Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work

I disagree with gravity. Also numbers. It's just a theory, I mean have you ever counted to a trillion?

Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark.

I know, right? Look at schematic diagrams and the abbreviation for a light bulb is often "DS" ... dark sucker.

absolutely. and we should all swallow fairy lights to cleanse the dark out of our colons

and then poop rainbows

After eating birthday cake with multicolored frosting we've all been pooping rainbows in my house this week.

5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.

You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?

Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.

Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?

Thanks in advance.:happy:

http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.

yeah, I'm totally going to accept that a document from a source called "http://balancedconcepts.net/" who offers "nutritional services" is more informed than something published by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed . Sounds legit.

A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.

The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)

The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.

The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.

5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.

You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?

Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.

Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?

Thanks in advance.:happy:

http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.

That's an interesting pdf - but it has some junk science that someone has either made up or misunderstood or over simplified.

Lets take arsenic - the liver does not just metabolize arsenic into water soluble compounds that are simply eliminated. Actually metalic arsenic is more water soluble than the organoarsenic metabolites, methylation of metalic arsenic results in bioactive intermediates.

The phrase " The role of these various enzyme activities in the liver is to convert fat soluble toxins into water soluble substances that can be excreted in the urine" in the pdf is incorrect. The general idea that these converted substances are detoxified is often correct but not so for arsenic. The metabolites are highly toxic. Time for another reference, so you don't tell me again that I'm making things up.

In humans, as in most mammalian species, inorganic arsenic is methylated to methylarsonic acid (MMA) and dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) by alternating reduction of pentavalent arsenic to trivalent and addition of a methyl group from S-adenosylmethionine. The methylation of inorganic arsenic may be considered a detoxification mechanism, as the end metabolites, MMA and DMA, are less reactive with tissue constituents, less toxic, and more readily excreted in the urine than is inorganic arsenic, especially the trivalent form (AsIII, arsenite). The latter is highly reactive with tissue components, due to its strong affinity for sulfhydryl groups. Thus, following exposure to AsV the first step in the biotransformation, i.e. the reduction to AsIII, may be considered a bioactivation. Also, reactive intermediate metabolites of high toxicity, mainly MMAIII, may be formed and distributed to tissues. Low levels of MMAIII and DMAIII have been detected in urine of individuals chronically exposed to inorganic arsenic via drinking water. However, the contribution of MMAIIIand DMAIII to the toxicity observed after intake of inorganic arsenic by humans remains to be elucidated. The major route of excretion of arsenic is via the kidneys. Evaluation of the methylation of arsenic is mainly based on the relative amounts of the different metabolites in urine. On average human urine contains 10-30% inorganic arsenic, 10-20% MMA and 60-80% DMA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11484904

This address point 3, too.

Agree to disagree. The detox diet I am currently on is the most life altering thing I had ever done.

People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.

I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.

NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.

A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.

The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)

The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.

The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.

Science moved away from calling anything a "law" several years ago--gravity IS a theory. It may not be true, but after repeated experimentation, it is the best explanation for the observed phenomenon. Science wants to always be open to the possibility of new discoveries and explanations. As pp said, don't confuse scientific theory with run of the mill theory that regular Joes like to talk about.

People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.

I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.

NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.

A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.

The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)

The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.

The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.

Science moved away from calling anything a "law" several years ago--gravity IS a theory. It may not be true, but after repeated experimentation, it is the best explanation for the observed phenomenon. Science wants to always be open to the possibility of new discoveries and explanations. As pp said, don't confuse scientific theory with run of the mill theory that regular Joes like to talk about.

3) The "detoxing" process of the liver actually increases the bioavailability of the metabolite and increases the cancer causing effects of arsenic.

Can you please explain to me in further detail about #3. Specifically how does the "detoxing process increase the bioavailability.

Thanks.

Gravity is but a myth invented by people who are too lazy to try to fly. We have all been brainwashed at birth to believe that we can't fly because of gravity, but if we work hard enough to get over this brainwashing, we can, in fact, fly.

Gravity is basically force at a distance, pfft!!! that breaks some laws of physics. And no scientist has yet been able to find any graviton particles.

Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark. They appear brighter the closer you get to the light, because that's where they are sucking the most dark. If you don't believe me, then take a dead battery out of a torch and open it up. It's full of dark powder. That's all the dark that the torch has sucked. The battery dies because it's sucked too much dark. The sun may appear to be giving light, but it's actually an extremely efficient dark sucker. Space is mostly full of dark, but the area around stars appears to be brighter, because stars are such efficient dark suckers.

[/pseudoscience]

You just made my day!