Gold Meritorious Patron
I have done 3 purifs and have had many wins on each one. This program worked for me. If I could I would do the purif program every other year just because when I am done I feel so damn CLEAN and ALERT.
The purif is safe as long as one uses common sense. Hell the fist time I was in the sauna I coul only stay in 15 minutes at a time. I would go take a cool shower and then get back in there. Yes it was not easy but it was well worth it. By the time I was done I could stay in the sauna 5 hours straight. I always had plenty of water, salt, and hylands bio-plasma cell salts. I did run out weed, heroin, pcp, lsd, amphetamines, etc. etc.
The medical establishment is agreeing that the body stores toxins in fat cells. I guess Ron the con man got it right and I am glad he did.
We live in an environment steeped in chemicals that our bodies were not designed to process. For a disturbing look at the chemicals that breach the boundaries of our bodies, look no further than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals . In the latest report, scientists at the CDC found that nearly every person they tested was packing a host of nasty chemicals, including flame retardants stored in fatty tissue and Bisphenol A, a hormone-like substance found in plastics, excreted in urine. (2) Even babies are contaminated. The average newborn has 287 chemicals in her umbilical cord blood, 217 of which are neurotoxic (poisonous to nerves or nerve cells). (3
You are just wrong on so many levels.
First of all, taking any medical advice from that hive of scum, villany, and anti-vaccine idiocy the Huffington Post is fraught with peril. It's one of the most anti-scientific left-leaning sites I can think of.
Next, you are taking the CDC report out of context. We are not "steeped" in the monitored chemicals, unless you count parts per million or even parts per billion as "steeped". The CDC is monitoring 75 compounds to see if there are any long term health effects to low level exposure. Most of the chemicals tested were captured in trace amounts. For example, perchlorate was measured at about 3.5 micrograms per liter, which is in the parts per million range. The possibility for harm exists, of course, but just because the CDC found the chemical is no cause for alarm yet.
Many of those compounds occur both in nature and in man made environments.
The presence of an environmental chemical in people’s blood or urine does not mean that it will cause effects or disease. The toxicity of a chemical is related to its dose or concentration, in addition to a person’s individual susceptibility. Small amounts may be of no health consequence, whereas larger amounts may cause adverse health effects. Research studies, separate from the National Exposure Report, are required to determine the levels of a chemical that may cause health effects and the levels that are not a significant health concern. For some chemicals, such as lead, research studies provide a good understanding of health risks associated with various blood levels. For most of the environmental chemicals included in the Fourth Report, more research is needed to determine whether exposure at the levels reported is a cause for health concern. CDC conducts and provides biomonitoring measurements for this type of research in collaboration with other agencies and institutions.
Next, you can't just use the generic term "toxins", because the difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose.
And medical science is not validating old Tubs. I've covered the fallacy that LSD and Speed sequester into adipose tissue multiple times. They do not. THC does - but it's one of the few compounds in recreational drugs that exhibit that behavior.
Some true toxins, such as dioxin, do accumulate in fat. Most don't - in fact your example of Bisphenol A most manifestly does not. A few years ago there were two competing theories for why low levels of BPA persisted in the gen pop - either it sequestered into fat, or there were intake sources other than those monitored. We have now accepted the latter theory, since both murine and human studies show elimination half lives of BPA from adipose tissue to be identical to the blood elimination half life - in other words, just because something is lipophilic, and preferentially moves to the fat part of a water-oil mixture, does not mean it stays for a long time in human fat. Human fat is composed of living cells, with various transport mechanisms into and out of the cell. In vitro experiments often show opposite behavior to in vivo experiments. In the case of BPA, the fats cells spit it back out almost as fast as it comes in.
One mouse model concluded:
Terminal elimination of unconjugated BPA from adipose tissue (t1/2 = 7.0 h) was similar to that for conjugated BPA in serum (t1/2 = 6.6 h) and <0.01% of the administered dose remained in adipose tissue after 24 h. These plasma and tissue kinetics are consistent with rapid equilibria and underscore the non-persistent nature of BPA, particularly when compared with slowly metabolized lipophilic organic pollutants like halogenated dibenzodioxins.
Half of the BPA was gone from mouse fat in 7 hours, compared to half being gone from mouse blood in 6.6 hours.
One human study concluded:
Despite the measurable concentrations in adipose tissue, these compounds seem to have a low bioaccumulation potential.
I don't know where you got your data for your assertions from, but it is not in agreement with the latest (post -2009) literature.
The theory of the Purif is fucked. Hell, the cocaine elimination half life is about an hour and a half, and it's almost completely gone in 19 hours. Those graphs in the OP make no sense at all. They were just made up.
The only wins you had on the Purif were escaping from such a risky, benefit-less activity unscathed.