2009-01-25

Broken Links ? Questions ?

TO CONTACT JMB CLICK ON THE STAMP

FDA Required Disclosure

jmbblog

A podcast powered by FeedBurner

Send article as PDF to

WATCH THE SOURCE  Following the first article published today

Debunking the Detox Debunkers

I went to investigate who was behind this ” brilliant ” study : a charity named : Sense about Science.

Sense about Science is a “charitable trust, founded in 2002, to promote an evidence-based approach to scientific issues in the public domain. The trust works with organisations, experts and opinion formers to encourage this approach, particularly in areas of controversy”

The Director is Tracey Brown who was a senior analyst in the “Risk Analysis Unit” of the Public Relation company Regester Larkin.

This company’s clients are nearly all pharmaceutical, oil, or biotechnology companies, including BioIndustry Association, Shell Chemicals, TOTAL, Bayer, Pfizer, Aventis CropScience, and gas company BG Group.

Few years ago Tracey Brown appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in December 2002 backing up GM

“Time and time again now we see a pull-back from a willingness to judge evidence, from a willingness to put forward policy based on evidence, and a desire to try to push the discussion in different directions but without ever taking responsibility for the consequences in terms of progress. There’s a vacuum” (12 Dec, 2003).

The chair of the board of trustees of Sense about Science is Lord Dick Taverne a prominent champion of biotechnology in British parliament who wrote :

“GM foods are safe, healthy and essential if we ever want to achieve decent living standards for the world’s growing population. Misplaced moralising about them in the west is costing millions of lives in poor countries.”

Few of the Donors of Sense about Science:
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
The Biochemical Society
British Petroleum PLC
GlaxoSmithKline
Phizer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

Broken Links ? Questions ?

TO CONTACT JMB CLICK ON THE STAMP

FDA Required Disclosure

jmbblog

A podcast powered by FeedBurner

Send article as PDF to

Date: 1/19/2009
Posted By: Jon Barron

Perhaps you’ve seen the headlines.

• Scientists dismiss ‘detox myth’ (BBC News)
• Detox product claims are ‘legalized lying,’ scientists warn consumers (CBC News, Canada)
• Debunking the Detox Myth (Medical News Today)
• Scientists Debunk Detox Claims (Huffington Post)

You get the idea. So what breakthrough study warrants such dismissive language?

As it turns out, much less than you might imagine. A report by Voice of Young Science (VoYS), a group affiliated with the Sense About Science charitable trust, representing more than 300 post-graduate and post-doctorate science students, found that no two companies use the same definition of “detox” and their claims were largely “meaningless.”  As biologist Harriet Ball, one of the report’s authors, said, “Detox is marketed as the idea that modern living fills us with invisible nasties that our bodies can’t cope with unless we buy the latest jargon-filled remedy.”

“Our investigation into detox products has convinced us that there is little or no proof that these products work, except to part people from their cash and downplay all the amazing ways in which our bodies can look after themselves.”

In fact, in their press release and leaflet accompanying the report, VoyS stated that:

‘Detox’ has no meaning outside of the clinical treatment for drug addiction or poisoning. Today young scientists and engineers are publishing a dossier on their hunt for the evidence behind detox claims made for products and diets, and beginning a campaign to alert the public.

The multi million pound detox industry sells products with little evidence to support their use. These products trade on claims about the body which are often wrong and can be dangerous. We at Voice of Young Science think it’s time to challenge the detox myth and bring you the Anti-Detox Promise.

This is pretty shocking stuff — especially considering that I just concluded my post holiday blood and liver detox. Talk about feeling silly. Was my detox meaningless? Did I truly part with my hard earned cash as VoYS claimed?

Fortunately, after digging a little deeper than the media stories — actually just looking at the report from VoYS itself — it was easy to see that there was nothing to the headlines. In fact, it was just a bunch of “young” scientists who know nothing about alternative health making some rather absurd conclusions and the media, as usual, running with the story without doing even the slightest critical evaluation. So, without further ado, let’s take a look at the report in question and see what it has to offer.

Overview of the Detox Dossier

Called the “Detox Dossier“, the report in question describes the findings of the investigation by the Voice of Young Science, a network of over 300 early career researchers. (Incidentally, if this is the best they can do, their later careers are likely to be rather undistinguished.) The scientists involved in the research include physiologists, biochemists, doctors, and pharmacists.

The Detox Dossier investigators found that:

• No two companies had the same definition for “detox.”  The word “detox” was used to promote a range of things from foot patches to hair straighteners, without consistent explanations of what the word means.
• In most cases, no evidence was presented to back up the “detox” claims on products.
• In most cases, producers and retailers who the young scientists got in touch with were forced to admit that they were using the word “detox” instead of mundane things like “cleaning” or “brushing.”
• The prices ranged from about 2 pounds for a detox drink to over 36 pounds (around $52) for detox bath products.
• In essence, they concluded that your body has a fantastic detox system, called the liver and the kidneys, and that there is no need to spend money on expensive treatments and products. Eating healthy and getting plenty of sleep is a better investment.

Those are some strong claims. Let’s examine each one in a bit more detail to see how valid they are.

No two companies had the same definition for “detox”

According to the report, “We all agreed that detox being used to sell everything from tea to hair straighteners was implausible and decided to dig deeper to find out what the product manufacturers meant by detox — had they some evidence about detox or how our bodies work not available to the rest of us? Our list of products to investigate was extensive and expensive, so we whittled it down to 15 products that were sold in a range of places and fairly represented what was out there in the shops.”

Okay , let me translate that for you.

• “We” means a group of people who have no understanding of detoxing or alternative health — and felt no need to consult with anyone who did. A solid start for the investigation, I must say.
• They agreed amongst themselves that since the word detox was “being used to sell everything from tea to hair straighteners,” it was “implausible.” That’s certainly amusing. When I go on the internet and look up the word doctor, I can see it used to describe everyone from neurosurgeons to people who charge absurd amounts of money to make the boobies of starlets and porno actresses bigger. I also find it used to describe so called experts in philosophy, art, and home economics — not to mention rap stars. I think we can all agree amongst ourselves, then, that the use of the word “doctor” is likewise “implausible” and warrants digging deeper to find out what is meant by the word. Now we could go to the doctors themselves to ask for clarification, but that would be too obvious. Instead, let’s go to the manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs and medical equipment and see what they have to say.
• That’s right, you read that correctly: instead of asking alternative health practitioners, these young scientists decided to “dig deeper” by contacting “product manufacturers.” Out of curiosity, what products did these scientists use to “define” detoxing — and thus the manufacturers they would query? Well, how about:
  • Garnier Clean Detox Anti-Dullness Foaming Gel (a facial cleanser)
  • MG Detox Shampoo Trevor Sorbie (a shampoo)
  • Boots Detox Body Brush (a skin brush)
  • Innocent Natural Detox Smoothie (an antioxidant fruit juice drink)
  • Vitabiotics Detoxil 15 day support (a multivitamin pill with a couple of added herbs at “pixie dust” levels)
  • V-Water Detox (spring water with added “pixie dust” vitamins and herbs)
  • 4321 Shape Up and Detox (high caffeine tea to stimulate weight loss)
  • Boots Detox 5 Day Plan (flavored water with “pixie dust” herbs, added mostly for their antioxidant value)
  • Farmacia Spa Therapy Detox (a range of products from foot pads to bath additives)
  • Crystal Spring Detox patches (foot pads)
  • Fushi Holistic and Health Solutions Total Detox Patch (and yet another foot pad)

I have to admit, after looking through this list, I’m beginning to feel much better about my selection of Dr. Dre to define the term “doctor.” Compared to the products listed above, Dr. Dre can at least lay claim to being a “doctor” of music. The simple fact is that in the entire list above only one of the products, the Boots Detox Body Brush, can lay any claim to having any association to what people in the alternative health community call detoxing. And at that, they chose a product sold under the brand name (Boots) of an English drug store chain. In other words, when they called for information on the product, they were talking to drug store purchasing agents — not alternative health specialists who might actually know how skin brushing relates to detoxing. That’s absurd.

In most cases, no evidence was presented to back up the “detox” claims on products

Okay, so our intrepid researchers found that the sales reps they spoke to could only spout marketing hype. As they so love to say in England, “That’s brilliant!” Again, they dealt with not one legitimate detox product, nor one legitimate alternative health company or practitioner. The bias here is so blatant, it could only have been deliberate. The VoYS had to deliberately select products that they knew had nothing to do with mainstream detoxing, produced by companies that had no expertise in alternative health or detoxing, and supported by marketing reps who were totally ignorant in the subject.

In most cases manufacturers used the word “detox” instead of mundane things like “cleaning” or “brushing”

So they have a problem with manufacturers using obfuscation in describing their products? Well, let’s be absolutely clear here. When it comes to obfuscation, these manufacturers are rank amateurs when compared to doctors and the medical community. Here are just a few examples of medical doublespeak.

• Negative Patient Care Outcome. It means the patient died. Death has also been referred to as “Immediate Permanent Incapacitation” — no kidding.
• Compensated Edentia. Would you believe false teeth?
• Nutritional Avoidance Therapy. The medical term for dieting.
• Thermal Remediation Unit. An ice pack, or even a plain bag of ice cubes.
• Digital Fever Computer. That’s what you and I would call a thermometer.

And our young researchers have a problem with the word “detox?” Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

The prices ranged from about 2 pounds for a detox drink to over 36 pounds for detox bath products

So what they’re saying is that the products were often expensive and yet had no proven results. I wonder if they’ve also looked at pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. Some of the excesses here are legendary, but for now, let’s just look at one: angioplasties. Angioplasties, which have an average cost of $40,000 but can top one million dollars in some cases, have in fact, been proven to be almost useless as a treatment. That suddenly makes 36 pounds look like the ethical bargain of the century.

In essence, they concluded that there is no need to spend money on expensive treatments and products. Eating healthy meals and getting plenty of sleep is a better investment

So, the results they achieved using these products was less effective than merely eating healthy meals and getting a good night’s sleep. And what were these results our researchers experienced on these products?

Oh, did I forget to mention, they didn’t actually try any of them! They based their entire assessment on reading packaging and what they were told by marketing reps on the phone!! Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! What conclusions I could come to if I based my entire assessment of the medical field by merely reading labels and interviewing pharmaceutical marketing reps!

And the media condemned detoxing as a myth based on a report that didn’t even test the products in question. For shame!

So what is detoxing?

Drug and alcohol detoxing aside, in the alternative health community, detoxing has a very specific meaning. It starts with the definition of the word toxin.  A toxin is anything that causes stagnation, congestion, or disease or that impedes any of the normal functions of the body. Toxins can impact the body at the system level (the elimination system), the organ level (liver and kidneys), or even the cellular level. Removing the toxins and reestablishing optimal functioning of the body and its systems is essential to good health. And yes, VoYS was half correct. The body has systems that do this naturally. They are called the colon, the liver, the kidneys, the lymph, etc. The problem is that too often nowadays, we so overwhelm and overload these systems that they can no longer keep pace and remove all the toxins. At that point, they begin storing those toxins in your body — along the walls of the colon, in the liver, in organ tissue throughout the body, and the cells themselves. And when that happens, your elimination organs need help. That help is what we call detoxing. The bottom line is that the road to natural health begins with cleansing and detoxification — no matter what the disease or problem. There are 9 primary areas where we can assist the body in detoxing (and no, they do not include shampoos, water, foot pads, and antioxidants).

• Intestinal cleansing to clean out the elimination channels
• Heavy metal detoxing to remove toxic metals electrically bonded to organs and tissue in the body
• Kidney and pancreas flushing to remove accumulated stones, sludge, and infection in those organs
• Liver/gallbladder cleansing to remove accumulated toxins, fats, and cholesterol stored in the liver and flush stones from the gallbladder
• Blood cleansing using herbs such as burdock root and chaparral to cleanse the blood of impurities, bacteria, viruses, and aberrant cells
• Proteolytic enzymes to remove circulating immune complexes from the blood and body tissue
• Skin brushing, exercise, and the use of saunas and steam baths to optimize the lymph and encourage the body to eliminate toxins through the skin
• And fasting to promote detoxing at the cellular level (covered in detail in Chapter 6 of the new expanded version of Lessons from the Miracle Doctors.

Is there any proof that detoxing works or is necessary?

Actually, despite the impression you might get from VoYS, there is tons of support for the efficacy and value of detoxing. In fact, the medical community uses various methods for detoxing organs and systems in the body as standard medical practice. Although medical detox treatments mimic natural detox treatments (in much the same way that Bizarro mimics Superman), the medical community bypasses the issue by refusing to use the word detoxing — but detoxing it is nonetheless. For example:

• Chelation therapy is standard medical treatment for lead toxicity
• Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (gotta love that medical obfuscation) uses sound waves to break up kidney stones and flush them from the body
• Colonic therapy is both recognized and used by the medical community at the same time others in the community roundly trash it
• Doctors regularly prescribe pharmaceutical statin lipotropics, while steadfastly denying the ability (or necessity) of herbal lipotropics to do the same
• Cholecystectomy, or gallbladder removal, is actually a form of detox — used because doctors know of no better way to eliminate the complications of sludge and stones in the gallbladder

You get the idea. The medical community absolutely understands the principle and efficacy of detoxing. They just insist on using their own terminology and methodology, which allows them to trash more natural, more efficacious, and less harmful means of doing the same thing. And thus we have a true understanding of the rationale behind the Voice of Young Science Detox Dossier.

It probably should also be noted that Sense About Science, the parent organization of VoYS, previously published a study entitled “Making Sense of Chemical Stores” that proposed that the 100,000 plus chemicals released into the environment over the last 50 years are not only NOT harmful, but are our friends. Or to quote from that report:

“The chemical realities of the world, by contrast, are that everything is made of chemicals, that synthetic chemicals are often much safer for human health than so-called ‘natural’ ones, and that unfounded anxiety about chemicals is encouraging people to buy into ideas and ‘remedies’ that make little scientific or medical sense.”

Enough said.

For more on detoxing, check out http://www.jonbarron.org/detoxing-health-program/detox_center.php.

Broken Links ? Questions ?

TO CONTACT JMB CLICK ON THE STAMP

FDA Required Disclosure

jmbblog

A podcast powered by FeedBurner

Send article as PDF to

Politics: Israeli Attacks on Gaza Escape Global Media Scrutiny

* by Thalif Deen (United Nations)

Israel’s relentless air attacks on a besieged Gaza, which have killed over 1,000 Palestinians and destroyed hundreds of homes, continue to take place away from the gaze of the international news media.

A country that claims to be the only multi-party democracy in the Middle East, Israel has barred all foreign journalists from entering Gaza, triggering strong protests not only from the United Nations but also from human rights groups and media organisations.

Speaking from Beirut, Mohamad Bazzi, a journalism professor at New York University, told IPS there are hundreds of journalists from around the world who have gathered in Israel trying to get access into Gaza.

Without access to the battlefield, they are having a difficult time verifying the claims by either side, he said.

‘As the fighting continues and the civilian death toll rises in Gaza, the United Nations has warned of a humanitarian catastrophe and the world still does not have a full picture of the extent of that crisis,’ said Bazzi, who is also a board member of the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA).

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) fired off a strong letter of protest last week to Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak criticising the restrictions on the international media.

‘By preventing journalists from covering its military offensive in Gaza, Israel is betraying its own democratic principles. It is also denying the world access to fact-based reporting,’ says CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon.

He said Israel has a long history of allowing international journalists to cover conflicts.

‘Why is it now restricting all access to a conflict zone? What is the legal basis for this restriction on the free movement of journalists?’ he asked.

According to the CPJ, the Foreign Press Association in Israel appealed the ban to the Supreme Court, which suggested a compromise that would allow a small group of international journalists to file pool reports from Gaza.

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) apparently agreed to allow eight journalists in through the Erez crossing in northern Gaza, but later scrapped the plan, ’supposedly for security reasons, even as relief workers and others were admitted into Gaza’.

‘Although crossings have been opened more than once since the Israeli offensive on Gaza started, no journalists have been allowed to enter,’ Simon complained in his letter to Barak.

The letter also said there were more than 900 media personnel, mostly working for international news outlets, already in Israel who have been barred from crossing into Gaza for safety reasons.

‘Israel has barred its own citizens from entering Gaza for the past two years, citing security fears. But the ban on international journalists is less than two months old and had been enforced sporadically until the latest military offensive,’ said Simon.

Meanwhile, the only 24-hour reporting has come from the Al-Jazeera satellite channel, whose reporters were present in Gaza long before the fighting began.

Bazzi told IPS that Israel has a history of a free and vibrant press, with news outlets that often challenge their government.

‘Israel also has a history of allowing journalists to cover conflicts,’ he added.

During the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, the IDF took international journalists into the occupied zone.

And during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, journalists had access to the battlefield.

‘This is the first time that Israel has banned all access to a conflict zone. Israel has not provided a legal basis or an adequate explanation for this ban on journalists,’ Bazzi added.

U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information Kiyo Akasaka has urged the Israeli government to provide ‘immediate access for international media into Gaza’ and reminded the Israelis of the right to information enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An equally strong protest has come from the director-general of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Koichiro Matsuura, who also condemned the killing of a journalist on the first day of the Israeli offensive against Gaza.

Basel Faraj, a cameraman for the Algerian TV network ENTV and the Palestine Broadcasting Production Company, died from wounds following an Israeli air strike.

Matsuura called on Israel ‘to allow local and international media professionals to report on events’ in Gaza.

But these protests have had no positive response from Israel, which has continued with its devastation of Gaza minus international media scrutiny.

On Thursday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was ‘outraged’ that another artillery shell had landed in a U.N. compound in Gaza even as he was on a visit to Israel.

Following his protest, Barak admitted it was ‘a grave mistake’ and assured the secretary-general that ‘extra attention’ would be paid to U.N. facilities, a frequent target of Israeli attacks, in the future.

Besides the rising death toll, mostly women and children, the casualties also include some 4,000 injured in the 19-day fighting between Israel and Hamas.

‘I am sorry to report that the tragic horror continues, and will continue until the guns fall silent,’ John Ging, director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, told reporters early this week.

Ging said his U.N. agency would continue to call for a media presence in Gaza ‘not only because the truth must be told, but also because those making important decisions must be able to base their information on the facts.’

Both the United Nations and the humanitarian community in Gaza regretted the absence of a ‘vibrant and impartial press corps on the ground’, Ging added.

If you would like to promote this blog on your site, simply link to this page by copying and pasting the following code below on your site. The code will show up as a text link to this EXACT page!

<a href=”http://jmbblog.com/2009/01/gaza_massacre/” mce_href=”http://www.jmbblog.com”>Wellness Warrior’s Alternative Health Blog</a>

The statements found within these pages have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. If a product or treatment is recommended in these pages, it is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. The information contained herein is meant to be used to educate the reader and is in no way intended to provide individual medical advice. Medical advice must only be obtained from a qualified health practitioner. Please read our disclosure..

Copyright © 2002-2009 JmBBlog. All rights reserved.

Broken Links ? Questions ?

TO CONTACT JMB CLICK ON THE STAMP

FDA Required Disclosure

jmbblog

A podcast powered by FeedBurner

Send article as PDF to