Mad medicine, bad advice, bad reporting - Part 6: Detox

In the final post in my series on Viva Mayr and the tangents one must embark on when discussing this ridiculousness is on that word which is thrown around by every teen magazine and diet guru as if it had meaning:

Your guess is as good as mine:  I don't know what this diagram aims to show.  But it does make a good point: "detox" claims have little regard for even the most well-established science - in this case, basic anatomy.

Detox

I would just like call into question the liberal use of the word detox.  If anyone who wishes to broaden their minds and rid themselves of the yoke of ignorance,  would type the word “detoxification” into Wikipedia, go to the disambiguation page and select the “alternative medicine” option, you would be faced with the following definition:

Detoxification is an alternative medicine approach that proponents claim rids the body of "toxins", accumulated harmful substances that are alleged to exert undesirable effects on individual health. Detoxification usually includes one or more of: dieting, fasting, consuming exclusively or avoiding specific foods (such as fats, carbohydrates, fruits, vegetables, juices, herbs, or water), colon cleansing, chelation therapy, or the removal of dental fillings. (9) (10)  Body cleansing is not supported by science, with no medical benefits demonstrated, and is based on questionable or disproved scientific claims.(11) (12) (13) (14)

Those wishing to defend the embattled term “detoxification”,  will immediately jump to shout that Wikipedia is an undependable resource.  A claim to which I respond in two parts:

1.       All of the references from the article have been added to the table of references available here.  Should anyone wish to scrutinize any of the claims, all of the information which has been used to create the above definition can easily be accessed from any computer with an internet connection.  I am sure that the respective authors would welcome any questions or criticisms on the methodologies or conclusions.

2.       A claim accusing another of unreliability coming from people who depend on word-of-mouth, anecdotes and dubious “professionals” to convince them about efficacy of treatments for which there is, consistently, a lack of evidence could easily reach cataclysmic levels of irony.  I would advise individuals making such accusations to turn that same critical eye upon to the world to which you normally look to guide you with regards to healthcare decisions.

It has been delightful to write this.  It has also been deeply depressing.  The fact that such things exist and are so commonplace makes one feel overpowered, overwhelmed and outnumbered.

If you are reading this blog in agreement, you must realize that it is your task as scientifically minded person to fight bad science and baseless claims.  We must engage with the world around us and question and foil those whose aim is to exploit and prey upon the uninformed and the desperate.

Although it is not always easy (and the varying tone of these post are testimony) to do so with all the kindness and compassion the task requires, this should always be a priority.  Antagonism and ridicule (although great fun to write) is unlikely to convince anyone face-to-face.