such as this make your article less credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.190.2 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I'm no expert, but it seems permeable by definition means it allows all substances to pass through.  I'm not sure it is correct to say skin is semipermeable, either.  The stuff on the web seems to use those terms on the cellular level, not on the level of organs.  Can someone more knowledgeable clarify?--67.101.255.32 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Permeable or semi-permeable or not is debatable, I suppose, but the skin does have sweat glands, and sweat glands do remove toxins from the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.27.84 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_glands#Merocrine_sweat_glands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.27.84 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 comments
If you look at the comments below the sciencepunk articles, you will see that the fact that these things do not work is disputed. I'm not saying that I think they definitely work, because I do not know. It would be easy enough for someone to analyze a used foot pad in a lab to put the discussion to rest, but so far no one has done that...so really the discussion is still open. Hello415 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Since I posted the above response, SciencePunk has released another article on detox pads.  Apparently they had the pads sent in to a lab and they were analyzed for heavy metals, and the metals were in the used pads of a person who tested negative for heavy metals, and in the pads of a person who tested positive.  This is supposed to be proof that, apparently, Kinoki and other detox foot pad companies put the heavy metals in the pads ahead of time.  What bothers me about this concept is that, some of the metals that were found in the pads are very hazardous, such as barium.  I would think that since these are dangerous metals that, if this is really true, the FDA would have intervened by now and removed detox pads from the market.  I'd be interested to see what comes of this though.  The companies all claim that they have all natural ingredients, but if they truly have heavy metals in them then I bet they'll be in a lot of trouble. Hello415 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ingredients list for one brand

 * there are many brands of footpads... I found an ingrediant list for Champnyes (http://www.champneys.com/Collection/Body_Care_products/Products/Detox_Patches_Multi_Pack#) detox foot pads pads here are the ingredients as listed on their site:
 * Wood Vinegar, Tourmaline, Pearl Stone, Highly Purified Silica, Chitosan, Polyolic Alcohol, Starch, Mugwort Extract.Dreammaker182 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A little more NPR info
http://www.wellsphere.com/vitamins-supplements-article/detoxifying-foot-pads-are-a-scam/423142

This has a few more details. Also mention of the wide range of moisture that works, along with the smell coming from the materials and not "toxins" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.73.179 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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  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)

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. 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. - Sidelight 12 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)

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.

Edahsh (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Cutting out complete food groups in the long term, may have adverse effects on an individual's health."


 * 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, 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)
 * I didn't misrepresent the ref. I quoted the entire abstract. SageRad (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow the guidance in WP:NOABSTRACT. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's all bollocks. Detox is what your liver and kidneys are for. Outside the narrow and specific context of substance abuse, everyone offering detox can be assumed to be a quack unless proven otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or a Scientologist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is not effect placebo
It's not a marketing myth just a facts. Scientists do not do any research so they have no basis. Not delete my right statement. AlexTrevex (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * if you take a look at the warnings on your talk page, you'll get a good idea of where this line of discussion will lead. Edaham (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Is evidence "produced" or "uncovered"?
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detoxification_(alternative_medicine)&oldid=prev&diff=805041102 this edit}:

Consider two wordings:

"Researchers have found evidence..."

"Researchers have manufactured evidence..."

Facts that exist are evidence. They are "found", "uncovered" or "discovered".

False facts/lies that are needed to supporta favored worldview are "manufactured", "produced" or "created".

To the extent that we are citing reliable sources, the normal assumption is that the evidence was found through data, which is collected. Fabricated evidence is produced. There is no evidence to support a claim that the evidence discussed here is fabricated. (If you feel you have found evidence that it is fabricated, please discuss the issue here.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Produce also means to "show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use." Producing evidence doesn't mean to make it up, it means to put it forth for consideration.
 * "Uncover evidence" suggests that it was simply found, rather than scientific experiments being done to generate evidence in support of the fact. Natureium (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Using language that allows such misinterpretation seems a FRINGE and POV violation.
 * I agree with the rewrite that removes the terms.
 * Since it is used here (and elsewhere in the article), what about the repeated use of "mainstream medicine"? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @SummerPhDv2.0
 * "produce" implies that evidence previously existed, and they are showing to people who didn't know it. Doesn't fit well, and has other meanings that could cause confusion.
 * "Uncover" implies that evidence was previously hidden, which is not the case here. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Prolonged Fasting
"prolonged fasting (as recommended by certain detox diets) can have dangerous health consequences or can even be fatal"

While the above is true, prolonged fasting invokes "autophagy" - a process that has positive effects on cancer/tumor and overall health. Yoshinori Ohsumi, a Nobel Prize laureate, provided a scientific explanation for this process.
 * Please see this page: WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's rules for sourcing biomedical content. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deaths due to detox
See https://nltimes.nl/2022/04/11/belgian-woman-dies-detox-treatment-gelderland. Does anyone have statistics hereupon? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)