Talk:Body cleansing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
I'd be very interested to see some sources on this. Is this practice uncommon just because it's unpleasant or because nobody's proven it to have any benefits? 68.35.68.100 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, personally I thought the insights about GI reaction to the toxins were especially illuminating considering the many "colorful" claims on many of these sites. Colon Cleansing from a Gastroenterologist's perspective." If there was really something to it, wouldn't Dr's use this stuff to say...cure colon cancer or Crohn's disease or something , but they don't.
Although, there are certainly detractors with regards to the health benefits of body cleansing, there are certainly respectable doctors who attribute great success in treating patients with body cleansing and nutritional programs. Dr. Becky Natrajan, M.D., a gastroenterologist in Tucson, AZ, has stated that she has seen more success in improving the health of her patients since she started treating her patients with a combination of both cellular cleansing products and nutritional supplements than the 11 years combined leading up to her use of cleansing to aid her practice of medicine. Other doctors who use body cleansing in their practice with similar results are Dr. Dennis Harper, D.O. of St. George, UT and also family practitioner and nutritionist Dr. Cynthia Watson, M.D of Santa Monica, CA. Dr. Becky Natrajan, M.D. states that when the body is cleansed properly and given the proper nutrition, it allows the body to heal itself. She has seen many diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, gastrointestinal disorders (IBS, Crohn's, Diverticulosis, etc.), fibromyalgia, lupus, obesity, and heart disease cured using body cleansing. She emphatically states that miracle is not the cleansing or the nutrition, but that these things allow the body to heal itself naturally, as it was designed to do. Fox 31 News in Denver, CO attempted to debunk body cleansing by having volunteers use body cleansing and nutritional products. The test lasted 9 days and the volunteers wound up feeling much more energy, healthier, and as a side-effect lost weight, all while preserving muscle mass. Weight loss, Fox 31 News concluded, was a side-effect of a cleaner, healthier body.
-
- But this is but anecdotal evidence. Where is the double-blind, randomized controlled trials? And as for the notion that FOX is capable of designing any scientific tests... that's laughable. Gillyweed 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've been around too long to assume that because there are no double-blind, randomized controlled trials, that there are no benefits. I've seen entirely too many cases of claims (of anything) being debunked simply because the prevailing opinion in the field (that this is quackery, which it is, in that the majority of the practicioners don't really know what they're talking about in a medical sense) or the circumstances, prevent 'respectable' people from *doing* trials (though a turkey with a piece of paper is still a turkey). Then, of course, there's researcher bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that there's no quackery here, I'm only pointing out that the absence of trials only proves that trials haven't been done. It's very possible to cling to an assignation of the burden of proof until you're simply ignoring the blatantly obvious, like, for example, the fact that by far the majority of North Americans are deeply invested in a dangerous, potentially fatal eating regimen (including me, by the way). It's hardly worth arguing that eating food that is actually good for you for a week or more is going to help, and quickly, and noticeably, making you feel better, more energetic, etc. Perhaps we should be careful in our rush to assign accusations of quackery that we are not defending the incredibly unhealthy practises and unhealthful foods that we routinely eat, and which are undeniably endangering our health. If that's what we're doing, are we really defending or helping anyone? Wasn't there a hippocratic oath once upon a time? Sigma-6 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There is a difference between promoting "healthy eating" and promoting "detoxification" through devices, supplements, or
-
other therapies. If such therapies had such clear effects, it would be vary easy to do a double-blind study, and quite inexpensive - the producer of such a study would easily gain fame. The biggest reason such studies are not out there is that any that have been carried out have failed, and the researchers have not published them. j-beda 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] criticism
I'm removing the reference to the non-quackwatch website from the criticism section. If someone thinks it belongs there, discuss it here.
[edit] NPOV
This is an advocacy piece in favor of "body cleansing." We need some sources here. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
