Jillian's Writing a Book,,, We Take a Look (1)

So Jillian is in the midst of writing her third book for publication. Recently she read, via video, her preface to said book. So I thought we would take a look at what she has written so far. As per usual I am not critiquing Jillian's grammar etc but content only. Altho I will say this,,, based solely on her FB content, her writing has not improved in my opinion.

When one uses a talk to text program it is extremely important that one edits the text. Jillian does not appear to do that; at least concerning her Facebook postings. As for her "books" she does minimal editing. Whether she actually has a paid editor is questionable. Not to be a bitch, what passed as her second book , who ever was her editor should be fired. End of story.

Which is it Jillian, a couple days or a couple weeks? It cant be both and is not a point that you can be "neutral" about. This goes back to Jillian's idea that in order to argue a point, you must be able to argue it from both sides. But then she carries that point to mean that we should not choose sides in an argument, we should remain neutral.

She states,

I wanted to see just a little bit of improvement in the way I write in strength that weaknesses are and I'm doing everything I can to strengthen the weaknesses I have, but that also has to do with biochemistry being organized in body, mind and spirit. Being able to separate ideas and then conjoin them to gather to find ,,,[garbled],,, and so I have my own journey of my own challenges that I love and it's always a continuous process of improvement and that's exactly the Jilly Juice journey is a continuous process for improvement and that's just what life is.

Now, I am not going to fault Jillian for wanting to improve herself. I am all for it. But to go so far as equating self betterment, self-improvement - how ever you want to phrase it - with the process of biological evolution, is just plain wrong.

A side note: while Jillian does not outright state at this point her incorrect notion concerning evolution, I personally believe this is what she is referring to. I realize this is just her preface, but I feel it necessary to explore notions she has dangled before. If one were to follow Jillian's Facebook postings as well as her videos, you would understand what I am alluding to. 

I know I have commented numerous times as to Jillian's apparent lack of understanding evolution. She seems to think that it (evolution) occurs at an individual level. It does not!! Evolution by definition is the change in a populations allele frequency over time. There is no other means to define evolution. Bear in mind I am being simplistic for brevity's sake. (Case in point, consider the various strains in regards to Covid-19. We are literally watching evolution in action.)

The only changes that consuming JJ and its high salt content may possibly cause are mutation leading to, for example, gastric cancer. 

I am the inventor of the Jilly Juice protocol. Jilly Juice is nothing more than fermented cabbage, water, and white table salt on a body that will eventually be able to handle all of the food supply.

As I have stated numerous times concerning Jilly Juice it is not a fermented drink. You, Jillian, have no evidence to substantiate - to borrow your term - your claim.

As to your use of "white table salt,"  iodine tends to inhibit the beneficial bacteria in a cultured vegetable, and is NOT recommend for ferments.

The core issues of this very publicized controversy stems from my beliefs in indefinite life,,,

Here's the thing, after Jillian's appearance on the Dr. Phil show she changed much of her verbiage. One point she changed was stating that a person could live to 400 years old to the now "indefinite life."

The issue is how Jillian uses the term or phrase "indefinite life." You see, from my POV, it sounds like Jillian is still implying being able to live 300-400 years, but is using the wrong terminology to do so. Indefinite, implies not being precise or vagueness. In other words, there are no exact limits. By my understanding this is no different than what we already experience.

We don't know how long we are going to live and neither does Jillian. The average life span is ~79 years old. Jillian has no evidence to state otherwise. Individuals aged 100 or older, referred to as centenarians, make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population.

The so-called controversy is not her claim(s) per se, but the fact that Jillian has no evidence to support her claim(s). Just making a statement, or asserting a statement, does not make it so. One must utilize the scientific method to support your hypothesis. Something Jillian does not do as she thinks that her google-foo outweighs current scientific and medical research.

,,,and also the power of fermentation, salt, sugar, conflicting with mainstream confirmation bias is like any new thought process.

There is no "confirmation bias" in science. It is either true or not true. Science does not start with a conclusion, science lets the data speak for itself.

Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views or prejudices one would like to be true.

Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. Thus, we may become prisoners of our assumptions.  

It must be examined, cross-examined, dissected and debated until there is enough reasonable credibility. The information can be substantiated through reputable sources and this is why turn to pub med, academic institutions, that already have substantiated three different contexts that are actually related everything

Jillian's postings, videos, and books are rife with cherry-picked data - often removed from context - to appear to support her claim(s). When one reads her sources in context, many times as I have shown on numerous blog posts, her own sources don't even support the claim(s) she is making. 

Let's ignore, for the moment, all of Jillian's claims. Let's return to the one point that I and many other critics have harped upon since day one. Jillian's entire premise, her protocol, rests on this one point.

In October 2019 I issued a challenge to Jillian and minions:

1] find just one paper stating that the consumption of 47,344 mgs of NaCl per day is safe.

2] find one paper stating that the consumption of 11,833mgs (1 quart) of NaCl per day is safe.

Since publication of such challenge I have yet to receive evidence of such from Jillian (or her minions). Jillian cannot provide, or has not, provided one source that support her primary hypothesis.  Claiming “maverick” status for rejection by myself and other critics, just doesn't cut it. Jillian's material is not peer reviewed. Copying unrelated material, removing it from its original context, and then pasting said material into a new context is not research.

For example, back in December of 2017. Jillian broached the topic of molten-salt batteries, believing this supports her notion that her mega-dose of salt is warranted because of this molten-salt technology. As I stated in 2017,

,,,the discovery centers around molten salt batteries such as sodium/sulfur or sodium/nickel chloride designs in which electrodes are kept at high temperatures to keep them in a molten state and allow charge to transfer between them.

I shouldn't have to say it, but no relation to bio-chemical reactions or drinking mega doses of salt daily. Salt or I should say sodium, is the only similarity and last I checked I was not a battery.

Yes, salt (NaCl) is an important part of our diet for the health of our bodies. Our body uses salt to balance fluids in the blood and maintain healthy blood pressure, and it is also essential for nerve and muscle function. We require 250mgs per day, altho the RDA is 1500-2300mgs. Not the 6,900 mgs in a 2-cup recipe as Jillian prescribes.

As I have oft stated Jillian either did not read said article about molten-salt batteries, or did not understand. Personally, I believe she cherry-picked information she felt supported her claim, placing it into a new context, and then called it a day.

Sidenote:: the use of salt to replace lithium ion batteries was in the news yet again this past month.

Soooo,,, I had hoped to summarize Jillian's video in one round. You'd think after all the years of following her antics, I would know her shorter videos are harder to unpack as she Gish-Gallops terribly. So consider this part-1 with a part to on the way. It's written I just need to record, edit, and make it purty.

With that said see you in a few days!!