Is Detoxification bullshit?

[PainRack]

Excessive sugar and heart disease; well, there is a known problem, called Syndrome X or paradoxical hyperglycaemia, in which insulin and blood glucose are simultaneously raised. People with this problem often go on to develop type 2 diabetes later, and both problems are just about always caused by decades of excessive sugar comsumption. Human hormone and enzyme systems are not well adapted to large quantities of easily absorbed sugar, especially when it isn't burned off by exercise, and sooner or later it can cause these problems. This problem is also negatively correlated with blood chromium levels and positively correlated with chromium levels in urine, which may suggest something.

Research has shown no direct link between sugar consumption and the development of diabetes. Any link so far has always been linked to obesity as a result of sugar consumption.

As for not being well adapted? Says who? You can drink an entire litre of orange juice or sugarcane and your sugar level will go back down to normal within an hour.

At any rate, it is well known that type 2 diabetes, and certainly syndrome X, are usually helped by dietary restriction, including exclusion of sugar-containing products and those containing easily-digested starch such as white bread. Strangely enough, a diet similar to the Atkins one works rather well. It is also known that both these problems are correlated with heart disease, and most doctors believe the relationship to be causal.

NO IT DOESN"T.
Yes, moderating diet is one of the most important tools in managing diabetes but the Atkins diet isn't one of them. Considering one of the complications of diabetes is ketoacidosis, increasing that risk factor by adding another causal factor is insane, Show me the evidence that Atkins diet is suitable for diabetics.

Doctors don't cure people? No, sometimes they don't - especially with chronic problems such as osteoarthritis, and the more honest ones will tell you so.

Because osteoarthritis has no cure. Its a plain, simple fact. Even chiropracters and other forms of alternative medicine acknowledge this.

For chronic problems such as this, "alternative" methods (did I mention that N.D. is now a more common medical qualification than M.D.? perhaps not) often work a great deal better - and usually don't make you ill in some other way in the process; an example might be glucosamine sulphate for arthritis as opposed to ibuprofen.

And what makes you think glucosamine isn't being prescribed? As for side-effects, you are aware of the common side effects of glucosamine such as indigestion and its interaction with other drugs?
mednet
Odd isn't it? Other than the risk for kidney complications, the side-effects are almost the same as ibuprofen.

Pharma doesn't influence doctors? Hmmm... maybe there is some reason why the official figures for desirable cholesterol level go down every year? I do know for a fact that doctors in the UK get bonuses of some sort for vaccinations, cholesterol testing and so on. Now - if a doctor has your cholesterol tested, and an official source tells him it's too high, and you already have a decent diet, what is he going to do?

Depending on how long you been visiting him, he will suggest pharma. If this is your first visit, he certainly SHOULDN"T be prescribing meds unless your cholesterol level is already dangerously elevated.

Let's sum this up - the whole of this thread in fact. I am saying that doctors are so immersed in the culture of "a pill for every ill" and so dominated by the completely biased information available (4 years of pharmacology, a couple of weeks of nutrition, I believe) that not only do they usually not cure people and miss what's under their noses but, yes, they do harm people. And some of them don't give a damn, either. (Suppressing symptoms is NOT a cure, and neither is installing a mechanical replacement.)

And its pure nonsense. First of all, you're also prescribing pills and not some form of real lifestyle change. Vitamins and supplements are also prescribed as per neccesary, and more importantly, health advice on lifestyle changes are also forthcoming. The UK also has a very strong community health programme backed up by doctors and nurses. In fact, IIRC, the UK uses a relatively strong authoritian approach in its community health program, ranging from regulations on food additives and enrichment to smoking and so forth. You know, the stuff that really makes a difference in good health.

You have absolutely provided no proof whatsoever that UK medical system don't provide good quality healthcare.

Others here are saying that not only I, but everyone else in my profession, are unqualified quacks who sell completely useless snake oil.

Depending on your products, yes, you are. Again, detoxification is just pure bullshit. There's a thin line between "you must manage your diet carefully to enhance your health" and "toxins are invading our body!" and you crossed it.

Right, someone tell me something about this (someone is going to light the "anecdote" flame here); girl X (about 25) who, knowing that I work in the herbs and supplements business, asked me what to do about her psoriasis. I might add that she had already gone the rounds and been subjected to phototherapy, assorted highly toxic drugs and disgustingly smelly creams that stained her clothes, and none of all this crap worked. My suggestion, having ascertained that for weight control reasons she was avoiding fish (high in fat!), was cod liver oil - which, incidentally, she bought elsewhere.

Problem gone in 3 weeks as if she had never had it. Doctors had spent a year not curing the problem.

And how does cod liver oil work? And given the high consumption of cod liver oil in the general populace, why isn't this treatment effective for other people?
And toxic drugs? Say what? The most toxic component of psorasis pharmco management is steroids.......... if you think that's toxic, you haven't touched chemo yet.

[PainRack]

That's a dangerous mode of thinking Stuart, first of all because in all of alternative medicine there are actually very few real quacks. Even therapeutic touch, running hands over someone to give them "Qi" powers is practised in hospitals (although they don't call it "Qi").

Its called money:D
The issue isn't over alternative medicine vs western medicine. Its simply the issue of medicine. Accupuncture is being used because there is some form of evidence that it works, although it isn't conclusive. Qigong exercises for cancer patients again, some evidence, although whether its simply because activity increases their comfort and tolerance to pain or that qigong has some innate ability is arguable.

Medicine is the only practical science where the underlying mechanisms may be unknown and yet its practised.

Second and most important is nobody wants to be sick. Whether or not their symptoms are self invented is immaterial, because unless the person is deliberately inventing symptoms for sympathy (and who the hell wants to waste time and money going to every doctor on the planet), psychological symptoms still deserve treatment. Just because they're psychological doesn't make them less real. What kind of treatment is the only question, and psychological problems may have an underlying diet or lifestyle issue.

Except that there really are these kind of quacks wondering around seeking treatment, and unless you can simply provide them with real family/friends/job/mental reconditioning, you can't really help them.

There are definitely problems that medical doctors do not and cannot pick up. I remember a ruckus here when a mobile clinic tried opening up to test senior citizens for artherosclerosis. Doctors said that any person over a certain age would have some blockage, and it was stupid to test even though the person was paying out of his own pocket. I didn't really understand then, but in hindsight the doctors were right. Even if you could test every person for every possible disease, it's a waste of resources and time better spent elsewhere. These people with small problems would run to their doctors waving the test in their hands, demanding treatment when no treatment existed besides lifestyle changes or surgery was premature.

Well....... screening has to run the gamut of effectiveness and efficiency. However, its also really a case of you get what you pay for. The problem with screening is that there has to be a cure first:D That's why nobody bothers to screen for lung cancer.

[kinnison]

Broomstick:

"Are you proposing that because we can't cure arthritis we should simply not treat it at all?"

Actually, what I am suggesting that when a doctor can't cure something he should admit the fact and send the patient to someone who might have a chance. Before sending said patient to be cut open.

Painrack:

A sensible question deserves a sensible answer. All or most of the components of cod liver oil have been shown (yes, in clinical trials) to reduce psoriasis. The three main active components for this purpose are vitamin A, vitamin D and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid). In addition, I didn't quite tell the full story - having recently seen gruesome veggie propaganda, she had quite recently stopped eating fish, and at roughly the same time the psoriasis started. Not necessarily a causal link, true - but given the fact that cod liver oil is devoid of side effects in otherwise healthy adults unless in ridiculous quantities, and that it is cheap and convenient, it was worth a try.

Adapatation to sugars; sure, you can drink a gallon of sugar pop within a couple of hours and get away with it. But can you get away with doing it every day for decades?

UK good quality healthcare? I would have thought the basics of that would include not giving patients illnesses they didn't have before treatment started - cue stats about MRSA, norovirus and C. diff in UK hospitals, never mind drug side effects.

Stuart:

Yes, sure, the problem is with Moslems. However, the problem is largely reported as being with South Asians, simply because to a very good approximation all Moslems resident in the UK, and even more so in our Northern towns, are ethnically Pakistani. I have strong objections to unrestricted immigration from South Asia, as it happens, also to the lack of risk profiling in our airport security system - but that's because of their religion, not their race. As an example, I have never heard of Hindu suicide bombers. I am quite open to correction here, but I believe that Hindus and South Asian Moslems are ethnically very similar. Their behaviour is not.

Incidentally, I also think that unrestricted immigration from Eastern Europe into the UK is a bad idea, this time for economic and infrastructure reasons.

However, this thread did not start out to be about religion or immigration, so I won't continue further.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick:

"Are you proposing that because we can't cure arthritis we should simply not treat it at all?"

Actually, what I am suggesting that when a doctor can't cure something he should admit the fact and send the patient to someone who might have a chance. Before sending said patient to be cut open.

Your potions and notions can't cure arthritis, either. Nor is "patient to be cut open" anywhere near the front line of arthritis treatment - at least in North America it isn't. Surgery is only for when a joint has been irrevocably destroyed. Prior to that, the "escalation" of treatment is as follows (in a general way):

1) Over the counter pain relief combined with moderate, low impact exercise
2) Prescription pain relief
3) Steroid injections to reduce swelling and inflammation
4) Methotrexate to halt auto-immune reactions (generally used only in the rheumatoid varieties of arthritis)
5) Surgical debridement of inter-joint debris and damaged cartilage
6) Joint replacement - as a last resort

Nowhere along the line is any claim made to "cure" arthritis. It might be driven into remission, but it's a chronic problem that requires management. That doesn't have to be pharmaceutical or surgical management if treatment begins in time and if the disease process isn't too agressive, but for cases where the joint is destroyed your potions will do no good whatsoever.

Doctors can admit there is no cure, but that doesn't mean they can't help. In absence of a cure symptom relief is quite proper and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with alleviating suffering.

Adapatation to sugars; sure, you can drink a gallon of sugar pop within a couple of hours and get away with it. But can you get away with doing it every day for decades?

I don't know - can you? Has anyone done sound scientific research on this?

UK good quality healthcare? I would have thought the basics of that would include not giving patients illnesses they didn't have before treatment started - cue stats about MRSA, norovirus and C. diff in UK hospitals, never mind drug side effects.

Funny - most norovirus is acquired in the community at large, in restaurants and on cruise ships, not in hospitals. MRSA used to be confined to hospitals, but now it, too, is a community acquired disease. I suppose you'll blame doctors for TB and HIV, next.

Drug side effects? Do you think herbs and supplements have no side effects? Excuse me - what about the effects of ephedra on blood pressure? Gingko and blood clotting? St. John's Wort interacts adversely with quite a few drugs. Chamomile can cause severe or even anaphylactic reactions in people with hayfever allergies. Too much vitamin A can be lethal. Folic acid supplements can mask B12 deficiency until severe and irreversible nerve damage occurs. Your potions, herbs, and pills most certainly do have side effects, adverse reactions, and unintended effects. How are they NOT drugs?

My father is old enough to remember when pharmacists (in the UK, chemists) had to refine and formulate pharmaceuticals from raw materials. Believe me, the profession was overjoyed to have industrial processes and controls take over to make consistent drugs of known purity. The result has been better treatment with fewer side effects and deaths over the past decades. Sure, we could do even better but you are dismissing a century or more of real progress.

[PainRack]

A sensible question deserves a sensible answer. All or most of the components of cod liver oil have been shown (yes, in clinical trials) to reduce psoriasis. The three main active components for this purpose are vitamin A, vitamin D and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid). In addition, I didn't quite tell the full story - having recently seen gruesome veggie propaganda, she had quite recently stopped eating fish, and at roughly the same time the psoriasis started. Not necessarily a causal link, true - but given the fact that cod liver oil is devoid of side effects in otherwise healthy adults unless in ridiculous quantities, and that it is cheap and convenient, it was worth a try.

Since I'm actually supposed to be busy studying instead of lazing around, I won't bother to google this. However since fish isn't cod liver oil, its extremely difficult to see how you could have formed the link anyway. And since psoarsis is actually a chronic illness with no known cure, and all treatment is only supportive in nature, whether it be coal tar or phototherapy, why can't this simply be a natural reversal?

Adapatation to sugars; sure, you can drink a gallon of sugar pop within a couple of hours and get away with it. But can you get away with doing it every day for decades?

And your solution is? Other than a healthy diet, which has been what doctors and dieticians have been advocating for decades?

The last time I checked, the low glycemic diet which supposedly is based around the sugar=insulin spike= insulin resistance and annabolic build-up which release cholesterol and fat= CAD was written by 3 doctors and an writer. A cardiologist, an endocrine specialist and a surgeon.

UK good quality healthcare? I would have thought the basics of that would include not giving patients illnesses they didn't have before treatment started - cue stats about MRSA, norovirus and C. diff in UK hospitals, never mind drug side effects.

And you know we're talking about community health here, right? That means smoking cessation programmes, laws against public smoking, the introduction of enriched flour during WW2, the introduction of milk and other diary products into children school lunches, EU regulation on food enrichment and additives....

You know, all the stuff you claim only you N.Ds do and doctors don't do.

Yes, sure, the problem is with Moslems. However, the problem is largely reported as being with South Asians, simply because to a very good approximation all Moslems resident in the UK, and even more so in our Northern towns, are ethnically Pakistani. I have strong objections to unrestricted immigration from South Asia, as it happens, also to the lack of risk profiling in our airport security system - but that's because of their religion, not their race. As an example, I have never heard of Hindu suicide bombers. I am quite open to correction here, but I believe that Hindus and South Asian Moslems are ethnically very similar. Their behaviour is not.

Actually, that depends. North indians are ethnically different from south indians and this will include the muslims of Pakistan. Add in the Sikhs and we get a dramatically different ethnic mix. More importantly, Hindus are just as vulnerable to the religion meme as muslims. Read up on India history and news, the last religious riot was only last year IIRC.

[Spin Echo]

A sensible question deserves a sensible answer. All or most of the components of cod liver oil have been shown (yes, in clinical trials) to reduce psoriasis. The three main active components for this purpose are vitamin A, vitamin D and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid).

And do you know who conducted these clinical trials on fish oil and psoriasis? Medical doctors. Not the "doctors" of naturopathy you mention, but actual doctors.

Do you have any proof (aka studies) to support your wild claim that doctors are incapable to diagnosing something as simple as scurvy? It's getting bloody annoying having you pass anecdotes off as if they were some kind of evidence. Believe it or not, but doctors actually *do* take a patient's nutrition into account when they are diagnosing them.

[brianeyci]

Well seeing everything this thread.

The Atkins Diet. Yes, okay, I can accept that some people with extremely high metabolisms need meat to maintain an active lifestyle. But when I think of the kinds of people who need to eat meat I think of... me. One hundred and twenty five pounds, slender, no way to go through a day without eating some kind of meat. Not the average overweight American white guy, which is who the Atkins Diet is targeted to. Carbs for life, and why the fuck does it make any sense at all to cut down only on Carbs and ignore actual calorie intake and fat from meat? This fits into the no shit sherlock category, but apparently some people want to have their cake and eat it too, lose weight and get more healthy while eating loads of meat.

Sugar. Yes, I can accept that sugar is bad for some people, like diabetics. But sugar causing high blood pressure? Is that the reason why older people who have terrible diets and eat little sugar but tons of fatty foods get heart attacks? I don't think so. Sugar is a food of the younger generation, not the older generation, and I don't see the people who do get heart attacks drinking cases of pop. Instead they're huge fatasses eating really unhealthy foods with little relative sugar in them like burgers, french fries, and so on. There has always been sugar in foods.

Going into a hospital and getting sick? Oh noes, going into a place full of sick people might make you sick. You know this comes from distraught relatives who see their loved ones go into hospitals and spend their last days there, then later think if only I didn't let him go to the hospital, pumping him full of tubes and machines, he would've lived. Ignorance. I'm entirely sure you can get diseases in hospitals, but blaming hospitals for an obvious fact of economics (it's easier to treat a hundred people in the same place than a hundred people in different places) is incredibly dishonest. Hospitals smell like bleach all the time for a reason, and whenever there is a hospital epidemic it is a big fucking deal and the hospital quarantines and sends letters out and puts warning signs up.

All of these are things I don't need a doctor to tell me. I know that eating a lot of foods high in sugar can't possibly be good for me, I know that if I wanted to gain muscle mass I'd eat more meat, and I know hospitals can make people sick. Now remind me again of this essential service that fearmongerers are providing, and remind me what you want doctors to do about it? Refer dying patients to you guys?

Well I hate to break it to you, but they do. If a patient requests it. A nurse wrote a letter for my dad to help him visit some quack monk with special healing powers because his pancreatic cancer was gone. But doctors are not going to send people your way until they've exhausted conventional treatment, because they assume that's what a person wants.

Again, it all fits into no duh. You are not seeing the Einsteins if you're seeing people with diets with not enough Vitamin C in them. Why can't you accept that?

[kinnison]

brianeyci:

I don't know where you live, but you commented about hospitals smelling of bleach.

Well, that may be the case in other parts of the world, but here in the UK hospitals all too often smell of shit - literally. I have spent rather more time in assorted hospitals than I would like, and it's not just one badly-run one either.

As an example of the excellent care given at least in UK hospitals, I was in one morning as an emergency case, having had half-expected complications of treatment given for another problem. At the time, I had had a central line implanted for several months, and as one does I had learnt as a consequence quite a lot of the procedures regarding keeping it clean, sterile and functional - which were kept to very effectively indeed by the nurses staffing the unit in which I was spending most time, and they never caused me any problems with infection.

I was seen by a junior-ish .doctor who didn't know anything about my case except for a brief reading of my notes, which were very incomplete as I was in a different hospital. In he comes in street clothes, and without troubling to wash his hands or use alcohol gel he starts messing with the line - against my rather ineffective protests, I might add. (Rather ineffective, because I was severely anaemic at the time, among other things and feeling like shit.)

I was discharged later that day, and 36 hours after that I was back in - with MRSA septicaemia and a 104 fever.

What does all this say about doctors, or at least some of them? Monstrously arrogant, and much more worried about the medical pecking order than the welfare of their patients - and in too many cases just plain incompetent. The nurses normally caring for me, on a third the salary of most doctors and probably a fifth that of consultants, were immensely better at their jobs and more caring to boot.

Why is it so hard to admit that, just like any other profession, there are brilliant doctors, good ones, average ones, poor ones and ones that shouldn't be working?

M.D. does not stand for Minor Deity; all too many doctors appear to think that it does.

[PeZook]

<snip>

Not to claim Brian's prize (I'll let him continue the debate) but I just had to point out how brilliant it is of you to go from "Doctors kill a shitload of patients through negligence!" through "Doctors are not very knowledgeable and can't diagnose some common problems" to "Some doctors are incompetent."

You should enter some stunt biking competition, the way you appear to love backpedalling you'll do great.

[kinnison]

<snip>

Not to claim Brian's prize (I'll let him continue the debate) but I just had to point out how brilliant it is of you to go from "Doctors kill a shitload of patients through negligence!" through "Doctors are not very knowledgeable and can't diagnose some common problems" to "Some doctors are incompetent."

You should enter some stunt biking competition, the way you appear to love backpedalling you'll do great.

Well, I would reply to this - but my previous reply, in rather strong terms, was deleted for some reason, so I'll shorten it.

My opinion: If you have an acute life-threatening illness or a broken leg, go see a doctor by all means. If you have something chronic, then go to a doctor, perhaps, to find out what it is - and then go and see someone else - anyone else with some sort of qualification - to get it sorted.

Conventional treatments for common chronic problems are more likely to harm you - or kill you - than help. Some "unconventional" ones can help such problems. By the way, in such a case don't expect the therapist to do all the work - you'll have to do some of it.

Unquestioning reliance on a doctor or doctors gets you nothing but a large bill - possibly for your family rather than you - and all too often a nice wooden box with brass handles.

Now, about backpedalling...

[brianeyci]

Excuse me kinnison, but if your post was truly deleted (I have a hard time believing that given every single banning is archived in parting shots and the apparent board policy is delete as little as possible) it was likely for your own protection. Let me guess, you decided to mention some doctor by name, to somehow give your personal anecdote more credibility, and opened yourself to a lawsuit. How touching. Regardless, the person you're debating, me, is not a moderator and all those stars beside my name don't mean shit. I did not delete your post, I did not move it, I did not touch it. If you have a problem with someone deleting your posts, whining about it in public does total shit and pointing the finger at me is bullshit. So whatever you said, it must have been incredibly stupid. If you feel an extreme need to post something very long, send it to me through pm, and I'll make sure to look at it.

You brought up a dumb guy who had unquestioning reliance on a doctor to know about his diet as evidence of detoxification's effectiveness. That post is still up there. Now you're coming around and saying the therapist should not do all the work. How is asking a medical doctor to manage what you eat not unquestioning reliance on the doctor? The fault was with the guy, not the doctor. You mentioned that N.D.'s are more common than doctors as evidence of... something. Insinuating that because they are more common, they are more competent. People have pointed out the flaw in your logic already. Now you point out your medical problem which required hospitalization as evidence of... what exactly? Not to go to the hospital? And then you say go to the hospital if you've got a life threatening illness.

You cart around your goalposts like hell, and you debate like a prick. By the way, doctors can treat chronic problems. You say "perhaps" as if the doctor should not be the first stop. What if that chronic problem is serious? How the hell do you know if it's serious or not? The only way to know is go see a doctor. And there are doctors who deal with chronic problems, or doctors who refer you to physiotherapists, nutritionists, etc. If the doctor can't help you, go see someone else. How is this any revelation at all to any adult, except for the incredibly stupid?

By the way I do accept that there are doctors of varying skill levels. That's what people are trying to mention the whole time, that your anecdotes are no more valid than any other person's anecdotes. You are the one who is, or more correctly was, attacking the entire medical profession, with little differentiation between good doctors and bad doctors, and now you decide to adopt part of my position because you're losing.

Are you going to concede that detoxification is bullshit, as in medically ineffective, because at the very least detoxification is a very nebulous term not well defined? Because when I think of detoxification I think of Dr. Ho commercials and buying some powder from TV Guide which promises instant weight loss, not the plainly obvious proper diet and nutrition. Or we can keep debating and you can use weasel words like "perhaps" go see a doctor. Do you give this advice to your clients, perhaps go see a doctor? Do you know what harm that can cause?

[PainRack]

My opinion: If you have an acute life-threatening illness or a broken leg, go see a doctor by all means. If you have something chronic, then go to a doctor, perhaps, to find out what it is - and then go and see someone else - anyone else with some sort of qualification - to get it sorted.

Conventional treatments for common chronic problems are more likely to harm you - or kill you - than help. Some "unconventional" ones can help such problems. By the way, in such a case don't expect the therapist to do all the work - you'll have to do some of it.

Unquestioning reliance on a doctor or doctors gets you nothing but a large bill - possibly for your family rather than you - and all too often a nice wooden box with brass handles.

Guess what? No one here even entered the debate saying that doctors are godlike. If you even know Broomstick posting history, you wouldn't make this claim. We came in here because you made absurd claims about the value of alternative medicine, and more importantly, made stupid claims about medical treatment.

Let me reiterate:
Is 95% of candiasis caused by antibiotics and steroids?
Humans are consuming toxins and detox helps to eliminate toxins.
Statins are too risky.
You don't need to lower cholesterol levels, just homocysteine. And doctors refuse to do so(this even though there are two current research studies being done to evaluate this, and the trend was discovered by doctors in the first place)
Doctors don't know how to take medical history.
You can diagnose a disease(scurvy) that a multitude of other medical professionals couldn't.
Doctors don't take a holistic approach.
Doctors refuse to prescribe vitamins to help patients.
Because drug companies/doctors make money off drugs, they refuse to really help patients by prescribing them effective drugs that are cheaper.
Diabetics are helped by eating Atkins diet.
Doctors don't cure people, they just give them drugs and meds.
Sugar is dangerous, and doctors don't do shit about it.


In each and every statement, you been rebutted and either asked to prove the statement or shown how you're wrong. So, WTF?

And last but not least, let me make you a challenge. You been claiming that doctors aren't holistic and only give drugs to cure symptoms, not treat disease. My question remains, what about the strong community health approach in the UK? Ranging from smoking cessation, occupational health standards, pollution laws, noise pollution, hell, the collaboration between the WHO and International Labour Organisation in 2002 that includes fighting discrimination and stigma against HIV infected people in the workplace.......

Does N.Ds have anything remotely comparable to this vast array of health practices? I do know that in Germany, N.Ds do contribute to smoking cessation and obesity. But that's a drop in the ocean compared to what the medical profession has done.

[kinnison]

"Is 95% of candiasis caused by antibiotics and steroids?" Yes. if you mean internal candidiasis. The remainder is caused as a side effect of much more serious problems relating to the immune system. Even one people replying to me admitted that one of the side-effects of antibiotics is thrush. Admittedly, the precise percentage may be off.
"Humans are consuming toxins and detox helps to eliminate toxins." Yup. Assorted detox herbs (milk thistle stands out) have been proved in trials to increase the activity of the detox enzymes in the liver.
"Statins are too risky." Yup. They drop cholesterol; however, they also drop coenzyme Q10 which has many knock-on effects. In fact, I'm told that German doctors suggest supplementation of this to consumers of statins. And there is no proved causative link between cholesterol and heart disease (except in rare extreme cases) anyway.
"You don't need to lower cholesterol levels, just homocysteine. And doctors refuse to do so(this even though there are two current research studies being done to evaluate this, and the trend was discovered by doctors in the first place)" Sure. The trend was so discovered. Doctors who research nutritional therapies are in a tiny minority.
"Doctors don't know how to take medical history." Not all of them, for sure. I have never had a doctor take anything resembling a history from me - not ever - for example.
"You can diagnose a disease(scurvy) that a multitude of other medical professionals couldn't." Yup. I can't prove it - it was 25 years ago, for one thing.
"Doctors don't take a holistic approach." Yup. Personal experience. Physician didn't counsel me about non-drug approach to hypertension, despite me obviously being 50 pounds overweight. I can't be the only one.
"Doctors refuse to prescribe vitamins to help patients." In the UK at least, their ability to do so is restricted heavily, except in the case of obvious stuff like B12 injections for elderly patients.
"Because drug companies/doctors make money off drugs, they refuse to really help patients by prescribing them effective drugs that are cheaper." Yup.
"Diabetics are helped by eating Atkins diet." Yup. Trialled. Type 2 anyway - a diet similar to Atkins (high protein high fat low carb) dropped sugar levels to normal.
"Doctors don't cure people, they just give them drugs and meds." As I said, this applies to chronic conditions - a lot of which respond to diet change.
"Sugar is dangerous, and doctors don't do shit about it." Yup. Eat far too much sugar for a long time and you have a very large chance of eventually getting type 2 diabetes. It also makes you fat, which has its own dangers. In addition, high-sugar foods tend to be those with next to no nutrients.

No, I am not going to trawl the Internet for hours to find sources. I will make just one more point. Drugs are toxic, and surgical procedures are dangerous. It is, or should be, a question of competing risks. However, the default option in the case of unknown or equal risks should be the Hippocratic one - first do no harm.

In other words, you shouldn't consume toxic chemicals or let yourself be cut open unless there is a damn good reason - and ditto for a doctor recommending either. In all too many cases this is not the way it happens. Endit.

[Rye]

The human body will filter out most toxins in 48 hours. Detox diets don't do shit and work by placebo if at all. Of course, most of the time, they do nothing. A proper diet of moderation is far better for the average person than a load of untested herbalist shit marketed as "detox" products, and a GP, not a herbalist, is the person to talk to about your diet and the changes you should make to it.

Do you have proof UK doctors get paid bonuses for prescribing certain types of drugs, yet? I'm shocked everyone's let you get away with that one.

Drugs can be toxic. We find that out through clinical trials. Herbs might be toxic if you want to get an actual effect from them, but no clinical trials = failure of the hippies to prove their products are beyond placeboes, not toxic, etc.

Doctors do do shit about sugar intake in diets. In fact, I've never known a doctor, either in real life or on a documentary ignore high sugar content in a diet.

[Broomstick]

"Is 95% of candiasis caused by antibiotics and steroids?" Yes. if you mean internal candidiasis. The remainder is caused as a side effect of much more serious problems relating to the immune system. Even one people replying to me admitted that one of the side-effects of antibiotics is thrush. Admittedly, the precise percentage may be off.

Yeah, the percentage, I suspect is WAY off - provide a cite, a solid number, something other than vague handwaving.

Thrush/candiasis refers to the surface level infection in mouth, genitals, etc. Manifestations such as "diaper rash" are NOT caused by antibiotics or steroids but rather by moist diapers or cloth in contact with skin that is normally dry - and it's a very common form of the disease. Oral thrush is found in non-medicated infants and in adults with anything that causes excessive dry mouth - which may or may not be medications. It's common as dirt, really, and unrelated in many if not most cases to medication use (although yes, some medications can lower resistance and/or make the situation worse).

What you're calling "internal candiasis" is called fungemia. That does occur in immunocompromised people, but it's pretty damn simplistic to attribute all of these cases to antibiotics or steroids, especially since antibiotics alone are very unlikely to cause it, and likewise you'd need some very high doses of steroids. And I'm surprised you didn't mention the role of high levels of blood glucose in fungal infections - or didn't you know about that?

"Humans are consuming toxins and detox helps to eliminate toxins." Yup. Assorted detox herbs (milk thistle stands out) have been proved in trials to increase the activity of the detox enzymes in the liver.

Please provide a cite to these trials. The only ones I am familar with had inconclusive results with either no difference from placebo or statistically insignificant differences. You are making the claim milk thistle works - provide proof.

"Statins are too risky." Yup. They drop cholesterol; however, they also drop coenzyme Q10 which has many knock-on effects. In fact, I'm told that German doctors suggest supplementation of this to consumers of statins.

"Drops coenzyme Q10" does not mean "does not work" - diuterics drop potassium - so supplement with that. Statins drop Q10 - so supplement. The you get lower cholesterol + sufficent Q10. It's not just German doctors who are aware of this, however, in the US doctors generally check the Q10 levels prior to suggesting supplements so they don't waste their patients' money with unnecessary pills.

"Doctors don't know how to take medical history." Not all of them, for sure. I have never had a doctor take anything resembling a history from me - not ever - for example.

Then you've been to shit doctors. I can't EVER recall a doctor failing to take a medical history. When I was undergoing therapy for a severe staph infection (community acquired, I will point out - in no way the fault of any medical person) I agreed to let several medical students hone their skills in this area by taking my history in addition to the one taken by the primary doctor.

Others here have also confirmed that doctors take medical histories. Therefore, your singular example is a minority and should not be taken as typical.

"You can diagnose a disease(scurvy) that a multitude of other medical professionals couldn't." Yup. I can't prove it - it was 25 years ago, for one thing.

This is rank bullshit of the highest stench.

"Doctors don't take a holistic approach." Yup. Personal experience. Physician didn't counsel me about non-drug approach to hypertension, despite me obviously being 50 pounds overweight. I can't be the only one.

Seeing that your verbal recounting of your medical experience indicates that you went to shit doctors perhaps this was true in your case but this is not my experience. Two of my coworkers are struggling with hypertension, and both of their doctors advocated dietary changes and exercise. One of them, regretably, has had to move to medication, but that is because her 25 point drop in blood pressure was not sufficient to put her in a safe range - nonetheless, she is on a lower dose than she might have been otherwise. And her doctor is still pushing her to keep to her diet.

I could provide numerous other examples, but since it only takes one example to counter your "doctors never" claim I need not bother.

"Doctors refuse to prescribe vitamins to help patients." In the UK at least, their ability to do so is restricted heavily, except in the case of obvious stuff like B12 injections for elderly patients.

Then the UK is fucked up in that regard - if that is even true. Given the bullshit statements you have made otherwise and lack of proof for many of your claims I must ask for independent verification on this. When I had surgery on my face the doctor not only inquired as to my normal eating habits and whether or not I was sleeping well during recovery, but also recommended a multivitamin during healing. What doctors do NOT do is prescribe megadoses of vitamins. Technically, they don't prescribe vitamins at all, except for things like specialized maternity vitamins, because vitamins aren't a prescription item, they are available over the counter. It would be more correct to say a doctor may or may not recommend a vitamin.

I should also point out that doctors will not prescribe B12 injections without at least an attempt at dietary improvement. In the case of my mother-in-law they attempted both diet and iron supplements - until she needed a second blood transfusion and they moved to more aggressive measures. That's hardly a leap towards heavy intervention.

"Because drug companies/doctors make money off drugs, they refuse to really help patients by prescribing them effective drugs that are cheaper." Yup.

They why do we have generics? Why is asprin still made? Why do we still make penicillin?

"Diabetics are helped by eating Atkins diet." Yup. Trialled. Type 2 anyway - a diet similar to Atkins (high protein high fat low carb) dropped sugar levels to normal.

Such a diet can also fuck up your kidneys if they've already been damaged from diabetes - too much protein stresses the kidneys. It can cause the addition of weight in some people, which can aggravate diabetes.

Your one size fits all approach is bad medicine at best. There are some people who do better on an Atkins-style diet, but certainly not all.

"Doctors don't cure people, they just give them drugs and meds." As I said, this applies to chronic conditions - a lot of which respond to diet change.

And a lot of which don't.

Arthritis will NOT be helped by a dietary change, as just one example.

In any case - your pills, potions, and supplements are just as much drugs as anything prescribed by a doctor. You're just practicing medicine without a license - or without a sound education in medicine.

"Sugar is dangerous, and doctors don't do shit about it." Yup. Eat far too much sugar for a long time and you have a very large chance of eventually getting type 2 diabetes. It also makes you fat, which has its own dangers.

It's not sugar that causes diabetes. Sugar can make overweight, which can trigger or contribute to diabetes, but sugar is a vital source of energy for the body, and glucose the only fuel your brain can use. Saying sugar is dangerous is like saying water is dangerous - yes, excessive amounts are, but some is required to sustain life.

No, I am not going to trawl the Internet for hours to find sources.

Yet you will spend hours making outrageous claims - are you stating you will make no effort to back up your claims? Think carefully before you reply, as this forum has little to no tolerance for those who start a debate and fail to support their side.

I will make just one more point. Drugs are toxic, and surgical procedures are dangerous. It is, or should be, a question of competing risks. However, the default option in the case of unknown or equal risks should be the Hippocratic one - first do no harm.

Wouldn't that include, for example, do not practice medicine without a medical education? Oh wait - you're not a doctor, so you didn't take the Hippocratic Oath and therefore you can say and do whatever the hell you want, right?

In other words, you shouldn't consume toxic chemicals or let yourself be cut open unless there is a damn good reason

I agree - which is EXACTLY why I am skeptical of sucking down supplements, vitamins, and concoctions not subject to clinical trials or research. How can you say your herbs and such are NOT toxic? If it is strong enough help you it is strong enough to hurt you.

[PainRack]

"Is 95% of candiasis caused by antibiotics and steroids?" Yes. if you mean internal candidiasis.

Are you referring to septsis now? Cause there is no such differentiation.

The remainder is caused as a side effect of much more serious problems relating to the immune system. Even one people replying to me admitted that one of the side-effects of antibiotics is thrush.

No. The most common side effects of antibiotics is diarrhea. Thrush is relatively rare, again, the most common causes of thrush is something called SEX. That or douching, cause both activities are more likely to disturb your normal flora than antibiotics will.(in terms of both population wise and mechanics wise)

Admittedly, the precise percentage may be off.

I can accept off only when its within a certain 20-40 % error. Arguing that 95% of candiasis is caused by antibiotics, this even when itrogenic causes are caused mostly by radiation and chemotherapy, with transplants and the resulting immunosuppressive therapy being the other major cause, you're fucking full of it.

"Humans are consuming toxins and detox helps to eliminate toxins." Yup. Assorted detox herbs (milk thistle stands out) have been proved in trials to increase the activity of the detox enzymes in the liver.

Source? And even so, what does this has to do with actual failure to compensate? If the body chemistry is unable to handle it, your body cells dies. Its as simple as that. Biological organisms are surprisingly fragile where chemistry is concerned.

And of course, since eating fructose, drinking alcohol, even TEA requires your liver to metabolise them, I guess those classify as "toxins", right? So, whatcha doing eating all those fructose rich fruits?

Can you show that these "toxins" have a real demonstrable problem? I'm not talking about lead build-up and stuff like that, you know, the stuff that scientists and doctors agree and talk about. I'm talking about the diet "toxins" that's somehow so vague that everyone can just keep throwing one variant after another.

Secondly, can you show that your interventions have a demonstrable improvement in health, one that's linked to detoxification as opposed to other medical mechanism such as simply having a much better diet in the first place?

"Statins are too risky." Yup. They drop cholesterol; however, they also drop coenzyme Q10 which has many knock-on effects. In fact, I'm told that German doctors suggest supplementation of this to consumers of statins.

And the kidney/liver failure that leads on to is relatively rare, no rarer than any problem coffee enemas can pose. And at least, they do something, as opposed to coffee enemas which don't. And again, you're assuming that doctors don't have to check your body chemistry or your symptoms, and of course, the first line of intervention is drugs as opposed to a healthy lifestyle.

And there is no proved causative link between cholesterol and heart disease (except in rare extreme cases) anyway.

Really? Based on which source? Are you honestly trying to claim that fatty deposits in your atherial wall, which causes it to narrow ISN"T a cause of CAD? Or that plaque release, which causes blockage of artherial walls isn't a direct cause of heart attacks?

"You don't need to lower cholesterol levels, just homocysteine. And doctors refuse to do so(this even though there are two current research studies being done to evaluate this, and the trend was discovered by doctors in the first place)" Sure. The trend was so discovered. Doctors who research nutritional therapies are in a tiny minority.

And how does that show that doctors "don't" do anything? Oh wait, it doesn't. They're just awaiting the outcome of the clinical trial to show that it works. Its called evidence based medicine.

"Doctors don't know how to take medical history." Not all of them, for sure. I have never had a doctor take anything resembling a history from me - not ever - for example.

Bullshit then. Its impossible for a doctor to NOT take a history. Are you honestly trying to tell us that your doctor has never asked"how long have you had this cough?" in your entire life? Any single practioner, that's possible as they share notes and data. But the entire team? Bullshit.

Yup. Personal experience. Physician didn't counsel me about non-drug approach to hypertension, despite me obviously being 50 pounds overweight. I can't be the only one.

And there's something called Public Service announcements, health education and ads, literature that's shown on tv shows and all that jazz. The medical community is not limited to your GP alone. Its an entire team.

"Doctors refuse to prescribe vitamins to help patients." In the UK at least, their ability to do so is restricted heavily, except in the case of obvious stuff like B12 injections for elderly patients.

Based on what? Are you fucking trying to tell me that a GP can't give folic acid to pregnant women? What are these restrictions?

"Diabetics are helped by eating Atkins diet." Yup. Trialled. Type 2 anyway - a diet similar to Atkins (high protein high fat low carb) dropped sugar levels to normal.

WRONG. Atkins diet work by restricting calories, decreasing the amount of carbohydrates to abnormally low levels in your diet. That's poses a major problem since it interferes with your body ability to process energy with the resulting problem of ketoacidosis.

The standard diabetic diet is NOT atkins diet, which can restrict calories from carbs to 10% or even lesser. The diet focus on providing a STEADY source of energy from carbohydrates, which incidently leads in to the glycemic index diet I referred to earlier. Diet is the single most important factor in helping to regulate blood glucose levels, not because it doesn't provide sugar but because it doesn't have sudden, high spikes of sugar. I see that you fail to note the importance of snacking in a diabetic diet, to the extent that patients may need to eat candy before they can have sex. Or have on standby orange juice and insulin shots.

As I said, this applies to chronic conditions - a lot of which respond to diet change.

Nonsense. Just to use the condition highlighted, the standard approach to athritis is pain management, low impact exercises and dietary changes.

"Sugar is dangerous, and doctors don't do shit about it." Yup. Eat far too much sugar for a long time and you have a very large chance of eventually getting type 2 diabetes.

No direct link yet.

It also makes you fat, which has its own dangers. In addition, high-sugar foods tend to be those with next to no nutrients.

Which is a problem recognised by doctors, you know, all that talk of an obesity epidemic.
And again, I say again, the glycemic index diet is authored by 4 people. 1 cardiologist, 1 surgeon, 1 endocrine specialist and 1 author.

No, I am not going to trawl the Internet for hours to find sources. I will make just one more point.

I'm not asking you to quote esoteric sources. I'm asking you to SHOW ANYTHING THAT YOU DO THAT IS HOLISTIC IN NATURE YOU DIPSHIT.

Just offhand, I can throw up smoking cessation, pollution laws, public health education and any number of intervention engineered for health promotion. With a bit of research, I can tell you that the Alma Ater and Ontario WHO conference makes it a public goal for health promotion and community health, making health the responsibility of the public with the slogan health for all by 2000.... Odd year isn't it? Cause the conferences I'm referring to are 3 decades or longer, with multiple conferences being held to update objectives, strageties and policies. This isn't something new, what with the WHO re-engineering the definition of health to a state of well being in multiple forms. It has been described as state of well-being, not absence of disease which is the primary definition, there's also other definitions such as treating health as a resource for life as opposed to an goal, which is being used for community health in the UK.

Drugs are toxic, and surgical procedures are dangerous. It is, or should be, a question of competing risks. However, the default option in the case of unknown or equal risks should be the Hippocratic one - first do no harm.

Yet, they are effective and relatively safe. This compared to say coffee enema which have no benefits and are dangerous. So, for detox at least, you're talking about subjecting people to a dangerous intervention for no known benefit whatsoever.

In other words, you shouldn't consume toxic chemicals or let yourself be cut open unless there is a damn good reason - and ditto for a doctor recommending either. In all too many cases this is not the way it happens. Endit.

And you can of course show us that your scenario is actually occuring.....

You can't even defend your implied statement that doctors don't approach medicine holistically and N.Ds do.

[PainRack]

Thrush/candiasis refers to the surface level infection in mouth, genitals, etc. Manifestations such as "diaper rash" are NOT caused by antibiotics or steroids but rather by moist diapers or cloth in contact with skin that is normally dry - and it's a very common form of the disease.

Rashes is dermatitis, not thrush. Although fungal infections can and do manifest, as a result of damp conditions. Just look at any guy foot:D

Oral thrush is found in non-medicated infants and in adults with anything that causes excessive dry mouth - which may or may not be medications. It's common as dirt, really, and unrelated in many if not most cases to medication use (although yes, some medications can lower resistance and/or make the situation worse).

Not dry mouth. Broken mucosa membrane, which is usually caused by dryness. As for meds, antibiotics are the most common cause for oral thrush. Of course, since he didn't specify oral thrush but just used the word candiasis, which actually more commonly manifests itself as a yeast infection amongst women...

Then the UK is fucked up in that regard - if that is even true. Given the bullshit statements you have made otherwise and lack of proof for many of your claims I must ask for independent verification on this.

The only restriction I can think of is that vitamins supplements are not on the NHS drug list......... unlikely since folic acid has to be.

And since its actually known that doctors do resort to selling vitamins and other supplements to increase their personal income, both in the States and the UK, I'm smelling bullshit. After all, they don't need a reason to give vitamins.

[Rye]

Uh, GP surgeries here don't sell vitamins, you can buy vitamins from pharmacies and supermarkets, but doctors can't supplement their income with them.

[Broomstick]

Thrush/candiasis refers to the surface level infection in mouth, genitals, etc. Manifestations such as "diaper rash" are NOT caused by antibiotics or steroids but rather by moist diapers or cloth in contact with skin that is normally dry - and it's a very common form of the disease.

Rashes is dermatitis, not thrush. Although fungal infections can and do manifest, as a result of damp conditions. Just look at any guy foot:D

"Dermatitis" means "irritated skin". There are multiple causes of dermatitis, just as there are multiple causes of fever, cought, etc. It can arise from chemicals, allergies, abrasion... and fungal infections including thrush. Thrush is candida infecting the skin or mucus membranes, and yes, it can be a factor in diaper rash, although not all diaper rash is candida. Athlete's foot and jock itch are also fungal skin infections, which may be candida or another species.

Oral thrush is found in non-medicated infants and in adults with anything that causes excessive dry mouth - which may or may not be medications. It's common as dirt, really, and unrelated in many if not most cases to medication use (although yes, some medications can lower resistance and/or make the situation worse).

Not dry mouth. Broken mucosa membrane, which is usually caused by dryness.

Yes. Hence the association of dry mouth with thrush - thrush being an opportunistic infection. It takes advantage of the broken mucosa left by oral dryness.

As for meds, antibiotics are the most common cause for oral thrush. Of course, since he didn't specify oral thrush but just used the word candiasis, which actually more commonly manifests itself as a yeast infection amongst women...

Although it's a common culprit in the female "yeast infection", it actually shows up in a lot of other ways. It may be the most common fungal infection in humans given the multiple ways it shows up.

Then the UK is fucked up in that regard - if that is even true. Given the bullshit statements you have made otherwise and lack of proof for many of your claims I must ask for independent verification on this.

The only restriction I can think of is that vitamins supplements are not on the NHS drug list......... unlikely since folic acid has to be.

But would it be a "drug"? In the US it's not considered a drug but rather a dietary supplement, and therefore is under different regulations than either prescription or over the counter pharmaceuticals.

[PainRack]

"Dermatitis" means "irritated skin". There are multiple causes of dermatitis, just as there are multiple causes of fever, cought, etc. It can arise from chemicals, allergies, abrasion... and fungal infections including thrush. Thrush is candida infecting the skin or mucus membranes, and yes, it can be a factor in diaper rash, although not all diaper rash is candida. Athlete's foot and jock itch are also fungal skin infections, which may be candida or another species.

Yeah. But the most common cause for diaper rash is prolonged exposure to urine and faeces.