Talk:Detoxification

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 'Kay, done.  WLU 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Missing Citations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metabolic detoxification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative medicine 

message: * Talk:Microwave#Red links in the See also section are based on the following...--222.64.221.37 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links in the ''See also'' section are based on the following... 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Detoxification as Science, Medicine, Psychology, and Religion/Spiritualism 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Detoxication 

message: May I get a clarification why we need "this". The first three lines currently read:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: I removed the links in your post.  No.  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should't we add info about State based Detoxification facilities? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804171000/http://www.mdcom.qc.ca:80/ to http://www.mdcom.qc.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: the glutathione transferase is mentioned.  what WP:MEDRS refs are thre about metallothionein? Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glutathione and metallothionein 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reflection