I agree with the medical community that the body has an amazing ability to detoxify itself…however…it was never designed to handle the toxic load that it is under today (food, water, EMFs, heavy metals from amalgam fillings…)!

The word detox is overused and can mean many different things. Some practitioners will give you a colon cleansing herb and call that a detox, for some a juice fast is a detox. Technically, they are both detoxes, but….

I have been using (both personally and in my practice) a purification or detox program from Standard Process for more than 12 years with amazing success.

This program is a combination of diet and herbal supplements (in my opinion BOTH required for an effective detox) that helps your body to purge toxins. Fill out the Toxicity Survey on my site to see where you are. I believe that this is the best way to measure the success of any program – not just weight loss, but rather toxin loss!

The medical community sure hates detoxing, and the media sure loves reporting it! Every couple of years, there’s another study dissing the idea of detoxing for health vs medical detoxing if you’ve ingested a poison. And since the media has such little understanding of what’s involved in real-nutritional, whole-body detoxing, they almost always focus on colon detoxing—encouraged, of course, by their medical advisors. According to those doctors:

• There is never any reason for intestinal detoxing; your body does just fine detoxing itself
• Even if there were, nothing in the alternative health arsenal works anyway, so it’s a waste of time and money
• And, finally, detoxing is not only ineffective, it’s harmful, even deadly

It’s all a load of nonsense, of course, and easily dealt with on all counts. Now, to be fair, the above three statements, under certain circumstances, could be considered true, but only if you refuse to look at the entire forest of health and nutrition and focus exclusively on the individual trees. The problem is that at that level, you’re so far removed from what constitutes overall health that any conclusions you reach are meaningless.

…read the full article to learn more

I believe that glyphosate is one of the major contributors to “gluten sensitivity”. Not that it’s not real, but I think this plays a major role!

There certainly are studies to counter everything we’ve explored in this report–studies, for example, that have been used by the EPA to justify Roundup’s continued use. The problem is that the studies cited by the EPA in their 2015 exoneration of Roundup aren’t quite as neutral as those that led to the negative IARC report. Of the 32 glyphosate studies the EPA considered, 27 were paid for by the chemical industry, mostly by Monsanto. And not surprisingly, it was those industry-funded studies that found in favor of Roundup.  Now, to be sure, those studies did note that the poor rats exposed to glyphosate were having problems. The research observed that the rats lost weight, had smaller litters, and had a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer; but the researchers associated with all those industry sponsored studies dismissed those effects as insignificant.

The five independent studies, on the other hand, weren’t quite so upbeat. Three of the five noted that the rats suffered serious endocrine problems resulting from glyphosate exposure. One report, for instance, said that glyphosate, “may induce significant adverse effects on the reproductive system of male Wistar rats at puberty and during adulthood.” But since there were only three such alarming reports in the packet of 32, approval of glyphosate was continued. But that’s disingenuous considering that deck was stacked with 25 industry funded studies. And it’s not just the EPA. In 2017, glyphosate won a new five-year lease for use in the EU.

The bottom line is that when it comes to glyphosate, we are not in a happy place. The world is awash in this toxic herbicide. It is now the most heavily-used agricultural chemical in the history of the world. According to a 2016 study published in Environmental Sciences Europe, since 1974, over 1.6 billion kilograms (1.8 million tons) of glyphosate have been applied in the US, and 8.6 billion kilograms (9.5 million tons) worldwide.25 Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years. The corresponding share globally is 72%. And the future looks even grimmer as China has jumped onto the glyphosate bandwagon big time, leaving Monsanto in the dust.

In fact, according to the latest Research Report on China’s Glyphosate Industry, at present, global glyphosate production capacity is concentrated in China.26 In 2017, the global glyphosate production capacity was 1,065,000 tons, including 380,000 tons of Monsanto and 685,000 tons of Chinese enterprises. Due to China’s supply-side reform and environmental “supervision”, China’s glyphosate industry is both more integrated and more concentrated.

China is the major glyphosate exporter in the world. Over 80% of China-made glyphosate is exported to account for over 60% of the global supply. The output of glyphosate in China increased from 316,000 tons in 2010 to about 505,000 tons in 2017. In 2017, China exported over 300,000 tons of glyphosate, which satisfied more than half of the global glyphosate demand. In other words, any production controls exercised in the US or Europe will have only marginal impact on the amount of glyphosate available for use in the world.

The bottom line is that glyphosate isn’t going anywhere in the near term. It appears we’re going to have to learn to live with it in our food, our water, and our environment for the foreseeable future. With that in mind…

Glyphosate Is Showing Up in Our Bodies

A 2017 study published in JAMA tracked people over the age of 50 in southern California from 1993-1996 and from 2014-2016.27 By measuring the urinary excretion of glyphosate in the study’s 100 participants, the researchers found that the percentage of people who tested positive for glyphosate shot up by 500% during those years. Even more frightening: the levels of glyphosate found in their bodies spiked by 1208% during that time.

What was VISA’s tagline for 20 years? “It’s everywhere you want to be.” It’s probably a good thing VISA no longer uses that line, so we can now apply it to glyphosate.

A Ray of Hope

Earlier in this report, I mentioned the 5,000 cases pending against Monsanto. Well, on August 10th, one of those cases reached a verdict. A unanimous jury decision awarded $289 million ($39 million in damages and $250 million in penalties) to a former school groundskeeper who said Monsanto’s Roundup left him dying of cancer.28 Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos announced in court that Monsanto “acted with malice, oppression, or fraud and should be punished for its conduct.”

In legal terms, this verdict will bolster the thousands of pending cases we talked about earlier and open the door for countless people who blame their suffering on the weed killer. However, this verdict is hardly final. It can be appealed and either have the award chopped down to minimal dollars or even thrown out altogether. And in fact, Monsanto said in a statement it would appeal the verdict. “Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews…support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” the company said.

Nevertheless, it is a crack in the previously impenetrable wall that Monsanto has been able to build–with huge amounts of congressional help–around its glyphosate-based herbicide. It seems you can buy a Representative’s vote–and in some cases even a Senator’s–for just a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions. In any case, it probably will take several years to see if the crack widens…or ends up getting patched over. But at least, for now, there is a crack. Enough lawsuits won; enough money paid out by Monsanto; and that could spell the end of Roundup somewhere down the road.

I wish I had better news, but the best advice I can give–since, at least for the next decade, glyphosate’s going to be unavoidable–is do a full body detox at least once or twice a year.

Please let me know if I can help you, as I have a fabulous Detox program that can help after you’ve had the implants removed.

Breast Implants are a foreign material to the body and cause physical illness for many women. I know, as I was one of those women who became very ill from my implants. Both silicone and saline implants contain over 40 toxic elements that can cause illness. In addition, studies have shown that silicone is not inert. Silicone attracts fungi to it and thus provides the potential for fungi to proliferate systemically throughout the body.

My own experience with saline implants was over a ten-year period:

“Within months of implantation, I began experiencing chronic fatigue, depression, and neurological issues. I never dreamed that the implants could be the cause. My surgeon had told me they were “perfectly safe” and would last a lifetime. Over the years I saw many doctors and was eventually diagnosed with a myriad of autoimmune illnesses that they had no answers for. Thankfully I found some relief when I found Doug Kaufmann’s Know the Cause TV show and started living the antifungal lifestyle. With Doug’s wisdom, I would have periods of better health only to come crashing down for no apparent reason. Many days I would be bedridden with horrible flu-like illness.”

Not all women become as ill as I did, but many do and are diagnosed with MS, Lupus, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, etc. These illnesses are actually caused by fungi/molds that grow around the heavy metals and toxins in the implants. The fungi/mold produce biotoxins that are toxic to the human body. The body naturally forms a “capsule” around the implant. This capsule has blood vessels that carry these toxins into the bloodstream. When the fungal toxins become systemic they can affect every known bodily system.

~~~~ Breast Implant Illness Symptoms~~~~

Chronic Fatigue
Brain Fog / Memory Loss
Muscle Pain and Weakness
Muscle Twitching
Hair Loss
Poor Sleep
Dry Eyes / Vision Disturbances
Hypo / Hyper Thyroid Symptoms
Hypo/ Hyper-Adrenal Symptoms
Difficulty Swallowing / Cough / Choking Feeling
Vertigo
Gastrointestinal Issues
Fever / Night Sweats
Persistent Infection and Flus
Yeast Infections
Ear Ringing
Headaches
Sore and Aching Joints
Swollen and Tender Lymph Nodes
Numbness and Tingling Sensations
Cold or Burning Hands and Feet
Chest Discomfort and Shortness of Breath
Anxiety / Depression / Panic Attacks
Fibromyalgia
And more…

If you have become ill since having breast implants, there is hope for recovery! There are certain steps that you MUST take to get well:

• Have the implants removed by a surgeon skilled at explantation. Your surgeon should understand that breast implants can make you ill, and perform what is called “a full capsulectomy” or “en bloc” procedure t remove both the implants and the capsule (scar tissue) around the,

• After surgery, you should work with an experienced doctor or practitioner who understands that biotoxins are the “root cause” of breast implant illness and who knows how to properly treat the biotoxins.

Real estate advertisements always highlight the best features of a property, and so it’s interesting that so many listings boast about homes that are “close to walking paths, shopping, and the airport.” For many potential homeowners, such proximity indeed seems an advantage. Need to pick up out-of-town guests? Ten minutes in the car takes you right to the terminal. Need to leave town in a hurry? A five-dollar Uber ride delivers you straight to Departures.

Given that there are 5,136 public airports in the US and over 14,000 private airports plus another 21,000 or so airports worldwide, a whole lot of people live within a twenty-mile radius of planes coming and going.12 Over 42,000 flights traverse the skies over the US daily, but other than occasionally seeing the lights overhead at night or noticing the crisscross vapor trails in the sky, most of us pay little attention.  But that may be a mistake. If you live near an airport, a good deal more attention is probably warranted.

So, what gives? Well first of all, research shows that people who live near airports experience higher levels of respiratory and cardiac problems compared to the population at large. Carbon monoxide emissions are at least partly to blame, mostly due to the time airplanes spend taxiing and idling on the runway before takeoff or after landing, spewing out huge amounts of exhaust that lingers in the air.3 Airplanes, in fact, are one of the chief sources of air pollution in the US, and those living nearby bathe daily in a soup of toxins.

In a recent joint study by Columbia University and the University of California, scientists measured carbon monoxide levels at the 12 largest airports scattered throughout California, and then tracked rates of heart and lung disease among the six million nearby residents. They found that the incidence of asthma and respiratory diseases like COPD was, on average, 17 percent higher among those living within 6.2 miles of an airport compared to the population at large.  Cardiac problems were nine percent more common among that same population, with the elderly and very young particularly at risk.

The thing is, the rates of carbon monoxide measured weren’t sky high. In fact, they were within the legal limits for air quality safety established by the Environmental Protection Agency, although higher than locales elsewhere. What’s the issue? The researchers believe that the established limits are far too liberal and suggest that the EPA would do well to reevaluate just what levels of CO emissions are actually safe to inhale. As the report states, “These health effects occur at levels of CO exposure far below existing EPA mandates, and our results suggest there may be sizable morbidity benefits from lowering the existing CO standard.”

Not that carbon monoxide is the only issue. Pollution levels within three square miles of an airport are typically 10 times higher than a bit farther out. Airplanes spew out other toxins including sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each of these pollutants brings its own array of problems multiplying the effects beyond cardiovascular and respiratory issues. VOCs, for instance, have been linked to neurological issues and kidney and liver damage, as well as to headaches and eye, nose, and throat irritation.4 Pollution at the levels typical near airports has been linked to cancer, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, depression, and more.

If poor air quality near airports isn’t enough reason to seek housing elsewhere, there’s also the noise pollution factor. Excessive noise exerts a negative influence on health for several reasons. First, when the noise occurs at night, it disturbs sleep. Also, noise causes the body to release stress hormones, which can negatively impact the immune system, the cardiovascular system, and even cholesterol levels. The more noise, the worse the effects, and airplanes are particularly noisy. For point of reference, ambient noise in a quiet rural area registers at around 30 decibels, on average. In a typical restaurant where there’s background music playing, you’ve got a 60-decibel level.5Sixty decibels, by the way, sounds about half as loud as 70 decibels (volume doubles with every 10 decibels). With that in mind, a Boeing 737 jet registers at 90 decibels one mile away from landing. In other words, anyone living a mile from the airport suffers a whole lot of noise.

Numerous studies underline the negative consequences of living under a flight path. A study just published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine followed 420 people living near an airport in Greece and found that each 10 decibels of aircraft noise at night led to a 69 percent increase in the incidence of hypertension.  In 2014, researchers found that kids living near Logan Airport in Boston had quadruple the normal rates of asthma, while adults in the same radius had twice the incidence of COPD.6 And then a 2013 study found a significant increase in hypertension and cardiac-related hospital admissions in communities surrounding 89 airports across the US.7 An earlier study at Heathrow Airport in London found a direct line between airport noise exposure and stroke and cardiovascular disease. And a handful of studies concluded that airport noise raises nervous system and cardiovascular levels even among children.8 In fact, a 2005 study published in The Lancet found that for every 10 decibels of increased noise pollution in the surroundings, reading levels for kids fell behind by two months, and comprehension faltered proportionately.

Given the evidence that airports destroy the health of those living in the surrounding areas, just how far away do you need to be to ensure you aren’t affected? Many sources suggest six miles, but a study out of the University of Southern California and the University of Washington found that particulate levels even ten miles away from LAX airport in Los Angeles were twice as high as levels farther away. Those levels continued to escalate in closer proximity. In the two-mile area east of the airport, pollution levels were 10 times higher than outside the affected region. The levels of pollution depended on whether the home was to the East or West of the airport, as flight paths tend to concentrate in particular directions. In other words, you can live near an airport but not be in direct line of flight paths, and that makes a difference. Those right under flight paths living five miles away might suffer more exposure than those just two miles away who are away from the major flight paths.

What can you do if you live close to the airport, under a flight path? Get a high-quality air filter, invest in a white-noise machine, and institute a regular program of full-body detoxification. And if you’re motivated, you can lobby your lawmakers to establish more realistic air pollution limits and to insist that aircraft manufacturers develop better sound-muffling equipment. Oh, and you can peruse real estate ads, unless you want to join John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton on the runway.

• “Air Traffic by the Numbers.” Federal Aviation Administration. 22 February 2018. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
• “Video: How Many Commercial Airports Are There in the World?” 11 August 2015. AeronewsTV.com. 22 February 2018. https://www.aeronewstv.com/en/lifestyle/in-your-opinion/2954-how-many-commercial-airports-are-there-in-the-world.html
• Schlenker, Wolfram and Walker, Reed. “Airports, Air Pollution, and Contemporaneous Health.” July 2015. https://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MS17397manuscript.pdf
• West, Larry. “What are t he Health Effects of Airport Noise and Pollution?” 17 March 2017. ThoughtCo. 23 February 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/health-effects-of-airport-noise-and-pollution-1204091
• https://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm
• Perry, Susan. “Airport pollution may have been seriously underestimated, study suggests.” 2 June 2014. MinnPost. 23 February 2018. https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/06/airport-pollution-may-have-been-seriously-underestimated-study-suggests
• Correia, Andrew, W. et al. ”Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: multi-airport retrospective study.” 8 October 2013. British Medical Journal. 23 February 2018. https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5561
• West, Larry. “What are the Health Effects of Airport Noise and Pollution?” 12 March 2017. ThoughtCo. 23 February 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/health-effects-of-airport-noise-and-pollution-1204091