>> But one would have to be naive to think that they're not encouraging people to think they can get away with poor habits but escape the consequences through use of a "detox" supplement (that hasn't been shown to "detoxify" anything).

That is your OPINION. You have not shown that the prince has promoted any unhealthy behaviors. You can call people here naive (or whatever name you like) if they don't believe what you assert (but have not demonstrated).

>> Prince Charles, for example, has promoted coffee enemas as a way to treat cancer. Apart from being unpleasant this procedure is not very risky in itself, but is very hazardous for people who are deceived into using it as a substitute for genuine, effective anticancer therapy.

And tell, Sir Humpty, are we also using the word 'unpleasant' to describe the effects of several rounds of aggressive chemotherapy? All that vomiting and shaking and hair falling out? Or do you mean something altogether different when you use the word unpleasant? I would consider such chemotherapy if I there was a reasonable chance that it would take the cancer into remission. But in many types of advanced cancers, there is no good reason to subject people to aggressive chemo. This is the main group that declines standard treatment and tries the gerson method - part palliative, part prayer.

Coffee enemas have been used as part of the Gerson protocol for pancreatic and other cancers. In most cases, an objective voice would say the people with such cancers don't have long to live. There is some evidence that the Gerson protocol can in fact extend the life and improve the quality of life. Is that evidence massively strong? No. But that is all the information available to make a decision at this time, and questions don't get settled by dismissing ideas - only by testing them. And I don't see many of the skeptics wanting that method tested, because they have already made up their minds; they would not consider dignifying the idea by testing it when they can ridicule it instead.

Here's one report on the gershon protocol, which involves much more than enemas:

Of 14 patients with stages I and II (localized) melanoma, 100% survived for 5 years, compared with 79% of 15,798 reported by Balch. Of 17 with stage IIIA (regionally metastasized) melanoma, 82% were alive at 5 years, in contrast to 39% of 103 from Fachklinik Hornheide. Of 33 with combined stages IIIA + IIIB (regionally metastasized) melanoma, 70% lived 5 years, compared with 41% of 134 from Fachklinik Hornheide.

>>> This is where we differ - I'm concerned about consumers being deceived by the makers of a pricey supplement, You're indignant on behalf of the supplement maker.

If it makes you feel better, I have never recommended that product to any of my friends, although I do tell them to dig dandelions in the spring and eat them. I also love artichokes and frequently serve them to dinner guests. And I have been known to comment over the table about the hundreds of studies which show that artichokes (and their relatives the milk thistles) have a wide variety of effects on the liver, most of which seem to be quite beneficial.

I would say the real difference between us is your insistence on applying the same criteria for the use of dandelion in daily diet and health maintenance as is done for a new oral contraceptive or brain implant. For you, there needs to be a ton of proof before you will open the door to a possibility. I don't think the standards need to be the same to make tentative conclusions about how I order my daily routine, or how I mark the changing seasons, or whether we accept the notion that dandelion tea can increase the flow of bile.

Prince Charles has also been widely criticized for selling a tincture containing echinacea, and another containing St. Johns wort. All of this is standard fare for most herbalists. We accept the evidence that echinacea might knock a few days off the duration of a cold or benefit chronic allergies (try telling my wife that histamine is not a toxin produced by the body!) ... we also accept the idea that St. Johns wort can be good for a variety of conditions that include mild/moderate depression, neuralgia, and some types of viral infections. Herbalists knew this long before science validated or partially validated our observations.

This information has value for the health and financial well-being of consumers, and it cannot be dismissed under the pretense that it's being conjured up by a single poster.

Of course I'm not crediting you with single-handedly writing everything on the internet about this. There is an entire group of people out there who are genuinely wound-up over the imprecise use of the word toxin. You are merely the only one at this forum. You are the brave egg who has gone beyond preaching to the choir ... you are out mingling with the unwashed masses, attempting to convert the heathen.

>> Some years back the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. took some heat from anti-smoking groups over their "Joe Camel" ad campaign, on the grounds that using a cartoon character was an attempt to appeal to young potential smokers. R.J. Reynolds, of course, piously noted that it discouraged underaged smoking. But it was legitimate to raise the issue.

Very different situation, IMO. Tobacco is inherently dangerous, and public health organizations should criticize the promotion of smoking, whether for minors or adults. There is no indication that ads can be targeted to 18 year old who can legally consume tobacco, and not 16 or 17 year olds. And there was some compelling evidence that the ad campaigns were effective in targeting those underage.

Many herbalists believe both that a person should lead a healthy lifestyle, and also that herbs like dandelion and artichoke can promote health. That may be a strange concept to you; you may not agree with that. That's fine. But people really do believe that and live their own lives that way - it need not be part of a sinister plot.... Particularly when there was no attempt to hook people on a deadly, addictive product. The actions of Prince Charles cannot remotely be compared to the holocaust of tobacco promotion. You have violated a corollary of Godwin's law. You lose.

There is an entire group of people out there who are genuinely wound-up over the imprecise use of the word toxin."

It's not a matter of "imprecise use of (a) word", or solely the promotion of pseudoscience. As demonstrated amply in this thread, physicians, nutritionists and people who respect evidence-based herbalism are repelled by the exploitation of consumers through promotion of useless and potentially hazardous flushes, purges and cleanses. They know that effective medical therapies (including some for serious diseases) are being ignored in favor of these quack programs. They also recognize that people are being scared away from valuable foods, medicines and vaccines by ludicrous and sometimes malicious hype over "toxins".

As to the Gerson "cure", feel free to start a new thread about why you think this offers anything but false hope to cancer patients. You can start with that unattributed "report" that compares Gerson to "Fachklinik Hornheide", whatever that's supposed to be. ;)

By the way, I apparently minimized the risks associated with coffee enemas. Problems go beyond unpleasantness.

"...the American Cancer Society warns that the (Gerson) therapy may be dangerous. On its website it states: 'Gerson Therapy can be very harmful to the body. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte (salt and mineral) imbalances, and even death."

British oncologists, who see the deadly results of patients giving up on potential cures for quackery, have denounced Prince Charles for promoting Gerson therapy.

>> By the way, I apparently minimized the risks associated with coffee enemas. Problems go beyond unpleasantness. "...the American Cancer Society warns that the (Gerson) therapy may be dangerous. On its website it states: 'Gerson Therapy can be very harmful to the body. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte (salt and mineral) imbalances, and even death."

Yes, there have been a few cases of infection or other side effects, and those should be considered.

A friend's father went in for a routine colonoscopy two years ago, and was dead within 48 hours. The procedure was performed carelessly, or he had a weakness or malformation in his GI tract - in either case, the injury led to an infection that killed him. Such cases are rather rare, but can happen.

I saw on the BBC today that some doctors are pushing for a heart 'polypill' that combines statins, aspirin, blood pressure meds and folic acid. Seems that some want it routinely prescribed for everyone over 55, but others are up in arms that it "sends the wrong message" and will prevent heart disease while allowing people to continue to eat poorly and not exercise.

Critics say the problems of high blood pressure and cholesterol should be tackled with diet and exercise rather than by popping a pill. ... Mike Rich of UK charity the Blood Pressure Association said: "This study further stimulates the debate over whether a 'magic bullet' is the answer to the prevention of heart disease and strokes. "Eating healthily and taking regular exercise are proven ways to lower high blood pressure - and have many other health benefits too - and there is a danger that these lifestyle factors could be overlooked in favour of 'popping a pill'."

One aspect of "cleanses" that we haven't covered much is the idea that the blood needs "cleansing". Here's a chiropractor/naturopath with a host of weird and unfounded ideas about "sluggish" blood which he claims needs cleansing (he is big into selling useless supplements to fix this and other nonexistent problems).
He also is implying that his featured supplement is a substitute for the discredited Hoxsey cancer formula, a notorious cancer fraud that is still promoted online. Note the cagey promotional language on the chiro/naturopath's website, evidently designed to keep him from running afoul of FDA regulations against promoting false cancer cures.

The fallacy of comparing colonoscopy and coffee enemas is highlighted by one simple fact: Colonoscopy is a highly useful evidence-based procedure which routinely diagnoses early stage cancers which are treated and cured, as well as other disease of the colon which can be successfully treated.
Gerson coffee enemas, on the other hand, are useless for treating anything.

We accept uncommon complications due to colonoscopy because it is such a useful and life-saving diagnostic procedure. There is no excuse for any serious complications that accompany quackery, and none should be tolerated.

I don't think we're going to see a heart "polypill" of the type you describe. Routinely treating people without evidence of disease with a medication cocktail sounds like a bad idea. If you were trying to imply that such an idea justifies the use of "detoxification" supplements and "cleanses", I do not follow your logic.

Oh, my! Duke University's Medical School/Health System has a health encyclopedia, and there is a listing for dandelion. It says that the herb is useful for liver detoxification. They not only talk about detoxification without piously ranting against the idea, but they also give an impression that there is actually scientific evidence supporting many of the traditional uses of the plant. Goodness, gracious! Someone is fairly describing the properties of dandelion ... better organize an inquisition to get them to change their tune, eric.

Most heretically, they suggest that the plant may actually improve gastrointestinal health. Where is the evidence that people who have not been diagnosed with a serious disease can, or need to improve their gastrointestinal health?? How many people will be killed by such misleading information?

Parts Used

Dandelion leaves produce a diuretic effect while the roots act as an antiviral agent, appetite stimulant, digestive aid, and may help promote gastrointestinal health. Dandelion flower has antioxidant properties. Dandelion may also help improve the immune system.

Health care providers clinically use dandelion root to promote liver detoxification and dandelion leaves to support kidney function.
Medicinal Uses and Indications

Dandelion is a natural diuretic that increases urine production by promoting the excretion of salts and water from the kidney. Dandelion may be used for a wide range of conditions requiring mild diuretic treatment, such as poor digestion, liver disorders, and high blood pressure. Dandelion is a source of potassium, a nutrient often lost through the use of other natural and synthetic diuretics.

Fresh or dried dandelion herb is also used as a mild appetite stimulant and to improve upset stomach (such as feelings of fullness, flatulence, and constipation). The root of the dandelion plant is believed to have mild laxative effects and is often used to improve digestion. Research suggests that dandelion root may improve the health and function of natural bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. Studies have also reported that dandelion root may help improve liver and gallbladder function.

Some preliminary animal studies also suggest that dandelion may help normalize blood sugar levels and improve lipid profiles (lowering total cholesterol and triglycerides while increasing HDL, "good," cholesterol) in diabetic mice. However, not all animal studies have shown the same positive effect on blood sugar. In addition, research needs to be done on people to determine if this traditional use for diabetes (see Overview) has modern-day merit.

"Duke University's Medical School/Health System has a health encyclopedia, and there is a listing for dandelion. It says that the herb is useful for liver detoxification.

Here's the line to which you're apparently referring:

"Health care providers clinically use dandelion root to promote liver detoxification and dandelion leaves to support kidney function."

What kind of "health care providers" they're talking about can be deduced from the author of the review - who's a naturopath. Most naturopaths utilize a lot of non-evidence based woo.
I see nothing in that list of references at the end of the article that supports using dandelion for "detoxification". The great majority of those articles deal with studies in rats, mice or the test tube - nothing apparent about clinically significant effects on liver function in humans.

I have a feeling this "encyclopedia" is not the best-supervised of Duke's online health education efforts.
If you polled Duke's medical staff on the question of whether they'd recommend any form of "detoxification" or "cleanses" for the liver, you'd get a very different answer.

"If you polled Duke's medical staff on the question of whether they'd recommend any form of "detoxification" or "cleanses" for the liver, you'd get a very different answer."

Do you have a reference for that statement Eric, or is that personal opinion?

>> Most naturopaths utilize a lot of non-evidence based woo.

Glad to see you are above name calling, eric. This is from the Skepdic's Dictionary entry on Woo or Woo-Woo

When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy.

Woo-woo is redundant. :)

Woo is a nicely accurate term to describe "detoxification" and "cleansing", with their aura of pseudoreligion.

As you can tell from this thread, I am dismissive of this concept as commonly used in alternative medicine. I've posted a lot of information and evidence to back that opinion. What I haven't done is resort to calling other posters names when evidence is lacking.

Which is another example of where apollog and I differ.

Another good look at the world of "detox" and "cleansing" comes from Harriet Hall, a retired military surgeon who has written extensively on health quackery. Makes a very interesting read.

This thread would not be complete without a look at this product.

"A clothing manufacturer is coming under fire for its self-massaging bra called the Brassage. The Brassage bra is said to "promote healthy breast tissue" by delivering a nonstop massage while its on. Its makers go as far as to claim regular bras could be harmful for your health because, without the massaging feature, they encourage toxins to build up in the breasts."*

After ABC's Good Morning America started asking questions about the product (designed by a chiropractor), the company stopped making and selling it.

Maybe the Kinoki people will market a substitute garment that turns dark colors when you wear it due to absorption of "toxins".

*I can imagine some sleazy guy trying to use this as a make-out line. :)

I'll ask again:

"If you polled Duke's medical staff on the question of whether they'd recommend any form of "detoxification" or "cleanses" for the liver, you'd get a very different answer."

Do you have a reference for that statement Eric, or is that personal opinion?

Also, what does this bra thing have to do with herbalism? It's actually rather offensive to me.

I think it extremely likely that Duke's medical staff would not believe in "detoxification", based on both my contacts with other professionals in academic medicine, including the med school-based surgeon quoted earlier in this thread, plus all the other health professionals quoted and linked to in the thread. In general, solid training, a firm grounding in the scientific method and respect for evidence-based medicine do not lend themselves to embracing quackery (few exceptions of course exist, even among MDs and PhDs).
Knowledgeable health professionals as a whole do not subscribe to the theory of "cleansing" and "detox". If you can find evidence of med school faculty directly endorsing these ideas, or even just a chairman of gastroenterology or nephrology at a respected school that subscribes to the theory, that would be counter-evidence.

"Breast detox" is just as unfounded as other types of detox, and more relevant to this thread than heart "polypills", the risks of chemotherapy and colonoscopy and other subjects brought up here that are tangential to the thread topic, to say the least.

I would express my regret at your taking offense to the "breast detox" article, except I think your reaction is contrived. First, you yourself have posted many things more tangential to a subject (including in another thread posting a picture of shellfish, which are hardly herbal), not to mention starting threads which have nothing to do with herbalism (i.e. the supposed dangers of high-fructose corn syrup, and weighing in on the dangers of talcum powder and phthalates ("How Natural Is Your Bathroom"). Note that I am not protesting your posting these things, but it does seem odd that you're now revved up about a topic that's not directly herbal.

Secondly, I realize you are still miffed at my having pointed out to you when you began posting here, that your slinging insults wholesale was not appropriate to the forum. However, your now manufacturing outrage over imaginary slights does not contribute to civil discussion either.

If you have anything you'd like to say about "cleansing" and "detoxification" I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Here's an interesting article that looked at some of the questions about whether coffee can prevent colon cancer (as dietary studies suggest), and if it does, how does it do so.

They concluded that while coffee didn't lower the rate at which cells divided (which might be one way it could prevent cancer), it did raise glutathione levels and "might increase the detoxification capacity." No firm conclusions, but they present the detox concept as a reasonable possibility, not as a some hare-brained magical bra farce.

Let's see what that article abstract actually tells us.

Apart from "whether" coffee drinking "might" have an anticancer effect which "remains to be established" (based on the small changes in glutathione observed), a couple of things stand out. One, the volunteers drank a liter of coffee daily. Wonder what all that caffeine does for "detoxification". Two - at least they had people drinking coffee, not taking it as enemas.

Most importantly, there's no good evidence that coffee drinking lowers colon cancer risk. For instance, here's data from two recent large prospective studies that did not find such a link.

Here are two more good articles, one debunking the Master Cleanse and myths about toxins.

The other piece (by physician and writer Ben Goldacre) looks at the role of "cleansing" in modern society, how it substitutes for rituals in other cultures, and what the consequences are for our health.

"Purification and redemption are recurring themes in religious rituals, as they are in our own rituals around detox, because we all do regrettable things as a result of our own circumstances, and new rituals are frequently invented in response to new circumstances. In Angola and Mozambique, for example, former child soldiers can be purged and purified of sin and guilt, of the "contamination" of war and death, with a public declaration of renewal, which protects them from the consequences of their previous actions and retaliation from the avenging spirits of those they have killed.

In our own country, we seek purification from material indulgence. We fill our faces with drink, bad food, drugs and more. We know its wrong, so we crave ritualistic protection from the consequences, performing public "transitional rituals", commemorating our return to healthier behavioural norms...

Ceremonial acts are being performed up and down the country (here he's referring to post-Xmas/New Year's holiday "detoxing") with pills, gadgets, rituals, fad diets and holy books filled with arbitrary instructions on how to live.

The tragedy is that, captivated by this distraction, we avoid the need to think about the real, lifelong changes we could make to our lifestyles, and continue to live the rest of the year as unhealthily as before."

The question may arise - why should we care whether people waste their time and money on useless "detox" and use it as a crutch to avoid thinking about genuine ways to a healthier lifestyle? Apart from looking out for our fellow man and discouraging exploitation by quacksters, a small selfish reason came to light this week. A USA Today article on maple syrup, reporting that prices of this commodity have been going through the roof, noted that one reason was demand for maple syrup from people using the Master Cleanse.

When this silliness starts affecting my pancake breakfast, you know things have gone too far. ;)

"I think it extremely likely that Duke's medical staff would not believe in "detoxification""

Eric, the only reason I questioned that is you come down so hard on others who "believe" or find things "extremely likely". What you are saying is that you are projecting your opinions on Duke's staff based on your hypothesis that they have "solid training...etc"

"Secondly, I realize you are still miffed at my having pointed out to you when you began posting here, that your slinging insults wholesale was not appropriate to the forum. However, your now manufacturing outrage over imaginary slights does not contribute to civil discussion either."

Now you are making even more assumptions. I am not "still miffed", nor was I "miffed". And, I am not "manufacturing outrage over imaginary slights" either.

I asked a question, it was a civil question. You make pointed comments to me and others, and the bra post was an obvious (to me, anyway) show of disdain for this thread, and detracted rather than added to the conversation. I did find your lecherous comments about massaging breasts to be offensive, although admittedly not as offensive as you accusing me of manufacturing outrage.

Oh please. The "Brassage" was discussed on ABC's "Good Morning America". It was suitable content for major network television, and we're all adults here (I hope). It's also difficult to see what makes this example of "toxin removal" any more ridiculous than the other "cleansing" agents and programs previously discussed. I'm glad to see that at least this product has drawn some scorn, although I don't see you or apollog explicitly rejecting its premise.

And I think you're well aware that I was not making a conclusion about a herb's effectiveness or medical condition when I expressed an opinion about what Duke professionals are likely to believe about "detoxification". References are swell where they're relevant; demanding them in this instance sends a message that the poster is more interesting in provocation than education.

If there are any other misrepresentations of my remarks or other type of personal attack you feel obliged to make, I suggest you direct them to e-mail, as they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Back to "detox" - It's good to see that an organized campaign is underway in Great Britain to reach out to consumers being bamboozled by false detox claims. A group of young scientists has published their findings about various ineffective products being marketed there, and the group is handling out leaflets to consumers outside shops that sell this stuff:

"A group of over 300 young UK scientists and engineers who investigated the evidence behind claims made for products and diets, have started a public awareness campaign by publishing a dossier that shows the word "detox" has no meaning outside of the clinical treatment of drug addiction and poisoning.

Called the "Detox Dossier", the report describes the findings of the investigation by the Voice of Young Science (VoYS) network of over 300 early career researchers. They reviewed about 15 products, ranging from bottled water to face scrub, and found that many detox claims were "meaningless", said a BBC report...

According to a BBC report, the advertising regulators said they would look at such issues on a case by case basis. The Advertising Standards Authority said:

"If a product is making claims not substantiated by the evidence submitted by the company we would challenge that."

The Detox Dossier investigators found that:
No two companies had the same definition for "detox".

The word "detox" was used to promote a range of things from foot patches to hair straighteners, without consistent explanations of what the word means.

In most cases no evidence was presented to back up the "detox" claims on products.

In most cases, producers and retailers who the young scientists got in touch with were forced to admit that they were using the word "detox" instead of mundane things like "cleaning" or "brushing".

The prices ranged from about 2 pounds for a detox drink to over 36 pounds for detox bath products.
The scientists involved in the research include physiologists, biochemists, doctors and pharmacists and they will be launching their own leaflet titled "Debunking Detox" outside high street shops in central London.

The leaflet explains how the human body already has a fantastic detox system, called the liver and the kidneys, and that there is no need to spend money on expensive treatments and products. Eating healthily and getting plenty of sleep is a better investment."

This is an encouraging example of scientists getting involved in anti-quackery efforts on an organized basis. What we need in the U.S. is a similar effort to push regulators to hold manufacturers (and anyone who profits by pushing "cleansing" regimens) to accurate claims about their products/services.

"And I think you're well aware that I was not making a conclusion about a herb's effectiveness or medical condition when I expressed an opinion about what Duke professionals are likely to believe about "detoxification". References are swell where they're relevant; demanding them in this instance sends a message that the poster is more interesting in provocation than education."

I asked a question Eric. I did not request a reference.

This anthropological/psychological analysis is all very interesting, and may be true in some cases. However, it does not prove in any sense the generalized belief that all cleanses/detoxes are nonsensical and bad.

There's a link below to an interesting study on periodic ritual fasting, which was shown to lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes. The researchers clearly state that smoking and drinking and other day to day lifestyle factors are of prime importance, but that above and beyond this, ritual fasting has a beneficial effect.

I have also seen a study from Ireland that suggested that people who were religious and who sobered up for one day a week for church had lower rates of liver disease when compared to those that drank 7 days a week. Obviously, that 1/7 rule alone does not lead to optimal health, but it is an example of risk reduction. Dare we call that a weekly detox?

>> A USA Today article on maple syrup, reporting that prices of this commodity have been going through the roof, noted that one reason was demand for maple syrup from people using the Master Cleanse...When this silliness starts affecting my pancake breakfast, you know things have gone too far. ;)

The price of any commodity boils down to supply and demand - and the biggest factor affecting maple syrup has been the drop in supply after unusual spring weather in Canada. Demand has risen in recent years, but the amount of maple syrup bought to cleanse is a drop in the bucket compared to the demand from other sources.

Maybe if you can convince the masses that maple syrup is no better than corn syrup, the demand (and price) will drop. Of course, if that is true, you would be better off simply freeing yourself from any ideas that 'natural is better' and use corn syrup yourself on your pancakes! I hear the food industry is doing some fantastic things with artificial flavors these days. Some may ask why I care if you waste your money on overpriced maple syrup - clearly, because I am a humanitarian trying to free you from your superstitions, and I care about you wasting money on irrational, unproven products like maple syrup. And because less maple syrup for you means more for me. ;)

The current consensus on fasting seems to be that 1) there is relatively little research to support purported benefits, and 2) calorie restriction (i.e. sensible dieting) has just as much good effect and avoids many of the hazards of fasting, including rebound binge eating. The "detox" diets, which are essentially modified fasts, are problematic for a variety of reasons (besides the illogic behind them):

""The biggest danger is nutrient insufficiency from protracted starvation," (a public health expert) explains. "Americans have a tendency to believe that if some is good, then more is better. This is a very dangerous mindset," he adds, "when it comes to these types of diets. For example, if the diet is supposed to be followed for 10 days, someone might conclude that it would be even better to follow it for 40 days. That's when a serious medical situation could result."

Clemens further cautions, "These diets give you a false sense of security. People think they're doing something healthy, when they're actually doing something detrimental."

Other potential downsides of detox diets include:
weight can be lost too quickly (not only is this unhealthy, but weight lost rapidly is more likely to return)
muscle breakdown
blood-sugar problems
significant loss of electrolytes
fatigue
frequent, liquid bowel movements
nausea
vomiting
decreased ability to fight infections
a feeling of deprivation (which can lead to binge eating)

While Clemens is convinced that no one should jump on the detox bandwagon, he points out that these diets could prove particularly harmful to certain populations, including: children and adolescents; pregnant or breastfeeding women; individuals with impaired renal function, heart disease, diabetes, bowel disorders or chronic conditions; and those taking blood thinners.

Summing up his stance on detox diets, Clemens observes, "Humans have been endowed with extraordinary systems for eliminating waste and regulating body chemistry. Our lungs, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract and immune system are effective in removing or neutralizing toxic substances within hours of consumption. These detox regimens," he emphasizes, "just aren't necessary. Our bodies are wonderfully well made."

Fasting has also been linked to triple the risk of an unusual form of stroke.

If cultures that routinely practice periodic fasting were benefiting from concrete health benefits, we'd see it in the form of longer life spans compared to us sinful Westerners. It doesn't seem to have worked out that way.

And of course, clinical evidence that fasting/"detox" eliminates "toxins" remains zero.

One article on the "detox" craze talks about how this functions as a gateway for con artists. Once they have people convinced that they have a nonexistent disease, they can be sold multiple supplements and treatments to "fix" the problem.

A good example is this come-on for "tooth and gum detoxification".

The sellers of this product go beyond the usual fear-mongering about amalgam fillings, to claim that a whole range of common conditions in the mouth make one prety to "toxins" (including sites of previous extractions, gold fillings, sore gums and even just sensitive teeth). After you use their wonder product to release these imaginary toxins, that's still not enough. Oh no - the mark...excuse me, customer...must buy additional products to help the poor liver, kidneys and intestines deal with this "toxic load", plus use a special foot bath to help draw out "toxins".
In addition to all this, there are six different herbal and non-herbal preparations that are recommended so that your helpless body can cope with all this trauma, plus three more products to "support" your teeth and gums.

There's lots of mystical terminology ladled out to cover these claims (including alleged deficiencies in kidney "jing" which make you feel listless, the tooth-body connection, the "piezoelectric" effect of their "detox" agent, and even kinesiological O-ring testing which is supposed to detect your mouth deficiencies (this is the same miraculous device referred to in the corn syrup-mercury discussion in this forum - the one which enabled its Japanese inventor to diagnose serious medical conditions over the telephone without ever seeing the patient).

None of this has any rational basis, but feeding beliefs about "toxins" adds a nice chunk of cash to the pot for the multibillion dollar supplement industry.

>> "The biggest danger is nutrient insufficiency from protracted starvation," (a public health expert) explains. "Americans have a tendency to believe that if some is good, then more is better. This is a very dangerous mindset," he adds, "when it comes to these types of diets. For example, if the diet is supposed to be followed for 10 days, someone might conclude that it would be even better to follow it for 40 days. That's when a serious medical situation could result."

Duh. And excessive exercise can cause a number of problems, from soft tissue injuries to heart attack. The fact that something is dangerous in excess often has little relationship to that same thing in moderation.

Another case in point: alcohol. Many doctors recommend moderation consumption of alcohol for its tonic effects on the body. And drinking too much can cause lots of problems. Anyone with an iota of perspective understands the difference - one glass of wine with dinner is not problematic for the average adult, but those who are working on the assumption that more is better and drink a six-pack each night and even more on the weekend are overdoing it.

>>> Fasting has also been linked to triple the risk of an unusual form of stroke.

And that article states that dehydration may be the reason for the increase: "Coexistence of usual risk factors, such as oral contraceptive and coagulopathic disorders, along with dehydration in patients while prolonged fasting can be the reason for increased susceptibility to CVST."

Of course, the typical detox program that you are criticizing recommends drinking plenty of water, which is quite different from those interpret Ramadan fasting as a prohibition of any food or liquid between sunrise and sunset. In a warm climate, or when performing manual labor, that could easily lead to dehydration, with resulting negative health consequences.

More muddled thinking, faulty generalization, and an attempt to scare people. Standard fare from eric.

"And that article states that dehydration may be the reason for the increase (in incidence of a type of stroke in people who've been fasting)."

No, that's not what the article says. It indicates that there's evidence that fasting is the trigger that precipitates this type of stroke in people who may have other risk factors. And of course there's that long list of additional problems associated with detox/fasting cited previously: muscle breakdown, weakness, nausea, susceptibility to infections etc.

The "if a little bit is good, more is better" attitude that some people apply to fasting does occur in other settings but it doesn't change the fact that people don't need to fast/detox in the first place, while other activities such as exercise are very beneficial in moderation.

Found another good article on "colon cleansing" and the myths that lead people to do it.

"...as one (supplement-selling) company puts it, certain foods "tend to stick and putrefy in the folds and pockets of the intestines. When your colon isn't eliminating wastes properly, toxins are reabsorbed into the blood, poisoning the entire system and weakening your other eliminative organs." More succinctly stated, "the colon walls are encrusted with stagnant waste."

"Things don't crust over" in your colon, says Robert Russell, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston. "The business about putrefaction is all baloney. There are not pieces of food hanging around in there getting old."

In other words, you don't need a $20-to-$30 product to help nature do its job. The body is perfectly capable of eliminating toxins in a timely, efficient manner. Consider that the cells of your gastrointestinal tract turn over every three daysfast enough so that there's no "crust," or "putrefying" food in your colon. Also, bacteria in the colon naturally metabolize and thereby detoxify food wastes. And mucous membranes lining the intestinal wall block unwanted substances from entering the body's other tissues. The liver works to neutralize toxins as well."

Isn't it amazing that the many digestive specialists (and other physicians), dieticians and health experts quoted in this thread who say that detox/cleansing are useless and that our organs do a fine job without the aid of commercial "detox" products are all guilty of "muddled thinking" and are just out to "scare people". Wouldn't you think that if there was anything to this "detoxification" craze, mainstream medicine would be cashing in on it with prescription drugs and medical therapies? Instead, it's the province of quacks and their allies in the $23 billion a year supplement industry.

By the way, the New York Times reported today that even in the current recession, the supplement companies are reporting increased business. The article quoted one woman who said she'd cut back on fruits and vegetables in favor of buying a less expensive dietary supplement.

The quick fix will always have an appeal.

>> "And that article states that dehydration may be the reason for the increase (in incidence of a type of stroke in people who've been fasting)."

>>>> No, that's not what the article says. It indicates that there's evidence that fasting is the trigger that precipitates this type of stroke in people who may have other risk factors.

Yes, it does say that fluid restriction from that particular practice is the issue. Muslim fasting in Ramadan involves fluid restriction, which results in a negative water balance for the body (see article below). According to that research, "During the daylight hours of Ramadan fasting, practising Muslims are undoubtedly dehydrating, but it is not clear whether they are chronically hypohydrated during the month of Ramadan."

Generally, this is not a problem, but apparently, in a small group of people with other factors, dehydration from Ramadan may increase the risk of a very rare type of stroke. This is very different from other practices that you are lumping it with. You are ignorant of what you speak.

>> By the way, the New York Times reported today that even in the current recession, the supplement companies are reporting increased business.

That's because so many people in the US are being disenfranchised from mainstream medicine. Get sick, lose your job, lose your insurance. Get laid off, lose your insurance. Keep fiddling while Rome burns. Ignore the systemic problems, while focusing on a minor sideshow, eric.

"By the way, the New York Times reported today that even in the current recession, the supplement companies are reporting increased business. The article quoted one woman who said she'd cut back on fruits and vegetables in favor of buying a less expensive dietary supplement.

The quick fix will always have an appeal."

Interesting that herbs are considered the "quick fix". I tend to see people looking for a quick fix in many western medicines... they treat heartburn with a pill rather than with a diet change, they treat depression with a pill, they treat allergies with a pill... etc.

While any herbalist worth their dandelion fuzz will look at the cause of the problem and treat things more holistically. Herbs are not the cure-all, but when incorporated in a healthy lifestyle may prevent the need for pharmaceuticals.

Yes, and reading the entire quote, the woman who said she was "cutting back on fruits and vegetables" was in a whole foods store and referring to organic produce. It is not clear whether she was planning on living on macaroni and cheese (not a good idea) or would be switching from organic to conventionally produced produce (which is not always a drop in quality).

Just had cod for lunch - delicious, but not cheap. For the price of a pound or two of cod fillets, a person can buy several months of cod liver oil ... they can get far more omega-3 in their diet for far less. Not a pleasant decision, but in tough times, that particular choice could be quite rational.

Need some dandelion fuzz to keep me going since running out of money for medication and food.

CVST strokes have been associated with fasting during Ramadan, and we still don't know what particular element of the fasting may be responsible (metabolic disturbances, protein wasting, dehydration etc.).

Bear in mind that we are only talking about fasting from dawn to dusk, and the "detox" fasts don't have such limitations. Maybe that's why the many detrimental effects from fasting (see above) has been reported more commonly in Western-type fasts than in the Ramadan ones (it could also be that their reporting of complications is deficient).

Here's a sad case of a woman who suffered brain damage through a fad type of fast and won 800,000 pounds in damages.

And Wikipedia's take on "cleansing/detox" (note that some people have been objecting to the article's "balance", even though passages like this reflect the overwhelming scientific and medical view about the practices in question):

Body cleansing and detoxification have been referred to as an elaborate hoax used by con artists to cure nonexistent illnesses. Most doctors contend that the 'toxins' in question do not even exist.[17][18] In response, alternative medicine proponents frequently cite heavy metals or pesticides as the source of toxification, however no evidence exists that detoxification approaches have a measurable effect on these or any other chemical levels. Medical experts state that body cleansing is unnecessary as the human body is naturally capable of maintaining itself, with several organs dedicated to cleansing the blood and gut.[19]

Professor Alan Boobis OBE, Toxicologist, Division of Medicine, Imperial College London states that "The bodys own detoxification systems are remarkably sophisticated and versatile. They have to be, as the natural environment that we evolved in is hostile. It is remarkable that people are prepared to risk seriously disrupting these systems with unproven detox diets, which could well do more harm than good."

After describing muscle wasting and hampering of weight loss efforts secondary to fasting, the article goes on to comment on the supposed health benefits fasting advocates describe:

Finally, while many testimonial and anecdotal accounts exist of health improvements following a "detox", these are more likely attributable to the placebo effect; where people actually believe that they are doing something good and healthy. Yet, there is a severe lack of quantitative data. Some changes recommended in certain "detox" lifestyles are also found in mainstream medical advice (such as consuming a diet high in fruits and vegetables). These changes can often produce beneficial effects in and of themselves, and it is accordingly difficult to separate these effects from those caused by the more controversial detoxification recommendations.

Eat that healthy diet with lots of plants, get regular exercise, and lay off tobacco and excess alcohol, and the benefits will be far greater than anything one could hope to accomplish pummeling oneself with fad fasts and "cleanses".

>> CVST strokes have been associated with fasting during Ramadan, and we still don't know what particular element of the fasting may be responsible (metabolic disturbances, protein wasting, dehydration etc.).

If you knew anything about fasting in Ramadan, you would not suggest that protein wasting was a possible explanation or a legitimate concern. But I guess you don't need to understand something before you try to authoritatively explain it to others. In Ramadan, people eat before sunrise and after sunset. The research shows that switching from 3 meals daily to 2 does not result in a drastic reduction in daily calories or protein - There is no protein wasting associated with the practice. Some people lose a little weight from this pattern of temporary diet restriction; many do not.

What is more common is to see improvements in insulin sensitivity and HDL, and reductions in CRP, homocysteine, LDL, and Hb1ac. These improvements occur independently of weight loss.

On the other hand, the potential for transient dehydration in Ramadan fasting is real; such dehydration has been documented and written about.

One thing to be said for fasting during Ramadan - the participants are clear about it being for religious reasons - they are not doing it to purge themselves of imaginary "toxins". If proponents of "toxin cleansing" were upfront about the process, they'd acknowledge that while it may have some mystical/pseudoreligious function, there's no evidence it provides health benefits (while having a potential for harm).

In many of the articles cited in this thread, a constant theme of the health experts weighing in against "detoxification" has been that our organs do a fine job of removing deleterious substances without any help from "cleanses". Here's an article that provides basic information on how our organs accomplish this.

The same site also includes a piece on how the Gonzalez protocol for treating pancreatic cancer crashed and burned (this is the fellow who got federal funding for study of a plan which includes coffee enemas, a common "anti-toxin" treatment in alt med). Since apollog has promoted this guy's work, he may find details of its failure instructive.

>> If proponents of "toxin cleansing" were upfront about the process, they'd acknowledge that while it may have some mystical/pseudoreligious function, there's no evidence it provides health benefits (while having a potential for harm).

Actually, there is evidence of health benefits associated with a variety of fasting practices. A review of the literature on Ramadan fasting shows improvements in insulin sensitivity and HDL, and reductions in CRP, homocysteine, LDL, and Hb1ac. Most of the risks have been linked to dehydration, or to those who are so devout that they refuse to take any medicine between sunrise and sunset, even when they need it.

I agree that most Muslims who do the fast would say it is for spiritual reasons, not practical ones. On the other hand, I have heard several Muslims say they looked forward to it while comparing it to athletic training ... although fasting and running initially make a person feel tired, in the long run, it has the opposite effect.

>> Here's an article that provides basic information on how our organs accomplish this.

A mixture of very basic science, sweeping generalizations, and outright wrong conclusions. Consider this:

As mentioned above, acid-base balance is so tightly regulated, that even very small variations create a very ill patient. Enzymes, which are really biologic catalysts, only function well in a narrow pH range. Attempts to change your pH through diet are going to fail, as your lungs and kidneys will make up the differenceunless you do it so drastically that you succeed, leading to illness and death. Claims regarding pH and health are a bunch of hooey.

It is true that the blood itself does have to be within very narrow ranges of pH. To stay within those limits, the body will pull other minerals (calcium, magnesium, etc) from other tissues, including the bones. If the blood pH goes out of whack, it can be bad. But the pH and mineral levels of other parts of the body can slip to unhealthy levels long before the blood does. It is a simple fact that an excessive acid load increases the risk of kidney stones, osteoporosis, hypertension, and other diseases - in spite of eric's psuedoscientific dogma that the body is always fine.

A recent article in the British Journal of Nutrition states very clearly: "Mild metabolic acidosis, which can be caused by diet, may adversely affect cardiometabolic risk factors, possibly by increasing cortisol production." But eric and the anti-woos would rather worship the fuzzy notion that our organs always do a fine job of whatever it is that they do (and never need any consideration). No need to question whether the average diet is too acidic, or whether that is contributing to disease, when it is more fun to ridicule people who don't define pH the same way a chemist does.

Titles of a few other articles that support the idea that the pH of diet can affect health:
Alkaline diets favor lean tissue mass in older adults.
Alkaline mineral water lowers bone resorption even in calcium sufficiency: alkaline mineral water and bone metabolism.
Urine pH is an indicator of dietary acid-base load, fruit and vegetables and meat intakes
Acid-base status affects renal magnesium losses in healthy, elderly persons.
Hypercalciuria from acid load: renal mechanisms.
Effect of potential renal acid load of foods on urinary citrate excretion in calcium renal stone formers.

You do realize that the article whose abstract you linked on alternate-day fasting acknowledges no significant evidence to support meaningful human health benefits? Maybe some lab rats are running their treadmills more efficiently, but as previously noted, we are not rodents.

As to the other link, there is no indication what sort of diet "free-living young Japanese women" were consuming in this study, but I see no evidence that a normal healthy diet (or even the average not-so-healthy American diet) causes metabolic acidosis.

The fixation on nonexistent pH imbalance supposedly caused by diet, ignores the body's excellent systems (primarily involving the lungs and kidneys) to keep acid-base balance regulated within a tight range. For these processes to fail, you have to be a very sick person.

Here's a good takedown of acid-base myths (and their relation to the alt med "toxin" theory of disease).

"The bottom line is that, in the absence of renal and lung disease, the homeostatic mechanisms controlling the pH of your blood are incredibly robust and tightly regulated."

And another by Dr. Gabe Mirkin:

"All foods that leave your stomach are acidic. Then they enter your intestines where secretions from your pancreas neutralize the stomach acids. So no matter what you eat, the food in stomach is acidic and the food in the intestines is alkaline.

Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine. Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range. Anything that changed acidity in your body would make you very sick and could even kill you...

All chemical reactions in your body are started by chemicals called enzymes. For example, if you convert chemical A to chemical B and release energy, enzymes must start these reactions. All enzymes function in a very narrow range of acidity. (The degree of acidity or alkalinity is expressed as "pH."). If your blood changes its acidity or alkalinity for any reason, it is quickly changed back to the normal pH or these enzymes would not function and the necessary chemical reactions would not proceed in your body...

Certain foods can leave end-products called ash that can make your urine acid or alkaline, but urine is the only body fluid that can have its acidity changed by food or supplements. ALKALINE-ASH FOODS include fresh fruit and raw vegetables. ACID-ASH FOODS include ALL ANIMAL PRODUCTS, whole grains, beans and other seeds. These foods can change the acidity of your urine, but that's irrelevant since your urine is contained in your bladder and does not affect the pH of any other part of your body."

About the only thing apollog posted that has a sound physiologic basis is that extreme diets can cause trouble. For instance, (as Dr. Mirkin notes) a diet with excessive protein might predispose to osteoporosis because of acidic breakdown products that have to be neutralized.

Dr. Mirkin has it right - if you hear someone warning you that your body's too acidic and you need their product to make it alkaline, it's a tipoff they don't know what they're talking about. Likewise, dire warnings that all sorts of chronic diseases are caused by "body acidity" are nonsense not grounded in science.

I was hoping to hear a response from apollog about the failure of the coffee-enemas-for-pancreatic-cancer study, which he promoted in this thread. Any comments?

>> I was hoping to hear a response from apollog about the failure of the coffee-enemas-for-pancreatic-cancer study, which he promoted in this thread. Any comments?

Sure. First, I did not "promote" the work of Gonzalez as you stated in error; I referred to work by Gerson and other work by Hildebrand. Second, I stand by my original statement - that standard chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is generally ineffective, and often decreases the quality of life as well as length of life (partial response rates in 5 - 25% of patients, nasty side effects in a much larger percent, no hope of cure). Third, the fact that one person botched some research only reflects on the researcher, not the subject being researched.

I stand by my statements that the gerson therapy for pancreatic cancer is part palliative, part prayer. I'm not overselling it - and my comments were in response to you trying to get people excited over the fact that Prince Charles had said that coffee enemas might have some use in some types of cancer therapy. As squeamish as you may be about various parts of the body, there is real scientific interest in using suppositories or enemas for a variety of medicines because that mode of administration gets around "first pass metabolism" in the gut and can result in higher concentrations in the blood, better efficacy, and fewer side effects.

In addition to coffee enemas, one major component of the Gerson protocol is proteolytic enzymes (including bromelain, from pineapple). These have been used for decades and there is clear evidence these "increase the response rates, the duration of remissions, and the overall survival times" of some types of cancers. Not magic bullets, but perhaps a reasonable option for someone with some forms terminal cancer, or as an add-on to other types of therapy.

"First, I did not "promote" the work of Gonzalez as you stated in error"

Oops! you did, and here are your comments about Gonzalez's treatment protocol in that linked thread:

"...Columbia University has people (whose) preliminary findings are that it works better than the standard treatment for that type of cancer. The main problem according to the researchers? People are too squeamish about enemas...Doctors are not comfortable with the idea. So they don't even consider it. Instead, they route their patients to painful, debilitating treatments that they know are ineffective for pancreatic cancer. They would rather use innefective injections of toxic compounds or concentrated doses of radiation rather than have someone be touched in their dirty private parts.

"In the pilot study, Gonzalez's treatment more than tripled the 5-1/2 month life expectancy of pancreatic cancer patients on standard treatment."

The reality is that Gonzalez's trial of coffee enemas, dietary restrictions, "enzyme treatment" and the like was halted for ineffectiveness.

"The Gonzalez trial was stopped early, in 2005, after the (Data Safety and Monitoring Committee) found that the data convincingly demonstrated that the regimen was inferior to the standard treatment of cancer of the pancreas."

Now, is standard treatment for pancreatic cancer highly effective? No, apart from surgery which cures a low percentage of patients, it pretty much is either palliative (intended to reduce pain or complications like biliary obstruction) or in the case of chemotherapy can extend life, typically by a period of months. Those limited successes against pancreatic cancer still beat the heck out of failed treatments like coffee enemas.

As to "systemic enzyme therapy" and the linked paper from the naturopath - where's the clinical evidence showing that this is effective against any human cancer? All I see in the abstract is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

As to Gerson "therapy", it may be true that it's part prayer; it is also 100% quackery designed to get people to spend nearly $15,000 for three weeks of enemas and other useless potions at a Mexican clinic. The big selling point by Gerson promoters is a publication of 50 cases of allegedly successful treatment, claims which fall apart under scrutiny:

"A retired Australian surgeon, Peter Moran, has delved into the so-called 50 cases and completed a case by case review. The review points out that in most cases the cancer was not confirmed before the treatment. Having patients being cancer-free is a bit easier, when they never had cancer in the first place. The US National Cancer Institute has also reviewed 10 cases, selected by Dr. Gerson's patients, but they were unable to say if it was the Gerson therapy that was responsible for the improved health as the patients were also having regular cancer treatment.

This is also a popular way to claim success. Have the patient undergo chemotherapy and eat a carrot. If they are cured, it must have been the carrot, if they die, it's proof that chemo is a failure."

There's a new online article about "detox" regimes, written by a homeopath who decries "extreme" practices, but falls prey to many of the same delusions of other therapists, including the idea that we are currently are somehow deluged with "toxins" like never before. A good deconstruction of this and other nonsense can be found here.

>> Oops! you did, and here are your comments about Gonzalez's treatment protocol in that linked thread

Oops, I did, in August of 2007. And if that study is shown to be flawed, it must be rejected as flawed. On the other hand, the link you provided for debunking it had some interesting comments - like "Yes We Can! We Can Abolish NCCAM" (the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) ... because researching herbs is by definition a waste of time and money??

>> As to "systemic enzyme therapy" and the linked paper from the naturopath - where's the clinical evidence showing that this is effective against any human cancer? All I see in the abstract is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

That is the genius of your game. First, you demand everything in the language of "evidence based medicine" (which is not the same as ordinary scientific evidence). Then, even when such information is provided, you say "that doesn't prove anything" (which is code for "I'm not convinced, and nothing you provide can convince me. I will take it out of context, ignore other information")

From the abstract you critiqued:

EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) level II clinical studies, which are accepted by the European Union to show safety and efficacy of medical treatments, were performed to evaluate the benefit of complementary systemic enzyme therapy in cancer patients suffering from breast and colorectal cancers and plasmacytoma. These studies demonstrated that systemic enzyme therapy significantly decreased tumor-induced and therapy-induced side effects and complaints such as nausea, gastrointestinal complaints, fatigue, weight loss, and restlessness and obviously stabilized the quality of life. For plasmacytoma patients, complementary systemic enzyme therapy was shown to increase the response rates, the duration of remissions, and the overall survival times. These promising data resulted in an "orphan drug status" designation for a systemic enzyme product, which should motivate further studies on this complementary treatment.

So there are EBM studies, and regulatory agencies have seen enough evidence to grant proteolytic enzymes orphan status for cancer therapy, but the omniscient eric won't budge an inch in discussing this ... nope, not convinced, doesn't prove anything.

I was going to remark on your yet again posting an abstract without any reference or link to the actual article so that we could judge what's in it and what relevance it might have. But since the article (in an obscure journal) is in Ukrainian, most of us would have a tough time figuring it out anyway. :)

"That is the genius of your game. First, you demand everything in the language of "evidence based medicine" (which is not the same as ordinary scientific evidence). Then, even when such information is provided, you say "that doesn't prove anything" (which is code for "I'm not convinced, and nothing you provide can convince me. I will take it out of context, ignore other information")"

First, I don't regard debunking quackery and bad science as a "game". If it's a game, the losers are the people who shell out for these bad remedies. Secondly, abstracts such as the ones you continually link to are by definition taken out of context. It is reasonable to ask where the beef is (many papers are available in full online, as well as discussions of their significance, such as the one I provided for Gonzalez's failed work).

The Gonzalez experience is also a good example of what happens when one relies on preliminary pilot studies or work in lower animals/test tube studies as "proof" of a treatment's efficacy. The skeptics who wanted to see a more rigorous trial in this case were vindicated; the coffee enema advocates are stuck with using untrustworthy testimonials and whining about "prejudice" against their methods.

Thank you for acknowledging your error about promoting Gonzalez's work.

An example of how "detoxification" has become a major source of business for some practitioners can be found here.

"Dr. Forrest" and his associates have quite the operation going, offering a big line of supplements to cleanse your poor inefficient body (they want you to "detox" all the usual organs like kidneys and liver, plus some more unusual ones like the pancreas, spleen and "lymph system"). All of this is an ongoing, never-ending process, a marketing technique which is more understandable when you discover (it takes some searching to do so) that Dr. Forrest is a chiropractor who has branched out (as many of his colleagues have) into "nutrition" and pseudoscientific treatments (like "hologenesis mind and emotion transformation"). The website is a gold mine of nonsensical warnings about the usual gold mine of diseases alt practitioners cash in on (including Candida and "parasites" (you've got to cleanse yourself of the imaginary parasites right along with the imaginary toxins). From the "detoxification" section of the website:

"Imagine your car. Imagine always using the best gas, the best oil and keeping your car well washed and waxed. Pretty nice. Now imagine that you never change the oil or the oil filter. You have the picture, sooner or later you car will break down.

With our bodies it is the same. It is important to not only make sure we put the best foods into us but also to make sure that the oil filters of our body, the liver, kidneys and lymph and the oil, the blood, are working at their best. With most of us years of poor diet and incomplete elimineation, infectiions, lack of exercie has caused our body to function below its optimum. The liver, kidneys and lymph became congested. Other organs loose their potetncy and the body begins to break down producing lower energy and all the various illnesses we are so familliar with."

Love that analogy about the car's oil filter. Dr. Forrest has so little faith in (or apparently, knowledge about) our body's marvelous physiologic capacity for dealing with everyday functions and challenges - we're just a hunk of defective machinery to him that constantly has to be in the shop (his) to flush out the toxins that cause all those chronic diseases (not).
By the way, sorry about those spelling and grammar errors in Forrest's spiel - but they are faithfully reproduced from his website.

You wonder how much cash that clinic takes in from semilegitimate endeavors (treating musculoskeletal disorders) as compared to the business of selling worthless supplements, dubious testing and weird devices. It's the old story - convince the mark (sorry, patient) that he/she has a nonexistent malady, and sell him all sorts of stuff to fix/prevent the problem (on a never-ending basis).

Hi eric,
Parasites can be real.
I had one that was easily as long as my shod foot come out from where the sun don't shine ( get to see some things clearly when living out in the bush).
Starved the thing as best I could with a fairly long fast ( fasting drink was ground psyllium seed & volcanic bentonite type of clay).
On 2nd day of resumed food ate a rough type of traditional cracker that apparently scraped it loose, head & tail intact.

There's no question that parasites exist (especially in tropical countries with less developed medical systems like the Dominican Republic, where you're from).

In developed industrialized societies parasites have become much less common. However, there's been a resurgence in recent years of parasite fears. A Google search and a tour of alt med forums reveals that lots of people are needlessly worried about parasites (ranging from Candida, a normal commensal inhabitant of the body, to various worms and protozoans) and attempting "cleanses" to get rid of what they either don't have (in the vast majority of cases) or doesn't affect their health). Elements of the supplement industry profit off these fears with useless products and devices. One of the worst offenders is a practitioner who has convinced numerous followers that all cancers are caused by an exotic liver parasite and that they can "zap" the creatures away with an electrical device.

Coming at this from my cellular and molecular biology background (not a medical perspective) I can say that the line between deadly parasite and Vital symbiont is a fuzzy one, Some organisms are necessary for the survival of others, but can kill those same said others. There is a strong correlation between a lack of H. pylori (which its self causes stomach ulcers) and childhood asthma. This doesn't mean H. pylori cures asthma but it does perhaps suggest that Parasites aren't all bad.

Bottom line is that the world was not designed perfectly for humans to inhabit.

Hi brendan o/b,
2.5 oz. daily of broccoli sprouts inhibits, does not destroy, H. pylori in adult humans. (2.5 oz sprouts' sulforaphane content = 15 pounds fresh broccoli.)
Measured by stool marker HpSA dropping 40%; stop eating broccoli sprouts & HpSA level goes back up in 8 weeks.
Published Cancer Preventative Research journal, John Hopkins Univ. study

Hygene is actually responsible for loss of H. pylori in children, sterile childhood environments etc..

Microbial infections like that caused by Helicobacter pylori are not classified as parasitic, though it's interesting to hear about the effects of broccoli sprouts.
Maybe the compounds in broccoli that have an anti-Helicobacter effect could be worked with to create an effective drug that completely eradicates the organism (a subject of particular interest in Japan and other parts of Asia, where stomach cancer rates are notably higher than in the U.S. (Helicobacter in a small minority of cases is linked to formation of stomach carcinoma and lymphoma)).

Not from a medical perspective no, but its probably more a matter of convention. Looking at what parasitic means in a biological sense they fit, which works for me and my explanation of how parasite and symbiont are fuzzy concepts. I've heard about some intestinal round worms and chron's disease but don't have enough information to be sure of myself there, so I used an example I was more sure of.

Since this thread has been dredged up by a spammer I'll state my opinions on "detoxes".

I think if one's usual diet is "dairy, caffeine and processed foods" and "sugar, alcohol, caffeine, gluten and animal products" as some "famous people" report, then one probably needs a "detox". Or at least to eliminate those toxic substances from one's diet for a week or more.

If the usual diet is high in fresh and mostly raw veggies, some fruit, and some high quality protein with none of the unhealthy stuff then a "detox" will never be necessary.

The most I ever do to detox is to use raw garlic for a few days and ensure my water intake is sufficient. I expect there are some parasites attached to fresh imported produce which is why I like to use raw garlic occasionally. If I have no parasites the garlic probably won't hurt and I like the flavor anyhow.

I try to use "food as my medicine".

If you're eating a poor and unhealthy diet, you don't need "detoxing" - you need to start eating a healthier diet.

"Lets say youve got this very important meting that you need to be at and just about the time you sat down, you had this terrible urge to go."

I've had that urge at lots of meetings, depending on the subject matter. Sometimes even before walking into the meeting. :)

I suspect the word "detox" is to this forum what the word "marriage" is to those against homosexual marriage.

The religious aspect was touched on earlier.

If someone wants to be healthy, they're going to be better off eating healthily and avoiding foods that their body doesn't handle well (ex: if you can't handle gluten, avoid things that contain it) and exercising regularly than going on sudden "detox" diets and then going right back to eating junk food.

I agree that going right back to eating junk food is unwise - in fact, there is little reason to condone eating food if it is junk (although such empty calories are a problem only when consumed 'to excess' (however one wishes to define that)).

For some people, simply cutting the junk food and exercising is enough. But a 'sudden' detox can have effects not seen with a 'slow but steady' approach.

Consider the article linked to below. 18 diabetic patients were put on a very low calorie diet for a month (450 calories/day, no glucose lowering medicines). Not only did they lose weight, improve their blood sugar and blood lipids and reduce blood pressure - much of that effect was still evident 18 months later.

Most detoxes are based on a modified fast - other studies have shown that fasting can be of benefit to psoriasis, arthritis, high blood pressure, and a host of other conditions.