Toxins
Replies
-
Well i don't speak french but from the diagram it appears to have something to do with cheerleading and a basket toss. and some kind of giant tampon?
LMAO!! Funniest response ever.
That is actually a diagram of cholera toxin, the vibrio is the bacteria although it sure resembles a tampon0 -
So, not having the patience today to read through all the arguing, did anyone actually even propose a specific toxin, by name, which is actually known to be eliminated by any "cleanse" or "detox" technique?0
-
So, not having the patience today to read through all the arguing, did anyone actually even propose a specific toxin, by name, which is actually known to be eliminated by any "cleanse" or "detox" technique?
I did not see one.0 -
So, not having the patience today to read through all the arguing, did anyone actually even propose a specific toxin, by name, which is actually known to be eliminated by any "cleanse" or "detox" technique?
I did not see one.
Uhuh! Just a lot of bluster about cliques and lackeys and butthurt.0 -
So, not having the patience today to read through all the arguing, did anyone actually even propose a specific toxin, by name, which is actually known to be eliminated by any "cleanse" or "detox" technique?
i did.
Lemmiwinks.0 -
my nanna (97, lived independently until 95) swears by having a sqeeze of lemon juice in boiling water first thing in the morning to wake up the body ready for the day.
That'll be my lemon detox perhaps...0 -
I shouldn't have read this thread. The amount of misinformation is sad.
Re: microorganisms in the blood
Bacteria in the blood is called bacteremia. The blood is a STERILE environment. There should be no bacteria in the blood. Bacteremia is one of the causes of septic shock (bacteremia --> septicemia --> septic shock). There should also be no candida in the blood. Candida is normally a noninvasive microorganism. Most infections are superficial (vaginal yeast infection, diaper rash, etc). If it invades that means you are immunocompromised (AIDS, transplant patients, etc) and weren't healthy in the first place. Again, candidemia is extremely rare without preexisting risk factors (like a really bad immune system).
Also the blood shouldn't be mildly acidic or mildly basic. The accepted pH range is between 7.35-7.45. Anything more or less than that is cause for concern.
If you are healthy and your organs are functioning correctly. There is no reason for a detox. That's what your liver is for. If you need to detox, you're not healthy.
And that list of toxins? Really? If people are ingesting some of those in large enough amounts, the poison control center should be contacted. Sodium laureth sulfate is a detergent, found in shampoos, dish soap, toothpaste (which you shouldn't be swallowing anyway) etc.
Arsenic is a toxin. So is shigela toxin. And cholera toxin. Oh and so is the toxin from C. botulinum.
Our bodies are smarter than we could ever hope to be. Why don't we let it do what it's supposed to do? It doesn't need our help.
Can you please provide us a pic of a blood sample, google one.
Wow, see this is what puts the lie to your position as someome trying to have an intelligent discussion. What the posters is writing is essentially correct and would be close to my position with some variations.
Blood is not a sterile environment - blood contains a variety of human cells and cannot therefore be considered sterile. It might be aseptic, in that it contains no disease causing micro-organisms. This is really the only major correction I'd make. Blood is generally aseptic under healthy conditions. However, to consider it sterile is a leap in faith - a variety of blood borne vectors exist (from HIV to Hep. to EBV etc.) and can be easily present in an individual of apparent healthy condition. Blood is not considered sterile and is treated as a biohazard due to the disease vectors it might carry. However, the rest of the quote is pretty much what is considered the standard level of knowledge with regards to candida or random poisons cleanses.
I would suggest that if you are going to conisder alternate views you demand rigorous methods; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. None is being provided.
Now, since shots were fired in this thread I am going to open up a little and perhaps clarify a thing or two. A bit personal so I hope it gets treated with respect.
Of the people posting in this thread, I am willing to bet that I am one of the few currently dealing with candida. My mother is quite ill (terminally so) and also has a minor oral thrush. Even in an immonodepressed person post-chemotherapy, systemic candidemia is pretty rare. And the treatment for thrush (oral or other) is certainly NOT a cleanse but anti-fungals.
So yeah, not only am I amused by the idea of systemic thrush because I am quite evidently NOT seeing that in her blood work but reading some select quotes to my mother - it was amusing for her too. So that makes another biologist (she taught biology for 45 years) considering doubtful the utility of clenses for a systemic conditions that likely does not exist.0 -
It's a shame people can't offer their opinions without being shot down in flames.
Rude.
I'm not a scientest/scholar - but when I stay away from as many chemicals/ additives as I can- via environment and food for an extended period of time I feel better, have more energy and clarity.
I think this is what PU is getting at.
Most of the people on MFP aren't looking for a thesis - it's just a conversation.
^^^^^^THIS
I read through these pages, and sadly, what I see and probably others see as well, is alot of back and forth arguing due to personal dislikes and past history some have with each other due to arguments in other threads, without alot of common sense.
You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.
I personally do not think anyone is promoting crazy cleanses where you eat nothing, or other gimmicky things that are aimed at taking people's money.
Yes, I also agree that our bodies are wonderful in that they are equipped to cleanse itself, but due to the daily assault on it, helping the organs along definitely do not hurt it. Our skin, our liver, the lymph nodes, our digestive system, all work harmoniously together.
I don't know where some of you live, but when you drive into New York City area, you can actually see the haze of pollution that hangs over the city. They actually call New Jersey "the armpit" because of its smell. There are rumors that certain fenced off areas are left that way for the local industry to dump their waste there. You drive by these areas, you smell it. Coincidentally, New Jersey also had the highest cancer rate in the nation for many years, but now is 5th in the nation. http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/heartbeats/2010/04/12/cancer-alley-no-more-incidence-declining-in-most-of-new-jersey/
It would be great if there could be some sort of "happy medium" in these discussions, instead of an all or nothing, "I'm right and you're wrong" type of approach. Usually there is some truth in both sides of the issue.0 -
I loled
Can you please provide us a pic of a blood sample, google one.
not sure why you want a picture of blood, but here you go:
0 -
I had 178g of sugar today. Do I need to detox? All this talk about candida in my blood has me scared.0
-
I had 178g of sugar today. Do I need to detox? All this talk about candida in my blood has me scared.
Just drink lots of juice and be sure to do an enema.
It works great when your blood is full of bacteria or viruses, right? So why wouldn't it clear you of fungus too?0 -
I had 178g of sugar today. Do I need to detox? All this talk about candida in my blood has me scared.
Just drink lots of juice and be sure to do an enema.
It works great when your blood is full of bacteria or viruses, right? So why wouldn't it clear you of fungus too?
Does it need to be a coffee enema? I love the kick they gives me
0 -
No, but, in all seriousness PU as you seem to be the only one who believes detoxing works...
What specific things do you believe you can ingest and remove toxins? What specific products remove specific toxins?
I saw something about a green smoothie, fasting, or consuming 800-1200 calories but you didn't specify which specific items are capable of "detoxing".
Can you clarify? And if so, how do you believe they work?0 -
It's a shame people can't offer their opinions without being shot down in flames.
Rude.
I'm not a scientest/scholar - but when I stay away from as many chemicals/ additives as I can- via environment and food for an extended period of time I feel better, have more energy and clarity.
I think this is what PU is getting at.
Most of the people on MFP aren't looking for a thesis - it's just a conversation.
^^^^^^THIS
I read through these pages, and sadly, what I see and probably others see as well, is alot of back and forth arguing due to personal dislikes and past history some have with each other due to arguments in other threads, without alot of common sense.
You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.
I personally do not think anyone is promoting crazy cleanses where you eat nothing, or other gimmicky things that are aimed at taking people's money.
Yes, I also agree that our bodies are wonderful in that they are equipped to cleanse itself, but due to the daily assault on it, helping the organs along definitely do not hurt it. Our skin, our liver, the lymph nodes, our digestive system, all work harmoniously together.
I don't know where some of you live, but when you drive into New York City area, you can actually see the haze of pollution that hangs over the city. They actually call New Jersey "the armpit" because of its smell. There are rumors that certain fenced off areas are left that way for the local industry to dump their waste there. You drive by these areas, you smell it. Coincidentally, New Jersey also had the highest cancer rate in the nation for many years, but now is 5th in the nation. http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/heartbeats/2010/04/12/cancer-alley-no-more-incidence-declining-in-most-of-new-jersey/
It would be great if there could be some sort of "happy medium" in these discussions, instead of an all or nothing, "I'm right and you're wrong" type of approach. Usually there is some truth in both sides of the issue.
I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?
Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'0 -
I work in a hospital and see blood cultures all of the time. Candida and harmful bacteria are not usually present in healthy individuals. Sorry.0
-
You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.0 -
If common sense were as powerful as people think it is, the concept of science wouldn't exist nor would it be of any utility to anyone. Science exists and is so incredibly powerful and useful specifically because common sense and human perception are such heavily flawed methods of truth detection.Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.0 -
If common sense were as powerful as people think it is, the concept of science wouldn't exist nor would it be of any utility to anyone. Science exists and is so incredibly powerful and useful specifically because common sense and human perception are such heavily flawed methods of truth detection.Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
Precisely.0 -
If common sense were as powerful as people think it is, the concept of science wouldn't exist nor would it be of any utility to anyone. Science exists and is so incredibly powerful and useful specifically because common sense and human perception are such heavily flawed methods of truth detection.Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
0 -
Was all over the news a couple weeks ago how our kids will be the first generation in decades NOT to live as long as their parents.0
-
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.0 -
I believe that eating right can remove all toxins from your body. The foods that support the liver are the way to go.
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf0 -
Was all over the news a couple weeks ago how our kids will be the first generation in decades NOT to live as long as their parents.
and de-toxing regularly (or at all) will reverse this trend???0 -
If common sense were as powerful as people think it is, the concept of science wouldn't exist nor would it be of any utility to anyone. Science exists and is so incredibly powerful and useful specifically because common sense and human perception are such heavily flawed methods of truth detection.Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
:flowerforyou:0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Based on?0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).0 -
Should I have my dogs do a cleanse? Cause of the pesticides and bad air and processed dog foods.
I really want to rid them of toxins!0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).
Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).
Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.
No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!
0 -
I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?
Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'
I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.
In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions