> It's probably hard to measure

No, mass spectrometers are not that hard to operate.

> subjectively one feels better and thinks more clearly

How is that related to toxins? Is coffee also removing toxins because it helps me think more clearly in the morning? Is complaining about public transport to a friend also removing toxins because it makes me feel better?

> Saying that something is not affirmed by science is not equivalent to saying it is denied by science.

Thankfully science has given us tools to base our conclusions on more than our fallible subjective impressions and whimsical correlations. "It seems to help, must be that we're removing something bad" is how you get bloodletting.

So based on the unnecessarily hostile feedback I can now explain that I was using the word toxin quite loosely and simply meant some undesirable waste products in the body. I did not actually mean tetrodotoxin or something like what a puffer fish would give you on a not-so-friendly poke. Sweating out waste products helps, and the heat also sticks with you for a while after a sauna session or a long bath, so that probably stimulates the organs into doing their natural processes better, clearing out yet more waste products. I don't get why this is such a contentious claim, either you get benefits from it and you do it, or you live your whole life waiting for someone else to prove its good before you try it out for yourself. I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction.

> I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction.

Science can strictly speaking not prove any truth, so the incompleteness theorem is irrelevant. Science tries to establish useful models. A model's usefulness is determined by its ability to predict the future (roughly speaking), whereas models whose predictions turn out untrue are eventually discarded.

It is perfectly fine to throw in hypotheses for how things work - that's how science advances. But there is a fine line between suggesting a causation and assuming that it is true just because it makes sense but hasn't been scientifically tested yet. That's more or less the opposite of science, which is (I guess) why there has been a relatively strong response to your statements. That way lies healing crystals.

>Science can strictly speaking not prove any truth

Could you elaborate on this?

Absolutely wrong, toxin has a very specific and concrete meaning ("a harmful substance produced within living cells or organisms") so if you're going to employ that word in this context you better be prepared to justify it by measuring aforementioned toxins and defining exactly what those physical substances are.

Okay, toxin is not the word I ought to have used, thanks. Gonna go with "waste products."