Talk:Master Cleanse

Burroughs' Murder Conviction Removed

Burroughs attempted to heal a man with Leukemia using color therapy, the Master Cleanse and VitaFlex, which in this case incorporated a form of deep tissue massage. The VitaFlex Burroughs used on this man burst his spleen and he died. The Master Cleanse played no part in that.

In addition, that Burroughs claimed these three therapies cured cancer is not relevant as there has been no claim that the Master Cleanse cures cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeter55 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

--- The relevance is that the other claims he made need to be evaluated in the light that he was a crank. This sort of information is even admissable under normal civil procedure standards in court, so certainly it is relevant in a Wikipedia post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Burroughs did use the Master Cleanse on the victim who died under his care. The proximate cause of death was Burroughs' "deep massage," but the fact that he used the Master Cleanse on him is evidence that Burroughs promoted the Master Clease as part of a cancer cure. This is relevant to people considering the Master Cleanse who may want to know the thinking and background of its developer. A "detox and reduction diet" that was originally developed as a stomach ulcer and cancer cure is something that many people would shy away from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is significant enough to include here, especially given how little most people know about Burroughs and how popular the Master Cleanse is. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) "Murder" would of course be the wrong word choice regardless of the inclusion or not. If the case is to be mentioned I also feel placing it under Burroughs' page would make more sense. 70.213.118.31 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory?

"As a result of these deficiencies, individuals on the diet may experience dizziness, delirium, and fainting in the short term, with possible damage to the body occurring in longer-term applications.[5]"

"Others have claimed that one benefit of the Master Cleanse is that it helps patients re-examine their lifestyle and embrace healthy eating.[5]"

The first statement appears to not support the diet, while the second does. Are they really both from the same source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.112.67 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps contradictory but the first comment refers to physical effects while the second to psychological effects. I think it is reasonable to say that a certain practice may be detrimental to health while having a positive psychological effect. - santiago.wechsler@gmail.com

Dr. Ed Zimney's website and references removed

While a doctor's opinion is normally welcome I've removed the references to his website as it is not neutral or trustworthy. I have made multiple posts on his website and 2 have been deleted. My posts were objective and provided only scientific information about the Master Cleanse. The information I provided contradicted Dr. Zimney's claims and this is why they were deleted. I made other posts on his site that didn't delve into the science behind the master cleanse and they were left alone. His website does not allow objective scientific debate. Anything that plausibly challenges his opinion is deleted. It is therefore not neutral which breaks one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Example: Dr. Zimney's claims that sugar is sugar. I posted a rebuttal stating that maple syrup is the perfectly balanced sugar unlike refined sugars that cause the pancreas to secrete insulin. This was deleted. My post was completely objective and only provided information. The only reason it was deleted was because it contradicted Dr. Zimney's opinions. Dr. Zimney is a board-certified licensed physician with more than 21 years in the pharmaceutical industry which maybe be the reason for his bias opinion, as the Master Cleanse is all natural. [ http://www2.healthtalk.com/go/bio/ed-zimney-m-d-vice-president-and-medical-director ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJBryson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 February 2008

It's his Web site, and he has a right to decide what to put on it. That is irrelevant to whether his opinion is valuable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 July 2008

Though it might not be nice to delete someone's opinion off a website, it's his website after all. Also, saying that maple syrup is a "perfectly balanced" sugar may be technically information, but it is not factual: http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/HS/Journal/Issues/2007/OctACS/ACSSub/p1647.pdf The sugars in maple syrup are, overwhelmingly, sucrose. In which case, Dr. Zimney's perspective is reasonably accurate. Additionally, his work with pharmaceuticals does not necessarily mean that his professional opinion on cleanses is invalid, just as the opinion (about a pharmaceutical) of a follower is not necessarily invalid. If what he says about the Master Cleanse is scientifically backed, then perhaps we could include those sources. Faunablues (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"While a doctor's opinion is normally welcome I've removed the references to his website as it is not neutral or trustworthy. I have made multiple posts on his website and 2 have been deleted." ...so you retalliate by deleting the reference to his website? That's not a rational argument, it's revenge.194.171.106.2 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. While I'm not sure Dr. Zimney's blog would be an acceptable source under most circumstances, the rationale for removal above is unfounded. Given the poor quality of the sources we have, the blog might be useful. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with DJBryson. Burroughs claims the diet removes toxins, but does not even mention what toxins are removed, let alone whether or not the claim has been verified. The diet also claims to reduce cravings for nicotine and caffiene, again stated here with no scientific verification.--Catofgrey (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

new changes

i just did a series of changes. i think we're wikified now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Needsleep99 (talk • contribs) 19:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Further Information and Citations Added

I Added a citation to Peter Glickman's Lose Weight, Have More Energy & Be Happier in 10 Days book and corrected the description of the Master Cleanse because saltwater is not drunk after the lemonade and the laxative tea is required. I also added citations for the above statement.

I then corrected the wording of the statement that the Master Cleanse is said to eliminate "waste" in the body to Burroughs' words "toxins and congestion" and added a citation to the above statement.

I also added citations to competent authorities who believe fasting is beneficial and a short history of fasting as described at length by Dr. Joel Fuhrman and clarified one of the problems mentioned in the Criticism section is the Master Cleanse being recommended as "only' a weight loss program rather than focusing on detoxification.

I removed the word "alledged" when referring to the Master Cleanse's detoxifying properties. Perhaps someone can suggest a more neutral word than "alledges", which violates NPOV and clarified that the Dr. suggesting the benefits of the Master Cleanse were due to the placebo effect had not actually done the Master Cleanse himself.

Finally, I added the two books on the Master Cleanse as References and deleted pseudoscience as a category because that violates NPOV.

Peter Glickman, author of Lose Weight, Have More Energy & Be Happier in 10 Days 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Peter. Thank you for your contributions. I appreciate the clarifying edits you have made, but wish to caution you against possible conflicts of interest you might bring to this article. That said, I think most of your edits bring value to this article, with one exception: what you added about the placebo claim. Stating that the scientist who made the claim never tried the diet is totally irrelevant and not supported by citation. Everything else is very well done, thank you for helping improve the article. Some might argue with the removal of the pseudo-science category. I'm not one of those people - yet. BFD1 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Another comment, upon closer examination. It's not clear to me what "Socrates, Plato, Hippocrates (the Father of Modern Medicine and originator of the Hippocratic Oath, which is still taken by our modern medical doctors), Mahatma Ghandi and Dr. Herbert Shelton." have to do with the "history of fasting". It seems like you are wanting to say that these individuals espoused fasting - but what for, and why? This could use some clarification, please. BFD1 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, you forgot to add "fungi" to "toxins and congestion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I just cleaned up the article a little bit more, moved it from "Master cleanse" to "Master Cleanse", added a few cats and a link. I'm going to remove the orphan tag... --nathanbeach 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pre 01 December 2006 Discussions

This seems like instructions, not information. I think the article needs to be rewritten to be objective and factual.

Are there criticisms? Factual backup? history behind the master cleanse? quoting Boroughs make the article less reliable especially sine there is no reference to the first name... -- (Unsined comment from 151.191.175.220)

I suspect a copyright violation. The page looks like a verbatim copy of [1]. -- Gridlock Joe 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article is highly suspect. First off, it seems to be instructions, and not information. Second, the complete lack of medical support makes me very uncomfortable, because it seems that wikipedia has an article which enables unhealthy habits and/or masked eating disorders. If you follow the external link, you find the journal of a slim woman who does the diet beyond the 10 days and then complains that she still needs liposuction. The pictures show her as a woman with no need for weight loss surgery. Overall, I think this article is irresponsible and unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

For what its worth, i have done this and it is certainly not a mask of an eating disorder for everyone who does it. It is the most common, and from what i understand the safest, fasting method around. Seriously, you would be amazed what comes out of you after 6 days on this. Seriously though, the lemonade recipe is correct, but this is certainly not a complete set of instructions to do the master cleanse. You know, if someone will go over what i submit so it fits within guidelines i could easily improve this article. Contact me! Dogmatix2 11:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article was lacking some important contextual information. I've added to it as much as I can for now, and would encourage others to seek out additional sources for criticisms and responses to criticisms.BFD1 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted this edit

I reverted this edit, which was summarized as " rm paragraph that basically boiled down to saying "it doesn't work as a weightloss regmimen", citing an inappropriate authority (Beyonce!?), and giving no reason why it doesn't work". Rationale:

• Beyonce is mentioned earlier in the article, and her notability to this topic is well established. Hence, her comments are relevant and should be included.
• Yes, the paragraph boils down to saying it doesn't work as a weightloss regimen. What's wrong with that, exactly?
• "Giving no reason why it doesn't work" -- good point. I will improve the article by adding to it, not by scrapping whole sections which are not developed to everyone's fullest satisfaction. BFD1 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about advocacy.

Major POV, pro-fast, defensive and dismissive of the fast's critics. --63.25.15.201 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely one-sided and little more than praising of the book & diet. I expect more from WikiPedia. --75.80.12.119 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree this article is still really POV, pro-fast. The "criticisms" section (which I thought wikipedia was supposed to be moving away from, instead incorporating criticisms directly under their relevant topic), is barely critical, with every criticism followed immediately by a defense, sometimes in the same sentence! This article needs to be more neutral, IMO. Thx1200 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is very biased, at best the information is unnacurate, at worst this type of article could be fatal, or at least cause serious harm, it should be edited and made more neutral immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.64.147 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOVed a bit for the moment. Merkin's mum 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

These comments are interesting. On the one hand this page is basically an advert for some quack doctor trying to make money off of another man's book; on the other hand antagonists of the "cleanse" place overwhelming information supporting their dissent. This page is maintained by extremists. 70.213.118.31 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section which was a copyvio

The section with stages of the fast was taken wholesale from http://www.juicefasting.org/detox.htm , and it admitted it. We can't violate copyright. Besides, this info is about beliefs about fasting in general, rather than being about the Master Cleanse, the subject of this article. Merkin's mum 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1:31, 20 July 2009 (CST) > Fixed a plethora of typos in this note. Don't feel like logging in. ANON - B.H

This is inaccurate nonsense

From the first sentence this article is full of misleading statements, misleading information and just plain untruths, particularly the crediting of Peter Glickman through his book. Also the sentence "There is no evidence that the diet has any positive health effects" this is completely WRONG. Additionally, the statement of "Some critics point to lack of essential nutrients in this fast, citing a deficiency of protein, vitamins, and minerals" is an attempt to mislead the reader. Perhaps some "critics" make that statement, however the statement is completely UNTRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.36.136 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's untrue or not (though peer reviewed evidence is non-existent). The article is simply reporting what reliable sources say, which is what a wikipedia article does. Merkin's mum 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I smell weasel words. "Some critics" implies a plurality of critics, while the same reference is used for both the passage referring to "essential nutrients" and the section dealing with the salt water flush. If additional citations are not provided, this wording will have to be changed to "One critic believes", else the sections should be removed altogether. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed titles

I removed some of the MD and ND, stuff in the citations. I've never seen citations like that before. If anyone desperately wants them back, placing them after them into "first=" would make more sense, otherwise you get "Johnson, MD, John" in the citation and that's weird, or? --Merzul (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

In my humble opinion, this article is slanted toward the negative side and not a neutral point of view. I'm very disappointed with the way this article presents the master cleanse. Having done it myself and experienced many wonderful benefits such as regained energy, mental clarity, healthier looking skin, and weight loss, I can't believe someone would say those are placebo effects. And to put an alarmist-type statement at the beginning of the article, one would have to wonder what the real intention is of the person who wrote it. This article could use some edits to bring it into a more neutral point of view and get rid of the inaccuracies. Here is something I found that may be of help for those that would like to have better info: http://therawfoodsite.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2981

Maton kitty (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How about some info on the connection between this thing and anorexia? 67.182.199.23 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view doesn't mean your point of view. It means the point of view of the CDC, the NIH, and the Mayo Clinic. Can we agree that if all three come to the same conclusion, that that point of view should dictate how this article goes? If so, I think a lot of the conflict will end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And the IOM. (Mayo, CDC, NIH). Xphill64x (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there is not a neutral point of view. Every claim for a positive effect of the diet is followed by the statement that there is no peer reviewed evidence to support the claim; but for there is no such disclaimer for the possible negative effects that are claimed. The negative effects are equally disputable and are also not supported by peer reviewed evidence, but there is no mention of that in the article. This article is definitely not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.191.75 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The negative side effects have more information backing them up than the positive side effects. The title of the article though is not "The Controversy of Cleanse" however, so the verification of claims shouldn't be so serious here. What is the Cleanse? Who made the idea up? What is it supposed to do? These are the main points for a Wikipedia entry. Enough of the "It works because my grandma had cancer, dude, you just don't know," and the, "Yeah but Beyonce said," and "(insert random medical name) said ..." The controversy of this practice working or not is disputed by medical professionals (though I doubt anyone thinks this cures "all ailments") and the is no ultimate conclusion. There are also greasy hippies who have noted they still smell after doing the diet, therefor not necessarily claiming it works.

Above all- enough BS about the god damned quack promoting his book about why we should do this fast. 70.213.118.31 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I also do not feel this is a neutral article. I would also like to see if anyone can find any information on the effects with long-term medication and being on the Master Cleanse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie23Anne (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, the article reads as a cautionary tale, throwing "danger" signs at the reader for the entire length, but never truly backing these up with evidence any more credible than evidence supporting it. Furthermore, for almost all diet related articles, "fad" and "crash" diet is terminology that is used for just about every single possible diet one can undergo besides "balanced diet and exercise" ... which just isn't realistic... just like there are "tricks" to remembering information and learning to juggle, there are going to be tricks to losing weight, and not necessarily unhealthy ones. More science, less knee-jerk debunking... and, if you do want to put negative comments in, the ENTIRE ARTICLE is not the place for that... there needs to be a neutral section for supporters and dissenters. JudgeX (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. NPOV isn't met by choosing two sides and presenting them. See WP:MEDRS as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, however, don't you find it curious that there can be multiple BOOKS and hundreds of websites and even health journals about the benefits of similar, liquid-heavy diets and how they can be truly helpful, and not a single of those is quoted, but there are 3-4 anti-cleanse sources quoted that are no more than 3-4 paragraphs long? I suspect that someone has a slant, here. I don't engage in any of these diets myself, but, this article makes the diet seem worse than any one of the given sources, and that's why I think it sounds overly negative, and biased. Furthermore, "The Master Cleanse is Good" and "The Master Cleanse is Bad" result in many more articles (by a factor of 10) reporting that it is in fact good, and similar results if you search "The Master Cleanse" is good vs is bad out of quotes... I know this is original research, but, it seems to me that the overwhelming EVIDENCE points towards the fact that no one has concrete evidence that it's good or bad, and thus the article should read more neutral. Until a peer-reviewed study or other unbiased source appears, this kind of article makes Wikipedia look bad. Also google for "The Master Cleanse is Healthy" and "The Master Cleanse is unhealthy" and other combinations. The majority of sources paint it in a positive light, while the wikipedia article seems to have hunted down negative sources to cite. JudgeX (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't find it curious. It's rather typical for the subject matter - lots of information, but almost nothing at all that meets WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll agree to disagree then, as I am far too lazy and disinterested in this topic to make modifications with any merit to this article myself, but I will let stand my comment that I believe this article is crap, and does not actually fit with NPOV standards, since the "credible sources" have all been cherry picked from the selection of available articles AGAINST this kind of diet. I believe a more unbiased article would have taken into consideration the wealth of information supporting this diet, and contrasted the negative against the larger body of info. Also, if you say that the nytimes article meets WP:RS, then it's relatively easy to find about 10 times as many equally credible sources supporting the master cleanse.

Again, I'm not biased, I don't really care, I stumbled upon this somehow while researching capsaicin, and was immediately annoyed at how empty the article is of real information, and how full of opinionated rubbish. For example, the "unspecified" toxins jab is obviously not neutral language, and if you ACTUALLY research the diet, you will find that amongst those toxins are those found in cigarettes and a few other things... but, anyway, I digress. The article is crap and I won't fix it, so I will shut up now. JudgeX (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But there are no reliable sources in the "Master Cleanse is healthy" camp; just the untrained and the hucksterish. NPOV does not mean we must pretend otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You checked all the couple million of them out there that fast? WOW. Hats off. My point was simple, there's a lot more support for the diet out there than resistance, yet the wikipedia article is heavily against... furthermore, the diet is vegan in nature and is considered quite healthy by many, if done and managed properly. There are sources for this information, but it doesn't look like any credibility will be given to any of it, but if a random EXERCISE (read: biased against all non-exercise regimen) columnist writes a scare article in the NYTimes, that becomes a "credible source"? Honestly? JudgeX (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV April 2010

I've added an NPOV-tag to the article, removing the disputed-tag added by an ip without explanation or other edits. As the discussion above suggests, the article has been edited with the incorrect assumption that NPOV simply means a balance between positive and negative information. Instead, the balance should be based upon proper weight of independent, reliable sources. WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS also apply to this topic, and directly affect how we present information in an NPOV manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I loved this article people! Thanks bunches! This is the poster child of how Wikipaedia should read. I have a friend whom repeats this fast regimen, varing it slightly from time to time, yet he has been unable to reverse his hearing loss. Remember what insanity is. He has an effective hearing aid which he refuses to wear--and he touts the benefits of this fast, his own negative results to the contrary. I believe he is typical of a believer in this pseudo-religion (cult).

To previous commenters: It is very condescending and shows ignorance to discount the placebo effect. That effect is extreemly powerful and constitutes a large part, if not, the largest part of many effective treatments. I would like to see a study cited where fasting is compared to another placebo with, or without, a significant difference affect. As for strange things coming from the body after a 6-day fast--how would it be known whether or not these things would not have been discharged without fasting, or even if not, if there is any health benefit from that. A single success cannot predict the effectivity in a general population. This is why double blind controlled studies are performed. Mouselb (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think these edits by WLU have addressed my concerns. Thanks! However, why is Burroughs a "performer?" --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential refs

It looks like there are few quality references to use. Here are a couple worth considering:

• Master Cleanse Garners Praise, Criticism
• Time to cleanse? Think again
• 'Cleansing' diets lure celebs, but not health experts
• Scientists say: drop “detox”: have a glass of tap water and get an early night

--Ronz (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs balance in opinion

The current state of this article sounds like someone who has an axe to grind with the Master Cleanse. I don't know enough about it to make it more balanced, but I know there are lots of people who do it claiming benefits. Long-term harm is mentioned several times, but I'm not able to find any discussion of this in the references cited. Carillonator (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)