Talk:Detoxification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iniital comments[edit]

I changed "none have" to "none has" in the Methods of Detoxification section because "none" is singular rather than plural (i.e. "not one has" or "not a single one has"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.187.187 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously ommitted to include the gut as an organ of detoxification so I included the phrase 'lower gastrointestinal tract' early in the piece. However, the description of the gut's role is so significant in detoxification much more needs to be written here on the subject. Adam 14 January 2007.

i was searching for information about "detox" and came to this article. prima facie, the tone of the article sounds biased, but i don't know better. can someone more knowledgable (and objective) tidy it up a bit?

I fail to see where this article is biased...

I think that the word "quackery" might be a little biased.

The body can accumulate various toxins, so despite a healthy sceptical viewpoint, I dispute that! --MacRusgail 14:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity, which toxins were you referring to? More importantly, have any detox diets/products been shown to remove the toxins you're thinking about? Most of the people who support these "body detox" plans don't know enough about biochemistry to understand how the body removes toxins, and most people who sell them don't care, as long as they make money.
I don't think this article is unfairly biased, though I agree that quackery is a strong (but perhaps appropriate) word. The article uses the POV of accepted medicine, as it should. It's true that certain chemicals can build up in the body, including dioxins, heavy metals, PCBs, radioisotopes, and plenty of other stuff. The problem is that the products/diets/laxatives advertised for "detox" cannot remove any of these. So unless someone can post some hard evidence that these do anything other than waste money, I'm unconvinced - but I'm willing to entertain any evidence that shows otherwise.
I also suggest we remove the POV warning. ZZYZX 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detox also refers to a natural detoxification of the body in which a person stops eating processed foods, meats and dairy products in an effort to cleans the body. I don't know whether or not it works, but in its truest form, detox does not involve chemicals or pills.

I've done some serious detoxing myself and written a book on it now and can honestly say that it does work. The primary thing that gets eliminated from the body is old mucous, which contains harmful substances consumed in the past. Much of the food people consume leaves an acidic residue in the digestive tract and the body is forced to secrete mucous to protect the delicate lining of the intestines, when a person does this everyday the pancreas doesn't have a chance to dissolve and remove the mucous (using the enzyme pancreatin). This mucous then becomes hard and difficult to remove, digestion becomes inhibited, parasite have a place to live etc. Check out this detox and cleansing website for a more thorough explanation.

What a load of twaddle. Mucus is not "forced" to be secreted to deal with food residues - it is secreted on a continuous basis as a perfectly normal process to lubricate the oesophagus, protect the stomach from attack by its own acid secretions and lubricate the intestines. The water content is largely readsorbed in the large intestine and the residue combined with faeces or used to lubricate the colon and anus. The pancreas secretes a variety of enzymes (NOT "pancreatin", which is a man-made mixture of enzymes used to aid digestion in people with some forms of pancreatic malfunction) to digest food. It is not designed to dissolve mucus. Anyone who has seem a colonoscopy will confirm that the inside of the colon is pink and well lubricated with no sign of "hardened mucus". The website you referred to is pretty well complete nonsense from beginning to end, with the entire purpose being to part you with your money for their largely useless and possibly dangerous products —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.177.157 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Detox, in any form, involves chemicals. Chemicals are our friends.155.178.180.5 (talk)
And what parasites might those be?207.172.222.90 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a friend do one of the cleanses spoken of on the website and he feels much better now, back problems gone, more energy etc.

I've been around too long to assume that because there are no double-blind, randomized controlled trials, that there are no benefits. I've seen entirely too many cases of claims (of anything) being debunked simply because the prevailing opinion in the field (that this is quackery, which it is, in that the majority of the practicioners don't really know what they're talking about in a medical sense) or the circumstances, prevent 'respectable' people from *doing* trials (though a turkey with a piece of paper is still a turkey). Then, of course, there's researcher bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that there's no quackery here, I'm only pointing out that the absence of trials only proves that trials haven't been done. It's very possible to cling to an assignation of the burden of proof until you're simply ignoring the blatantly obvious, like, for example, the fact that by far the majority of North Americans are deeply invested in a dangerous, potentially fatal eating regimen (including me, by the way). It's hardly worth arguing that eating food that is actually good for you for a week or more is going to help, and quickly, and noticeably, making you feel better, more energetic, etc. Perhaps we should be careful in our rush to assign accusations of quackery that we are not defending the incredibly unhealthy practises and unhealthful foods that we routinely eat, and which are undeniably endangering our health. If that's what we're doing, are we really defending or helping anyone? Wasn't there a hippocratic oath once upon a time? Sigma-6 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone who receives a doctorate takes the Hippocratic Oath, so purveyors of pseudoscience wares can have real doctors (non-physicians) peddle spurious cures.

Your argument against American Eating habits have little bearing on the whether or not these detox practices work. It’s a straw man. 155.178.180.5 (talk)

Well lots of interesting POVs there. Thanks Sigma for bringing in a reality check - much needed. I have performed many a cleansing and detox regime on myself, and know that I feel better for it - much better for it. Does that prove anything - not really, just that when I do it, I feel better. However, there is a wide range of historical use of various cleansing regimens, which though that doesn't support the whole debate, it certainly means that it should not be dismissed out of hand by those that have either never tried, or just don't get the concept. We all understand denial, and where the SAD is concerned, it leaves a lot to be desired by anyone's imagination. With over 30,000 chemicals now currently used routinely in agriculture alone, the vast majority of which have no counterpart in nature. And that is before we add all the other various toxic chemicals in our processed foodstuffs, in our homes, in our general environments, exposure to petrochemicals etc etc - the list goes on. I guess at some point a little common sense has to come into the equation to recognise that this huge chemical assault on our body systems is probably not going to be beneficial. If it were to be beneficial, no doubt it would be made clear to us all! The usual arguments by the orthodoxy are that we possess a liver, bowel, kidneys, skin and pair of lungs to excrete waste products - so obviously they must do the job as we aren't dropping like flies in the street. Or are we? The rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, iatrogenic death, environmental illness are going through the proverbial roof - maybe, just maybe, there could be a link there?? All the FDA studies to grant licenses on all these chemicals are based on toxicity studies of one kind or another - making the HUGE assumption that 'what won't kill you will make you stronger' it seems. I.e. you kill a rat with a certain dose, then you reduce the dose till the rat doesn't die and proclaim that 'At this dose the rat doesn't die, therefore at this dose it is not toxic!'. Well that is the biggest assumption of all is it not. Just the mere fact that they are 'toxicity studies' should switch on a few light bulbs. Clearly at fatal doses the substance concerned is very toxic, at less doses it is 'non-fatally' toxic - doesn't mean that it is not toxic, just less so. Detoxification routes in the body are many (thankfully) so we by and large don't keel over that easily - praise be to the inherent dynamic strength of biological physiology. However, the body's primary detoxification organ (the liver) has only so many means to detoxify substances, some of which it codes for genetically through specific enzyme pathways, and some through non-specific pathways, and through a two stage detoxification process. All these pathways are nutrient dependent steps (to manufacture the enzymes in the first place), so if the nutrients aren't there to support the manufacture of the enzymes necessary for detoxification of these substances in the first place, what happens to them? Oh, of course, they either get urinated out, breathed out, sweated out, or pass innocuously through the bowel without being assimilated and end up in the toilet bowl. Now that's magic! At least to those that believe in that. And those that can't get out by such methods - maybe they just 'disappear' conveniently? Or maybe they get stored for a rainy day? We do know that fat stores a lot of fat-soluble toxins if it cannot process them immediately. What about if it can NEVER process them because it is physically incapable of doing so, either because of specific nutrient deficiencies or because of genetic inadequacy to process those compounds? Well what happens then? THAT is what the whole discussion re detoxification is all about from what I can see - but hey, that's just my point of view. Talking about the burden of proof, there comes a point where a little common sense comes into question - i.e. the medical orthodoxy accepts the need for drug, alcohol, and the detoxification of various chemical substances. Are we to bury our heads so deeply into the proverbial sand that we are to believe that these are the only substances on the naughty list? Natural point of view, and common sense have a role here. Just because it hasn't been 'proven' by the 'acceptable standard' doesn't really mean anything in itself - more often than not it simply means it has not been investigated, or under investigated. As medical science now recognises the concept of 'drug interaction', I am assuming that it recognises 'chemical interaction' - after all the only difference between a drug and a chemical is that a drug has an investigated and demonstrable physiological use. Do 'chemical interactions' EVER get investigated? I don't think so, though it is quite clear from a basic understanding of biochemistry that synergistic relationships exist between drugs, herbs, chemicals, and nutrients. And yes, for those that will say that such investigations could never conceivably take place as the combinations and permutations are quasi-infinite? Yep, that's the problem. Maybe it is time we resort to a simpler life - I mean, we managed without all these substances for a very long time.... And no, I am not anti-progressive - but I do question what is 'progress' and what is not. I hope that provides some useful additional input to this discussion. Till next time... Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Your argument against American Eating habits have little bearing on the whether or not these detox practices work. It’s a straw man". That's funny. I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn't trying to link those two things. I also wasn't trying to defend quackery. I was simply saying that eating well is good for you and not eating well is bad for you, and that just because someone is a quack and doesn't understand the mechanism, doesn't mean they aren't just doing something beneficial they don't understand. I also thought I was pretty clear that I personally believe the whole thing is bunk. OBVIOUSLY if you eat well, you'll see benefits--it's totally unnecessary to claim that there's a medical effect going on that you have no medical knowledge to back up. While the whole thing is clearly quackery, perhaps the tests which are so eminently absent might reveal that there is something (even something psychosomatic) going on. As it is, my chief point is that simply saying 'there are no reliable studies' is only a statement of the claim that there aren't any reliable studies. You might not like it, but that claim is also a straw man; the absence of reliable studies has nothing more to do with whether these methods work than does my 'argument' against American eating habits (which was anyway less an 'argument' than a nasty diatribe). In 1800 no reliable studies had been done on nuclear fission either. What's the solution? Well, do them of course. I think that having done them, being able to point at the studies and say 'this stuff is quackery' will be much better than pointing at no studies and saying 'there are no studies'. Sigma-6 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move (2006)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose moving this article to detoxification and having "detox" redirect there. It is the proper name and consistent with other titles like drug rehabilitation rather than "rehab". OneVeryBadMan 12:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving this article to detoxification
That bit sounds good.
and having "detox" redirect there
Rather than that, I suggest making Detox a disambiguation page as the list of other meanings - Detox (Treble Charger album), Detox (album), Detox (House episode) - is starting to look cumbersome. Tearlach 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion happened two months ago, but nothing's been done. If there are no objections, I'll move this article to Detoxification tomorrow. Amp 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


External links[edit]

This page leads to the norwegian version 'Narkomani'. 'Narkomani' and 'Detoxification' are two very different things, the fact that the norwegians page doesn't link back suggests it too. I suppose I should have editet it, seing as I am from norway, but I honestly can't figure out a good word for it and I'm definitely sure there doesn't exist any article regarding this subject in norwegian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.167.250 (talk • contribs)

There may not be a wikipage for it on Norwegian wikipedia; best would have been to remove it. I'll do so. WLU 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the exact same thing with the Danish and Swedish (perhaps others). This article links to the articles "narkomani", which translates to "drug addiction" (an article the Danish article links back to, not "detoxification"). I also suggest the removal of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish interwiki links. --apoltix 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Kay, done. WLU 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Citations[edit]

Some of the statements may be erroneously requiring citations. This is because the burden of proof rests on the positive assertion. Some of these statements are negative assertions. Additionally, since these statements are based on assumptions that are widely held across sciences (regarding burden of proof), I think these {{Fact}} templates should be removed.155.178.180.5 (talk) I signed above Oobyduby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, this is my 1st attempt at entering a discussion.

In the begining text we have "Detoxification, or detox for short is the removal of toxic substances from the body[citation needed]."

Is a dictionary definition sufficient for a citation?

Such as:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detoxification

3. Physiology The metabolic process by which the toxic qualities of a poison or toxin are reduced by the body.

4. A medically supervised treatment program for alcohol or drug addiction designed to purge the body of intoxicating or addictive substances. Such a program is used as a first step in overcoming physiological or psychological addiction.

If yes, or at least not no, I'll return when I have time and attempt to cite this dictionary definition. Thank you. Don Arnold Donarnold (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic detoxification[edit]

There is such a wealth of information - principally through orthodox physiology - that could be said on this subject. Looks like some further information, clarity and subtlety could be brought to the entry. If not, are there links to other WP entries that could be included here, such as discussion about the cytochrome pathways, glutathione, other nutrients essential to the steps here, phase 1 and 2 detox pathways, nutrients essential for phase 2, biliary excretion, portal vein reabsorbtion, kidney detoxification, etc etc etc? Four lines is a little thin - there is much out there in terms of orthodox verifiable science that could, and maybe should, be included. And that is without even entering the realm of contentious alternative theory. Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine[edit]

Very badly-written section. It starts with a broad uncited claim that seems to cover a whole range of activities. Certain approaches in alternative medicine claim to remove "toxins" from the body through herbal, electrical or electromagnetic treatments (such as the Aqua Detox treatment). In spite of having made no specific claim, much less a cited one, it then goes on to say that These toxins are undefined. That's a good rhetoric technique, but not particularly encyclopaedic. Again, a vaguely cited There is no evidence for toxic accumulation in these cases. What cases would those be? It gets worse, as this unexplained theory is a load of nonsense since the body already does excrete many toxic materials. Excreting many is hardly the same as excreting all, and accumulating heavy metals and so on in the body is hardly controversial. People die of mercury poisoning, as one example, this would seem to be impossible according to this section :) Vague innuendo, needs a complete rewrite, with proper citations. Greenman (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While there are detox programs and cleanses out there that are not supported by scientific evidence, I find it hard to believe that some programs wouldn't be beneficial in helping remove toxins and restore beneficial bacteria to the gut. There must be scientific data on this subject, and I was hoping to find out about some of it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.6.68 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in the See also section are based on the following...[edit]

--222.64.221.37 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.210.124 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.210.124 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.210.124 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.210.124 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah....hah.... gossypol vs Gospel ^___^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.210.124 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Detoxification as Science, Medicine, Psychology, and Religion/Spiritualism[edit]

I've been looking at the Detoxification page and this talk page for a few months now and it seems to me that there are at least 4 main ways that people use the term "Detoxification", as Science, as Medicine, as Psychology, and as Religion/Spiritualism and that these usages are not always mutually exclusive from each other.

The current structure of this article:

  1. 1 Types of detoxification
   * 1.1 Alcohol detoxification
   * 1.2 Drug detoxification
   * 1.3 Metabolic detoxification
   * 1.4 Alternative medicine
         o 1.4.1 Diet detoxification

as well as the introductory paragraph:

"Detoxification (detox for short)[1] is the physiological or medicinal removal of toxic substances from a living organism, including, but not limited to, the human body and additionally can refer to the period of withdrawal during which an organism returns to homeostasis after long-term use of an addictive substance[2][3]. In conventional medicine, detoxification can be achieved by decontamination of poison ingestion and the use of antidotes as well as techniques such as dialysis and (in a very limited number of cases) chelation therapy[4]. There is a firm scientific base in evidence-based medicine for this type of detoxification.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Many alternative medicine practitioners promote various other types of detoxification such as "diet detoxification," but there is no evidence that detox diets have any health benefits.[13] Furthermore, Sense About Science, a UK-based charitable trust determined that most commercial products' "detox" claims lack any supporting evidence and can be considered a "waste of money".[14][15]"

seem to speak as if any usages other than scientific (specifically biological/chemical sciences) and/or medical are of less value or validity.

I want to suggest that,

since Wiki appears to be a general encyclopedia (not exclusively a science encyclopedia),

we consider changing the structure, introduction, and "tone" of this article so that additional aspects of human "detoxification" endeavors like, but not limited to, Psychology, and Religion/Spiritualism can be presented in ways that are balanced, useful, correct, and meaningful descriptions of current usages of "detoxification" while still being respectfully separate from the scientific and/or medicinal usages.

I have, and will continue to, focus my referencing efforts on the "hard/medical science" aspects of this term because, for me, they are easier to find and "lock down" than other, equally valid, but "softer" usages found in psychology, sociology, religion, spiritualism, etc.

Reading the discussions here and elsewhere about "detoxification" reminds me of two things I have observed:

1) Some people wish to validate, or at least buttress, their own personal, social, religious, etc. beliefs, customs, and word usages with science. There are heated discussions in certain religious and cultural groups that I am a participant in as to the usefulness of such "faith versus fact" dichotomies which haven't been settled in the 30 years I've been watching/listening. Still, the study of how and why people do this is as valid and useful and any other scientific endeavor.

2) The philosophy of rationalism, or science, is, IMHO, strong enough, and large enough, to accept that, since all people are not always "equal" in their education, experience, etc., most people, including "scientists" (in areas outside of their scientific specialty) will often create and/or accept/support weak or disproved science as well as fraud and/or quackery.

The philosophy of rationalism, or science, but not all rationalists and/or scientists, are, IMHO, strong enough, and large enough, to accept this "un-science" without feeling threatened or the need to attack such un-scientific positions. Correct, perhaps, but not attack.

Again I think that this phenomenon is an area of study in the "softer" sciences.

Donarnold (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2014)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is consensus against moving Detox to another location, considering it's a disambiguation page that contains a number of items called just "Detox", including several not related to detoxification). Further, the creation of Detoxification (disambiguation) negates the necessity of moving "Detox" (which, again, contains several items called just "Detox"). There is no discernible consensus that "Metabolic detoxification" would be a better title for this article for other reasons, so the status quo prevails. Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Detox is an abbreviation of Detoxification. It is not a different thing. Detox should just redirect to Detoxification. However, there are several things called detoxification/detox that are different things with the same names. They shouldn't be within one article. They should each be separate articles with a disambiguation page here to separate them. The current article is basically like a disambiguation page with overly long descriptions and without the disambiguation headers. Separate articles already exist for Detoxification (alternative medicine), Drug detoxification and Alcohol detoxification but not for metabolic process done by organs such as the liver. I suggest this omission is fixed by making an article titled Metabolic detoxification. I have already gone through all the incoming links to this article and disambiguated then such that only links on the metabolic detoxification point here, and the other links point to the other related pages directly. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment why the capital "D" in "Metabolic Detoxification"? -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reason, just a typo. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disabiguation page at Detox is about Detoxification. It says "Detox may refer to:
Detox is the abbreviation for Detoxification. They are the same thing. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disambiguation should be taking place at an appropriately labelled page. This page should either summarize the central principle of detoxification as it applies to all of the word's disparate uses, applying appropriate summary style or it should focus on the definition which is most centrally important to the largest number of contexts and sources, which, to my mind, has got to be the concept of metabolic detoxification, which is a broad topic with massive relevance to countless fields of inquiry within biological science in general and medicine in particular. To clarify, the ideal solution to my mind, and certainly the one most consistent with policy on this sort of manner, is to move the content currently found at Detox to Detoxification (disambiguation). This name space would then continue to play host to the broad concept article summarizing all uses of the term (in which case, another article called Detoxification (metabolism) could be created to treat that usage in more detail, if this was deemed necesary at some point) or the metabolic usage should be treated here alone, in which case no article titled Detoxification (metabolism) would exist, but this article would exist alongside Detoxification (alternative medicine), Drug detoxification and Alcohol detoxification, with Detoxification (disambiguation) to disambiguate accordingly. Snow talk 05:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read how to name a disambiguation page and note that disambiguation need not be taking place at an specially labelled page if there is no defined primary topic. Here no one meaning for detoxification that can be considered primary. Determining the if there is a primary topic is not done by your impression of importance but by evidence of frequency of use: look at Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. The term detoxification is used just as frequently for all different topics mentioned. They each have similar numbers of incoming links under "what links here".
This page can not summarize the central principle of detoxification as it is no single central principle. Drug detoxification shares zero common elements with Detoxification (alternative medicine), other than the name. This article does not fall under the guides of Broad-concept articles. This is not a broad topic. It is several distinct and entirely separate topics that are incorrectly placed on the same page together.
There is no reason to use Detoxification (metabolism) over Metabolic detoxification. Note that WP:NCDAB says natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation where possible and it is possible here.
-- Rincewind42 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my position -- and I think, to a lesser extent, policy as well -- on a few key points. First off, I wasn't selecting the primacy of any one topic on the basis of subjective criteria; "what links here" is one way of determining a primary topic, but better yet is its representation in the sources, and though it's going to take some effort to present the case if we can't agree that it is a likely granted fact, I'm nonetheless fairly confident that case can be made that detoxification, as a general mechanism incorporating many forms of metabolic function, has by far the greatest breadth of relevance amongst potential sourcing. On a separate point, I have to disagree that these topics do not represent constituents of a broad concept; in each of these cases there is a shared principle of an organism's capability to remove a given substance from it's body using metabolic processes. The fact that this catch-all happens to include physiological functions, sanctioned medical practices, and other processes of more dubious efficacy is really quite beside the point -- they all still share that unifying principle. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to share a name space as a broad concept article though, if we don't feel it's the appropriate course of action, and, if you read my posting again, you'll see I don't; I suggested it as one of the two options open to us by policy, but the one I favour less.
Lastly, I've no preference for Detoxification (metabolism) over Metabolic detoxification; I simply used the arrangement which the RfC author employed (he has since changed it following your comments. Point in fact, Metabolic detoxification seems to me that it would be the much better choice, if our choice were between those two options -- but it's not. I continue to feel that this name space out to be reserved for the central concept of metabolic detoxification; all other uses (clearing a narcotic from one's system, alternative medicines which claim to "draw" a toxin out) necessarily incorporate these physiological/biophysical processes. They needn't share this space (though some arguably should link to one-another in the "see also" sections), as a broadconcept article, but neither is a disambig at all appropriate to this namespace, not when A) One concept is superordinate to the others, to which they are constituents, B) a massive selection of sources from disparate fields, contexts, and source types is likely to prioritize this usage and C) of the different usages, it is the one that secures the highest number of incoming article space links. Again, to reiterate, I prefer the one subject per namespace approach in this case, but if there is to be a general-purpose article here, it should be a broad-concept article not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation should be at Detoxification (disambiguation) in this case, not Detox and not Detoxification. Snow talk 10:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree on more than we disagree. Drug and alcohol detoxification do not actually involve the removal of any toxins form the body. Rather they involve medication and control or withdrawal symptom actually adding more drugs not removing anything. The concept that withdrawal symptoms are caused by toxin build up gives the etymology of the name but that theory is long defunct and deprecated.
As for Detoxification (alternative medicine), the practitioners of that may claim that they are assisting the metabolic process but it is important that there is zero evidence that they do. Science and pseudo-science should not be confused in the same article. The metabolic process is done by the liver and other organs. Detox diets and colonic irrigation have zero relation with that process and any claim otherwise is contrary to the scientific literature on the subject. Detoxification (alternative medicine) claims to be removing toxins but the important point is that it does not remove toxins.
The metabolic detoxification is the only one that does actually involve the removal of toxins. The article should summarize other articles such as liver, Drug metabolism, Toxicity, Toxication and the relevant sections of Metabolism. Those are the topics that a broadconcept of metabolic detoxification would cover.
As for "I'm nonetheless fairly confident that case can be made that detoxification, as a general mechanism incorporating many forms of metabolic function, has by far the greatest breadth of relevance amongst potential sourcing." please make the case. I am always convinced by properly researched numbers on such issues. I gave the "what links here" info because those numbers are to hand and I think any other stats would be very hard to obtain. Often google is deployed in such circumstances but it would not divide the issue clearly as it can't understand the context of use of the terms. I also point out that detox diets are very much in-vogue in many publications and that drug detox, along with drug rehab, is rarely out of the news where as the metabolic detoxification process is rarely discussed outside of textbooks on biology. The best way to get stats would be to divide the articles as I suggested then after a year look at the view counts for each page and you may then see if one or other has significantly more traffic and if so, make that the primary topic. But for now, without better data, none of the above can be considered primary.
-- Rincewind42 (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, I'm won over enough by your argument concerning the inadvisability of keeping all of the subjects in a broad-concept article, that, reviewing the article here now again in detail, I can certainly agree we should not preserve the kind of broad-concept article we have here now, where each topic is generally given equal weight and they are all treated without good context against one-another. There is an alternative middle-ground approach I'd like to suggest though: A broad-concept article that emphasizes metabolic detoxification, greatly expanding on the paltry content we have on the subject here, but also makes passing reference to drug and narcotic detoxification in short summary sections found lower in the article after the general physiological principles are well summarized in sections above. I can concede to the wisdom of your argument that uses of detoxification as a term in alternative medicine refer to very different kinds of mechanisms from those at work in general metabolism (regardless of whether one believes these dubious mechanisms exist and function as their proponents claim), but when it comes to narcotic and alcohol detoxification, the same organs and metabolic pathways are in use as operate upon toxic substances that lack a psychoactive component. It is true that in the context of withdrawal, "detoxification" as a term refers not only to the metabolic process but also the various medical, palliative, patient-care, and social aspects of the whole process, but it's clear that the term detoxification itself is used because the body is in fact isolating and removing toxic substances through the normal processes. I think that earns the articles concerned with those contexts a little nod in any article about metabolic detoxification, whatever namespace it ends up at. I do feel that this niche usage should receive minimal treatment against the broader subject, but looking at this article as it stands now, it seems to me that the problem isn't that drug and alcohol contexts are admitted, but that the general principles of detoxification, to which they are constituent subjects, are so massively underrepresented. Perhaps we could consider expanding and restructuring the topic here a little bit, see if we can make the subordinate subjects integrate with the general one cleanly through discussion of common physiological principles before we decide where ultimately all of that content should reside. All with an eye towards appropriate sourcing and weight of course.
Edit: Owing to the poor representation of this important subject at such a high value namespace, and the fact that it falls within the interests of several Wikiprojects to which I am a member, I would, for the record, be happy to do the leg work of augmenting the article, if no other contributors are available, with a rough timetable of a major revision at some point in the next ten days (wish I could be more specific). Something along the lines of the revision if I did for Pathology recently after an RfC decided that the broad-concept nature of the article had been narrowed inappropriately and had always been poorly implemented anyway (here's the previous and current versions). This article will very likely be considerably shorter, but it can potentially be developed in a similar way to serve broad-concept needs without risking unnecessary conflation between topics outside of their actual empirical, definable, and (most importantly) sourceable associations. Regardless, somewhere a central discussion of metabolic detoxification needs to exist that treats the subject in better detail as a hub for articles connected to the topic. Snow talk 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are still confused about drug and narcotic detoxification's relationship to the metabolic process. The concept that drug withdrawal symptoms are caused by toxification/detoxification is long outdated. The use of the word detoxification for drug rehabilitation was originally closer to the ideas of the alternative medicine than to that of any evidence based medicine. Over time the treatment has become more based on evidence and the term rehab has increased in use. For examples see these ngrams:

I have been wondering why—given that most medical articles on WP get allot of attention form medical students who fill them out with dense medical speak—that this article hasn't had such attention. The thought occurred that perhaps the subject is covered under a different name. A few days ago I created detoxification (disambiguation) and in the process added a few other meanings and re-read several articles. It became apparent that metabolic detoxification is the main subject described within the article drug metabolism and I wonder if there is any need for the topic to be treated separately here/there at all. To back this up it may be noted that Xenobiotic metabolism is synonymous with metabolic detoxification and that Xenobiotic metabolism already redirects to drug metabolism.

One more point. On researching for the disambiguation page, I search google books and google scholar and I am now of the opinion that Detoxification (alternative medicine) qualifies as the primary topic as by far the majority of books and articles I found were talking about the alternative medicine treatment rather than any other usage of the word. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on the second last paragraph above: note that this article is tagged to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine but not to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Detoxication[edit]

I've just merged Toxification into Toxication and was about to do the same with Detoxication and Detoxification (long overdue on my todo list), when I noticed that User:Klbrain beat me to it just yesterday. However, since there was nothing worth saving anyway from Detoxication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), do you agree that it should be retargeted here? After all, most dictionaries treat the two words as synonyms, and it's arguably a more narrow target than Drug metabolism. Or even to Detoxification (disambiguation), since the alternative medicine article is also a likely target? No such user (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Detoxication" is arguably narrower, but I think that that's OK; I thought about sending it to a subsection, but as you also note, I don't think that there is enough there. Perhaps we could use a hatnote on the Drug metabolism page to allow users to think also about the Detoxification (alternative medicine) page. I'll add a hatnote (WP:HN) to that page; see what though think at Drug metabolism. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology in the whole field is utterly confusing, and can be evidenced e.g. from these folks trying to get guidance from our articles in vain. OK, there are two basic uses, the scientific one (metabolism of toxins) and the alt-med one (organism "cleaning"). However, on the scientific side, we still do have an article detoxification, which more or less serves as a WP:CONCEPTDAB, and drug metabolism, which I've skimmed over just now (it's way too technical for my league), which mentions "detoxification" 13 times but does not link to detoxification at all. To contribute to the chaos, Detox (disambiguation) and Detoxification (disambiguation) significantly overlap, but there isn't Detoxication (disambiguation)
Whatever the organization and scope of individual articles, we ought to make this material more accessible to our readers. No such user (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected Detox and Detoxication to Detoxification, and merged Detox (disambiguation) into Detoxification (disambiguation), per WP:DPAGE. No such user (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

May I get a clarification why we need "this". The first three lines currently read:
"Detox" redirects here. For other uses, see Detoxification (disambiguation).
This article is about the removal of toxic substances from a living organism. For other uses, see Detoxification (disambiguation).
Detoxification or detoxication (detox for short)[1] is the physiological or medicinal removal of toxic substances from a living organism,
 Does anyone share with me an impression of, erm, certain redundancy here, such as doubly linking the dab page, and explaining the very definition twice? Just because some cranks will inevitably come and insert their detox ads is not a reason to keep a bunch of self-evident stuff to an innocent reader. No such user (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No because we need to be clear there's a distinction between real "detoxification" and the hooey that is "detoxification" (aka "detox") in the world of altmed and pop-sci. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this hatnote, repeating the contents of the first sentence sans keywords "physiological and medicinal", help distinguish the real thing and the hooey? No such user (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With words. Admittedly it could be worded better but since this is a word overloaded with meaning we do need a disambiguator here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not distinguish anything. It just repeats the same thing over and over, to the point when the reader says "who the fuck is crazy here"? Actually, it just repeats the same thing over and over, to the point when the reader says "who the fuck is crazy here"? I mean, it just repeats the same thing over and over, to the point when the reader says "who the fuck is crazy here"?
Do you get my point? No such user (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I think on reflection there is a problem here. What this article really is, is a "List of types of detoxification". Perhaps rename and then we can ditch the hatnote? Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Broad-concept articles – this is probably an example of one, although there is no clearcut classification; it's more of "I know it when I see it" concept. Typically, it looks like an enhanced dab page, describing various aspects of the topics in short sections, each pointing to a more detailed article. So I suppose it is fine as it is. The catch with such articles is that they require the reader to actually, um, read them to learn about all those aspects (see e.g. Particle), and cranks don't read things, they just add the WP:TRUTH hooey. Detoxification (alternative medicine), in itself a broad-concept, is supposed to cover the woo ground, of course, in a scientific manner.
Now, to me, the current schema looks reasonable, but how to word the hatnotes is an open issue. I'm inclined to just delete the second hatnote, there is enough material for the reader to navigate. No such user (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should't we add info about State based Detoxification facilities?[edit]

I have found some Detoxification facilities located in New York City and Florida. New York Drug Rehab and Summit Detox, Florida based Drug Rehab --77.243.183.70 (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links in your post. No. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my addition to Alternative medicine section[edit]

Hello No such user. I want to discuss your whole-sale deletion of my material. You stated as the reasons:

The main article for that is Detoxification (alternative medicine). However, a single podcast quote is unlikely to be a RS/DUE even there.

Let me unpack that:

1. "The main article for that is Detoxification (alternative medicine)"

  • In fact my next step was going to be to add similar text to the main article. I still intend to do that. BUT your implication is that this does not belong HERE also, under the existing "Alternative medicine" section. I did not create the section. It was pre-existing, with info already there. I am unclear as to what/who determines how much - and exactly what - should go ONLY on the main page and not in a section like this as well? Perhaps you are correct, but this seems muddy. Is there WP guidance available that you could point me to on this subject?

2. "However, a single podcast quote is unlikely to be a RS/DUE even there."

  • I do not understand what you mean by "DUE" there, so I have to let that go for now. Please explain.
  • I assume RS to be "Reliable Sources." In that context I do not understand what you mean by "a single podcast quote is unlikely to be (a Reliable Source)." A quote is not a source. A quote is from a source. So I really did not follow your statement. Perhaps it was a typo... Are you disputing that Skeptoid IS a Reliable Source on the topic of debunking pseudoscience? If that is the actual concern, please confirm so we can discuss it.
I see that this article has a banner stating "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism..." I believe that this Podcast and the author Dunning are dead center in the wheelhouse of Skepticism and critical analysis of pseudoscientific claims! Personally, for years it has been my go-to source when I need to send understandable info to someone I have argued with on any woo woo topic, and is frequently cited as a reference on WP pages debunking anti-science claims. By the way, please see the Skeptoid section on Dunning's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(author)#Skeptoid_podcast. RobP (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the removal was correct. The brief section here should just recapitulate the WP:LEAD of the main article; anything new should go there, not here. See WP:SYNC which is what we do when a topic has been WP:SPLIT. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog: Thanks for the info regarding what goes in the Main article vs in a section. I will pursue adding this material to the main page instead of here. As a side point, After reading the reference you provide, it seems this section is not in sync with the main article. ("Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a main hatnote pointing to the subarticle.") Perhaps that needs to be worked on?
No such user: Jytdog resolved the first point you made. Can you still discuss the second point so I do not run into the same problem when I add this to the main page? RobP (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes stub sections like this often fall out of SYNC with the main article; I will try to fix that here. This is "meta-editing" across articles, that I wish more people paid attention to.
btw, I am not a big fan of videos and podcasts used as refs; the purpose of a ref is to show that the content has support in a reliable source -- for verification - and I don't like having to listen to a whole podcast or watching/listening to a whole video in order to verify content. I think the podcast would be OK as an EL though.
Also, content doesn't generally describe the source - all the stuff at the beginning -- "In his January 15, 2008 Skeptoid podcast episode titled "The Detoxification Myth," scientific skeptic author Brian Dunning examined "the myth of detoxification, as offered for sale by alternative practitioners and herbalists everywhere..." -- is kind of WP:PROMO and goes beyond simple attribution (which would be "Brian Dunning said of detox diets: "blah blah blah") Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jytdog, I'll take your PROMO comments to heart the next time I use Skeptoid as a reference. I actually started doing it this way due to comments like "Who is this author and why should I care?" BTW, I agree that verifying content of an audio or video source is difficult and I try to avoid such refs where possible. I wish there were a template for such material - requiring a time stamp. HOWEVER, one of the reasons I favor using Skeptoid is that each citation points to a page with the audio PLUS the transcript of the podcast! (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4083) No need to listen. Easy to verify. Regards.RobP (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Detoxification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glutathione and metallothionein[edit]

Why aren't glutathione and metallothionein proteins added on this page as detox proteins? Since they are detox proteins and it seems like there is a lot of suppression of facts on wikipedia.50.101.82.237 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the glutathione transferase is mentioned. what WP:MEDRS refs are thre about metallothionein? Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114003/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05207.x/pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6453&rep=rep1&type=pdf 50.101.82.237 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection[edit]

This article's main goal should be on detoxification not drug detoxification like Alcohol. I highly recommend the author should talk more about the benefits and side effects of detoxification and talk about different type detoxification not just drug related. The author should talk more about how to perform alcohol and these other kind of detoxification as discussed by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwaramna15 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colon cleansing[edit]

Re this.[1] repeated edit - we cannot use a source about diets (what you eat) to imply it's all about colon cleansing. The Mayo source already said this is based on little scientific evidence (=woo). I've added a SBM source to clarify. Bon courage (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bon_courage changed the source from one about colon cleansing to diets... then claimed it was incorrect! You made it an incorrect reference when you changed the reference.
Neither Mayo sources EVER use the words "Scientific", "basis", or "undefined" and they should be removed from the text as those words have significant meaning are NOT found in the reference.
This is clear unverifiable opinion based text, that is NOT supported by the reference that is cited.
Why do you keep making it worse instead of improving it? Know I AM (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detoxification&oldid=1195530247"