Customer Discussions > Health forum

How do you flush toxins out of your body?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 15, 2014 3:20:53 AM PDT
Marked Twain says:
Vitamin C 1000 mg
Alpha Lipoic Acid 300 mg
N-Acetyl Cysteine 600 mg
Cal-D Glucarate 200 mg
-
Chlorella 5 g
Neem 1.5 g
Slippery Elm 2.5 g
Activated Carbon (charcoal) 1g

Take each group of four 8-12 hours apart, usually AM/PM. Cycle 3 days on/off, up to four cycles. Can be repeated monthly (i.e take about a week off). Complete B complex and multivitamin supplements are essential during detox, along with electrolyte replenishment and extra hydration.

1000 mg of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and 4-500 mg of magnesium carbonate (or oxide) will relieve any intestinal obstruction and assist detoxification. Mix with lemon juice and fruit beverage of choice.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 9:43:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2014 9:44:55 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Obviously, there exist situations where you would be wanting to consume a chelator of some sort, i.e., in a situation of real, measurable toxicity. Fortunately, there do exist methods of determining whether toxins such as arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc., are present in the body, or, at least, are circulating. It costs a little, but you can actually get your blood tested for those things. The money to pay for such tests will have to come out of your own pocket, however. I've had huge mercury amalgam fillings in my mouth for five decades, and some would argue that I would necessarily need "detoxifying" because of the mercury. Certainly, a few molecules are given off regularly, but life itself evolved in an environment in which a few molecules of almost every element known to man was present, so I don't worry about very tiny amounts. Just to see, however, I had my blood mercury level measured on three occasions, and it was at 1.3 and 1.2 mcg per liter on two occasions, and not even detectable on the third. Since the reference range for mercury is between 0 and 14.9 mcg/l, and my readings were near the very bottom, I don't see any reason for concern (and I do consume fish, quite regularly.) If I were to go to a NP or someone along that line and were to fail to mention that I had taken advantage of that new process, called measurement, I would probably bet a big one that I would be told that I was being poisoned by mercury as soon as I mentioned the fillings, and I'm sure that a whole host of other toxins would be supposed to be oozing out of all my pores, necessitating some kind of dire intervention which, would, conveniently, be available through the NP.

There could exist medical situations that require consumption of some kind of chelator. I don't consider it wise to make these substances daily additions to one's diet for this simple reason, if no other: chelators don't have magic Maxwellian demons residing with them that tell them to react with only one molecule. For instance, EDTA is FDA-approved to treat lead, thallium, arsenic, and other kinds of poisoning, but it also chelates magnesium and calcium, among other things, so you really wouldn't want to be consuming it willy-nilly, unless you're ready for that long sleep six feet under, which is one of the potential side effects of too much chelation.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 4:41:05 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
"The idea that we are being poisoned from within is not a new one; it's a historical concept rooted in ideas of sympathetic magic. Called "autointoxication," it drew a link between our bowels and other health problems. Clean out the bowels, went the theory, and you could cure any illness. Science led us to discard autointoxication by the 1900s as we gained a better understanding of anatomy, physiology, and the true cause of disease. Despite the science, however, the idea persists among the alternative practitioners, who don't base their treatments on scientific evidence. Today's version of autointoxication argues that some combination of food additives, gluten, salt, meat, prescription drugs, smog, vaccine ingredients, GMOs, and perhaps last night's bottle of wine are causing a buildup of "toxins" in the body. But what is the actual "toxin" causing harm? It's nothing more than a meaningless term that sounds scientific enough to be plausible. A uniform feature of detox kits is the failure to name the specific toxins that the kits will remove..."

"The colon remains ground zero for detox advocates. They argue some sort of toxic sludge (sometimes called mucoid plaque) is accumulating in the colon, making it a breeding ground for parasites, candida (yeast) and other nastiness. Fortunately, science tells us otherwise: mucoid plaque and toxic sludge simply do not exist. It's a made-up idea to sell detoxification kits. Ask any gastroenterologist (who look inside colons for a living) if they've ever seen one. There isn't a single case that's been documented in the medical literature. Not one."...

"Despite the variety of toxins that are claimed to be causing your illness, marketing claims for detox kits will uniformly fail to link toxins to specific symptoms or illnesses.

The reality is that our bodies are constantly being exposed to a huge variety of natural- and synthetic chemicals. The presence of any chemical in the body, (natural or synthetic) does not mean that it is doing harm. Many naturally-derived substances can be exceptionally toxic, and consequently the human body has evolved a remarkable system of defenses and mechanisms to defend against and remove unwanted substances. The skin, kidneys, lymphatic system, our gastrointestinal system, and most importantly, the liver make up our astounding complex and sophisticated intrinsic detoxification system."...

There is no credible evidence to demonstrate that detox kits* do anything at all. We can be comfortable concluding that marketing claims of toxin removal with detox kits are unsubstantiated. There is simply no credible evidence to support the evidence that detox kits and treatments remove toxins."

"Conclusion

Alternative medicine ideas of detoxification have no basis in reality. There's no published evidence detox kits* have any beneficial effects. Yet, there is a real potential for these kits* to do harm."

http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-detox-delusion/

*or alt med detox "protocols"

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 4:08:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2014 6:50:37 AM PDT
ParrotSlave
My apologies for not responding to your contributions. I do appreciate the humor and I do acknowledge the normal processes of the body to detoxify. Unfortunately there is evidence that it cannot remove every xenobiotic and there are now substances/processes that can help reduce those xenobiotics in the human body. I do like the parts with study links and hope you continue to contribute.

Edit--
For any latecomers, here is the original method I posted for detox of adipose tissue, as well as heavy metal chelation, and I composed this from a collection of articles found on various research websites including the NIH website.

===================================

Please consult your doctor before beginning anything like this. I recommend not utilizing this if you are being medicated for any reason. It will interfere with your medication as it is removing toxins from your body. It will remove medications and/or influence regular body processes that can change the effects of medication.

Also, if you find you flush easily, are small in size, are prone to nervousness, headaches, reactions to niacin, or have medical problems that do not require medication, when beginning the niacin, start with 25 milligrams. Otherwise, follow this plan:

Begin daily regimen of 100mg niacin.
Step up the dosage over a period of days, ending anywhere from 500 to 1000mg daily. Make sure you are drinking around 80 ounces of water daily.

Take 5 grams modified citrus pectin first thing in the morning. Use quick dissolve capsules to allow them to dissolve in your stomach (if not ingesting the powder). Take with plenty of water (at least 16 ounces). Every time you take the citrus pectin you need to stimulate circulation of your lymphatic system to circulate the toxins. In the beginning do 2 jumping jacks and then 1 sit up. Each time you take the modified citrus pectin you need to increase the number, until eventually you will reach 10 sit ups and 20 jumping jacks. If possible, do 2 sit ups and 3 jumping jacks and repeat until you reach the desired number, finishing off by doing the last 5 jumping jacks in rapid succession. You will repeat the modified citrus pectin 2 more times a day, totaling 15 grams, making sure to avoid taking it within 2 hours before you exercise/sweat.

After meals take a chlorophyll pill(s) that includes chlorophyllin and chlorella where you end up getting 200mg of chlorella, and take a 400mg activated charcoal pill.

To include your bodies natural detoxification power you need to add 30 minutes of sweat inducing exercise, preferably running or jumping rope, where the more you sweat the better. It would also be beneficial to spend a few hours in a sauna daily. 30 minutes before you do the exercise/sauna, take 2 tablespoons of sunflower/safflower oil and you can take it with a small amount of food. Remember to get out of the sauna as much as necessary to avoid overheating and continuously drink small amounts of water to avoid dehydration. The idea is to maintain a consistent outpouring of your sweat without any debilitating effects. Your body needs oil, water, and heat to sweat. Polyunsaturated oil traps toxins and carries them out of your body with the sweat.

If possible finish with a full body lymphatic drainage massage. If you're poor like me, you can easily do one on yourself. There are plenty of youtube videos illustrating self lymphatic massage.

Once you've stepped everything up to the required amount, continue this regime for 5 to 10 days. Then take some time off from it. You can repeat as desired, but in between include plenty of salads to keep the natural bowel detox going and take vitamins to help replenish anything that's been washed out by sweating and excessive water intake.
===================================
This is not intended to be used every day for the rest of your life, your body can handle normal removal of most toxins you are typically exposed to. It's intended to remove the toxic load within existing adipose tissue to reduce toxic exposure symptoms while losing weight (because fat soluble toxins end up in fat cells when your body has no way to remove them and they are released again as the cells shrink), or (as the sources I gathered it from) as an emergency method of removing toxins where you've undergone a recent exposure to an inordinately large amount of toxic chemicals such as police being exposed to waste from a meth lab. This method will chelate heavy metals and can cause more problems than it fixes if you try to use it for too long, that's why I recommend periods of rest in between the week/10 day periods.

A couple posts down, Marked Twain also offers another method, it appears he has complementary components to this method.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 3:56:37 PM PDT
"You really expect people to chase through a list of references trying to figure out what which one you mean?" - No, I expect that people who want a summation of several volumes of information will appreciate what I've posted and whomever else wants more information about the protocol can find it the same way I did.

"Your childish response of "find the proof yourself" is telling. You have none." - If you choose to not look at the proof, just because I'm not spoon feeding it to you, that means you're lazy, not that it doesn't exist.

"And you have supposedly "researched" it enough to recommend a protocol." - You're right, I did a lot of research, combined several different protocols that included several different detox avenues into one easy to follow plan. Again I am not a doctor and I haven't done research on the combined plan, only offer that it is based on several scientifically proven methods. Knowing your position is set without you bothering to even research it yourself lends me to believe that you want me to convert you and I am not starting a religion, so I point you towards searching for the exact info you're looking for rather than bothering to defend each individual work and their research methods to you when I'm not the doctor that did it.

"why couldn't you simply answer the questions?" - Why can't you simply search for those answers yourself? I'm not trying to convince you or help you with your doctoral thesis, I'm providing what I choose to provide as are you.

"Nor did I. I *did* imagine that you were well-versed enough to answer questions." - I'm capable enough of answering questions, but I've chosen not to. Considering the first link I placed was only a part of the collection of information and the response was to decide their methods weren't scientific enough for the troll's gallery nesting here, even though it's an incomplete picture of the protocol currently used by the medical community today, I felt that any and every resource I chose to put up would be dismissed similarly, and the valid points ignored in lieu of focusing on any perceived flaw.

"And what will you tell them? To look it up themselves?" - If it's questioning the "proof" then yes, if it's questioning my experience with it, then I can feel free to share that, though since I did no double blind study on myself replete with tissue, urine, and fecal sampling, it's obviously not the information you are looking for.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 3:29:32 PM PDT
"Your semantics aside, your repeated requests are a demand."

Except I asked the questions once. Your childish response of "find the proof yourself" is telling. You have none.

"You keep asking questions when you could find the answers yourself about the science behind it."

And you have supposedly "researched" it enough to recommend a protocol. Instead of these volumous response, why couldn't you simply answer the questions?

" and they don't choose to start by claiming I'm presenting tripe"

Nor did I. I *did* imagine that you were well-versed enough to answer questions.

"I will discuss it with them"

And what will you tell them? To look it up themselves?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 12:54:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2014 12:54:14 PM PDT
"You already claimed someone did tissue biopsies to support a claim of toxin removal. Who allegedly did this and where were the results published?"

My First Histo Kit - Toys R Us - aisle 6.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 12:38:31 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
"No, I will not go cut up someone and attempt to perform a tissue biopsy to satisfy your request, I'm not a doctor."

You already claimed someone did tissue biopsies to support a claim of toxin removal. Who allegedly did this and where were the results published? Of course, there are less invasive ways to show lower levels of toxins - i.e. via blood and urine sample analysis. Has anyone done this for your protocol?

If there's a reference listed at the end of an article published on an NIH site which has evidence that the "Hubbard protocol" removes toxins, why not just list the reference, if it exists? You really expect people to chase through a list of references trying to figure out what which one you mean?

"I'm not a person who sells products, or even has investments in any stock of companies who sell supplements."

But who asked for donations, hopefully as a joke.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 12:27:35 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
(Breaking news)--Scientists today announced the discovery of a bodily organ, an organ they have named the "liver." According to the scientists, this new organ actually detoxifies xenobiotics, chemicals foreign to the body. Even more surprising, the scientists announced another discovery, a set of organs they call "kidneys" that, among other things, also detoxify xenobiotics. More discoveries are expected soon, such as how xenobiotics get carried to these organs, and their eventual fate. Stay tuned.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 11:36:14 AM PDT
"I demanded nothing" - Your semantics aside, your repeated requests are a demand. "Demand - an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right."

"Then you are not here to discuss anything" - As far as your involvement in a discussion, you are correct, what's there to discuss with you? I'm not the one that performed the studies. I'm not a person who sells products, or even has investments in any stock of companies who sell supplements. You keep asking questions when you could find the answers yourself about the science behind it. I choose not to waste my time attempting to persuade you because I'm not looking to change your mind. If anyone wants to discuss anything else about it that I know about, and they don't choose to start by claiming I'm presenting tripe, I will discuss it with them.

"but haven't demonstrated any scientific evidence so far that toxins are being removed." - No, I will not go cut up someone and attempt to perform a tissue biopsy to satisfy your request, I'm not a doctor. I cannot provide you proof. You can go read the proof if you want, I'm not stopping you. Again, I collected information from multiple studies and combined it to create something that is based on scientific proof. I don't care if people shell money out or not, I give this for them to have the information and I have no stake in any supplement company. Again, if you look you will find the ones with "proof".

"expect science-minded folks to take a closer look on that basis" - I do, still haven't seen you come back after taking a closer look. Google works, searching the NIH website works. Have at it. What you're doing isn't taking a look, it's demanding I do your legwork for the proof and submit it to you as if I have to answer to you. In fact, if you start with the nih link you can follow the citations at the end and it leads to more info, more keywords, then you can google those and include "nih" in the search term and you'll find even more to read.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 11:14:17 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
My, that's a very long hike for no gain.

So - you don't want to supply any of the evidence you claim exists because we are "derisive" and will just "poke holes" in whatever you present.

It's obvious you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to civility, so strike that excuse. And if it's going to be so easy to poke holes in your protocol, maybe you should be more concerned with promoting something that flimsy, rather than being annoyed about having to defend its flaws.

"This isn't science. This is a thread on flushing toxins in a medical forum on a consumer website."

_You_ attempted to use science to promote toxin-flushing, but haven't demonstrated any scientific evidence so far that toxins are being removed. If you want to say "Well, I can't prove any of it but it feels good", then we can move on. Exercise and going to the sauna can be pleasurable activities for some people, no dispute there. But if you're going to invoke science while expecting people to shell out money for a "protocol" that's supposed to have objective health benefits, expect science-minded folks to take a closer look on that basis.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 11:01:16 AM PDT
"You chose to demand I back it up with proof, of which there is plenty online"

I demanded nothing. I asked.

"and I choose to ignore that and demand you prove otherwise. Since we're not publishing papers, neither of us has to prove anything. I do however invite you to look it up yourself, like I did."

Then you are not here to discuss anything. So noted.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 9:45:19 AM PDT
Again Andrew,
You can do the research, I don't feel like accommodating you because I felt your line "imaginary 'toxins'" was derisive. To scorn someone's belief is derision, whether it's based on fact or not. Toxins are in fact real, you came out of the gate at full gallop without regards to cordial discourse.

Michael,
"I asked legitimate questions from the study you based your protocol on." - I didn't base it on ONE study, I based the primary portion of the protocol on several studies based on existing protocols. Those protocols are in use. I am well aware of the medical community's propensity to deride each others works and disagree with each other on the results of studies. That's why I choose not to give you fuel so you can further split hairs. I invite you to do the work yourself so people better than I can refute you with the results of their work. I don't seek to bring you answers because you obviously only want to attack "detoxing" and in my opinion that means you don't want answers you want an argument.

"Actually, the study you linked was very subjective and even admitted to be so." - Again, not just one study. Again there are actual tissue biopsies involved in one of the studies I've found. I do feel your tone has shifted from being so dismissive as to be derisive but I only submitted a collection of information for those that want to utilize it, not for people who want to poke holes in each individual study because it doesn't meet their own standards.

" Have I proven that calcium treats headaches?" - Bad choice, headaches are subjective as well. No, I am aware of the placebo effect, and again I am aware of tissue, urine, and fecal material being tested for presence of "toxins" at specific points in different studies.

"No one has been "sitting on this forum"." - You were on the first page, 7 years ago. You were also holding the same viewpoint and being very derisive. I can see that you've become more pedantic over time, obviously pulling more resources into your anti detox repertoire, but without being able to accept new information that's contrary to your stated stance. You and everyone else here is apparently aware the body divests itself of toxins regularly, so the "imaginary toxin" part really sticks out as a push at detracting from the validity of any counter argument rather than seeking the truth.

"I want to know how your plan was extrapolated from the toxicology article." - it wasn't, that was the last article I looked at because I was trying to find out whether there were any tweaks to their protocol based on which toxins the police were exposed to. Then I gave the title of the protocol and study results presented during the proceedings of the American Public Health Association: National Conference; San Diego, 1995 That's how Hubbard's name was brought into this. My plan was actually pieced together with information from several studies, including about 4 different Hubbard method studies, some activated charcoal studies, some modified citrus pectin studies, some lymphatic system detox studies, and some chlorophyll/chlorella/chlorophyllin studies.

Andrew,
"The reality is that in science, if you make the claim, you furnish the proof. Others don't have to disprove your beliefs." - This isn't science. This is a thread on flushing toxins in a medical forum on a consumer website. I presented a collection of information gathered from scientific studies over a long period of time. I didn't ask you to believe, I gave you the threads you could use to find the information yourself if you wanted to actually learn something. Since it is contrary to your opinion, I didn't expect you to do anything other than troll. I was pleasantly surprised when someone actually read a bit of one of the links, but it was still a failure when coming back to me for answers when they're right there at your finger tips. If you want to learn you can continue looking, like I did. Again, I never asked for someone to believe me, I'm not trying to start a religion. The onus isn't on either of us to prove ourselves, so I threw it back in your face to prove otherwise. At least then you stood a chance of finding the same material and actually digesting it rather than fixating on how I presented the information to you and claiming I'm wrong because I failed to include a quote or misplaced a decimal or something. Your interaction with me has made me feel you're not wanting information but rather to troll me into shutting up. I don't deign to feed the trolls.

Michael,
"Yet this string is the classic example" - I'm not involved in the other discussion, never dealt with any of you before, and didn't come to defend or attack. I came to just leave information I've collected. You chose to demand I back it up with proof, of which there is plenty online, and I choose to ignore that and demand you prove otherwise. Since we're not publishing papers, neither of us has to prove anything. I do however invite you to look it up yourself, like I did.

Andrew,
"The usual progression of alt health threads can be summarized" - If you're placing yourself in the role of "the skeptic" then the part about "has never been shown" is your logical failing. You may have never been shown the science, but that doesn't mean it's implausible. You commit yourself to an opinion and then when someone does show you a single study, you deride the methods, focus on flaws you feel are more important than any indication that the study has merit, and refuse to educate yourself otherwise. I don't choose to give you "errors" to focus on, I choose to leave the information for others that want it, not people who want to false fuel their sense of accomplishment by trolling people into abandoning the discussion.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 5:36:16 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
The usual progression of alt health threads can be summarized as follows:

Wooist: "X" cures cancer and hemorrhoids, buy X!"
Skeptic: "X" has never been shown to do any such thing, and the idea is scientifically implausible.
Wooist: "X" has too been proven, here's a study."
Skeptic: "That study involves cells in a test tube and not effects on human beings."
Wooist: "Science has been wrong before! You're a bully and a poopy-head!! You're trying to stifle the discussion!!!"

The beat goes on.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 5:20:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2014 5:25:20 AM PDT
Isn't it ironic that, on another thread, certain individuals have been accused of "bullying", "being rude" and "ganging up on people"

Yet this string is the classic example of a "science discussion".

As soon as you start asking/pointing out the scientific errors, you immediately get attitude, shill/troll accusations and cries of "do your own research"

And some go off in a snit to the music forum where the world is bright and gay. Of course, I went and read the newest post on that forum and it read: "I agree, trolls really dominate the Music Forum here!"

I must have missed the cerebral Mozart string!?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 5:07:06 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
"I contributed a collection of scientifically proven information."

None of that "information" demonstrates that toxic substances were present in the study population and were removed by the protocol. That's the basic premise behind it - but all that's provided in support of the idea is that people supposedly felt better after exercising, sauna treatments etc. - no evidence of any "toxins" being removed. I doubt we need to pay practitioners and the Church of Scientology for this.

"you find a study that proves otherwise if you feel it holds no merit."

Classic woo retort. The reality is that in science, if you make the claim, you furnish the proof. Others don't have to disprove your beliefs.

"And thanks to my visit to the Holocaust museum, I found that a great deal of experiments involved sterilization."

Uh-huh. And you claimed that "in the process they also came up with many improvements in modern medicine." - which is bogus.

I have not edited any posts here "to completely change my stance". Perhaps you need to sweat out some of those paranoia toxins.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 4:53:12 AM PDT
"skeptics obviously don't need this information if they've got 7 years to sit on one thread attempting to quash everyone who wants to help"

Dude, this thread was dead and pushed to a back page. You are the one that resurrected it and brought it to the top of the list. No one has been "sitting on this forum".

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 4:29:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2014 4:32:06 AM PDT
"I contributed a collection of scientifically proven information"

Actually, the study you linked was very subjective and even admitted to be so. Even commenting on it's own lack of controls. A scientific study must have controls to prove anything. And it relied on subjective information and conducted no laboratory testing for the subject it was studying.

If you were involved in a study, and I told you that say, your headaches and cough were likely caused by a lack of 'calcium'. And I gave you large doses of calcium and then asked you how your headaches were, and you told me that you think they might be a little better. Have I proven that calcium treats headaches?

I am seriously trying to discuss science with you here. I want to know how your plan was extrapolated from the toxicology article.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2014 4:03:29 AM PDT
"My post will help those who seek to utilize it and regardless of if Michael, Webster, or you Sigil, deride and poke holes in things I've written, there is a solid medical and scientific foundation in this information which when employed will result in healthier bodies for those that need it"

Excuse me! I did not "deride" you. I asked legitimate questions from the study you based your protocol on. Do you have any actual answers?

Posted on Sep 12, 2014 1:12:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2014 12:14:35 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Activated carbon is a wonderful substance: it has been considered a "universal antidote," and has been used by the medical profession for many years. I have some on hand, but I've never taken any. There might well be short term uses of it more than on a single occasion, but I find that, in humans, to be questionable. I cannot imagine that a sane person would start to take it on a daily basis; of course, I don't think that a sane person would suddenly decide that he or she had to "detox," unless, of course, there existed some kind of actual toxin present.

Taking activated carbon or charcoal orally will affect anything simultaneously in the stomach as well as, on down in the GI tract, anything that has been added back to the gut via enterohepatic circulation. If you consume a poison, and take activated carbon, the carbon, depending on the poison, may adsorb the poison. If that poison has already entered the body and is being detoxified by the liver, then excreted as bile, that bile will flow back into the GI tract and the complexes formed by the liver may be hydrolyzed there, releasing the once-detoxified poison to be absorbed again. The activated carbon will reduce the resorption. Other than that, I fail to see how taking activated carbon is going to be beneficial. It's not going to magically coax anything that's been deposited, say, in adipose tissue, to enter the stomach to react with the activated charcoal there.

Hallucinations are rife within the "alternative" community, one of those hallucinations being that activated carbon will only react with "toxins," and not with any required nutrients. The only way this could possibly be would be if there existed some kind of magic demons that blocked off the nutrients, and only allowed the "toxins" to bind with it.

Activated carbon (or activated charcoal) reacts with a large number of compounds by adsorption: the compounds bind to the surface of the activated carbon and in its pores. Activated carbon will even adsorb glucose (http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1932/jr/jr9320000613#!divAbstract). It adsorbs a wide variety of drugs and poisons, to varying degrees, as well as substances such as folic acid, N-acetyl cysteine, and vitamin B1. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927775708005839) The adsorption of NAC was studied to determine whether, in cases of acetaminophen overdose, activated carbon should be administered along with NAC, those results indicating that it would be a waste to do so. (http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/7210465) Acolytes of the activated carbon cult point to the fact that some ranchers use feed that has a certain amount of charcoal in it as "proof" in their "minds" that it doesn't adsorb such nutrients, ignoring, of course, that animals such as sheep don't need supplementation with, for instance, B vitamins. (http://www.sheep.cornell.edu/management/feeding/nrctable.html)

"Dextroamphetamine, primaquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, diphenylhydantoin, aspirin, iodine, phenol, and propoxyphene were very efficiently adsorbed in high concentrations. Quinacrine, meprobamate, chlorpromazine, quinine, chloroquine, quinidine, glutethimide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and methyl salicylate are less efficiently adsorbed, and ferrous sulfate, malathion, DDT, N-methyl carbamate, and boric acid are poorly adsorbed. Mineral acids alkalis, and compounds insoluble in aqueous acidic solution, such as tolbutamide, are not adsorbed to any measurable extent." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041008X68901221) Someone with a mind would probably note that the physiochemical properties of drugs generally has to be similar to natural substances found in our bodies: that's how the drugs are able to react with the body's enzymes. In other words, micronutrients in food have similar chemical properties to some drugs and even toxins. Drugs would not be drugs if they didn't act similarly to substances present in the body. It would be inconceivable--lacking magic demons or other supernatural forces--for activated carbon to distinguish between the two.

Phenolic compounds are irreversibly adsorbed by activated carbon (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653504008641; http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie00098a017), apparently by oxidative coupling. Considering that a number of beneficial phytochemicals, including those from a number of well-known herbal substances, are polyphenols of various configurations, it does not seem reasonable to want to remove those from one's diet by gulping down activated charcoal willy-nilly.

Factors affecting what is adsorbed and to what extent would include the type of activated carbon--how it is activated and what surface structure the material possessess--the volume and distribution of the micropores and the mesopores, the ionic strength of the solution, the pH of the solution, what else is in the solution, to name but a few variables. In the case of a number of substances being present, one might ask which of those substances the carbon will "prefer" to adsorb: that hinges on the stability of the complex formed between a substance and the carbon compared to their initial states, as well as the ease with which the complex can be formed. In one very simple experiment, a mixture of activated carbon in yogurt was compared with an aqueous mixture of activated carbon to see if there would be any difference in how well the activated carbon adsorbed acetaminophen in vivo. Giving the activated charcoal in yogurt reduced the adsorption of the acetaminophen by 9% to 13%. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16035203) In vitro studies gave figures that showed an adsorption reduction by 11% to 26%, depending on the particular brand of activated carbon being used, when given with food or with ice cream. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1600-0773.2003.pto930506.x/full)

Posted on Sep 11, 2014 7:12:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 11, 2014 7:14:59 PM PDT
Again Andrew, feel free to do the research yourself. I contributed a collection of scientifically proven information. You choose to ignore it. I did compare this with the "flat Earth" opinion, because you're choosing to ignore the facts.

"Others disagreed" - No, others trolled and compared their lack of facts to facts as if it held merit. The facts are there, I don't feel the need to give you every link when you're obviously choosing to found your side of the argument on your opinion instead of fact, you find a study that proves otherwise if you feel it holds no merit.

"This is the most bogus claim you've made yet. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

And thanks to my visit to the Holocaust museum, I found that a great deal of experiments involved sterilization.

"Edit" - Yes, the edit shows a post was edited. If I were to go back and edit all of my posts to completely change my stance, it would show edit as well, but not where I added or took anything away. That's what edit tags are for. Since you're apparently an experienced troll, you obviously already knew that.

Edit--
And I really don't care what Scientology thinks, this is about science, not religion.

Posted on Sep 11, 2014 6:09:05 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I can't think about "detoxing" without being reminded of an informercial that was aired for years (and may still be), the gospel of which was that we are all walking around with pounds of gunk that's been glued to our intestinal walls for decades, and that this gunk is responsible for a whole litany of complaints and diseases. The list was, of course, vague enough that there probably does not exist anyone on earth who does not have at least one of those "symptoms." The pitchman looked like a correctional institution escapee. It wasn't Trudeau.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2014 5:44:15 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
The thread was revived after a year and a half of dormancy by someone who wanted to promote his conception of a winning "detox" formula. Others disagreed.

Why do you feel the need to tell people that they shouldn't express opinions on an Internet forum? Don't you have better things to do with your time than argue about something so inconsequential? ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2014 4:58:48 PM PDT
ASB says:
Just to say that it was amazing how long a post can go on when it seems nothing but arguing.... and asking why people can't just have their own opinion... do the detox if you think it helps, don't do it if you think it's quackery....rather than argue about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2014 4:53:44 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
So why did you post?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 56 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  419
Total posts:  1381
Initial post:  Oct 29, 2007
Latest post:  Sep 15, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 42 customers

Search Customer Discussions