MAXIMIZE YOUR FITNESS NOW WITH BEN'S FREE IPHONE & ANDROID PHONE APP  HOOK ME UP!

The Hidden Truth Behind Toxins, Detoxification & Detox Diets.

Dr. Tim Jackson – a medical ninja when it comes to nutritional biochemistry, digestive health, methylation and genetic testing and functional endocrinology – is no stranger to BenGreenfieldFitness.com.

He penned the article that first appeared here entitled “Blame the Bugs: How Stealth Pathogens Are Making You Fat, Tired, and Brain Dead.“, and also “Broken Gut to Big Butt: How A Busted Digestive System Can Make You Hormonally Fat.

And now Dr. Tim is back with a vengeance. Just when I thought I knew everything there was to know about detoxification and detox diets, Tim began dropping knowledge bombs like xenobiotics, depuration, miasm, emunctory, and even drainage (yuk!). I had to get him on the podcast to open your eyes about what's really happening inside your body when you detox…or when you don't.

So when it comes to detox, what you're about to hear is like no other podcast I've ever done on the topic, so strap on your earphones and prepare to learn:

-Why the pH of your blood is just ONE part of proper acid/alkaline balance…

-Why detoxification can destroy you if you don't do a few other important things first…

-The three different ways to truly test your body and see if you even need to detox…

-Which organs detox your body (it's not just your liver and kidney!)…

-Where homeopathic medicine fits in…

-And much more!

Resources from this episode:

Dr. Tim's Website

-Dr. Tim's Professional Facebook Page

ZytoScan

Asyra Testing

EAV Screening

Autonomic Response Testing

Seroyal's “UNDA” homeopathic remedies and supplements

Do you have questions, comments or feedback for Tim or me? Leave your thoughts below.

21 thoughts on “The Hidden Truth Behind Toxins, Detoxification & Detox Diets.

  1. Great podcast thanks guys… & also as a patient of Dr Tim's I found him to be extremely friendly and professional. Massive thumbs up from me!

  2. Tim is very smart. But he is very grouchy and rude to his clients. Someone told me that the nickname amongst other folks online who hired him for help gave him the nick name Mr. Grouchy pants.

    When I heard that I laughed out loud because I knew exactly what they experienced.

    Again he is vey smart so defiantly listen to what he says in pod casts and YES it is worth paying for his podcasts when they cost money BUT then take his info to another doctor who is actually nice because Tim has not been a nice person to many who have hired him.

    When you’re sick bad bedside manners can worsen your situation due to the negative experience. It sucks to pay someone very well for a phone apt and then when you work with them they are extremely grouchy and rude.

      1. Hi Ben,

        Actually the friend that told me about the nick name is more of an acquaintance and they are a moderator of a very popular forum to a doctor you support and interview often. The moderator was being told by several of its members of their rough experience and that is how the nick name was given. Because of who you are Ben it would not ever happen to you. But I do believe people change and I do believe Tim wants to help people and I do believe he does help people AND I think it’s good to post all of this as it helps all of us be kinder to each other. Which is a good goal I think.

    1. I can't comment on specifics as I don't know to whom you're referring. Every situation is different. If someone felt that I was grouchy to them or perceived me to be grouchy, I'm truly sorry. In many cases, I've had people get upset when I'm unable to respond to multiple emails between consults. But I make that clear in the beginning. I've had other situations where clients email me lab work from their family members and ask that I analyze this for free. I'm unable to do that. When people don't feel well, it is easy to misinterpret someone's tone…I think we've all felt that. I obviously never set out to sound rude. I have testimonials from many people thanking me for my help. So, obviously not everyone feels this way. But once again, I apologize sincerely if you or someone else felt that I was rude.
      –Dr. Tim

      1. Wow, that was the best apology ever. I think it’s great. Thank you. You are an exceptional healer and I always listen to your interviews because you know so much and I learn so much from you. It’s wonderful to hear your reply! Very positive and refreshing. Made my day!

    2. I am a new client of his and I have found him to be polite and personable. He's also answered my email questions quickly. And he is definitely very knowledgeable! He talks quickly when there is a lot of information to cover – perhaps that could be misinterpreted. But I appreciate that since I'm paying for medical advice, not a nice friendly chat. I had a doctor with the best bedside manners in the world – wanted to know all about my life, etc – very Patch Adams – but I almost died in his care because he didn't have to knowledge to treat me! So I want someone who gets down to business.

      1. Awesome Andrea and you are in one of the best hands. So sorry about the terrible patch Adams doc that almost killed you. Some people just shouldn’t be in practice.

        Andrea people change and Tim had definitely stepped up to the plate. Trust me though the no longer applicable nick name Mr. Grouchy pants from the past, not anytime recently, was not due to him talking fast, or not replying fast to emails nor was a result of trying to manipulate him for free services. It was in the past and it is clear he is changed and that is freaking awesome!

        Doctors are hired by us and they work for us. It is a very challenging career as the demands are high. The best docs balance getting the job done along with compassion. This balance is lacking. With more and more people getting chronic illness and allopathic medicine giving up on them we are paying out of pocket $400-$500 per hour for their help. We should all expect a balance care approach as it expedites healing. A doc with no compassion can hurt client just as much as an overly compassionate doctor who can’t get the job done. Balance is key!

  3. I am undecided on this area of medicine, but just wanted to point out that Dr. Novella, of the "science based medicine" website to which Scott refers, is a well-known skeptic of alternative medicine and has a definite bias toward allopathic medicine and against alternative medicine.

    I say this because:

    1. In reading through his website, a common argument of his is the lack of double-blind clinical studies involving natural alternative therapies. While I can understand this position, I feel it is disingenuous to state this without also stating that legitimate double-blind clinical studies are very expensive, and hence are typically backed by big pharma who can afford the expense as part of the drug approval process. Since most natural therapies are not proprietary, and since public funding for this type of research has been drastically reduced since the Reagan administration, an unfair playing field exists when it comes to big pharma vs. natural alternative therapies and double-blind clinical trials. Why doesn't Novella discuss this side of equation when he complains about the lack of double-blind clinical trials?

    2. In my googling regarding Dr. Seneff (who expressed some controversial views about vaccines on Ben's show a few weeks ago) I found this article from Dr. Novella: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-th…
    where he describes Seneff in this way: "Seneff, however, has not actually performed any research into glyphosate. She is “a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.” She is also an anti-GMO activist. That does not mean she is wrong – it just means it is misleading to cite her as a researcher and authority."

    However, a simple google scholar search shows that she IS published in reputable journals such as Entropy, where she HAS conducted research into glyphosate: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416?utm_mediu…
    Novella's description of Seneff is misleading, at best.

    Bias exists everywhere, of course. Just wanted to make a counterpoint to Scott's "science based medicine" links to potentially help people see some of that bias in websites like Science Based Medicine.

    1. I should add one more thing: Novella and his colleagues at SBM believe alternative therapies should not even be given a chance at clinical trials unless the mechanism of action can FIRST be explained using the fundamentals of conventional medicine. Why, you ask? Because "we all know" the alternative therapies won't work… "There are some treatments (edit: including homeopathy) that are so incredibility implausible" that there is no need to test them", Gorski (Novella's co-author) said. So why give them a chance at legitimacy? "Such research only serves to lend legitimacy to otherwise dubious practices," Novella said http://www.livescience.com/47465-alternative-medi…

      …yup, no bias there at all. ;)

    2. Yes he is biased – towards evidence. Dr Seneff is as qualified in talking about vaccines, glyphosate or GMOs as I am, but then, even I would have the humility to admit this and talk about the real science done by thos eactually qualified to do so.

      Dr Novella says we should stop funding research where there is a dead end and there is low plausibility of it working. Homeopathy has been tested numerous times and failed the tests. It also has zero plausibility of working because it runs counter to well established physical laws (imagine a universe where taking drugs with active ingredients works AND medicines without active ingredients worked – just doesn't stack up).

      Also, note that science is done outside of big pharma and that we can actually assess pharmaceutical companies on that basis. There isn't a free pass in science – either your claims are tested multiple times and validated or they aren't. If Dr Novella is guilty of anything it is in upholding the fact that science is a meritocracy, not based on what we want to be true but on what the methods of science have shown works.

      Throwing away evidence testing and creating a double standard (alternative medicine) does more harm than good. After all, alternative medicine that works is called medicine.

      1. viewfromreality-
        1. You say "Dr Seneff is as qualified in talking about vaccines, glyphosate or GMOs as I am, but then, even I would have the humility to admit this and talk about the real science done by thos eactually qualified to do so. "

        Oh really? You also have peer-reviewed journal publications in this area? Y'know, like this one from Dr. Seneff: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416?utm_mediu…

        If so, please post up! Otherwise, I'm afraid you're flattering yourself.

        2. You say "Dr Novella says we should stop funding research where there is a dead end and there is low plausibility of it working."

        Based on what? His guess? Again, he believes alternative therapies should only be tested if they can FIRST be explained by conventional medicine fundamentals. Yet, Novella states "…even in conventional medicine, treatments are often used before their mechanism of action is fully understood."

        And have you ever heard of "bioprospecting"? It's what pharmas do when looking for indigenous and natural sources for medicines they can potentially turn into proprietary drugs.

        2. You say "Homeopathy has been tested numerous times and failed the tests. It also has zero plausibility of working because it runs counter to well established physical laws […]"

        It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Studies on homeopathy are mixed. You can find pubs on both sides of this pretty easily. Here's one to oppose your claim: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/1075…

        1. 1) I have as much experience as Dr Seneff in the field she is professing to have an expert opinion in. I do not so your call for my references is misguided. The simplest way to explain this is whatever your expertise in life is, your opinion is always going to be worth more than someone who has no experience in the field. Dr Seneff can have a 100 peer reviewed papers but if her training is not in medicine then she is a lay person, with no expertise in it. Pure and simple. Besides, anyone can publish a paper, you have to read what other experts in the field have to say about it. This might enlighten you: http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-gl…

          2) Dr Novella is not guessing. If you had bothered to find out the scientific consensus on issue, and here's the important part, from experts in the field in question, then you would know he isn't making his ideas up.

          Listen to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe if you really want to know how Dr Novella parses information. He doesn't jump to conclusions or cling to poorly evidenced conclusions.

          3) This is the problem – you're can always cite a "paper" that proves your claim. This journal isn't trustworthy for a start and it most certainly can't disprove the avalanche of evidence against homeopathy. I'll ask nicely: How can medicine work when it has active ingredients in it (science-based medicines), yet also work when they are diluted to the point there are no molecules of ingredient left (homeopathy)??

          Even the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Care state it doesn't work: &lt;a sl-processed="1" href="https://nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy" target="_blank"&gt; <a href="http://;https://nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy” target=”_blank”>;https://nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy

          One final thing: You claim Dr Novella was being misleading about Dr Seneff – turns out she didn't actually do any research, the reference you point to in your original post is merely a review article where she took one variable (Glyphosate use) and autism and then concocted a random relationship between the two things. Hardly science and hardly original research. Here's the low down: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/20/dump…

          1. viewfromreality-
            1. You say "Dr Seneff can have a 100 peer reviewed papers but if her training is not in medicine then she is a lay person" Are you aware that medical and pharmacological research is not exclusively the realm of an MD? You're insulting quite a few biologists, chemists, biochemists, geneticists, and many other (typically PhD and/or MD) researchers that contribute to medical and pharmacological research. Moreover, although a specialized degree is valuable as a marketing tool, Seneff has proven herself as a PhD researcher and today's learning environment is far different than that even 5 years ago. To say that a PhD researcher is not capable of learning about another area of science is a bit closed-minded. Judge Seneff on her work, as that is what counts, not your opinion of her qualifications.

            Considering that Seneff is not on the side of pharma or allopathic medicine, I was waiting for you to post a review by another skeptic MD like Novella, and you have. Let us look at the reputable journals that have chose to reference Seneff's work not as fraud, but as legitimate references as part of their work published in what skeptics like Gorski would consider reputable journals:
            Shaw, C.A.; Seneff, S.; Kette, S.D.; Tomljenovic, L.; Oller, J.W.; Davidson, R.M. Aluminum-Induced Entropy in Biological Systems: Implications for Neurological Disease. Journal of Toxicology 2014, 2014, 1. [CrossRef]

            Schrödl, W.; Krüger, S.; Konstantinova-Müller, T.; Shehata, A.A.; Rulff, R.; Krüger, M. Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany. Current Microbiology 2014, 69, 817. [CrossRef]

            Westmark, C.J. A Hypothesis Regarding the Molecular Mechanism Underlying Dietary Soy-Induced Effects on Seizure Propensity. Frontiers in Neurology 2014, 5. [CrossRef]

            Wagner, N.; Reichenbecher, W.; Teichmann, H.; Tappeser, B.; Lötters, S. Questions concerning the potential impact of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2013, 32, 1688. [CrossRef]

            Zabetakis, I. Food Security and Cardioprotection: The Polar Lipid Link. Journal of Food Science 2013, 78, R1101. [CrossRef]

            2. "Scientific consensus on the issue". You mean the one you agree with? The one accepted by Novella and Gorski? Many issues in science have parties on different sides, each with their own theories, interpretations, and explanations of data, with a consensus within each group. Novella cannot explain the mechanism of action of treatments like homeopathy, hence he doesn't want to explore it. Again, Novella believes alternative therapies should only be tested if they can FIRST be explained by conventional medicine fundamentals. Yet, Novella states "…even in conventional medicine, treatments are often used before their mechanism of action is fully understood." I don't think he's making anything up, I just think he has a very limited view based upon his allopathic training. I am quite aware of skeptic societies such as SBM, skeptoid, and SGU. They don't impress me simply because it is very easy to nitpick anything to convince fellow skeptics, who often simply repeat standard “skeptical explanations” without exploring, or even understanding them, much as you are doing right here.

            3. This is exactly the beauty of science. You can almost always find a scientific viewpoint that differs from your own. If you can critically examine it and explain why you agree or disagree with it, then you have an informed opinion. Based upon my reading, I do not support homeopathy, and I am not convinced it is ineffective, either. The NCCIH is one organization, and it does not disprove the "avalanche of studies" that support homeopathy. Again, plenty of studies on both sides of this issue. As a typical skeptoid, you are simply exhibiting confirmation bias wherever you can find it. In this case: SBM, Gorski, NCCIH. Go to google scholar, as I did, and you'll find the other side of the coin. What makes Novella and Gorski more credible than the scientists behind studies that support homeopathy? And don't tell me it's because they're MDs. :)

          2. It appears we're talking right passed each other here and have irreconcilable differences on the subject. Your first rebuttal misrepresents what I said and ignores the fact that I am right when I say a computer scientist with no training in the field she is professing to have an expert opinion in is not qualified to make a statements on another unrelated field.

            Chemists, biologists, environmental scientists all do their work and transparently through journals where their peers can assess the quality of their research. Dr Seneff is not an expert in any of those fields and won't submit any papers to reputable journals where actual scientists in those fields will peer review her work. Why?

            Instead, she chooses journals evidently set up with loose standards that make it seem as if they're sole existence is to promote pseudoscience.

            At the end of the day, a dentist can't tell a cardiologist what to do but some how a computer scientist has magically become a leading researcher in genetics, crop science and autism?? How?

            Then you accuse me of selecting the science I agree with when the whole time you are cherry picking bad journals, bad papers (that you haven't read) all to support a very poorly evidenced position. Homeopathy is bunk, and that isn't a position I "chose" it is what has been established through rigorous scientific inquiry.

            If anything, people should learn that people can have an opinion, create journals or publish in poor quality journals with loose standards and manufacture the air of credibility.

            Again, this is basic critical thinking but unless we know what a good journal is, what is science and what isn't, it can be very difficult to discover what is actually going on.

            Being skeptical is something all responsible adults should be, the most basic way to do this is separate claims from experts with legitimate authority to speak on a subject from those that are pretenders.

          3. viewfromreality-
            1. yes, it appears we are talking right past each other, since you completely ignored:
            a) that the learning environment has changed greatly, and who is to say what areas an already established PhD scientist can or cannot learn about and contribute to? (I am not ignoring your statement, I simply I do not agree that you are "right" about it. Big difference.)
            b) my contention that scientists be judged on their work and not your opinion of their qualifications
            c) the fact that Seneff's paper is cited (and not cited as fraud) in several reputable journals, as I've posted above. Why, if it is worthless, as you imply?

            2. I don't know why Seneff isn't in mainstream journals, but I can propose one possibility. Look at the papers chosen for publication in mainstream med-sci journals and you will see a dearth of non-pharma/industry-sponsored research. Ever wonder why? Look who reviews the papers. And no, I don' think it's a conspiracy at all; it may simply be like minded individuals who avoid bringing in "outsiders" and/or controversy. As someone who is published in academia (IEEE if you must know), I can tell you this is more common than you'd think.

            3. Re: dentist telling a cardiologist what to do: big difference here. A dentist can't tell a cardiologist what to do because the medical aspects involved could put a patient's treatment (or worse, their life) in danger. Proposing theories and links using epidemiology and biochemistry does no such thing. Scientists are free to evaluate and criticize her work as they please.

            4. I accuse you of selecting the science you agree with because that's *exactly* what you're doing with SBM and SGU. And I *am* cherry picking the opposing side, simply to show you that:
            a) it's very easy to do the same thing you're doing, but from the other side (that is, cherry-pick studies that support your position, criticize studies that don't, and use a lot of appeal to ridicule / appeal to authority)
            b) that the "scientific consensus" you cling to is not concrete. Nothing is set in stone, as the "consensus" can change at any point in time based on new research findings
            c) the consensus to which you refer is simply the one you agree with, and not the only one

            5. If anything, people should learn that skeptics just like you once scoffed at Ayurvedic medicine, that is until big pharma discovered some of it actually works (BEFORE they knew why.) Then they tried to make proprietary drugs out of it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/22/indi…

    1. I would be very careful basing your information on the science-based medicine website. From what I've read on there, they/he is completely against anything that isn't surgery or medication, including HRT, chelation, etc. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Scott.
      –Dr. Tim

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *