5 ms·

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/subtle-changes-can-be-yours-for-fifty-dollars-a-month http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/201

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/subtle-changes-can-be-yours-for-fifty-dollars-a-month http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

amelius 9y ago
> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy. Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic. Why is this a controversy?
- beagle3 9y ago
  The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.
  - amelius 9y ago
    But there's a whole scientific field called "toxicology". Anyway, I don't like the phrase "anyone who ... is likely to be ..." in the linked article. It's basically an ad hominem attack, and not very scientific in itself (unless you take it literally, but in that case the author should have been more explicit imho, to avoid confusion/insinuation).
    - monochromatic 9y ago
      How about "anyone trying to sell you a supplement who talks about toxins"?
    - Doxin 9y ago
      Correct, and a toxicologist would be able to tell you which toxin specifically is being targeted by a treatment. A quack not so much.
- sndean 9y ago
  If you have a functioning liver, then you're fine. There are also some popular "detox" methods that can themselves be harmful [0]. Legitimate detoxes are done for people who are opiate-dependent, and a few others (who probably have a malfunctioning liver from their substance abuse and are consuming large quantities of substances that are toxic) [1]. [0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-it-and-how-to-avoid-it/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-... [1] internal medicine fiancee who sees a lot of those patients
tchaffee 9y ago
Because of the wording of the marketing? As soon as the author sees the word detoxification, he is triggered? While seeing the word "detox" in marketing materials might be a good heuristic if you need to make a snap decision, there is enough time to evaluate the scientific claims and make a decision based on that. If you're going to put a substance in your body on a daily basis for the rest of your life, one would hope you would use more than a heuristic when making that decision.
- monochromatic 9y ago
  Except the scientific claims won't be resolved anytime soon.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    So instead use a heuristic based on the wording of the marketing? I'd rather just say there isn't enough evidence to decide yet and leave it at that.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/subtle-changes-can-be-yours-for-fifty-dollars-a-month http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

amelius 9y ago

> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy. Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic. Why is this a controversy?

beagle3 9y ago
The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.
- amelius 9y ago
  But there's a whole scientific field called "toxicology". Anyway, I don't like the phrase "anyone who ... is likely to be ..." in the linked article. It's basically an ad hominem attack, and not very scientific in itself (unless you take it literally, but in that case the author should have been more explicit imho, to avoid confusion/insinuation).
  - monochromatic 9y ago
    How about "anyone trying to sell you a supplement who talks about toxins"?
  - Doxin 9y ago
    Correct, and a toxicologist would be able to tell you which toxin specifically is being targeted by a treatment. A quack not so much.
sndean 9y ago
If you have a functioning liver, then you're fine. There are also some popular "detox" methods that can themselves be harmful [0]. Legitimate detoxes are done for people who are opiate-dependent, and a few others (who probably have a malfunctioning liver from their substance abuse and are consuming large quantities of substances that are toxic) [1]. [0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-it-and-how-to-avoid-it/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-... [1] internal medicine fiancee who sees a lot of those patients

tchaffee 9y ago

Because of the wording of the marketing? As soon as the author sees the word detoxification, he is triggered? While seeing the word "detox" in marketing materials might be a good heuristic if you need to make a snap decision, there is enough time to evaluate the scientific claims and make a decision based on that. If you're going to put a substance in your body on a daily basis for the rest of your life, one would hope you would use more than a heuristic when making that decision.

monochromatic 9y ago
Except the scientific claims won't be resolved anytime soon.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  So instead use a heuristic based on the wording of the marketing? I'd rather just say there isn't enough evidence to decide yet and leave it at that.