Is Detoxification Real? Do we need it?

(DoctorFarrah)- Detoxification, Diet and a few things in between.

Recently, I was criticized about my views on diet and detoxification by a self-proclaimed “Real Doctor” looking to build credibility by denigrating me with false propaganda and disinformation. Apparently, they are unable to gain a following based upon their knowledge, efforts, innovation, or abilities. A recent video of theirs even noted how the gallbladder makes “liquid”. Really?! I’d sure like to know what “liquid” the gallbladder makes because they don’t teach that in any medical school I’m aware of.

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.” – Benjamin Franklin

Instead of relying on peer-reviewed science or even legitimate accurate information, the “Savior” chose to quote an article critical of me written by a retired Psychiatrist who does not have any reported training in medicine of any kind since 1961 (1). Stephen Barrett wrote a highly misleading article about me in 2018 on his Quackwatch website, (2) a portion of which was quoted by this junior physician. There are so many false narratives we see nowadays that being able to find honest reporting from credible sources is truly a rarity.  

What is Quackwatch?

The Quackwatch website where I was criticized was reviewed in an article entitled, “Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch”, by the late Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, (3) and was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). Dr. Kauffman was also the author of Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself (4). Dr. Kauffman examined eight Quackwatch articles for scientific validity, factuality, and fairness. Dr. Kauffman found all eight articles to be “contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo”, and demonstrated the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of his conclusions. Dr. Kauffman wrote that:

“Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless dogma from mainstream medicine…It remains a mystery how they [Quackwatch] and I have interpreted the same body of medical science and reached such divergent conclusions…..It is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity…At least 3 of the activities in the Mission Statement…have been shown to be flawed as actually executed…Medical practitioners such as Robert Atkins, Elmer Cranton and Stanislaw Burzynski, whom I demonstrated are not quacks, were attacked with the energy one would hope to be focused on real quacks. The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health.” (3)

That’s a very interesting observation about Quackwatch following analysis from a highly respected scientist. “The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health.” Yet, the junior physician who is besmirching me quoted the website as if it is 100% true and valid.

“The Quackbusters, founded by the disgraced, unlicensed psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, are a ubiquitous shadow network in the world of health and medicine with a unique talent. A talent, described by Health and Human Services official, Dr. Thomas Eng, as a gift for widely “[influencing] behavior change” via interactive media. Elaborating, Eng states that Barrett and his group of pharmaceutical and federal supported trolls “tailor information and interactions to the individual,” adding, “In print media, there is some kind of vetting. In interactive, anyone or their brother can slap a Web page together.” (5, 6)

“It’s easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Source unknown

The “Savior” shared the analysis of me by Stephen Barrett:


  • Instead of recognizing that many factors (including diet and heredity) contribute to cancer, she claims that its underlying causes are “toxins” and “weakness of the immune system.” *


What was done there is a completely phony and misleading assertion with no basis in truth or reality. Mr. Barrett wrote, and the “Savior” purposely shared disinformation propaganda masquerading as unbiased, reliable, and qualified scientific opinion. It IS disinformation. What was stated by Barrett and repeated by the “Savior” is an incredible disservice to the public because we as doctors are presumed to have high moral standards. The public at large trusts us. They assume that doctors will share only the truth. It is unfortunate when doctors mislead people like what was done by these two, so I’ll address these points scientifically as they relate to cancer and use the peer-reviewed literature in support of my conclusions and debunk the false narrative.

  • Diet
  • Heredity and Cancer
  • Environmental Causation
  • Toxicants
  • The Immune System and Cancer
  • Detoxification

First of all, I view diet as the single most important causal aspect of cancer, with heredity playing a much smaller contributory role. My opinion is that the genetic contribution to cancer burden is only on the order of about 5-10% of cancers. I’ve said this at every event I have spoken at and will write it here so it’s crystal clear.

“Increasing cancer rates also cannot be attributed to genetic factors, which are directly implicated in, at most, 5 – 10 percent of all cancers. I firmly believe that upwards of 90 – 95 percent of cancer incidence originates from lifestyle and environmental factors, with diet being far and away the primary causal component in cancer incidence today. In addition, I see diet as being the primary causal component for a vast range of degenerative illnesses that afflict our population.” – Dr. Farrah® Agustin-Bunch M.D. (7)


Stephen Barrett directly contradicted himself in the “article” about me since he has repeatedly stated the OPPOSITE on his Quackwatch website in the article, Where To Get Professional Nutrition Advice. “I recommend steering clear of: Anyone who suggests that most diseases are caused by faulty nutrition. Although some diseases are diet-related, most are not.” – Stephen Barrett (8)

I disagree.


In his book The Health Robbers on page 57, “Inspect any medical school textbook of medicine or ask your doctor. They will tell you that most diseases have nothing to do with diet.” – Stephen Barrett (9)

I disagree.


In his article, Twenty-Eight Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers, “most diseases have little or nothing to do with diet.” – Stephen Barrett (10) 

I disagree.


On page 19 of his book The Vitamin Pushers, “most diseases have little or nothing to do with diet.” – Stephen Barrett (11)

I disagree.


In his article, Regulatory Actions against IV Nutrition Clinics, “most diseases have little or nothing to do with diet…” – Stephen Barrett (12)

I disagree.


Barrett made the same statement in the March 2007 issue of American Atheist. (13)

These types of false and misleading statements about diet playing a minimal role in health simply do not coincide with modern, established scientific facts. It’s understood that the last credentialed training in any field of medicine occurred for Mr. Barrett back in 1961 (1), so I can somewhat understand his lack of understanding. But for the “Savior” to quote him as if he is a legitimate, credentialed authority figure really is absurd.


The Declaration of Independence begins with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The reason for that is because there are some things in our lives that are beyond debate. One of these is the irrefutable correlation between suboptimal nutrition and illness. WE ARE A RESULT OF WHAT WE EAT AND DRINK. 


Any statements to the contrary are foolishness, plain and simple. When we have people like Stephen Barrett & the “Savior” injecting false and misleading information into the healthcare efficacy debate, it is extremely dangerous. To stand behind or support such ignorance is unscientific, dogmatic, and foolish. As such, it appears that many “scientific” ideas of Stephen Barrett and the “Savior” are built upon pillars of sand which collapse under the most basic scrutiny. I could respect them if we disagreed about facts, but first they should actually be addressing facts. 


“Poor nutrition is a leading factor contributing to death and disability in the US.” (14) – American Medical Association

I agree.


The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) is the largest and most comprehensive observational epidemiological study of disease risk factors in world history—funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It found that the #1 cause of death in the United States is the American diet. (15)

I agree.


The American Medical Association AND the largest and most comprehensive study on diet and disease ever done in world history, both contradict Stephen Barrett.


In 1982, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cancer Commission of the National Academy of Sciences and the Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer published a monumental report, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, through the National Research Commission. This comprehensive report provided available evidence and the subsequent conclusion that most major cancers are influenced by dietary patterns. (16)

I agree.


The National Academy of Sciences contradicts Stephen Barrett.

“In most Western countries, including the United States, diet-related chronic diseases represent the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality.” (17)

I agree.


The widely used Medical Textbook Food Toxicology contradicts Stephen Barrett.


“As we enter the 21st century, the leading causes of death are now heart disease and cancer. Diet plays a significant role in both of these diseases, as evidenced by estimates that environment including diet may be related to 70% of all human cancers.” (18)

I agree.


The Center for Science in the Public Interest contradicts Stephen Barrett.


“Unhealthy diet contributes to approximately 678,000 deaths each year in the U.S.” They further noted that, “The typical American diet is too high in calories, saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, and does not have enough fruits, vegetables, whole grains, calcium, and fiber.” (19)

I agree.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture contradicts Stephen Barrett.


“The evidence base for associations between eating patterns and specific health outcomes continues to grow. Strong evidence shows that healthy eating patterns are associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Moderate evidence indicates that healthy eating patterns also are associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, certain types of cancers (such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers), overweight, and obesity. Emerging evidence also suggests that relationships may exist between eating patterns and some neurocognitive disorders and congenital anomalies.” (20)

I agree.


The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine contradicts Stephen Barrett.


“Diseases linked to unhealthful diet and lifestyle choices, such as diabetes and cancer, are the leading causes of death in the United States, according to data published in JAMA (21). Researchers compared mortality for hundreds of causes and risk factors and found that heart disease, lung cancer, high BMI, and high blood pressure and blood sugar were all among the top risk factors for mortality. Dietary risk factors surpassed tobacco use as the leading cause of death.”

I agree.


The World Health Organization contradicts Stephen Barrett.


According to the World Health Organization, “Dietary factors are estimated to account for approximately 30% of cancers in industrialized countries, making diet second only to tobacco as a theoretically preventable cause of cancer.” (22)

I agree in principle.


Scientific American contradicts Stephen Barrett.


Scientific American- “More than 60 percent of U.S. cancer deaths are caused by smoking and diet.” (23)

I agree.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture contradicts Stephen Barrett AGAIN.


“Nutrition & Health Are Closely Related…About half of all American adults—117 million individuals—have one or more preventable chronic diseases, many of which are related to poor quality eating patterns and physical inactivity. These include cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, and poor bone health.” (20)

I agree.


A good example: Colon cancer rates in rural South Africans vs. African-Americans

5 per 100,000 people vs. 65 per 100,000 people

This landmark study by Dr. Stephen O’keefe looked at the role of diet in the significant difference between the low rates of colon cancer in black rural South Africans (5 per 100,000 people) and the high rates in African-Americans (65 per 100,000). (24)

The study investigated the different effects of the high fiber, low fat, rural South African diet and the high fat, low fiber standard American diet on the gut health of African Americans and rural South Africans.

The researchers gave both groups 2 weeks of each diet and looked at changes in the gut bacteria and biomarkers for the risk of colon cancer.

African Americans on the South African diet

They found that 2 weeks of the fiber-rich rural African diet decreased biomarkers of colon cancer and promoted a healthier combination of gut bacteria in the African Americans. (24)


South Africans on the standard American diet

After 2 weeks for the rural South Africans on the standard American diet, the opposite occurred. Our processed, greasy spoon, low fiber diet increased their biomarkers for the risk of colon cancer and negatively impacted their gut bacteria. (24)

Dr. O’keefe discussing this seminal study.


A National Institutes of Health supported study contradicts Stephen Barrett.


An extensive study supported by the NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) appeared in the March 7, 2017, Journal of the American Medical Association. (25)

The research team closely-investigated the relationships of 10 different foods and nutrients with the deaths related to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. In addition, they compared data on participants’ age, sex, ethnicity, and education. They found that upwards of half of the deaths in the United States in 2012 that were caused by cardiometabolic diseases were directly associated with suboptimal dietary habits. Of 702,308 adult deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, 318,656 (45%) were associated with deficient consumption of certain foods and nutrients widely considered essential for healthy living, and overconsumption of other “foods” which are not. (25)

I agree.


Many think the U.S. food supply is perfectly fine. In the book Stephen Barrett edited called, Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm? It’s clearly printed on page 225, 

“Should we be worried about pesticides, additives and the overall safety of our food supply? Most of our country’s top nutrition scientists believe that our food supply is the best and safest in the world, that the amounts of pesticides in it are insignificant, and that preservatives and other additives are of minimal risk and are needed to keep our food supply safe from bacterial contamination and other types of spoilage. Although challenges to this viewpoint occur, almost all of them come from health food industry representatives or “consumer advocates” whose scientific judgment is faulty.” (26)


The most cited nutritionist in the world directly contradicts this.


“The American food supply, we’ve come to realize is really a disaster.” (27) – Dr. Walter C. Willett, M.D., chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the most-cited nutritionist in the world.

Would you say that Dr. Willet’s scientific judgment is faulty”?


Kameel Nasr: “Cancers are environmental, that is they’re from the, what we eat and the way of our lifestyle, is that true?”

Dr. Walter Willett: “Yes.”


Heredity and Cancer

“Increasing cancer rates also cannot be attributed to genetic factors, which are directly implicated in, at most, 5 – 10 percent of all cancers. I firmly believe that upwards of 90 – 95 percent of cancer incidence originates from lifestyle and environmental factors, with diet being far and away the primary causal component in cancer incidence today. In addition, I see diet as being the primary causal component for a vast range of degenerative illnesses that afflict our population.” – Dr. Farrah® Agustin-Bunch M.D. (7)


The American Cancer Society“Only about 5% to 10% of all cancers result directly from gene defects (called mutations) inherited from a parent.” (28)


National Cancer Institute “Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers are caused by harmful mutations that are inherited from a person’s parents…The remaining 90 to 95 percent of cancers are caused by mutations that happen during a person’s lifetime as a natural result of aging and exposure to environmental factors.”(29)


Cancer Research Institute “Overall, only 5 to 10 percent of all cancers are genetically inherited.” (30)


Wikipedia“The majority of cancers, some 90–95% of cases, are due to genetic mutations from environmental and lifestyle factors. The remaining 5–10% are due to inherited genetics.” (31)


“Only 5–10% of all cancers are due to an inherited gene defect.” (32)


“Cancers caused by a gene inherited from your family make up only 5 to 10 percent of cancers, says Dr. Duane Superneau, who specializes in studying cancer-related genetics.” (33)


The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel states that, “Single-gene inherited cancer syndromes are believed to account for less than 5 percent of malignancies in the United States.” (34)


“Up to 93% of all human cancers are non-hereditary which is caused by interaction with environmental factors. Only 7% of all human cancers are hereditary.” (35)


National Cancer Institute- “Several genes that greatly increase a person’s chance of developing certain cancers (e.g., colon, breast, and ovary) have been identified. Only a very small percentage of people in the general population have abnormal copies of these genes. Cancers caused by these genes, known as familial cancers, account for only two to five percent of all cancers.” (36)


“Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle…Instead of our genes, our lifestyle and environment account for 90–95% of our most chronic illnesses.” (32)


“Only a small minority of cancers (5-10%) are due to inherited genetic mutations whereas the

vast majority (90-95%) are non-hereditary epigenetic mutations that are caused by various agents.” (37)


“While 5 to 10 percent of cancer cases are due to genetic defects, 90-95 percent are due to environmental and lifestyle factors.” (38) -Unity Point Health, an 8,800 employee hospital system in Iowa. 


“Around 90% of cancers have been linked to environmental exposures.” (39)


“Only a minority of all cancers are caused by germline mutations, whereas the vast majority (90%) are linked to somatic mutations and environmental factors.” (40)


“Familial breast cancers, or those with predisposing genes (e.g., mutations in the DNA repair–checkpoint genes BRAC1 and BRCA2 [Venkitaraman, 2002]), constitute only about 5–10% of total breast cancer cases (Balmain et al., 2003). The other 90–95% are classified as sporadic, or caused by a combination of unknown polygenic and environmental factors.” (41)


“Only about 5-10% of breast cancer is considered to be genetically heritable, meaning 90-95% of women who develop breast cancer do not have an inherited mutation. These women develop cancer for other reasons: environmental toxin exposure, lifestyle choices.” (42)


Any questions?


Environmental Causation

“Increasing cancer rates also cannot be attributed to genetic factors, which are directly implicated in, at most, 5 – 10 percent of all cancers…I firmly believe that upwards of 90 – 95 percent of cancer incidence originates from lifestyle and environmental factors, with diet being far and away the primary causal component in cancer incidence today. In addition, I see diet as being the primary causal component for a vast range of degenerative illnesses that afflict our population.” (7) -Dr. Farrah® Agustin-Bunch M.D.


In 2016, Dr. Stephen Rappaport, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California at Berkeley published his research in PLoS One showing that environmental factors, and not genetics, are the major causes of chronic diseases. He noted that, “the matrix of disease-associated genetic variants does not explain much heritability(43, 44, 45).


The Centers for Disease Control have addressed environmental disease causation.


“Virtually all-human diseases result from the interaction of genetic susceptibility factors and modifiable environmental factors.” (46) Centers for Disease Control

“Genetic variations do not cause disease but rather influence a person’s susceptibility to environmental factors.” (46) Centers for Disease Control


“90% of breast cancer cases are thought to be caused by environmental factors.” (47)– IS Global Barcelona Institute for Global Health


Carcinogenic environmental exposure factors have been linked for over 50 years in up to 90% of human cancers (48, 49, 50, 51)


“Although all cancers are a result of multiple mutations (52, 53), these mutations are due to interaction with the environment (54, 55)”. (32)


“Perhaps 90% of all human cancer is caused by factors in the environment.” (56)


“We conclude that the overwhelming contributor to the causation of cancer in the populations of twins that we studied was the environment.” (57)


Cancer Research Institute“Older individuals are more likely to have had exposure to environmental risk factors and are therefore diagnosed with cancer much more frequently than young people.” (30)


“Our research supports the views of medical campaigners and experts who have long argued that mounting incidence of cancer is caused by factors present only in the modern world.” (58)

“According to the generally accepted view, current high rates of malignant tumors in industrialized Western populations have been ascribed to an increase in life expectancy and increasing influence of environmental factors, particularly nutritional intake of potentially carcinogenic substances and air pollution. (59)  (60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

“Lifestyle factors are involved in most cancers, with controllable factors estimated to be as high as 80 to 90 percent of all causes.” (65)


National Cancer Institute “At least two-thirds of the cases of cancer are caused by environmental factors.” (36)


Nature– Up to 90 percent of cancers not ‘bad luck,’ but due to lifestyle choices, environment (66)

The Telegraph Nine in 10 cancers caused by lifestyle
The Washington Post Study: Up to 90 percent of cancers …due to lifestyle choices, environment
The Times Modern life causes 90 per cent of cancers
Daily Record Cancer not caused by ‘bad luck’ but down to environment and lifestyle
Fortune Up to 90% of Cancer Cases Caused by Lifestyle or Environment, study Says
The Independent Researchers blame modern lifestyles for causing 90 per cent of cancers


University of Manchester Press Release (67), “Cancer is a modern, man-made disease caused by environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a study review by University of Manchester scientists has strongly suggested.” (68)


My opinions regarding the primary causal components in cancer incidence are overwhelmingly supported. This is precisely why my treatment protocols are based upon correcting dietary nutrient deficiencies, limiting and eliminating exposure to potentially negative environmental factors and nutritional strategies to help assist excretion of bioaccumulated toxins.


“Nutritional interventions may provide the most sensible means to develop primary prevention strategies of diseases associated with many environmental toxic insults…In most Western countries, including the United States, diet-related chronic diseases represent the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality.” (17)


“Fact checking and research is the cornerstone of the journalistic process…” (69)


The nationwide circulated article from MetroStyle Magazine entitled, “Two Mothers Overcome Life-Threatening Cancer And Rheumatoid Arthritis With A Simple Change In Lifestyle”, directly addresses aspects of my protocols for 2 separate patients. (70)

“Melinda’s treatment was fairly simple: focus on the immune system’s capability to fight off the cancer cells, eradicate the chemicals that surrounded her home, detoxification, and an overhaul of her diet.”

“Atty. Veronne’s new diet consisted of regular dosages of Boston C, Vitamin C, self-prepared juice extracts, and all organic food. It was all about bringing back the strength of her immune system, which was debilitated not only by her disease but the years of painkillers and steroids.”



The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) publishes their findings annually in the ‘Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals’ – which is the largest ever ongoing toxicant study on humans and finds that most Americans, young and old, have bioaccumulated numerous toxicants within their body. (71, 72)

Bioaccumulated: become concentrated inside the bodies of living things.

Toxin: A toxin is a chemical substance which damages an organism.

Carcinogenic: (of a substance) able or likely to cause cancer.


“Despite recent recognition that accrual of toxicants is a major determinant in many chronic health problems…little attention in the mainstream medical literature has been devoted to mechanisms to address and resolve the problem of endogenous chemical accrual.” (73)


CNN- “There are more than 80,000 chemicals in use in America and only a few hundred have been tested for safety.”- Environmental Cancer Risks


Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. Because of their persistence, POPs bioaccumulate with potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment.


“Environmental pollution is increasing worldwide, and there is evidence that exposure to halogenated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyls can contribute to the pathology of inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis, diabetes, and cancer.” (74)


According to the World Health Organization, (WHO), Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are chemicals of global concern due to their potential for long-range transport, persistence in the environment, ability to bio-magnify and bio-accumulate in ecosystems, as well as their significant negative effects on human health and the environment. Humans are exposed to these chemicals in a variety of ways: mainly through the food we eat…” (75)

The World Health Organization (WHO) further states that, “Human exposure – for some compounds and scenarios, even to low levels of POPs – can lead, among others, to increased cancer risk, reproductive disorders, alteration of the immune system, neurobehavioural impairment, endocrine disruption, genotoxicity and increased birth defects.” 


*Please note above where the World Health Organization states: “increased cancer risk” and “alteration of the immune system”.


The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also addressed the issue of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the food chain.

“POPs work their way through the food chain by accumulating in the body fat of living organisms and becoming more concentrated as they move from one creature to another. This process is known as “biomagnification.” When contaminants found in small amounts at the bottom of the food chain biomagnify, they can pose a significant hazard to predators that feed at the top of the food chain. This means that even small releases of POPs can have significant impacts.” (76)

The U.S. EPA further states that, “In people, reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurologic, endocrine, and immunologic adverse health effects have been linked to POPs.” (76)


*Please note where the U.S. EPA states:immunologic adverse health effects have been linked to POPs”.


The United Nations Environment Programme is the leading environmental authority in the United Nations system. They have convened 9 times thus far the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. They have stated that, “Specific effects of POPs can include cancer, allergies and hypersensitivity, damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune system. Some POPs are also considered to be endocrine disrupters, which, by altering the hormonal system, can damage the reproductive and immune systems of exposed individuals as well as their offspring; they can also have developmental and carcinogenic effects.” (77)


*Please note where the United Nations Stockholm Convention mentions that these toxins can, “damage the reproductive and immune systems of exposed individuals”, and have “carcinogenic effects”.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine addressed the issue in their page, (78)

What happens when I am exposed to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)? (78)

Exposure to certain POPs can cause various effects:

  • Greater susceptibility to disease

  • Contaminated breast milk

  • Damage to the immune, neurological, and reproductive systems

  • Endocrine disruption

  • Decreased comprehension

  • Birth defects

  • Cancer

  • Death

*Please note where U.S. National Library of Medicine mentions that these toxins can cause “Damage to the immune, neurological, and reproductive systems” and “cancer”.


It is well established that bioaccumulated environmental toxins can adversely affect health and weaken the immune system. What can happen with a weakened immune system?



The Immune System and Cancer

neoplastic: relating to a neoplasm or neoplasia.

neoplasm: a new and abnormal growth of tissue in some part of the body, especially characteristic of cancer.

neoplasia: the formation or presence of a new, abnormal growth of tissue.


In 1909, Paul Ehrlich formulated the hypothesis that host defense may prevent neoplastic (Cancer) cells from developing into tumors (79). He wrote: “in the enormously complicated course of fetal and post-fetal development, aberrant cells become unusually common. Fortunately, in the majority of people, they remain completely latent thanks to the organism’s positive mechanisms.” (79).


Later, Lewis Thomas and Nobel Laureate Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet proposed the concept of immunological surveillance of cancer starting more than six decades ago (80, 81, 82, 83).


The theory of immunosurveillance remained somewhat controversial until a seminal scientific article appeared in Nature, back in 2001 entitled “IFN-gamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumor development and shape tumor immunogenicity”. This groundbreaking article was authored by Robert D. Schreiber, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Washington University School of Medicine in collaboration with Lloyd J. Old, M.D., of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The experimental evidence presented in their paper clearly and unambiguously showed that the immune system can and often does prevent tumors from developing, and thus plays a strong protective role against cancer. (84)


The susceptibility for cancer in a weakened immune system is noted by the National Cancer Institute.


“Many people who receive organ transplants take medications to suppress the immune system so the body won’t reject the organ. These “immunosuppressive” drugs make the immune system less able to detect and destroy cancer cells or fight off infections that cause cancer.” (85)


Notice where they officially stated the cause and effect of when you “suppress the immune system” you are “less able to detect and destroy cancer cells”.

From 2018, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences we see, “The decline of the immune system is the primary reason why cancer is an age-related disease.” (86)

Also, in 2018, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation. (87)




As a licensed Medical Doctor, I promote and engage in practices and procedures which have scientifically demonstrated evidence of therapeutic benefit such as detoxification protocols. Let’s see what the peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific community says about detoxification.


Drs Sears and Genuis (88) tell us that, some toxicologists and clinicians, often untrained in environmental health sciences (1) consider strategies to eliminate toxicants from the body to be myths lacking in merit, assuming that all toxicants are metabolized and excreted naturally and concluding, that “there’s nothing that does anything to hasten the detoxification process” (89).


Emerging evidence quickly challenges this widespread misconception. The contention that the body has an inherent ability to quickly eliminate all adverse chemical compounds is inaccurate, as many toxicants with long half-lives accrue in tissues or blood, thereby maintaining a long-term potential to inflict damage (88).


Metals such as lead and cadmium, and many halogenated compounds (e.g., flame retardants, nonstick compounds, stain repellents, and organochlorine pesticides), are persistent human pollutants with extended half-lives. Modern research reveals irrefutable evidence that various interventions facilitate elimination of these retained compounds (90, 71), with the objective of diminishing the risks associated with biologically stockpiled poisons (88).


“Healthful nutrition interventions might be a powerful approach to reduce disease risks associated with many environmental toxic insults and should be considered a variable within the context of cumulative risk assessment and, where appropriate, a potential tool for subsequent risk reduction.” (17)


“Induced sweating appears to be a potential method for elimination of many toxic elements from the human body.” (90)


“The prospective, longitudinal study demonstrated that use of the lipophil-mediated detoxification procedure resulted in significant reductions in serum levels of PCBs (91) and β-HCH (92)…From these results, we conclude that the lipophil-mediated detoxification procedure is effective in reducing PCB and β-HCH levels and is likely to reduce the levels other fat-soluble toxicants as well, including TNC, p, p’ – D D E , HCB, and oxychlordane.” (93)


(PCBs) Polychlorinated biphenyls (91)

β-HCH) Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (92)


“Two interesting observations emerged from the work presented here. First, both the cross-sectional and longitudinal study groups provide clear evidence that the lipophil-mediated detoxification procedure can significantly reduce body burdens of lipid-soluble toxicants. The second interesting outcome of this study is that it confirms work by others, showing that, contrary to common understanding, body burdens of banned lipophilic toxicants and their metabolites, such as PCBs, DDE, and β-HCH, are not decreasing in the US population but remain high and may actually be increasing.” (93)


Isn’t that interesting? A properly run scientific study which demonstrated a reduction of the body burden of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s) using natural means. It also demonstrated that Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s) bioaccumulated in the U.S. population are NOT decreasing and may actually be increasing.


“It has now been scientifically shown that a natural purification treatment can successfully eliminate environmentally toxic substances such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB’s) and pesticides from the body, without side effects.” (94)


Seaweed (95) which is abundant in dietary fiber, has been confirmed to have an effect accelerating elimination of dioxin (96).


“The emerging evidence shows the promising protective/detoxifying impacts of green tea on environmental toxins.” (97)


“The integrated dietary and education detoxification program seemed to be a protective intervention for elimination of toxicants from the body.” (98)


“The diets with fermentable fiber (polydextrose, indigestible dextrin and soy polysaccharides) increased urinary excretion of PCB compared to the diets with water-insoluble fiber (cellulose, rice bran and chitosan)”. (99)

Dietary fiber consumption has been shown to increase fecal excretion of environmental contaminants (100, 101, 102) such as polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyl, pentachlorobenzene and lead. Studies have shown that toxic contaminants are adsorbed onto the dietary fiber and to bacteria, which increase in density when some forms of fiber are added to the diet, and this increases fecal elimination.


“We reported that dietary supplementation with various types of fiber increased fecal excretion of mirex and methylmercury.” (99, 103)

[Mirex is an organochloride that was commercialized as an insecticide and later banned because of its impact on the environment. It is a bio-accumulative environmental toxicant and Persistent Organic Pollutant.]


[Methylmercury is an organometallic cation with the formula [CH₃Hg]⁺. It is the major source of organic mercury for all humans. It is a bio-accumulative environmental toxicant and Persistent Organic Pollutant.]


Chlorella is getting significant attention (88) for its unique properties in facilitating detoxification and preventing absorption of adverse compounds (104, 105, 106, 107). Recent research papers have now reported animal results where Chlorella appears to induce the excretion of lead (104) and mercury (105)


“The results of this study suggest that transplacental transfer differs depending on the dioxin congener. Total TEQ in breast milk were approximately 30% lower in the Chlorella group than in controls (P=0.0113). This finding suggests that maternal transfer of dioxins can be reduced using dietary measures such as Chlorella supplements.” (108)




Clearly there are a significant number of people in the scientific community who realize the problems of Persistent Organic Pollutants (Toxins) and the harms they represent. “Thus far, there is a dearth of scientists and clinicians who are systematically researching interventions to eliminate persistent toxicants, and many clinicians in mainstream medicine have not yet been apprised of the issue of toxicant bioaccumulation.” (73)


“While modern medicine is revolutionary when it comes to surgery, particularly in emergencies, for pretty much everything else, traditional, natural or alternative medicine is much more effective…modern medicine is completely unable to treat or cure chronic illness. Rather than focusing on symptom control, natural medicines work on the body’s ability to heal the cause of the illness while modern medicine suppresses the body’s healing mechanism with drugs that attack the body’s natural defence mechanisms, throwing the immune system out of whack…the attack on natural medicine has more to do with the threat to modern medicine’s power base as well as its “unhealthy relationship” with the “trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry.” (109) Dr. Valerie Malka, M.D., FRACS, MIPH, MA, Director of Acute Care Surgery Unit Liverpool Hospital, Sydney Australia.


“Now many doctors admit that alternative medicine often seems to do a better job of making patients well, and at a much lower cost, than mainstream care—and they’re trying to learn from it…In recent years, integrative medical-research clinics have been springing up all around the country, 42 of them at major academic medical institutions including Harvard, Yale, Duke, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Mayo Clinic.” (110)


Interesting…42 integrative medical-research clinics at major academic medical institutions which include Harvard, Yale, Duke, UC San Francisco and the Mayo Clinic.


Why would 42 integrative medical-research clinics at major academic medical institutions sprout up if there was no benefit to Natural Medicine?


I do not promote natural medicine as the only route to health. I do not tell people to stop their medications. I do not tell people to avoid hospitals. I do not tell people to not listen to their doctors or stop going to them. I do not maliciously denigrate other doctors or their opinions (but I will respond scientifically when attacked). I do not promise cures to anyone. I do not promote any product, food or treatment protocol as a “cure”. If someone is in the midst of a life-threatening medical emergency, they need to seek medical attention as quickly as possible. Every video I make encourages people to consult with their doctor and seek appropriate medical attention.


By the way “Real Doctor”, you just got debunked again and I’m just getting started. Please drop me a line and let me know what “liquid” the gallbladder makes.


To Your health,


Dr. Farrah®



  1. Barrett, Stephen. Curriculum vitae.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. “A Skeptical Look at the Activities of Farrah Agustin-Bunch, M.D.” 
  1. Kauffmann JM (2002). Website Review: Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 2.
  1. Kauffman, Joel. Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the Usa Each Year. Paperback – November 2, 2012.
  1. Ladd, Donna. “Doctor Who?”  Village Voice. June 22, 1999.
  1. Gale, Richard. Quackbusters and the Shock Troops of Medical McCarthyism, Green Med info. February 28, 2018.
  1. Agustin-Bunch, Farrah. What causes Cancer.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. Where To Get Professional Nutrition Advice. October 14, 2012.
  1. The Health Robbers: How to Protect Your Money and Your Life, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, 1980, George F. Stickley Co.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. Twenty-Eight Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. Herbert, Victor. The Vitamin Pushers: How the “Health Food” Industry is Selling America a Bill of Goods. Published October 1st 1994 by Prometheus Books. 543 pages.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. Regulatory Actions against IV Nutrition Clinics. January 7, 2019.
  1. Barrett, Stephen. Twenty-five ways to spot quacks and vitamin pushers. American Atheist. March 2007. P 7-11.
  1. American Medical Association Education Hub. Nutrition Science for Health and Longevity: What Every Physician Needs to Know. CME Course. March 15, 2019. (Accessed Oct. 5, 2019)          
  1. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. (2019) 393:1958–72.
  1. National Academy of Sciences (1982) Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer 1982 National Academy Press Washington, DC.
  1. Hennig B, Ettinger AS, Jandacek RJ, Koo S, McClain C, Seifried H, et al. Using nutrition for intervention and prevention against environmental chemical toxicity and associated diseases. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:493–495.
  1. Helferich, William; Winter, Carl. Food Toxicology. CRC Press, Aug 23, 2000
  1. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Why Good Nutrition is Important.
  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015. Page 2. Available at
  1. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Editorial, Diet-Related Diseases Are Leading Cause of Death in U.S. Apr 25, 2018.
  1. World Health Organization, (WHO)Programmes and projects, Nutrition, Nutrition health topics (Online)
  1. Israel, Brett. How Many Cancers Are Caused by the Environment? Scientific American. May 21, 2010
  1. O’Keefe, S., Li, J., Lahti, L. et al. Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nat Commun 6, 6342 (2015).
  1. Micha R, Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Imamura F, Rehm CD, Mozaffarian D. Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality From Heart Disease, Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2017;317(9):912–924.
  1. Marshall, C.W.: Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm? Philadelphia: George F. Stickley Co., 1983.
  1. Willett, Walter. Tedx HarvardLaw. How Do Modern Dietary Patterns Lead to Disease What Should We Eat?
  1. Cancer A-Z, What Causes Cancer, Family Cancer Syndromes. (Online)
  1. National Cancer Institute, About Cancer>Cancer Causes and Prevention>Risk Factors>Common Cancer Myths and Misconceptions (Online)
  1. Cancer Research Institute, What are the causes of cancer? April 23, 2019
  1. Anand P, Kunnumakkara AB, Sundaram C, et al. Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes [published correction appears in Pharm Res. 2008 Sep;25(9):2200. Kunnumakara, Ajaikumar B [corrected to Kunnumakkara, Ajaikumar B]]. Pharm Res. 2008;25(9):2097–2116.
  1. Peveto, Kyle. Genetics make up just small portion of cancer causes. The New Orleans Advocate, Oct.6, 2015.
  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. The President’s Cancer Panel, 2008–2009 Annual Report. Reducing Environmental Risk: What can we do now. April 2010.
  1. Parsa, N. Environmental factors inducing human cancers. Iran J Public Health. 2012;41(11):1–9.
  1. National Cancer Institute, Cancer and the environment. NIH Publication No. 03–2039 Printed August 2003.
  1. Fymat AL. Genetics , Epigenetics and Cancer. Cancer Therapy and Oncology 4.2 (2017): 1-3.
  1. Unity Point Health. Top Five Most Dangerous Cancers in Men and Women (Infographic) (online)
  1. Heikkilä Katriina, Nyberg Solja T, Theorell Töres, Fransson Eleonor I, Alfredsson Lars, Bjorner Jakob B et al. Work stress and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of 5700 incident cancer events in 116 000 European men and women BMJ 2013; 346 :f165.
  1. Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell2010;140:883-99.
  1. Tognon, C., Huntsman, D., Sorensen, P. Expression of the ETV6-NTRK3 Gene Fusion in Human Secretory Breast Carcinoma, Handbook of Immunohistochemistry and in Situ Hybridization of Human Carcinomas.
  1. Warr, Alyson. Using Genetics to Fight Cancer: The pros and cons of direct-to-consumer testing Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, June 11, 2018. (Online)
  1. Rappaport SM (2016) Genetic Factors Are Not the Major Causes of Chronic Diseases. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0154387.
  1. Chang CQ, Yesupriya A, Rowell JL, Pimentel CB, Clyne M, Gwinn M, et al. A systematic review of cancer GWAS and candidate gene meta-analyses reveals limited overlap but similar effect sizes. European journal of human genetics: EJHG. 2014;22(3):402–8.
  1. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature. 2009;461(7265):747–53. Epub 2009/10/09.
  1. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention: Gene-Environment Interaction Fact Sheet.
  1. Castaño, Gemma. Breast Cancer and Environmental Factors. What Does Science Tell Us? IS Global Barcelona Institute for Global Health (Online) Oct. 18, 2018
  1. Cancer Epidemiology: Methods of Study. Abraham M. Lilienfeld, Einar Pedersen, and John E. Dowd. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967. 165 pp. Link
  1. Higginson J. Environment and cancer. Practitioner. 1967;198(187):621–630. LINK
  1. Higginson J, Oettlé AG. Cancer incidence in the Bantu and “Cape Colored” races of South Africa: report of a cancer survey in the Transvaal (1953–55) J Natl Cancer Inst. 1960;24(3):589–671. LINK
  1. Harris, Robert. Cancer and the environment. International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 1, 1970 – Issue 1-4. LINK
  1. K. R. Loeb, and L. A. Loeb. Significance of multiple mutations in cancer. Carcinogenesis. 21:379–85 (2000) 
  1. W. C. Hahn, and R. A. Weinberg. Modelling the molecular circuitry of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2:331–41 (2002) 
  1. L. A. Mucci, S. Wedren, R. M. Tamimi, D. Trichopoulos, and H. O. Adami. The role of gene-environment interaction in the aetiology of human cancer: examples from cancers of the large bowel, lung and breast. J. Intern. Med.249:477–93 (2001)


  2. Hennig B, Ormsbee L, McClain CJ, et al. Nutrition can modulate the toxicity of environmental pollutants: implications in risk assessment and human health. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(6):771–774.
  1. K. Czene, and K. Hemminki. Kidney cancer in the Swedish Family Cancer Database: familial risks and second primary malignancies. Kidney Int.61:1806–13 (2002) 
  1. Kupchella CE. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1986 Aug;2(3):161-9. Environmental factors in cancer etiology.
  1. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK. et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer-analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:78–85.
  1. David, Rosalie. Why modern life DOES cause cancer: The fascinating research which backs what we all feared. Daily Mail. Oct. 22, 2010.
  1. Molnár et al. Malignant tumors in osteoarchaeological samples from Hungary. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 53(2):117-124, 2009
  1. Aufderheide AC, Rodriguez-Martin C (1998) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 478.
  1. Ortner DJ (2003) Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Academic Press, Amsterdam-Tokyo.
  1. Capasso LL (2005) Antiquity of Cancer. Int J Cancer 113: 2-13.
  1. Nerlich AG, Rohrbach HG, Bachmeier B, Zink A (2006) Malignant tumors in two ancient populations: an approach to historical tumor epidemiology. Oncology Reports 16:197-202.
  1. Thillaud PL (2006) Paleopathology of cancers. Bulletin du Cancer 93(8):767-773.
  1. Stadler-Thompson, Kathleen. The Diet and Cancer Connection, Virginia Tech publication 348-141 , Nov. 1997.
  1. Wu, S., Powers, S., Zhu, W., et al., 2016. Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature 529, 43–47. 
  1. Press Release. Scientists suggest that cancer is man-made. Manchester University. October 24, 2010. 
  1. Zimmerman, David. Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?. Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733 (2010).
  1. Gale, Richard. Quackbusters and the Shock Troops of Medical McCarthyism, February 28, 2018,
  1. Figueroa, Jovi, Two Mothers Overcome Life-Threatening Cancer And Rheumatoid Arthritis With A Simple Change In Lifestyle. May 12, 2018, Metro Style Magazine
  1. Genuis SJ. Elimination of persistent toxicants from the human body. Human and Experimental Toxicology. 2011;30(1):3–18.
  1. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Atlanta: Georgia. pp.1–994,
  1. Stephen J. Genuis, Margaret E. Sears, Gerry Schwalfenberg, Janette Hope, and Robin Bernhoft, “Clinical Detoxification: Elimination of Persistent Toxicants from the Human Body,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 238347, 3 pages, 2013.
  1. Petriello MC, Newsome BJ, Dziubla TD, Hilt JZ, Bhattacharyya D, Hennig B. Modulation of persistent organic pollutant toxicity through nutritional intervention: emerging opportunities in biomedicine and environmental remediation. Sci Total Environ. 2014;491-492:11–16.
  1. World Health Organization. Food safety, Persistent Organic Pollutants.
  1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, A Global Response, (accessed January 4, 2019)
  1. The United Nations Environment Programme, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. What are POPs?
  1. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), (Accessed August 2019)
  1. Ehrlich P. Ueber den jetzigen Stand der Karzinomforschung. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1909;5:273–290.
  1. Burnet FM. The concept of immunological surveillance. Prog Exp Tumor Res (1970) 13:1–27
  1. Burnet M. Cancer: a biological approach. III. Viruses associated with neoplastic conditions. IV. Practical applications. Br Med J (1957) 1:841–710.1136/bmj.1.5023.841
  1. Thomas L. Discussion. In: Lawrence HS, editor. Cellular and Humoral Aspects of the Hypersensitive States. New York: Hoeber-Harper; (1959). p. 529–32
  1. Thomas L. On immunosurveillance in human cancer. Yale J Biol Med (1982) 55:329–33
  1. Shankaran V, Ikeda H, Bruce AT, White JM, Swanson PE, Old LJ, et al. IFNgamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature. (2001) 410:1107–11.
  1. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Immunosuppression. (accessed July 2019)
  1. Palmer S, Albergante L, Blackburn CC, Newman TJ. Thymic involution and rising disease incidence with age. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(8):1883–1888.
  1. Sears ME, Genuis SJ. Environmental determinants of chronic disease and medical approaches: recognition, avoidance, supportive therapy, and detoxification. J Environ Public Health. 2012;2012:356798. doi:10.1155/2012/356798
  1. New York Press. The Rundown on Scientology’s Purification Rundown, 2011,
  1. Genuis SJ, Birkholz D, Rodushkin I, Beesoon S. Blood, urine, and sweat (BUS) study: monitoring and elimination of bioaccumulated toxic elements. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2011;61(2):344–357.
  1. Centers for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxic Substances Portal, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Accessed January 2019)
  1. United States Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. August 2005. TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ALPHA-, BETA-, GAMMA-, AND DELTA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (Accessed January 2019)
  1. Herron RE., Fagan JB. (2002) Lipophil-mediated reduction of toxicants in humans: an evaluation of an ayurvedic detoxification procedure. Altern Ther Health Med. 8: 40–51
  1. Patil, Vasant. Bio-Purification Therapy in Ayurveda: A Critical Review. Journal of Ayurveda and Holistic Medicine (JAHM), [S.l.], v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-6, apr. 2013.
  1. Morita K and Nakano T : Seaweed accelerates the excretion of dioxin stored in rats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50: 910-917, 2002.
  1. Morita K, Matsueda T and Iida T: Effect of green vegetable on digestive tract absorption of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in rats. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi 90: 171-83,1999.(in Japanese)
  1. Chen L,Mo H, Zhao L, et al. Therapeutic properties of green tea against environmental insults. J Nutr Biochem. 2017;40:1–13.
  1. Kim JA, Kim JY, Kang SW. Effects of the Dietary Detoxification Program on Serum γ-glutamyltransferase, Anthropometric Data and Metabolic Biomarkers in Adults. J Lifestyle Med. 2016;6(2):49–57.
  1. Kimura Y, Nagata Y, Buddington RK. Some dietary fibers increase elimination of orally administered polychlorinated biphenyls but not that of retinol in mice. J Nutr. (2004) 134:135–42.
  1. Ikegami, S., Umegaki, K., Kawashima, Y. & Ichikawa, T. (1994) Viscous indigestible   polysaccharides reduce accumulation of pentachlorobenzene in rats. J. Nutr. 124:754–760.
  1. Morita, K., Hirakawa, H., Matsueda, T., Iida, T. & Tokiwa, H. (1993) Stimulating effect of dietary fiber on fecal excretion of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p- dioxins (PCDD) in rats. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi 84:273–281.
  1. Morita, K., Hamamura, K. & Iida, T. (1995) Binding of PCB by several types of dietary fiber in vivo and in vitro. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi 86:212–217.
  1. Yasuhiro Kimura, Yasuo Nagata, Carron W. Bryant, Randal K. Buddington, Nondigestible Oligosaccharides Do Not Increase Accumulation of Lipid Soluble Environmental Contaminants by Mice, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 132, Issue 1, January 2002, Pages 80–87
  1. Uchikawa T, Kumamoto Y, Maruyama I, Kumamoto S, Ando Y, Yasutake A. The enhanced elimination of tissue methylmercury in Parachlorella beijerinckii-fed mice. Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2011;36(1):121–126.
  1. Uchikawa T, Yasutake A, Kumamoto Y, Maruyama I, Kumamoto S, Ando Y. The influence of Parachlorella beyerinckii CK-5 on the absorption and excretion of methylmercury (MeHg) in mice. Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2010;35(1):101-105.
  1. Morita K, Ogata M, Hasegawa T. Chlorophyll derived from Chlorella inhibits dioxin adsorption from the gastrointestinal tract and accelerates dioxin excretion in rats. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2001;109(3):289–294.
  1. Takekoshi H, Suzuki G, Chubachi H, Nakano M. Effect of Chlorella pyrenoidosa on fecal excretion and liver accumulation of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin in mice. Chemosphere. 2005;59(2):297–304.
  1. Nakano S, Noguchi T, Takekoshi H, Suzuki G, Nakano M. Maternal-fetal distribution and transfer of dioxins in pregnant women in Japan, and attempts to reduce maternal transfer with Chlorella (Chlorella pyrenoidosa) supplements. Chemosphere. 2005;61(9):1244–1255.
  1. Schwager, Sarah. War against natural medicine. ABC News Australia. February 20, 2012.
  1. The Triumph of New-Age Medicine, By David H. Freedman. The Atlantic, July/August 2011 Issue


The watching, interacting and participation of any kind and in any way with anything on this video, multimedia, article or page does not constitute or initiate a doctor patient relationship with Dr. Farrah®. None of the statements here have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The products of Dr. Farrah® are not intended to diagnosetreatcure, or prevent any disease. The information being provided should only be considered for education and entertainment purposes only. If you feel that anything you see or hear may be of value to you on this video or on any video or other medium of any kind associated with, showing or quoting anything relating to Dr. Farrah® in any way at any time, you are encouraged to and agree to consult with a licensed healthcare professional in your area to discuss it. If you feel that you’re having a healthcare emergency, seek medical attention immediately. The views expressed here are not medical advice, they are simply the viewpoints and opinions of Dr. Farrah® or others appearing and are protected under the first amendment.


Dr. Farrah® is a highly experienced Licensed Medical Doctor, not some enthusiast, formulator or medium promoting the wild and unrestrained use of herbs and nutrition products for health issues without clinical experience and scientific evidence of therapeutic benefit. Dr. Farrah® promotes evidence-based natural approaches to health, which means integrating her individual scientific and clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research as well as from the recommendations and experiences of respected experts. By individual clinical expertise, I refer to the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice.


Dr. Farrah® does not make any representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of any video or multimedia content provided anywhere at any time. Dr. Farrah® does not warrant the performance, effectiveness or applicability of any sites listed, linked or referenced to, in, or by any video content related to her, showing her or referencing her at any time.


To be clear, the video or multimedia content provided is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read or seen in any website, video, article or multimedia of any kind.


Dr. Farrah® hereby disclaims any and all liability to any party for any direct, indirect, implied, punitive, special, incidental or other consequential damages arising directly or indirectly from any use of this or any other video or multimedia content, which is provided as is, and without warranties.

Copyright 2023,