I checked it and found out it's being published in a journal called Behavioural Neurology and apparently only Hindawi issues them. It doesn't compare to BMJ or JAMA etc, but i didn't have the time to investigate further. A good publisher won't have any kinds of rumours of being predatory (e.g. Elsevier). Pubmed amd ResearchGate aren't publishers, the former's a search engine/database and the other is afaik a social network for scientific researchers.

I expressed skepticism and backed it with valid arguments that you haven't refuted. The arguments i used form the basis of reviewing scientific evidence, simply citing studies isn't enough. What's your response to my reasoning? I'm genuinely curious.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 25 2018 03:42pm

I'll concede the gh point since like I said, it's probably short term anyway

"Science is all about skepticism and falsification. Science isn't just 1-3 studies that aren't replications of each other" seems like a convenient catchphrase to use when you want to disregard studies that haven't been replicated to death

yes I probably should have phrased it as "there's evidence that it does these things", but my post as it was is still more reasonable than "no it doesn't do any of this" with zero thought or research put into it at all, which isn't very skeptical for someone who apparently likes to lecture about skepticism

and if you're referring to Hindawi being on Beall's list of predatory publishers, he reanalysed it and determined that it did not belong on the list

This post was edited by Condemn on Sep 25 2018 08:07pm

At bold: it's not a catch phrase, it's the essence of science. There's plenty of unreplicable science out there. Of course, a well designed study can have a tremendous proving power on its own, but replication is still key in validating scientific findings. Like another poster here said, simply citing articles isn't enough because who knows if you cherry picked them?

There is no consensus so far on the detoxifying effect of saunas. It is not common knowledge in medicine, which means there isn't enough evidence behind it (to me, no evidence qualifies as "no" in colloquial speech). I also admitted that the heavy metal excretion thing was interesting and could warrant some further studies. It's also important to question whether these chronic exposures to heavy metals in minute amounts actually have any relevance regarding health.

The dose makes the poison goes the saying, we could maybe also say the duration does it too, but do we have evidence for increased health through increased sweat excretion? Does it really make a difference health wise, or is the greater rate of excretion of heavy metals just a lab finding? It would be pretty weird if perspiration were the main method of removing dangerous toxins.

There is no rule that states i can't be skeptical at time B if i wasn't rigorously skeptical at time A. The validity of my argument isn't determined by external factors, i stand by my word that my criticism is well-founded.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 26 2018 03:41pm

that's true, but untill solid evidence is provided that cumulative exposure to all of these chemicals together is safe ( ), most of which having been individually found to be toxic, it would be stupid to act like it is

the sensible thing to do would be to take measures to stop them accumulating in your body

as for the last sentence it's pretty weird to have heavy metals, flame retardants, pesticides, and plastics in your body in the first place, it shouldn't be surprising that the body deals with unnatural things in ways deemed unintuitive

This post was edited by Condemn on Sep 26 2018 08:02pm

This post was edited by dark-soul on Sep 27 2018 12:04am

idk bout this detoxifying, but there is plenty of literature regarding heat-shock proteins from the sauna / infrared sauna

That’s because perspiration isn’t a form of detoxing, it’s a form of thermoregulation.

But, my head hurt too much when I was staring at this thread, I decided to not even try.

just go drink lemon and cayenne pepper for 5 days that'll detoxify ya right up

I wouldn't be too worried about them. But that's just a personal choice at this stage. To me it sounds like alarmism. I would be worried if symptoms specific to the heavy metals in question would start to appear. If the symptoms are unspecific, then there's too many variables imo. Of course, if someone has a hypothesis on why could this cumulative cocktail have more toxicity than its parts individually, i would be glad to hear. If you still excrete them in other ways besides perspiration, i doubt you will accumulate amounts that break the threshold for heavy-metal-specific symptoms.

At bold: the substances you listed aren't somehow worse than what we encounter in nature only because of what they are. Animals from which we descend have evolved for millions of years to resist toxins, and my argument is that if perspiration were a useful method of excreting toxins, we would've probably seen a clearer example of that function already. It doesn't mean there definitely isn't such a function, but renders it more unlikely.



Well they might taste funny and medicines don't work if they don't taste funny

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 27 2018 12:54pm

double

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 27 2018 12:53pm