"What Really Makes You Ill" and Animals Too - Book Review and Summary

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”—Albert Einstein 

“Modern medicine can’t survive without our faith, because modern medicine is neither an art nor a science; it’s a religion... Just ask ‘why’ enough times and sooner or later you’ll reach the chasm of faith.”—Robert Mendelsohn MD  

I’ve recently finished reading a book published in 2019 titled What Really MakesYou Ill, by Dawn Lester and David Parker, an elderly couple from England. Comprised of ten chapters and 790 pages, it is one of the longest books I’ve ever read.  So here goes my lengthy summary and review.

Part of my reason for writing this summary is to provide the reader with a condensed overview that encapsulates the information and perspectives presented in this book. While the book primarily focuses on human illness, chapter 5 addresses several animal afflictions, primarily zoonoses, or diseases claimed by the medical establishment to be transmitted from animals to humans; thus my inclusion of animals in the title of this review. The issues brought up in the book affect not only humans but all life on earth.

In conjunction with this review, I've also been inspired to create a Timeline of Germ Theory, with parallel developments in the field of vaccination. To fully appreciate the information herein, I recommend printing out this article (Word doc here), and the accompanying timeline, and perusing them at your leisure. The review itself also includes a number of additional details drawn from other sources not mentioned in the book.  Unless otherwise noted, “the book” refers to What Really Makes You Ill, and “the authors of the book”, or simply “the authors”, refers to Dawn Lester and David Parker.

Contents of this article: 

• Poisons as a primary cause of disease 
• True environmentalists 
• ‘Climate change solutions’: degradation of the earth’s forests, and...more chemicals
• Toxic medications and vested interests 
• Globalization of the agenda 
• Problems with the theory of infectious disease, or ‘germ theory’ 
• A unified theory of disease 
• Quinine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine 
• The role of oxidative stress and its association with many “harmful substances and influences”  
• How to support the body’s innate ability to heal and maintain health 
• Useful Resources for a toxic-free lifestyle 
• About the authors of the book 

Poisons as a primary cause of disease   

“Majorities are never proof of truth.”—Dr. Walter R. Hadwen, 1896   

I feel the perspectives in this book are of great importance, partly because of the heavy use of often highly toxic chemicals in practically all areas of modern life, a great deal of which is excused and/or promoted under the belief that these chemicals are needed to prevent or treat disease. This trend is seen ubiquitously: whether it be the use of agricultural chemicals deemed necessary for plant afflictions; farm and veterinary products believed necessary for animal “health”; or pesticides for “vector control”, “disinfectants”, or even toxic medications used to “prevent” or “treat” human afflictions.   

One of the main premises of What Really Makes You Ill is that so-called “infectious diseases” are neither infectious nor caused by the scapegoats they are commonly attributed to (known as “infectious agents” or germs) but instead are generally due to a combination of factors that can include exposure to harmful substances, poor nutrition, and stress. This claim may seem hard to believe--to some, audacious. Yet it is precisely the conclusion I came to independently... to my own astonishment... in my research on polio; and, later, AIDS. The extensive section on polio in my Pandemics Timeline, and a brief discussion of AIDS under "House of Numbers" in my article Important Documentaries for Our Times, represent only the tip of the iceberg of the large body of information casting serious doubt on the official narratives regarding these two diseases.   

Other serious afflictions of the past that are often claimed to be illustrative of the expediency of drastic preventative measures to ‘control outbreaks’ are shown in the book to be something entirely different than the caricaturization of contagion that has been promulgated about them by the establishment. For example, the 1918 Flu can be seen as a lumping together, under the title of ‘Flu’, of a number of afflictions that were the direct result of the circumstances and conditions of WWI-- afflictions that were not confined to 1918 but instead “began as early as 1915 and continued until the late 1920s.”   

And while there is an absolute paucity of evidence of the establishment’s caricature of the Black Death (1348-51) being caused by a bacterium spread by rats and fleas, there is abundant evidence from multiple disciplines that it coincided with extreme cosmological and geological perturbations, confirmed by widespread contemporary eye-witness reports of comets, earthquakes, famine, flashes of light in the sky, foul smelling gases from the air, from the ground, and the sea, and even trees covered with ash. In just 4 years, some 50% of the population of Europe and Asia was decimated, and in certain places, particularly in southern Europe and in settlements near the sea, the death toll was even higher. The descriptions and conclusions of the authors of What Really Makes Ill are corroborated in a well-documented book I chanced upon by Sacha Dobler, called The Black Death and Abrupt Earth Changes (2017). Dobler goes even further. He tells how the time leading up to and following 1348-51 also saw great events of apocalyptic proportions, indeed thought by many of the inhabitants of Europe to be the ‘end of the world.’ Dobler points out that discussions of the Black Death usually omit the drastic disruptions in climate that had already begun more than 50 years earlier, toward the end of the prosperous era denoted by solar scientists as the Medieval Climate Optimum (1150-1300), during the first shift toward the Little Ice Age. These disruptions would eventually lead to The Great Famine that between 1315 and 1320, 30 years prior to the Black Death in Europe, had already “killed about 30% of the European population”; as well as to other famines, migrations, and wars. Then, during the years of 1342-43, flooding of millennial proportions destroyed half the farmland in Europe, carrying away an estimate 13 billion tons of soil. Referring to just one week of these two years, the Magdalene Flood between the 19th and 25th of July in 1342, “One third of the entire soil erosion of the last 1500 years took place in this week.” (Bork, 2006). Dobler goes on:

(Emphasis added.)

In view of prolific records of profound, earthshaking catastrophes on all sides, portraying the great causalities of the Black Death as an isolated event due to a minute bacteria turned monster assassin is highly unsatisfactory and borders on pure fabrication. Extreme climate disruptions and famine lead to social upheaval and physical emaciation. Poisonous gasses from volcano, comets, and fisures in the earth--recorded in the annals of time--spread like a deadly fog that knows no boundaries.  Whatever role may be ascribed to bacteria or other micro-organisms, it is abundantly clear that other factors were the driving force in the heavy toll of death in Europe and Asia--and the same can be said of the so-called 1918 Flu. It is likely the upheavals and suffering in the 14th century were worldwide, though apparently we do not have clear records for the time period from other continents.

In thorough discussions of many other ‘diseases’, What Really Makes You Ill demonstrates how the medical establishment has brushed aside, downplayed, and often completely ignored other very obvious and compelling explanations of afflictions it attributes to "germs" and/or claims to be the authority on and to be able to diagnose or treat. Included among these are a number of animal afflictions and zoonoses, including rabies, Mad Cow Disease, and anthrax. Mad Cow Disease, in particular, represents a case of veterinary agricultural practice gone horribly wrong.   

At this point, although I cannot say that I can agree with or can affirm everything the authors say in the book, I must commend them. They have certainly done their homework, and the overall theory of disease they present is the most comprehensive and coherent theory of disease I have yet to encounter.... by far more coherent than the disjointed and often self-contradictory claims of the medical establishment, something repeatedly demonstrated throughout the book through direct quotes from the WHO, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and scientific journals. Studying this book has brought a number of things into clarity that were, for me, frankly quite fuzzy before. One of these areas is the relationship between poisons, oxidative stress, and disease which I will discuss later in this article.   

There is a disturbing pattern I began to notice in my previous research that comes up over and over in this book: often the drugs or other chemicals used to treat or prevent a particular disease are known to cause the very symptoms they are supposed to prevent. This has been most blatant and horrifying in the use of AZT and later anti-retroviral medications in the “treatment” of AIDS—drugs that cause symptoms then identified as AIDS, even in persons who formerly possess no such symptoms (as documented in House of Numbers, among others). But the pattern can be seen repeatedly elsewhere, such as in the treatment of liver affections with drugs known to cause liver disease (as a stated “side”-effect); in oral polio vaccine causing “vaccine-related non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” (so as not to call it polio); or in the treatment of airplanes with pesticides to prevent the transport of “disease-carrying” insects or vectors, particularly to prevent the spread of the alleged Zika virus, whilst these very pesticides, along with those sprayed for mosquito control in rural communities, have been shown to cause neurological disorders and birth defects that are commonly attributed to Zika.   

In the same manner, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as “Mad Cow Disease”, although asserted to be an infectious disease, is much more likely to be the result of “preventative” spraying of highly toxic pesticides directly onto the backs and necks of cattle (as a “vector” deterrent), from where the poison makes its way into their brains, causing them to “go mad.” The discussions in the section on BSE in Chapter 5 make it clear that this lesser known theory is almost certain to be the case (see article by Mark Purdey). And obviously, the zoonotic form--i.e. the form of the disease alleged to be transmitted from animals to  humans, known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCJD) and described as an incurable fatal neurodegenerative condition-- could be caused by similar exposures. To wit, CJD is only one form of human spongiform encephalopathy; theother forms include Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and ALS(Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), all of which have been associated with accumulation of aluminum in the brain.   

This horrifying pattern of obfuscation of the real causes of disease gives one the distinct impression that the national and international institutions posing as guardians of health are directly serving the interests of corporations, not the interests of people, animals, or the planet. Alleging “pathogens” as the culprits of disease—even when sound proof of such causation is positively lacking—diverts attention from toxic exposures and provides industry with a convenient scapegoat; giving environmental and medical researchers, MDs, veterinarians, and the public a place to focus their attention whilst never discovering the very real and otherwise obvious causes of the “diseases” they pretend to investigate. They also never discover the cure.   

Many people seem to be resistant to considering causes of disease other than those officially pronounced by the medical establishment. But why should it surprise us if pesticides, for instance—which by design are formulated to kill, paralyze, or interrupt the reproductive cycles of insects—also affect humans and animals... in very similar ways. There is no surprise in this from a toxicological standpoint, and these things have been proven out time and time again and have been brought to public attention ever since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring and ignited the environmental movement, leading to the banning of DDT in the US and other countries. Yet DDT and other potent pesticides continue to be used in countries where mosquitoes are deemed a “threat” of being vectors of serious diseases.  The observations of Rachel Carson in Silent Spring about the severe effects on wildlife in America due to the use of DDT and other pesticides of the era bears relation to the thorough discussion in chapter 5 of What Really Makes Us Ill about the alleged “outbreak” of “highly contagious” myxomatosis that is said to have decimated the rabbit population in an area of Australia in 1950-51, years which would appear to correlate with the time of introduction of a number of organochlorine pesticides, including DDT, into Australia (all of which have since been banned), as well as with the use of phosphorous based pesticides, including animal baits or rodenticides. Investigators of the rabbit “disease”, who had been attempting for decades to infect the rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus, with little success, failed to investigate whether pesticides, including rodenticides, could have played a role to the sudden “outbreak”. Incidentally, there was a corresponding outbreak of encephalitis in humans at the same time and in the same area as the huge rabbit die-off. Certain phosphorus compounds are known to cause encephalitis in humans, but yet again, this fact was ignored.   

What if pesticides, mining and ore processing, heavy metals,  agricultural practices, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, geo-engineering, toxic medications, pharmaceutical industry pollution, chlorination and fluoridation, the plastics and synthetics industries, fracking, air pollution, toxic building materials, toxic household cleaners and “body care” products, artificial fragrances, and effluents from tanneries and textile production are the real threats, and blaming disease on pathogens is just a way of covering things up so industry can continue to make huge profits at the cost of our health and to the detriment of all life on earth??? (All of the above sources of poisoning and pollution are discussed in detail in the book, especially in chapter 6: “Poisoning the Planet: Science Gone Awry.”)   

True environmentalists 

“In manufacturing its annual 500 to 600 billion pounds of products, the chemical industry is also responsible for emitting into the environment nearly the same amount of toxic chemicals... The arithmetic is deadly: if the chemical industry were required to eliminate toxic discharges into the environment, the cost would render the industry grossly unprofitable.”   

“The battle lines are predictable: the environmental organizations call for stricter standards, the corporate lobbyists for weaker ones, with the EPA reflecting whatever position seems politically expedient at the moment.”   

—Barry Commoner MD (1917-2012), Making Peace with the Planet   (Bold added)

Like myself, the authors question the motivation and scientific rigor behind the popularized narrative on climate change. They suggest that the demonization of carbon dioxide may be another ploy of vested interests to divert attention from the very real and ubiquitous problem of toxic pollution:   

The term “climate change denialist” is a derogatory term used to dismiss anyone who questions the official narrative, yet it is entirely inappropriate. In common with myself and the scientists and environmentalists I have highlighted in previous articles (here and here), the authors of What Really Makes You Ill do not deny that the climate changes, or even that it is changing or will continue to change—in ways we cannot fully understand or predict. We also, emphatically, do not support or endorse the coal and petroleum industries.

As someone who is chemically sensitive, I personally have adverse physical reactions to nearly every petroleum by-product in existence. The authors of the book point out that, according to a work titled Chemical Exposures, chemical sensitivity was first mentioned in the 1950s by Dr. Theron Randolph MD, the father of clinical ecology, who:    

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) cannot be dismissed as idiopathic (i.e. “peculiar” and of unknown cause, as is often claimed) or psychosomatic. The physiological mechanisms of chemical sensitivity have been documented in scientific medical literature. Cited in the book is a 2015 research article by Professor Dominique Belpomme MD, et al., titled, Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. The article:    

(Italics added.)

The authors also note throughout the book that the body’s endocrine system, similar to its the electrical system, is highly sensitive and easily overwhelmed and disrupted by unnatural environmental influences: the endocrine system involves hormones in extremely minute concentrations of hormones, while the body’s electrical system utilizes extremely subtle electrical impulses. To give an idea, they cite an essay by Dr Theo Colborn entitled Peace (which describes hormones in the womb):

This means that what may seem minor exposures to many chemicals (and/or electromagnetic radiation) carry the possibility of causing significant dysfunctionto the body’s regulatory systems and can lead to severe consequences, especially when such exposures are persistent and occur in combination with other similar harmful influences, which is a fact of everyday modern life.

The authors also discuss the toxic pollution of coal burning, and especially the hazardous nature of synthetic products produced from coal-tar. In summary, carbon dioxide is the least offensive byproduct of the so-called “fossil fuel” industry, if it can be said to be offensive at all: CO2 is the natural energy source of plants and contributes to a greener world.   

‘Climate change solutions’: degradation of the earth’s forests, and... more chemicals   

Though not discussed in the book, it should be noted that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which is the major source for official climate change models and predictions, is a UN-related organization that was formed after the Rockefeller’s and other elites and industrialists began funding and directing global warming research in the 1980s. It is a politically orientedbody largely run by and for bureaucrats. (“Intergovernmental” doesn’t exactly denote pure, disinterested science; see my previous articles here and here.)   

The measures now being implemented to address climate change—such as carbon taxes, carbon credits, and geoengineering—do nothing to stop the very real problem of ubiquitous industrial pollution. With reference to the Kyoto Accords on climate change and greenhouse gas reduction, on page 210, near the end of his 2008 book, The Deniers, Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon warns, “...Kyoto is not an insurance policy. Just the opposite, it is the single greatest threat today to the global environment, because it turns carbon into currency.” He tells how forests have been under threat of ‘carbon capitalization’:    

He goes on to tell what The Forest People Program, a gathering of tribal peoples in India’s North Eastern Region of Guwahati, has to say about the situation:   

While carbon credits and carbon taxes may have highly questionable outcomes, various methods under the umbrella of geoengineering are positively menacing to all life on earth...   

According to a Royal Society report referred to in the What Really Makes Us Ill, geoengineering is defined as “... the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming” and is recommended if reduction in greenhouse gasses fails. The same report identifies geoengineering interventions as divided into two categories, labelled Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). While CDR is questionable and may have unforeseeable consequences, SRM measures can only have the direct and definite effect of further detriment to all life on earth. One SRM intervention suggested in the report is the use of “stratospheric aerosols.” The report specifically indicates the possibility of hydrogen sulphide or sulphur dioxide for this purpose, though it states, “This does not mean that some other type of particle may not ultimately prove to be preferable to sulphate particles.” Aluminum is suggested as another possible material.   

A quick search reveals there is plenty of discussion of theoretical geoengineering projects on the internet, including reasons for opposing them. However, a large body of evidence suggests that measures being discussed are not just theoretical, but that stratospheric aerosols already being sprayed into the atmosphere, particularly over Europe and the US, and include a wide variety of toxic compounds that have been shown to filter down and accumulate in theearth’s soil and water. “[U]nusually high concentrations of certain materials, most notably aluminum, but also barium and strontium” have been found in isolated regions such as Mount Shasta. The authors state that, “Many of these substances are hazardous to health, but their dangers are exacerbated by the use of extremely fine particles, or nanoparticles...” They cite a 2013 article by Dr. Russel Blaylock, titled, Chemtrails in Human Health. Nanoaluminum: Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects:   

Incidentally, nanoparticles, also dubbed “hydrogel”, have been used in the “delivery system” for the recent Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. I reported on the results of the Covid-19 vaccination program in the US in my last article. Though I’m not sure what class of nanoparticles are being used in the mRNA “vaccines”, I do know that in some, but not all, conventional vaccines in the US, aluminum has replaced thimerosal mercury as the “adjuvant” of choice since the late 1990s, though trace amounts of highly toxic mercury are still present in all vaccines due to manufacturing methods. Besides being indicated in neurodegenerative conditions in the elderly, very high concentrations of aluminum have also been found in cerebral tissue of autistic children. Is this any surprise given the ever-increasing administration of aluminum-bearing vaccines to infants and small children?   

While, officially, mitigating the alleged global warming may be named as the reason for aerosol spraying, weather manipulation strategies have a long history of use, “especially by certain factions within the US military during the Cold War period.” The authors state that it is officially reported that such programs were conducted during the Vietnam War and included Operation Popeye which “involved a number of aircraft flights that released particles of silver iodide in order to increase precipitation and therefore disrupt the movements of the enemy.” Such activities were “ostensibly curtailed by the UN Convention on theProhibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) that came into force in 1978.” Though this treaty should give reason for pause, the authors state that the “evidence indicates that [it] has at the very least been circumvented, if not completely disregarded, not only by scientists but also by the military.” The book goes in to a fair amount of detail regarding military strategies involving weather modification. It mentions the Alaskan project called HAARP, but personally, after a little research, I am skeptical about claims that it is being used, or even can be used, to manipulate the weather on a large scale--though one certainly does not know if military projects could be being developed on similar principles without our knowledge. What seems clear, however, is that classified (i.e. secretive) use of weather modification—whether locally confined, regional, or global—is within the aims and reach of national programs, especially in the US, and such programs did not cease in 1978. The authors cite a 1996 USAF research paper titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, which opens with the following:   

Twenty-five years later, one wonders whether the field has been ignored indeed, or if weather modification technologies are being used to create events that may be easily mistaken to be the result of “climate change.”   

Toxic medications and vested interests  

“First, do no harm.” —Medical maxim  

“No man is so confirmed in his falsehood as he who has been educated into it...” —Herbert Shelton  

Many of the same well-meaning people who today cry out against “fossil fuels” and climate change also clamor for universal healthcare, yet most fail to realize that the vast majority of pharmaceutical products are derived from petroleum, and have been ever since Rockefeller oil (together with the Carnegie’s) took over medical colleges in the early 1900s though “philanthropic” funding... with strings attached, of course. To a large degree, pharmaceutical interests dictate medical “education”, from grade school to med school to obligatory post-graduate continuing education. That pharmaceutical products are toxic can be seen from a 2010 article titled Drug Induced Liver Injury cited inchapter 10, which states:   

And later:   

The liver is the main—though not the only—organ responsible for detoxification of the blood. When the liver is overwhelmed by toxins, so is the body.   

Similarly, many people who are paying attention and are aware of the corruption within the EPA and USDA, for some mysterious reason rarely seem to question or scrutinize the claims of the CDC, FDA, or the WHO. As Barry Commoner revealed, the EPA has been shown to protect the interests of industry rather than the environment, and the USDA and FDA promote industrial agriculture and excuse industrial processing and food additives. Yet vested interests and corruption are not isolated to a few sparse branches of government, nor do they defer at the doorstep of the sacred temple of “public health”. The FDA, CDC, NIH, NIAID—every national health bureaucracy is heavily influenced by vested interests. Similarly, public health institutions in most other countries, such as the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)—the German parallel to the CDC—are corrupted by the influence of Big Pharma and vaccine companies.   

Neither does corruption end at national borders, nor fail to enter the UN. The Rockefeller's were key players in the founding of the UN, so why would they fail to influence the myriad of UN associated organizations—including the WHO—that have been formed since the UN’s establishment after WWII?  The Rockefeller,et. al., plan is for world domination, and Rockefeller medicine and so-called ‘green revolution’ agriculture has indisputably dominated the world. Vested interests are discussed at length in chapter 9, “ Vested Interests & The Agenda for Control”.

Globalization of the agenda   

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” — Proverb   

Through many different details collected by the authors, they show how practices and standards of originally U.S. institutions are staged for global impact, with a focus on uniform implementation throughout the world. Much of this is accomplished through agreements made by member nations to conform to the UN charter and the charter and recommendations of the WHO.   

Chapter 8 entitled “Global Issues: The Wider Perspective” details each of the eighteen 2015 UN “Sustainable Development Goals” or SDGs, also known as Agenda 2030, and demonstrates the problematic nature of the measures being put forth ostensibly to reach those goals. One can say that the SDGs are definitely “Development” goals, but they can hardly be described as “sustainable”. To bring to light the fact that the UN and its associated institutions may not have the best interests of the people and the planet at heart, I think it is appropriate to reproduce here a quote in the book from Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who, in his 2018 article From Global Poverty to Exclusion and Despair: Reversing the Tide of War and Globalization, says:   

While most people are presumably familiar with the UN—popularly viewed as a benevolent ‘peace-making’ institution between governments of the world—few may be aware that the creation of the UN in 1945 was preceded a year earlier by the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, held in Bretton Woods in theUnited States at the height of WWII. The title of the Conference would appear to be a clear indicator of the motivation behind the creation of the UN a year later—the year the atomic bomb would be dropped on Japan. Moreover, that the Conference took place in the U.S. was no coincidence: the aim of the Conference was to serve financial interests of certain deep-seated vested interests, primarily—though not exclusively—held amongst U.S. industrialists and financiers. Henry Luce, “regarded as one of the most influential Americans of the era” asserted that the United States was “the most powerful nation in the world” and exemplified the popular attitude of ultra-wealthy Americans of the time period in his statement that it was the duty of such a nation to “...exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.” (Luce, ‘The American Century’, Life magazine, 1941.) Two institutions that were formed in 1944 as a direct result of the Conference are the IMF and the World Bank, which, as brought out of in the book, “have effectively been under the control of ‘US interests’ since their formation in 1944.” Note again that these financial arrangements preceded the formation of the UN, or any of the other UN-associated organizations that would gradually enter the world stage, one by one. As another hint of what this was all about, in 1946, the Rockefeller’s would donate $8.5 million for purchase of the land the UN headquarters stands on.   

Professor Chossudovsky is cited repeatedly. Also cited in the chapter is Colin Todhunter in his article Corporate Parasites and Economic Plunder:   

This brief list is expanded on by Chossudovsky in his Global Poverty article cited previously. Referring to controlling vested interests of a ‘New World Order’, he states:   

The authors of What Really Makes You Ill affirm that part of their reason for writing the book is to unveil the faulty strategies and designs being proposed as “solutions” for reaching what would, ostensibly, appear to be noble ambitions of the UN SDGs. One example of the inadequate and misguided solutions proposed is in reference to the goal to “ ...achieve sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their lifecycle... and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” (part of target 4 of SDG 12). While that may certainly seem like a good idea, the authors point out—and I wholeheartedly agree—that mere“management” of toxic chemicals misses the salient point: that such chemicals, which together threaten the well-being of all life on earth, should never be produced in the first place, and that once they have been produced they cannot be said to be “manageable”—they have to go somewhere, and that means they will go into the “air, water and soil” (and into our bodies) regardless of whether ‘sound management practices’ are supposedly in place. Also, the idea of ‘management’ goes along with something else regulatory agencies promote, which is the idea of ‘safe levels’ of contaminants; meanwhile, as can be seen with the EPAs admission during the recent legal proceedings of the Fluoride Action Network against the EPA (following decades of EPA-approved water fluoridation in the United States) that it, the EPA, did not have the resources to determine ‘safe levels’ of fluoride in drinking water. According to FAN, during the closing statement of the EPA’s attorney in the June 17, 2020, proceedings::

It should be noted that fluoride is a hazardous waste product of industry—particularly of the chemical fertilizer and aluminum industries—and that it has ended up in our drinking water (and our toothpaste) because industry needed a ‘cost-effective’ and publicly acceptable way to dispose of it--fluoride is too hazardous to simply let loose into the environment--and thus it was promoted as a ‘preventative’ treatment for tooth decay. Most people are unaware that fluoride is also the active ingredient in rat poison. I presume public ignorance of the fact is no accident. Imagine.... “Brush your teeth with hazardous industrial waste”, or, “Rat poison helps prevent tooth decay!” Doesn’t exactly make for an attractive campaign slogan. Once more, the hypothesis that rat poison is good for your teeth is based on the idea that fluoride kills ‘germs’, as well as the myth that it ‘hardens tooth enamel’. Yet, Dr. Weston A. Price, president of the American Dental Association, who in the 1930s documented his visits to remote regions of the world, showed that people from the Swiss Alps to the Andes to the Sahara Desert to the Pacific Islands living on their traditional diets rich in nutrients including fat-soluble vitamins A and D had perfect jaw structures, no teeth crowding, and hardly ever suffered from dental caries or tuberculosis unless and until they began living among more ‘sophisticated’ society and adopted a diet of refined foods including white flour and sugar. This pretty well undermines the belief that any such maladies are caused by ‘germs’, or genetics. 

With this example of ‘management’ of industrial waste, a target of SDG 12, and thorough discussions in the book of each of the 18 SDGs, it is seen that the creators of the UN SDGs exhibit a lack of understanding, or of will, to address the root causes of the problems they pretend to be concerned with. These development goals will allow industry to go on as it always has (and even more-so), to produce toxic chemicals as it always has, and will defend the whole process of raping the earth and producing billions of tons of toxic chemicals and harmful products by saying that they’re asking industry to ‘do its best’ to implement ‘sound management’ practices—practices that can never effectively mitigate the continuing degradation of the environment and the direct assault on our health.   

These goals and ‘measures’ are being pushed and promoted with all the might that big money can buy. By pretending to offer all the ‘necessary solutions’ to the world's problems, they subtly undermine the ability of the people to think critically about these matters and to take their destiny into their own hands.   

Finally, in this light, I think two quotes by Edward Bernays, in his book Propaganda, succinctly summarize the situation we are enmeshed in:   

And:   

Problems with the theory of infectious disease, or ‘germ theory’   

Throughout the book, the authors often use phrases such as “The refutation of the germ theory means that...” and “Since no bacteria can cause disease...”

I find such phrasing to be unhelpful as it assumes the reader has read, assimilated, and fully comprehended and agreed with the authors’ discussions of germ theory earlier in the book, particularly in chapter 3. The facts themselves, however, are many and are quite illuminating on their own.   

I was previously familiar with some of the material presented in chapter 3 demonstrating the problematic nature of germ theory; for example, how Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), known as “the father of the germ theory”, had conducted highly questionable experiments and kept secret notebooks that he wouldn’t allow even his closest associates to look at. The notebooks were passed down to his family, but remained secret until finally made available in the 1970s. 100 years after Pasteur's death, Princeton's Gerald A. Geison's review of the notebooks reveals how Pasteur had defrauded his colleagues and the public.

Other things in chapter 3 were new to me, such as how in 1860, in view of her long experience as a nurse, Florence Nightingale had questioned the idea of multiple distinct disease entities. Still, the chapter didn’t satisfy my desire to fully understand the background history and science surrounding germ theory and how it can be shown to be a fallacy from the outset. However, working on this article and compiling a germ-theory timeline to accompany it has already afforded me much greater clarity.

To put it simply, it is now widely acknowledged that our bodies are inhabited by trillions of bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. These microorganisms, particularly bacteria, outnumber the cells in our body ten to one, and are necessary for human life and health. Even the mitochondria in human and animal cells, and plastids in plant cells, are now generally acknowledged to be of bacterial origin, testimony of a primal symbiosis between bacteria and other, more complex life forms. These facts were unknown at the time that germ theory was being developed and gaining popularity during the latter part of the 19th century, a time when medieval beliefs about the mysterious provenance of disease were being carried forth into new quasi-“scientific” theories. Meanwhile, as brought out in the book, a great many species claimed to be pathogenic have been found in healthy people and, conversely, the relevant ‘pathogens’ blamed for specific conditions are frequently not found in patients with the clinical illness those ‘pathogens’ are alleged to cause. What is more, most bacteria and fungi are saprotrophic, meaning that they decompose dead or dying material. The fact that bacteria are sometimes found in the vicinity of dying cells does not implicate them as the culprits of disease anymore than finding vultures feeding on a dead animal on the highway means that the vultures were responsible for the kill. Though often despised, scavengers perform a vital function of cleaning up the environment; bacteria and fungi are no exception.

In his 2017 book on the Black Death mentioned earlier, Dobler states:   

(Spelling errors corrected, but Dobler’s English is quite good for a German speaker.)   

I would add that it is only logical that dead and decomposing bodies would be filled with saprotrophic bacteria.

Viruses, on the other hand, must be considered separately. The tiny spheres today inappropriately labeled “viruses”—which, etymologically, denotes “poisons” or “putrid pus”—are invisible under an optical microscope, and were not “seen” until the invention of the electron microscope in the early 1930s. Characterization of these spheres, or ‘micro-vesicles’ is very problematic; yet they have been associated with certain proteins which possess no motive or reproductive ability, and thus cannot be categorized as living organisms; equally they cannot be said to be ‘alive’ or ‘killed’. Moreover, as brought out in one of my previous articles, no so-called ‘virus’ has been shown to cause disease. Much, much more could be said, but I will leave it at that.   

Thus, after 150 years of germ theory entrenchment, it appears we are still waiting on reliable proof that “germs cause disease”. The medical establishment, as well as the majority of common people, lamentably operates on unproven premises and assumptions. Meanwhile, the positive and necessary functions of the vast human, and animal, microbiomes, continue to be unveiled, consistently presenting challenges to the ability of science to understand the microbial world merely in the context of ‘germs’. 

A unified theory of disease   

“I have seen diseases begin, grow up and pass into one another.” — Florence Nightingale   

The authors of What Makes You Ill attribute a number of their insights to the system of Natural Hygiene, first developed during the 19th century (see under 1830, here), and revived during the mid 20th by Herbert Shelton (1895-1985). The investigations of Natural Hygienists into “the ‘laws of nature’ and the application of these laws to human health... over the course of many years, led them, and many who followed them, to the understanding that ‘disease’ is not an entity that attacks the body and needs to be fought and destroyed through theuse of toxic ‘medicines’.”   

The willingness of Natural Hygienists to consider original ideas based on their own observations, rather than following in line with the growing authoritarianism of medical orthodoxy, led them to a unique understanding of disease:   

Vomiting and diarrhea, for example, can be seen as clear indications of the body’s efforts to expel harmful substances, yet these ‘symptoms’ are often attributed to a wide variety of ‘germs’, for which more toxic substances, especially antibiotics, are prescribed. (It should be noted that ‘side’ effects of antibiotics, like those of many other drugs, also include vomiting and diarrhea, an indication that the body recognizes them as poison.)   

The authors expound on this basic understanding, asserting that,

Naturally, impacts on the respiratory system will lead to such symptoms as sneezing and coughing as part of the body’s effort to clear itself of these harmful substances.   

Some “harmful substances and influences” are not readily expelled and will lead to accumulation of toxins in the tissues of the body. In this case, other symptoms will appear, such as inflammation, which can be described as an increase in the blood flow to a specific area and extra efforts to get rid of harmful substances and repair damage.   

Although these explanations may be regarded as simplistic, perhaps that is the beauty of it: they are easily comprehensible. It should be noted that, despite the billions of dollars spent on laboratory medical research each year, this has not led the medical establishment to an understanding of the body or of disease, as demonstrated throughout the book by direct quotes from WHO and CDC factsheets, which repeatedly contain admissions the likes of:

 We still have cancer, AIDS, and many other conditions that are considered “incurable conditions leading to death”, with no end in sight. Meanwhile, and surprisingly so, these conditions are easily understood as the result of accumulation of toxins and the processes those toxins initiate, principally oxidative stress, tissue damage, and inflammation.   

Pharmaceuticals, and even some ‘natural’ medicines, contain substances that the body recognizes as toxic, yet, as the authors note, when the body attempts to get rid of these harmful substances, its efforts are often interpreted as a new disease, leading to a vicious cycle that results in the now widespread phenomenon of polypharmacy, or the use of many different drugs by a single patient. On the other hand, though not mentioned in the book, I’d like to note that within the natural health community new and acute symptoms may be interpreted as a Herxheimer reaction, which is often assumed to be the result of the toxin-producing die-off of ‘pathogenic’ microbes due to the use of ‘natural’ antibiotic or anti-fungal treatment, and it will be felt that these noxious symptoms must simply be patiently tolerated, because natural medicine practitioners who follow the germ theory medical model believe that repeatedly introducing toxic substances into the body is the only way toget rid of the dastardly germs or fungi. Yet what if, once again, the symptoms are simply the body’s reactions to toxic compounds in the ‘natural treatments’ being administered? Or on the other hand, what if the die-off is quite real, but unnecessary or even harmful? It is certainly meant to do harm to the microbes. What if the despised ‘germs’ only ‘produce toxins’ because they are being killed, and are otherwise not the real source of the illness they are being blamed for? And what if, as invariably happens, many other microbes that are necessary and beneficial to human health and metabolism are also being damaged or killed in the process?

In a 2007 video presentation titled The History of Infectious Theory, German evolutionary and marine biologist Stefan Lanka tells that the original bacteriologists, which included German physician Dr Robert Koch and his professor Jacob Henle, were unable to find any bacterial toxins in living animals. Bacterial toxins, in fact, cannot be found until after an animal or human has been dead for at least two or three days. He gives a very natural explanation. Under the aerobic conditions of a living, breathing body, bacteria produce helpful substances—such as vitamins, for example. But when the body has been dead (un-breathing), the environment, particularly inside the body, becomes anaerobic. Many bacteria die under these circumstances, but somesurvive by changing their metabolism from aerobic to anaerobic. It is in these circumstances that the bacteria produce toxins just as yeast changes its metabolism under anaerobic conditions and produces the poison called alcohol. This effect is also seen in the way certain foods become poisonous if left out under certain conditions. Lanka tells that in this way Koch produced a disease he claimed to be ‘similar to’ anthrax by injecting a concoction of spoiled meat broth into a mouse. The mouse died and Koch extracted fluid from its swollen spleen and injected it under the skin of the frog, which likewise convulsed and died. He then claimed this was ‘skin anthrax’. To show ‘lung anthrax’ he injected the spleen extract into a frog’s lungs. When the frog died he claimed it was ‘lung anthax.’ Unfortunately for us, the production of a ‘similar’ disease or effect in laboratory experiments (‘similar’ only in name) was deemed enough to qualify as ‘proof of transmission’ of the ‘disease’, and disgracefully remains so today, with the effects produced usually having little or no resemblance to the diseases they are claimed to demonstrate. In an article cited here, Lanka says:

Koch's postulates only require that the suspected 'parasite' be found in sufficient numbers and distribution in all humans or animals affected by the disease. But Koch acknowledged that introduction of the bacteria is insufficient for causing disease in all suitable hosts. (See Germ Theory Timeline under 1876 and 1882.)

Quinine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine   

Evidence that the microbes being ‘targeted’ by antimicrobial drugs may not be the cause of the illnesses they are blamed for is seen in the medical establishment’scoining of the term “antibiotic resistant”, and even “multi-drug resistant”, which, although true to their theory of germs, is simply an indication that the drugs didn’t work. While certainly damaging the body’s natural microbiota and causing a toll on the liver and kidneys, the drugs were observed to have failed to resolve the underlying condition. They may, however, have the effect of “whipping the endocrine glands into hyperactivity,” causing a temporary relief of symptoms, as pointed out by Dr Henry Bieler in Food Is Your Best Medicine (with specific reference to penicillin).   

One group of hepatotoxic pharmaceuticals worth mentioning, particularly given the events that have come about since What Really Makes You Ill was published, is the quinine family—a family of compounds used as antimalarials. The CDC is quoted in the book as saying:   

The authors state that chloroquine is a derivative of quinine, the isolated active substance of cinchona bark native to South America and one of the earliest ‘preventative’ medicines for malaria. Herbert Shelton ND DC is noted to have referred to quinine as ‘protoplasmic poison’ in his book Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, and to have stated:   

Confirming Shelton's claim, I discovered a 1988 paper titled Quinine Overdose: Review of Toxicity and Treatment, which states:

(Emphasis added)

Curare refers to:

Although not mentioned in the book, hydroxychlorquine, which has become famous since the beginning of the SARS-2 epidemic, is also a member of the quinine family—and is likewise fatal in high doses. During the early drug trials in 2020 for treatment during the new SARS outbreak, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were tested. Unfortunately for the fragile, elderly participants in the trials, an extremely high dosage of the drug was frequently used. Many did not survive, and the most infamous of these trials, the chloroquine trial in Brazil, was suspended after 11 deaths. Based on ‘evidence’ from these trials, hydroxychloroquine was regarded as inappropriate for the treatment of ‘Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019’. Why were such high doses used? Your guess is as good as mine. But it cannot be overstated that the establishment has vested interests in pushing more expensive drugs, particularly remdesivir, as well as an agenda from the beginning to impose a new, experimental injection project on the entire world. Thus, giving all other therapies that might show promise a bad name was imperative.  

Read --- The Drug Tragedy by Torsten Engelbrecht & Dr. Claus Köhnlein

Many, including a group of doctors that calls themselves America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDs), have pointed out the botched hydroxychloroquine trials and claim that the drug is an “inexpensive drug that has a that has a track record of many decades of safe use” (see AFLDs' Dr. Simone Gold's white paper on hydroxychloroquine). Though I admire AFLDs’ bravery in standing up against medical tyranny, I have vacillated in my assessment of hydroxychoroquine with each new revelation that has come to me through my research. At this point, I feel I must agree the authors of What Really Makes You Ill that poisons cannot be regarded as ‘safe’, even when used in 'appropriate quantities.' Throughout the book they refer to the misconception of ‘safe dosage’ as the ‘Paracelsus fallacy’—a reference to one of the theories of the 16th century Swiss physician encapsulated in the phrase, ‘the poison is in the dose’. Contrasting this is the statement by Herbert Shelton, quoted by the authors, that:   

Surprisingly, there appears to be a common mechanism that many or most substances recognized to be toxic possess: the creation of free radicals...   

The role of oxidative stress and its association with many “harmful substances and  influences”   

The way in which antimicrobial poisons work can be shown to be the way that most, or all, poisons work: namely, through oxidation. And oxidation cannot be said to be ‘pathogen’-specific. As the authors state in the discussion of ‘antiretroviral’ drugs used to ‘combat AIDS’:   

All of the above leads to a necessary further discussion of oxidation, the creation of free radicals, and oxidative stress. The terms oxidation and oxidative stress are somewhat confusing and misleading. What we are really dealing with the creation of an imbalance in electrons, whether or not oxygen has anything to do with the process.   

The authors of What Really Makes You Ill explain:   

(Italics added.)   

The relationship of drug toxicity to oxidative stress is illustrated in a 2012 article cited by the authors, entitled Drug-Induced Oxidative Stress and Toxicity, which states that, for some drugs:   

ROS stands for Reactive Oxygen Species, which is the principle form of free radical; although other forms, such as Reactive Nitrogen Species (RNS), exist as well.   

Free radical formation is a part of normal processes within the body, including cell metabolism and the generation of energy from the oxygen we breathe. In a normal, low-toxin environment, these free radicals are dealt with by the body’s many-faceted detoxification processes, which include multiple natural antioxidants (most of which are produced within the body, although Vitamin C must be obtained from food sources). However, in modern society we are exposed to a great many toxins that increase free radical formation and disrupt the normal balance between pro-oxidants and anti-oxidants in the body. Generally speaking, the modern diet is also very low in anti-oxidants and other necessary nutrients. The excess of free radicals that the body is unable to neutralize efficiently creates damage to cells and tissues of the body.   

The relationship between toxic substances and oxidative stress is demonstrated in a quote from a 1995 article, entitled The role of free radicals in toxicity and disease,which explains:   

The authors of the book note that the term xenobiotics refers to substances that are foreign to the body and is “commonly used to refer to synthetic chemicals, including pharmaceuticals.”   

From all of the above, and much more that is cited in the book, it becomes clear that there is a direct relationship between exposure to toxins and oxidative stress. It should be noted here that certain chemical compounds are not the only form of‘poison’ that lead to the production of free radicals. Free radical formation is also associated with both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. This means nearly the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation is mostly associated with nuclear radiation, while non-ionizing radiation includes cell phone radiation, radio waves, and radiation that emitted from AC electrical lines and appliances. Again, while there has always been a natural low level of ambient radiation from sunlight and sources within in the earth,all of this has been exponentially increased in modern days through the extraction of radioactive materials from deep within the earth and the proliferation of the use of electricity and telecommunications, plus a variety of direct, short-term exposures through such things as X-rays and CT scans.    

While it may be quite difficult to avoid all of these sources of exposure to toxins or poisons, the main thing to note is that it is the accumulation and combined exposure to multiple sources of free-radical-forming influences that can overload the body’s ability to perform its inherent functions of detoxification and repair efficiently.   

A quote from a July 2011 article entitled The Search for Reliable Biomarkers of Disease inMultiple Chemical Sensitivity and Other Environmental Intolerances is appropriate:   

The authors of What Really Makes You Ill state that oxidative stress is specifically mentioned in the article in the context of the above quote. 

.....................   

An article I had downloaded a number of years ago when I was trying to understand oxidative stress makes a lot more sense to me after reading this book. In fact, pretty much everything that article says is corroborated extensively in the book with citations from many different sources. The article, which is entitled Understanding Oxidative Stress, is from the website Preventative-Health-Guide.com, and states:   

This is an astounding statement, and I don’t think I fully grasped its profound implications the first time I read it years ago. The article lists the following examples:   

• Heart Disease 
• Cancer 
• Arthritis 
• Lung Disease  
• Fibromyalgia 
• Diabetes 
• NeurodegenerativeDiseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's 
• AutoimmuneDiseases 
• Eye Diseases like Macular Degeneration   

The book discusses a few of these. (With respect to what has been labeled “autoimmune” disease, however, it should be noted that the authors of the book do not accept the establishment theory that the body mistakenly attacks itself.)   

In addition to the above examples a few others can be added that are revealed in the book to be correlated with oxidative stress:   

• Autism 
• Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) 
• Electro-hypersensitivity (ELS) 
• and allegedly “infectious diseases”, including illnesses categorized under the umbrella of AIDS   

The Preventative-Health-Guide.com article links oxidative stress in the body to aging and compares the process of aging to rusting metal, which isalso the result of oxidation. The article illustrates by mentioning the soft, smooth skin of a baby to the wrinkled, spotted skin of an aging person; the latter has experienced a long life of gradual “rusting” due to persistent exposures to influences that create oxidative stress. Just like the skin gradually succumbs to oxidation, the same thing happens inside the body.   

In addition to exposures to a multitude of chemicals and electro-magnetic radiation mentioned earlier, it should be noted that other influences contribute to oxidative stress, including: 

• excessive exercise or exertion 
• excessive sun exposure 
• smoking (or exposure to smoke in general) 
• consuming processed foods such as sugar, food additives 
• and worry, anxiety, or stress

 The fact that smoking, for example, produces damage due to an increase in free radicals and oxidative stress can be seen by the fact that people who smoke often develop wrinkled faces and hoarse voices fairly early in life, which are the early indications of what could be thought of as “rusting”. The same process may eventually lead to serious lung conditions, including cancer, all depending on how much and what kinds of factors in that person’s life may also be contributing to the same processes.   

The fact that so many conditions have been associated with a single disease process, namely the production of free radicals and oxidative stress, appears to confirm that the intuitive understanding of the early Natural Hygienists was correct. Namely, that there are not many separate and unrelated disease ‘entities’ but rather a single source of illness that manifests in different ways and different parts of the body depending on the kind of exposures to ‘harmful substances and influences’ incurred over time. In the 19th century, the understanding of oxidative stress did not exist. Yet, it might be said that these students of the phenomenon of life predicted its discovery. In this context, the quote from Florence Nightingale from her 1860 book, Notes on Nursing, again deserves reflection, which I will quote now with the sentences leading up to it: 

The authors of What Really Makes You Ill explain further:  

And that this was not the result of new ‘infections’ but rather,   

Florence Nightingale states further:

(Bold added)

She was not alone in her observations. Many of the early hygienists who campaigned for reform in the overcrowded and filth-ridden industrial cities of Europe and America were of a similar conviction. The hygiene movement led to the developmentof sewer systems and inspection and care of the supply of water within thecity. Different theories were extant about how the extremely unsanitary conditions of the 19th century urban environment gave rise to epidemics; theories about contagion represented only one faction. What seems sure is that sanitary reform in Europe and America--and not vaccination, or even antibiotics, which generally appeared much later--was what really led to a decline in cholera, smallpox, and many similar afflictions. (See my Germ Theory Timeline)   

For reference, Webster’s Collegiate definition of typhoid fever refers to a “disease marked by diarrhea, prostration, headache, and intestinal inflammation” and to typhus as “a severe human febrile disease... marked by high fever, stupor alternating with delirium, intense headache, and a dark red rash”. Though these two clinical pictures are claimed to be two distinct diseases associated with two distinct and separate pathogens, several extremely common anomalies in medicine must again be brought to light, namely:   

1. that the ‘pathogens’ claimed to be associated with a specific ‘disease’ can often 
2. not be found
3.  in the patient said to be suffering that disease 
4. that many persons who do have said ‘pathogens’ often 
5. have no symptoms 

of said ‘disease’ or exhibit a different clinical picture than the one described in association with said ‘pathogen’ 

1. that the mechanisms by which the alleged ‘pathogens’ create the illnesses described are often admitted by the scientific and medical establishments to be 

“unknown” or poorly understood 

1. that the symptom pictures alleged to belong to separate disease conditions often overlap and are 

not easily distinguished one from another, which becomes quite apparent in the common claim of ‘misdiagnosis.’   

As the authors underscore:    

All of the above brings us to a statement by the authors in What Really Makes You Ill that I believe summarizes their conclusions and position: 

How to support the body’s innate ability to heal and maintain health   

In chapter 10 of the book, the authors summarize the causes of illness and suggest that the path to healing and maintaining health can be categorized into two areas:   

1. Avoiding ‘harmful substances and influences’ 
2. Supporting the natural ability of the body to restore and/or maintain health   

While either ofthese may be regarded as simplistic, ‘soft’, or not extremely important, thediscussions throughout the book make it clear that these are two sides of asingle coin that, in reality—at least from a physiological standpoint—represents the entire foundation for health. The authors also assert that if attention is given to these two points, over time the body will be able to eliminate toxins, restore balance, repair damaged tissue and heal.   

‘Harmful substances and influences’ consist of anything that contributes to the conditions of ill-health. The authors bring out that there are invariably multiple factors contributing to any manifestation of ill-health, even if these factors may affect the body in similar ways due to a common underlying mechanism. Many of these factors have been discussed throughout this article. All of them disrupt the body’s ability to function properly and contribute to oxidative stress and consequent damage to the body’s cells and tissues. They are, briefly:   

1. Harmful chemical compounds, whether naturally occurring or manmade 
2. Processed foods such as white flour, refined sugar, etc. 
3. Ionizing radiation, e.g., radiation from nuclear waste, nuclear fallout, radon, and certain medical procedures 
4. Non-ionizing radiation, e.g., cell phone radiation, smart meters, and EM radiation emitted from AC appliances, wiring, and power lines 
5. Excessive exercise or exertion 
6. Excessive sun exposure 
7. Stress, including emotional distress such as worry, anxiety, upset, etc.    

Again, although it is impossible to completely avoid all of the above, the important thing is to have an understanding of the many sources and seriousness of these ‘harmful substances and influences” in order to then minimize exposures as much as possible.   

The things that support the body’s ability to restore and maintain health include:   

1. Proper nutrition, especially from nutrient-dense, antioxidant-rich food sources that have not been contaminated through chemical agriculture, food processing or food additives 
2. Fresh, unpolluted air 
3. Pure water for bathing and drinking; free of chlorine, fluoride, or other industrial pollutants 
4. “

Earthing” or grounding 

1.  Proper rest   

Though nutritional supplements may in certain instances be helpful, the authors suggest that it is best to obtain nutrients from fresh, whole foods that have been organically grown, since such foods proportion nutrients that can be assimilated in the body and which occur together with a rich variety of other nutrients that are utilized by the body in concert. They cite several articles by Dr Robert Thiel PhD in which he points out that “most vitamins and supplements are made or processed with petroleum derivatives or hydrogenated sugars,” and that, similarly, “nearly all minerals in supplements... are really industrial chemicals made from processing rocks with one or more acids.” Concerning minerals, the authors assert that the body cannot utilize minerals (including sodium) from rocks or soil and that, on the other hand, plants do obtain their minerals from rocks and soil and that they convert them into a form that humans can absorb and utilize. Thus the authors recommend deriving one's nutrients fresh, whole plant-based foods, the authors also recommend juicing fresh, anti-oxidant rich fruits andvegetables, although they state that juices should not replace whole foods, which contain necessary dietary fiber.

In concert with Herbert Shelton and 19th century proponents of Natural Hygeine, the authors assert that humans are essentially frugivores. Personally  however, primarily due to the findings of Dr. Weston A. Price and his successors, I have doubts about the focus on a purely plant-based diet, which after all, appears to be a modern sort of religious fad. Animal products are a rich source of assimilable vitamins and minerals, some of which (such as fat-soluble vitamin A and D) are not available from plant sources. However, the concerns brought up in the book about growth hormones and heavy use of antibiotics, as well as other inhumane practices of modern animal husbandry, are most certainly valid. 

The main reason excessive exercise or exertion is stated by the authors to be harmful is that exercise increases metabolism (or the chemical processes of the body). These processes—especially the process by which cells obtain energy—create free radicals (principally ‘radical oxygen species’, or ROS) which must then beneutralized by antioxidants. An increase in metabolism thus contributes to a depletion of the body’s antioxidant supply which—if not balanced by a corresponding renewal of antioxidants through nutrition, grounding, andrest—will result in oxidative stress. As an extreme illustration, this may lead to the phenomenon of sudden cardiac arrest occasionally experienced by athletes. (This phenomenon would also appear to point to underlying undiagnosed or pre-clinical conditions in many who appear to be ‘healthy’ or ‘fit’.)

Though not specifically mentioned in the book, I would suggest that excessive thinking, orworry, is likewise harmful, as it also involves an increase in metabolism. By the same token, I would surmise that practices that calm the mind and body—such as meditation, tai chi, a leisurely walk in the woods, or even certain forms of prayer—contribute,in more ways than one, to the body’s ability to restore balance and self-heal.   

Useful Resources for a toxic-free lifestyle   

I’d like to close by listing a few resources given in chapter ten as examples of sources of information on environmentally sound, non-toxic products that can be used in place of the many harmful products on the market. Beware that some labels such as ‘natural’ or ‘green’ may be used as market ploys and that the consumer is advised to do their own investigation into whether products are what they advertise.   

•  
• Environmental Working Group (

ewg.org) - the website states that EWG has been around since 1993: "The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards." The website provides health guides with information on various subjects including toxic ingredients in cleaning, personal care and cosmetics, and how to find healthier alternatives. 

• The Good Trade website

 - has articles on where to find fair trade and ethical clothing and bedding, including products made with organic cotton, safer dyes,etc. "The Good Trade is a leading resource and community for sustainability, slow living, and self-love. 💛 We serve a highly-engaged readership of people seeking to better care for themselves, their communities, and the planet." 

• Ecocult 
• - European website. "The Beautiful Truth About Sustainable Fashion. Our goal is to do all the research, so that you can make the most conscious decisions –– and be an effective professional and activist –– when it comes to fashion." 
• Life Without Plastics

 - "Our MISSION is to raise awareness on the health and environmental problems posed by plastics while making the solutions more accessible, and empowering people to be part of the change.plastic free products... Life Without Plastic is not just the place to find the best non-plastic products, it's also a bestselling book that can change your life. Written by the founders of Life Without Plastic, Chantal Plamondon and Jay Sinha, our book is a handy and accessible distillation of well over a decade of learning and educating about the issue and finding more and better ways to live without plastic. It will give you a solid understanding of the health and environmental issues surrounding plastics, along with lots of ways to avoid the stuff. This book is a deeply researched and tested mix of science, practical action and activism -- tons of tips and tools for minimizing plastic across all aspects of life."

• Recycling
•  website - 

"Discover Inspiration and Insights to move towards a Zero Waste world." Also features plastic free products  

The Plastic Free Shop - an online store based in Bristol, UK. The creator of the website tells the story of how her brother, "a renowned conservationist, returned distraught (yet hopeful) from a marine plastic think tank in Indonesia, led by the Plastic Pollution Coalition." She decided to make an effort to change her buying and lifestyle habits. "It didn’t take long to become a little daunted – everywhere I looked there were plastic products that I was just buying and replacing out of habit, not to mention all the packaging with the weekly shop! I started to make simple changes around the home and out and about as items ran out or needed replacing.  I spent a lot of time searching the internet and local businesses to find alternative products that are: plastic free, in minimal packaging, ethically and sustainably produced, reusable and/or compostable, do the job well that they are designed to do, are lovely to use and good value for money!"

Though the authors say these are only examples and not recommendation, in my estimation, this list represents a trove of excellent information and resources. I'm sure there are many more websites that are good sources of information and that feature sustainable products that are toxic-free.

In my view, the only sure way we can promulgate a move away from the highly-toxic lifestyle that has become commonplace in the modern world is through our individual decision, lifestyles, and the products we chose to consume. I hope you will join me in making your life more toxic-free and our world a better, healthier place to be.   

About the authors of the book   

On their website, under About The Authors  is a statement that I feel bears reproducing here:   

Many thanks toDawn Lester and David Parker for their ten years of diligent research and critical thinking and for taking the time to share their conclusions with the rest of us. I believe they have imparted us with an invaluable gift.