Okay, this is one area of misunderstanding on both sides. While I am not against GMOs per se, and I see some of their benefit, I am concerned about one reason for their use: Glyphosphate resistance. Since RoundUp is so ubiquitous in application in industrial farming, I can see how many of not most GMOs are full of the active chemical in RoundUp. This is what animates educated suspicion of GMOs. Organic plants, grown in the way we have grown things for millennia, are bereft of this risk. Organic plants also require longer growth periods and have potentially more micronutrients over time as a consequence.
So... what risk, exactly, are we talking about?
In regard to detoxification, the skeptics say that the liver and kidneys naturally detoxify the body. That has never been in dispute. What is in dispute, however, is whether you can help potentially unhealthy and overworked organs repair and work faster.
I just want to single out this next sentence....
Is our body capable of an unlimited amount of growth and chemical reaction?
Our body naturally stops growing once it reaches a certain size, but chemical reactions do continue after that. I guess I'm not sure how you mean this.
Are there no ways to make our bodies work better even in this reality?
You can always alter how your body functions a bit, sure. If you exercise, for example, you grow more toned and heavy musculature.
Why take medicine if our bodies always work?
Generally speaking, because the medicine is doing something our body isn't doing on it's own. With pain suppressants, well, it reduces the amount of pain we feel. With vaccines, it allows our bodies to develop, at least in part, a resistance to certain viruses or bacteria. Antibiotics works to directly kill a harmful bacterial infection. In all of these cases, there are thorough clinical tests to determine exactly what effects they have. "Detox" products have been put through clinical tests and there is no apparent difference between natural bodily detoxification and detoxing with the products. Further, the products don't even specify
which toxins they help to remove from your system. Lastly, they aren't sold as actual medicines because then they would be forced to be proven effective
before they could be sold, gaining access to the market through a legal loop-hole. Tell me, why aren't they medicine if they do what a medicine does? Because they
don't determine how effective they are, or even exactly
what they do, before they get marketed. They just ride the wave of anti-science that most holistic crap has spawned.
For nutrition. Different foods have different proteins, enzymes, or other chemicals which the body uses for metabolic functions and calories.
Another thing, which is unfortunate for both sides, is the fact that there are vast amounts of monetary incentive more to confirm the effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs than to confirm the effectiveness of herbal remedies.
I call bullshit. Your claim is that there's a better profit margin when you have wait for your product to be clinically tested, which you probably need to pay for at least in part, and which delays your product from entering the market, and which could prevent it from ever happening at all due to the potential discovery it doesn't work the way you claim or that it has some side-effect, than slapping a label on it that says "nutritional supplement" and skipping right over all that?
Is the industry establishment really saying that companies are willing to put the same amount of research into naturally occurring plants, which they can't patent, as they are wiling to put the amount of research into specific chemical discoveries they CAN patent?
I won't claim patented drugs hold no significant profit, but I will claim it takes significant investment long before any pay-off. The patent is applied for when the drug is first developed, almost always before clinical trials, and it's not in the market for somewhere around ten years, leaving about half of the patent time remaining. This time may yield huge profit, yes, but you have to sink somewhere around a decade of time and trial cost into it in the first place.
However, the medicine being natural doesn't mean you can't figure out which chemical it contains which is effective and try to create a patented version of it. Aspirin comes from a plant, and it was patented. The method of extracting and purifying morphine was patented. Figure out what part of your "nutritional suppliment" actually does what you use it for, patent it's extraction, profit.
Yet... they don't do that. Why not? Because their stuff works and they... don't like profit? They have something against clinical testing?
I wonder what that problem might stem from! Certainly not the fear of discovering their product doesn't do what they say! Because it
works, according to everyone who has never done clinical tests on it!
This really leaves everyone without the research needed for good comparisons.
The medical community takes it upon themselves to test this sort of thing, when a company doesn't test their own stuff. Granted, it's not as thorough, but no clinical studies have shown any significant difference between a standard diet and a detox diet. The companies who produce the detox products don't do clinical tests on them to determine effectiveness... why?
