"Toxins", as a scientific or medical term, refers exclusively to woowy bullshit. I'm not saying there aren't any harmful chemicals- there are plenty. But to refer to them, you either need to refer to the specific chemicals you can name, or else to the specific families of chemicals you can name, or else you need to say "there are adverse effects, probably to do with something happening that we don't understand yet".

As a general rule, "toxins" belong in the same category as prayer, crystals, reiki, 'cleanse' diets, and astral projection. Maybe all of these things really do work when science isn't looking- but the data says otherwise.

And just so this is clear, it isn't that there's nothing to any of these- just that, whether there is something or not, it isn't well enough understood to be meaningfully useful. which is why specific "toxins" should be referred to by name or chemical class- at the very least until such time as "toxins" can be understood well enough to refer to them en-masse the way, say, antioxidants or polyphenols are.

Methylglyoxal for example.

Reference? this is interesting.

Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085

Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic β cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption of glucose-containing carbohydrate

but the data is that higher dairy consumption is linked with bowel cancers

there is good solid evidence that points to it as a culprit in uncontrolled weight gain

Observational studies are a waste of time, these people usually eat bad diets in addition to dairy. How am I so lean while eating tons of dairy? Am I the outlier?

This is a straw-man attack, and probably the same kind of thing has happened to you and your 'cult' :)

Not really a straw man attack at all. I don't see how he can call casein unhealthy when children develop great when consuming large amounts from breast milk.

Neal IS a quack, he's currently runing a social media campaign attacking Quaker oats for including milk in their advertising, arguing that it's healthier to use milk substitutes. What a joke.

roughly half the human species- nearly all of east and southeast asia, much of the native American population, Pacific islanders and Australian aboriginees (among others) simply don't have the gene to metabolize lactose after infancy (they are "lactose intolerant").

You can become lactose tolerant by drinking low amounts of milk with meals and gradually increasing the dose, if that doesn't work you can put lactate into milk to remove the lactose.

both of these things, specifically (alone or in combination) are things that 1) you can get plenty of without fruits, 2) most people get too much of anyway, 3) both are extremely highly correlated with high insulin response, and fructose especially is correlated with higher rates of conversion to fat- hence all that stuff about the health effects of high-fructose corn syrup.

??? How the fuck are you going to get fructose without eating fruits, honey, fruit juice or sugar?

most people get too much of anyway

So what, most people are dumb as shit.

both are extremely highly correlated with high insulin response

Uh. You do know pretty much all carbs have glucose? But yes, glucose does stimulate a high insulin response, but so do many amino acids. I don't see why you have such an aversion to insulin? Insulin does matter but it's not like it's the main factor in health, it's not.

fructose especially is correlated with higher rates of conversion to fat

Correlated, who cares? There's no proof that fructose is harmful to humans when combined with glucose (which it always is). All the studies that go "OMG FRUCTOSE TOXIC!!!" is from feeding rats insane amounts w/o glucose.