Is the "Detoxify or Die" movement valid science?

Lately after suffering from side-effects from over-the-counter pills, I’ve encountered this ‘wellness’ movement which disdains such treatments in favor of natural remedies.

I myself aim not to be biased; I don’t like pharmaceuticals because of the side effects, and wish there were another way, but at the same time I do not like leaving the protection and understanding of the scientific method which the mainstream doctors follow more strictly. The mainstream docs have hardcore lab results and double-blind studies to back their solutions; the wellness docs claim natural remedies can’t be patented, so there is no money to fund studies. They also point out some studies that have been done showing effectiveness. (And no doubt the big docs can claim in response that some natural remedies have side effects too).

Detoxify or die was written by a legitimate Board Certified MD who has published so many books on her sort of ‘holistic’ views that she has her own mini-publishing company. Her flagship book seems to be “Detoxify or Die”, from the promo, edited for length:

*We are all a toxic cesspool of the lifetime accumulation of chemicals from our air, food, and water. U.S. EPA studies of chemicals stored in the fat of humans show that 100% of people had dioxins, PCBs, dichlorobenzene, . . . the steady silent accumulation [of which] over a lifetime that produces most diseases, including cancer. But medicine merely sees every disease as a deficiency of some drug or surgery, or tells us there is no known cause or cure.

If we get these ubiquitously unavoidable toxic chemicals out of the body, we can reverse and even cure the most hopeless diseases. . . . Learn how to find the underlying causes and get rid of them with the only proven way to reverse disease and slow down aging. *

People in the know (Whole Foods shoppers) claim this book is the light. From what I gather, it says that plastic should not be near food, so you should take your produce out of the plastic bags you put them in at the produce section, as soon as you get home. Other solutions are using shower filters or you will absorb impurities in tap water through your skin. (This is not just a concern for dermatology, but that it will sink through and cause poisoning-induced disease later).

Her other books are titled provocatively like “High Blood pressure hoax!” and “Depression cured at last!” Both argue that pharmas are unnecessary.

Another book recommends Pepto-Bismol as a treatment for H.Pylori infections of the stomach, combined with certain foods and herbs to increase acid to kill the infection; she repudiates the current anti-biotic cocktail used, saying it increases risk of stomach cancer. She also believes in “Leaky Gut”, that food allergies (or other damage) can cause permeability to develop in the bowels, triggering extreme food allergies. She also believes that Candida is the cause of many digestive problems and the yeast must be cleansed.

She does quote studies in some of her books; for example, a study showed positive effects of DGL (Licorice pills) in preventing ulcers in rodents; that’s an over-the-counter herb.

Enough of the details – I know “leaky gut syndrome” is not recognized by the majority of doctors, and from what I can tell, the vast majority of doctors, perhaps over 99/100, follow the 'cut 'em and drug ‘em’ pharmaceutical strict science method. And I know the Candida thing is controversial and probably makes most MD’s eye’s roll.

So what is the STRAIGHT DOPE on this whole wellness “Treat your symptoms in a single whole foods shopping trip” thing? Science, or less than science?

What else could we possibly be?

Absolute bollocks. Any tme you see the word “detoxify” it’s quackery. the onus is on the people making the claims present a shred of evidence that they are true.

I’m a rock star, which has nothing to do with toxic chemicals…oh wait…

Dust in the wind.

Devo (but only if we are not men).

The Walrus.

Bricks in the Wall.

Is there some middle ground between not reaching for the latest chemical treatment for sniffles and lack of sweetness in my food and not downing every herb in the herbalists’ catalog in search of a cure? I don’t like taking (non-recreational) drugs for mild to somewhat significant pain and vastly prefer fewer syllables in my foodstuffs. But I don’t think a coffee-enema-beverage is going to cure anything but my too-full wallet.

I think Blake nailed this. And people worried about spoooooky toxins might want to be careful of herbal supplements.

While we’re at it, it may not be possible to patent a plant, but if you can figure out just what it is in a plant that produces good effects and isolate it, or put it into a form that works even better, you can sure as heck patent that. Nobody ever patented willow bark, but they did patent aspirin. And have you ever noticed that the folks claiming you can’t make money from herbal supplements are the ones selling herbal supplements?

The herbal medicine companies are not a bunch of hippies in Birkenstocks, they are creepy people based out of states with lax laws who have conservative politicians in their pocket so that they can sell bullshit to gullible people when they are the most vulnerable.

It’s a nasty racket.

Ok, let’s examine one claim- that H.pylori is best treated with herbs and foods to increase stomach acid.

H.Pylori is pretty well adapted to survive in a low pH environment-You’d have to be drinking something pretty corrosive to lower the pH enouch to kill it off.

The only thing food or herb supplements that increase the acid level in the stomach would do is worsen your stomach ulcer (you know, the one caused by the H.Pylori) and non-ulcer dyspepsia.

Ask anyone with a stomach ulcer how they feel after taking foods or drinks which are acidic- it isn’t good. The way to heal ulcers is to REDUCE stomach acid.

Sure, long term use of medications which reduce stomach acid has been linked to an increased risk of gastric cancer. It is also linked to LOWER rates of oesophageal cancer and a much reduced risk of death from a ruptured or bleeding stomach ulcer.

The idea of the antibiotics (which BTW are cheap and generic and used for less than a total of 14 days in most cases) is to kill the H.Pylori so that you DON’T have to keep taking antacid medications long-term.

She is using valid science…the science of marketing.

Yeah, modern living is evil. We should get back to basics.

We should ban all the chemicals in food, and all the pharmaceuticals, and all of the industrial pollutants that people are breathing in.

Let’s go back to a simpler time before most of this stuff existed.

Let’s take things back to the way they were in the 1890s.

Oh, hold on – according to Wiki answers, the average human life expectancy back then was only 40.5 years.

Never mind…

yeah, it’s teh ebil conservatives!

I’ve heard you say that line more than once.

Again, is there some sort of middle ground that doesn’t spark such extreme and knee-jerk responses? It’s not that I have hay fever, but the amount of straw in that post is a biological nightmare.

Or do you really believe that no marketed chemical compound can ever have detrimental effects? Super-caveat emptor; let’s return to allowing cough medicine to contain heroin or opium? Or is that extreme just as retarded as suggesting we all live like the Amish?

Short answer–no, it isn’t valid science.

Sherry Rogers, the author you’re discussing, does not have a mini-publishing company. She self-publishes her books through Prestige Publishing. Self-published medical books are highly suspect. If the science was any good, she’d publish either in a peer-review journal or through a university imprint. That she self-publishes her stuff, with no one to fact check or review her claims, is enough by itself to discredit the supposed science in this books.

This implies that most diseases did not exist before the discovery of dioxins and PCBs. Which, I would hope, is obviously false.

Trite but unavoidable - cite?

If this were true, I can see no reason on earth that she should not be able to produce the peer-reviewed studies of the cases of metastatic cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis, that she has cured.

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Not “some” - “all”. Any drug that has effects has side-effects. You can’t get something for nothing.

Regards,
Shodan

Not so much evil conservatives per se, who are probably just as likely if not rather more so to disdain the herbal poultices embraced by many a birkenstock-wearing neo-hippie. But Orrin Hatch specifically, evil or not ( he’s certainly a conservative by most definitions ), has protected the herbal medicine industry. A buddy of mine was working for the FDA when Mr.Hatch lead the charge to prevent the FDA from regulating herbal supplements back in the 1990’s I believe and I got an earful on the topic. And I believe Utah is indeed a major center for manufacture and distribution of said unregulated “medicines.”

So while perhaps a bit of an exaggeration in some respects, there is at least a kernel of truth to the allegation.

Pretty much what In Winnipeg said…one has but to look at the life expectancy and quality of life figures to realize the difference between a modern life (and all those nasty chemicals) and the bucolic tree hugging utopia that some folks seemingly think we all lived in the olden days when all they had were herbs and good, wholesome (snort) food and untainted (double snort) water. I remember a Cecil article ones where he was talking about eye sight, and said something to the effect that it’s better to have eye sight problems, given the other benefits of a modern life style, then to have perfect eye sight and have to live without such luxuries of being able to read. I’ll take the eye problems, personally. I understand that MMV, but I think that it does so because people love wearing those rose colored glasses (a luxury that they wouldn’t have if they actually got their wish, since there wouldn’t be any glasses in agrarian-topia).

-XT

“Natural” is not a synonym for “healthy.”

My job involves assessing the potential for chemicals found at a site to significantly impact the health of people who would use that site. Chemicals I would address can include the dioxins, PCBs, and dichlorobenzene. Would you care to guess the chemical that most commonly exceeds the health risk limits?

Arsenic.

Would you like to guess the most common source of the arsenic?

Dirt. It occurs naturally in dirt at levels that significantly increase cancer risk more than most health risk limits. I realize you aren’t commonly eating a lot of dirt, but I’d certainly call it “natural.” In fact, that’s the most common justification we use to justify not needing to clean up the site. If the arsenic at a site is consistent with background levels (i.e. it’s naturally occurring), no cleanup is required (nor would it be effective).

I would not classify Whole Foods shoppers as “people in the know.” The understanding of health risk by the public is pretty poor. The news does a very poor job of ever explaining it. Headlines will scream “Chemical From BBQs Causes Cancer,” but never mention that that chemical has been created, ingested, and inhaled since the first cave man threw his mammoth steak on the fire or that it’s a relatively weak carcinogen at a relatively weak concentration.

That’s not to say there isn’t some truth that we accumulate PCBs and other toxins over the course of our life. We do. Some of these chemicals are processed very slowly by the body, but herbs aren’t going to make you any cleaner.

Some solutions are cheap and have little downside, like filtering your water at home (note: bottled water is not likely to be either cheap or effective). Others, like filtering your shower water, are pretty silly. Your chemical exposure via a shower is very small compared to drinking water, food, and inhalation. Similarly, when reducing pesticide intake by eating organic, there are some low hanging fruit that will offer big bang for the buck. Organic berries will greatly reduce your pesticide intake, while organic avocados are a waste of money because you remove the pesticides when you remove the peel.

Drugs and surgery are effective. They may sometimes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but sometimes you need a sledgehammer. Being a little mopey for a day probably may not require pharmaceuticals, but somebody who is bipolar should seek a doctor.

That’s a good argument there, because if it were really true I wouldn’t have repeated it.