> http://slate.msn.com/id/2108471/
Even though this article is about the Kriminal Kult of $cientology's
propgram, it is, nonetheless, a good article, since it contains this:
"To begin with, let's take a closer look at the regimen itself. The central
premise??"as codified by the late L. Ron Hubbard and repeated to me, almost
verbatim, by Dr. A. Kwabena Nyamekye, the associate medical director of the
downtown clinic??"is as follows: Toxic substances (including pollutants,
pesticides, and various pharmaceuticals) are stored largely in the body's
fatty tissues. Detoxification is thus made possible by "mobilizing" fat
reserves??"that is, by releasing portions of stored fat that contain
dissolved toxins??"into the bloodstream, and then eliminating these toxins,
mainly through sweating. In order to "unleash" fats, participants take
increasing doses of niacin (up to a whopping 3,500 mg to 5,000 mg per day),
along with other vitamins and minerals such as calcium and magnesium. They
ingest two daily tablespoonfuls of oil (a blend of soy, walnut, peanut,
safflower, and evening primrose oils) to replace the fats that have been
mobilized and to maintain weight: Advocates are clear that weight-loss is
not to occur. Participants also spend a half an hour jogging, followed by
two-and-a-half to five hours in a sauna (while drinking ample water), to
eliminate contaminants through sweat. The program generally runs seven days
a week for three to four weeks, or until the patient no longer "feels the
effects of past drugs or chemicals" and reports a "marked resurgence of
overall sense of well-being." That is the model regimen, at least.
Some favorable articles have been written about this approach by apparently
well-credentialed physicians. However, according to James Dillard, an
assistant clinical professor at Columbia University College of Physicians
and Surgeons and clinical director of Columbia's Rosenthal Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, there is a "disconnect" between the
studies described in many of these articles and the conclusions presented.
The studies themselves typically lack adequate sample sizes, well-matched
control groups, randomization, and other basic elements of experimental
design; Dillard calls them "anecdotal," at best. (And some report
particularly peculiar findings; according to this study, after roughly three
weeks of detox, program participants' IQ scores rose by an average of 6.7
points.)
A number of well-credentialed doctors also sharply criticize the scientific
reasoning offered by Hubbard supporters. (This article focuses on Nyamekye
and Hubbard's interpretation, but for other theories about how the program
works, click here.) Consider first how the regimen purports to mobilize fat
reserves. While it is possible to release stored fat through weight loss,
the specific emphasis on weight maintenance??"and the daily spoonfuls of
oil??"make it unlikely that significant reserves will be broken down. The
use of niacin, too, is open to significant question. Robert Knopp, professor
of medicine and director of the Northwest Lipid Research Clinic at the
University of Washington, says that niacin is often used clinically (in
doses of 1,000 mg to 3,000 mg) to lower patients' blood-lipid levels??"the
very opposite of what the Hubbard method seeks to achieve. Dr. Knopp adds
that at doses above 3,000 mg there is a real risk of niacin
toxicity??"particularly of liver damage. To prescribe such high doses for
any reason is "totally irrational and dangerous," said Knopp.
Furthermore, the assumption that virtually any toxin can be eliminated
effectively through sweat is also questionable. The dust at Ground Zero
contained a wide array of poisons, including lead, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and asbestos, in addition
to pulverized cement and glass. Some doctors do argue that small quantities
of metals, including lead, may be released in sweat. Larger, lipid-soluble
toxins such as PCBs, PAHs, and dioxins, however, are generally not
eliminated this way, in part because sweat is a water-based medium. (It may
be possible to detect traces of fat-soluble toxins in skin oils, though this
does not mean that bulk quantities of these substances are removed by this
route.) And certainly asbestos, which lodges in the delicate tissue of the
lungs, cannot be removed by heavy sweating. Indeed, even Keith Miller,
spokesman for the New York Rescue Workers Detox project and a long-time
Scientologist, concedes that the regimen was never meant to address toxins
or irritants in the lungs or to help patients with respiratory
problems??"the complaints most prevalent among former rescue workers.
--------------
Just another example of the Kriminal Kult trying to get in on the gravy
train.
Eric Bohlman - 29 Oct 2004 16:09 GMT
[quoting article]
> "To begin with, let's
> takeacloserlookattheregimenitself.Thecentral premise??"as codified by
Is this happening to anyone else? I've been seeing a lot of it (words
bunching up) lately, all over Usenet.
> the late L. Ron Hubbard and repeated to me, almost verbatim, by Dr. A.
> Kwabena Nyamekye, the associate medical director of the downtown
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> fat that contain dissolved toxins??"into the bloodstream, and then
> eliminating these toxins, mainly through sweating. In order to
In addition to the later-mentioned question of how fat-soluble substances
can be eliminated in the sweat, there's another physiological misconception
going on here. Fat reserves aren't static. They're constantly being added
to and subtracted from. Lipids in fat cells don't just "sit there" for
years, months, or even days. If you're neither gaining nor losing weight,
all that means is that the "withdrawals" are occuring at the same rate as
the "deposits."
> that significant reserves will be broken down. The use of niacin, too,
> is open to significant question. Robert Knopp, professor of medicine
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> toxicity??"particularly of liver damage. To prescribe such high doses
> for any reason is "totally irrational and dangerous," said Knopp.
Especially when you consider that $cientology promotes this program (under
the name of the Purification Rundown aka the "Purif") as a "detox" program
for heavy drug and alcohol users, groups that are likely to *already* have
liver damage.
Note that when $cientologists "do the Purif" they're required to sign a
statement acknowledging that they understand that it's a religious service
rather than a medical treatment and that it's intended to provide spiritual
rather than physical benefits. Yet the "detox" program promoted to non-
$scientologists is exactly the same as the Purif.
Jan - 29 Oct 2004 21:43 GMT
>Subject: Re: Detoxification...
>From: Eric Bohlman ebohlman@omsdev.com
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>rather than physical benefits. Yet the "detox" program promoted to non-
>$scientologists is exactly the same as the Purif.
====
Critics contend that the regimen lacks any scientific basis. But some former
participants, with whom I spoke during a daylong visit to the clinic, believe
that the program has dramatically improved their health and are lobbying local
officials, as well as members of Congress, to support it with public funding
(To date, at least $30,000 in city money has been allocated; this money appears
in the most recent city budget, and an additional $300,000 from city sources is
potentially in the offing, according to Councilwoman Margarita Lopez. The
program has also received $2.3 million in funding from private donors,
including Cruise.) Program advocates, including former patients, staff doctors,
and spokespeople for the clinic, are also reaching out to physicians by setting
up informational meetings in an effort to gain mainstream acceptance.
The fact remains, however, that many participants believe that the program has
helped them. Some who previously needed asthma inhalers say they no longer
require them. Others say they are able to sleep again or have returned to work
after long absences. How to make sense of these positive responses?
Some participants also said they were helped—and greatly relieved—by the
program's forthrightness about environmental toxins. Several told me that staff
members validated their concerns about Ground Zero exposure in a way that most
public discourse (at least until very recently) did not. Indeed, advocates for
the Hubbard method often dwell on government's sluggish response to
environmental disaster—its propensity for "denial, damage control … [and]
guarded disclosures of information"—and cast themselves as a frank
alternative, in which public health is paramount and information on toxins is
made easily available. This streak of activism reflects a humanitarian impulse
in the Scientology detox campaign, however dubious the science behind it.
Mark Probert - 29 Oct 2004 22:28 GMT
Yes, Jan promotes the murderous Kriminal Kult of $cientology.
> >Subject: Re: Detoxification...
> >From: Eric Bohlman ebohlman@omsdev.com
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> made easily available. This streak of activism reflects a humanitarian impulse
> in the Scientology detox campaign, however dubious the science behind it.
Peter Bowditch - 30 Oct 2004 02:32 GMT
>Yes, Jan promotes the murderous Kriminal Kult of $cientology.
She must agree with Hubbard that Jesus was a pedophile. I wonder if
her pastor knows about her support for this other "religion".
>> >Subject: Re: Detoxification...
>> >From: Eric Bohlman ebohlman@omsdev.com
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>impulse
>> in the Scientology detox campaign, however dubious the science behind it.

Signature
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Jan - 30 Oct 2004 04:17 GMT
>Subject: Re: Detoxification...
>From: Peter Bowditch myfirstname@ratbags.com
>Date: 10/29/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <vmr5o0d1drr94u16ob269vksdmkevrhqno@4ax.com>
>
>>Yes, Jan promotes the murderous Kriminal Kult of $cientology.
Mark is clearly a LIAR.
>She must
This thread isn't about me.
Mark Probert - 30 Oct 2004 14:17 GMT
> >Subject: Re: Detoxification...
> >From: Peter Bowditch myfirstname@ratbags.com
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Mark is clearly a LIAR.
Wrong, KK$ breath. You post many articles which support their "position"
even though they hate Jesus and murder their members.
> >She must
>
> This thread isn't about me.
Like I said, any time you post, the thread is always about you.
David Wright - 30 Oct 2004 21:56 GMT
>[quoting article]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Is this happening to anyone else? I've been seeing a lot of it (words
>bunching up) lately, all over Usenet.
Can't say I've seen it. My news server's version of Mark's posting
didn't have the bunching you show.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)