So you say you make no claims in your book,,, I beg to differ (Pt 4)

As an ex addict, I find this next section a bit asinine. Comparing sugar to an addictive drug, based on the non existence of little critters in your body.

 

Candida overgrowth, as described by master woo-meisters, does not exist except in rare cases. Parasitical infestation of the human body, also is not prevalent in first world nations. I am not saying it doesn't happen, just not to the degree Epperly insinuates, “One of the biggest addictions that feed these foreign objects such as Candida and parasites is the sugar addiction.” (Here I thought Candida fed off of poop,,,sigh!)

But here's the thing, OK a few things,,, why I have issue with comparing sugar to mind-alteringdrug or similar (Epperly mentions nicotine, and psychotropics as well).

Sugar is fine in moderation. Drugs are not. It’s this massive consumption of sugar (and the low nutrition foods in which it’s often found) that’s harmful, not sugar by itself.

Rats aren’t humans. The biggest argument for sugar addiction are based on rat studies. Generally not an issue, BUT the primary concern for a rat is survival, which is dependent on their finding food in any form. Rats want food, and sugar is food. Of course they choose sugar over drugs. It’s their primal drive for survival kicking in.

There are many things that trigger the addiction pathway. While sugar does trigger the same dopamine pathway as drugs, so do many other things. If sugar and other foods didn’t trigger the dopamine-reward cycle, we wouldn’t be alive.

If sugar was addictive, why are fruits on your diet (p25)? Because people don't binge on fruits (except maybe fruitarians) despite the fact that fruits contain naturally-occurring sugars, no one ever claims to be addicted to these foods. 

Behaviors that on the surface look and feel like sugar addiction are often a function of diet mentality, which can be just as powerful of a feeling as addiction. Through restriction or labels of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ foods, it creates a real or perceived deprivation that can trigger a primal drive to eat. In other words, bingeing occurs in the context of limited access rather than the actual neurochemical effects of sugar.

As per usual, Jillian does not understand or totally ignores the nuance involved.  Unlike street drugs, including prescriptions, there is no physical addiction per se. 

You don’t need alcohol, tobacco or street drugs to live, but you do need food. How can something required for life be addictive? There are three levels of motivation: liking, wanting, and needing. When we go from wanting to needing, that’s when we start to invoke the concept of addiction. As a species and as individuals, we clearly need food.  Strike one for the naysayers.

BTW Jillian, do you have any evidence for this claim?

I'm a bit confused,,, On page 19 of your book concerning waterfalls, you state “The protocol is meant to starve and kill the Candida, parasites,,,” But in your section addressing addictions (p21) you state, “My protocol is different than other detox programs that merely starve the parasites and Candida of the sugar, sugar substitutes and carbohydrates.” 

So, what exactly is your protocol supposed to do?

As I noted in the last post, you are encouraging a large consumption of liquid in a very short time. Which alone can cause its own issues of over-hydration. Over-hydration happens when you drink more liquid than your kidneys can get rid of via urine; 0.8-1 gallons (3-4 liters) of water in a short amount of time. Your kidneys can eliminate about 5.3-7.4 gallons (20-28 liters) of water a day, but they can't get rid of more than 27-33 ounces (0.8-1.0 liters) per hour. 

I will readily admit I know nothing of thyroid issues and what a person can or can not eat. It is obvious the Jillian knows nothing about thyroid issues either but yet she makes the above reckless statement.

Again you are talking out both sides of you mouth,

"My protocol is not a detox and that is why I do not call the symptoms during my protocol “detox symptoms”, because the protocol uses a different context and outcome. The context of my protocol is healing and purging so we call them “healing symptoms”.” (p16) 

 

“Experiencing Healing Symptoms (detoxing) is not at all dangerous in the context of using the protocol,,,” (p21)

Which is it Jillian, cherry-picking whatever supports your stupid notions at the moment? Or, you're having difficulty keeping your scam straight?

I'm going to ignore your bullshit about vaccines, as that is a posting all by its lonesome. (I haven't decided yet whether I may tackle that or not.) BUT,,,

Just as you should not be giving advice concerning an individuals eyesight, you should not be giving advice concerning issues with the heart. You are not a doctor, you have no medical training. Chest pains or discomfort may or may not be problematic. That is not for you to decide especially in the context of your next section.

You are shaming individuals who use modern medical procedures and practices giving your opinion when you should keep your pouty lips sealed.

So with that, we end chapter five. Now there are a few sections I didn't bother with, primarily for brevity but also for simplicity sake – ie amalgam fillings. There is so much con-nutter garbage involved, my explanation would be longer than her book. Some things, are a bit odd, like purging out psychological trauma, that's called PTSD. I'm not quite sure how drinking overly salty cabbage juice would help with that issue.  Overall this chapter is a mish-mash of some very dangerous advice, and shit that makes you say WTF! Up next is her diet, if you can call it that.